ii'!|.i''.!'ri!.!i:j:::i -i

hU 53
30 5 c

"I give the/e Beth
for the fauindiag of a, ColUgi bv this Colony"

Gift of
Prof. Fred. W. Williams

SIXTY YEARS WITH
THE BIBLE

BOOKS BY WILLIAM NEWTON CLARKE, D.D.
Published by CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

Sixty Years with tlie Bible. i2mo,
(Postage extra), net, $1.25
The Christian Doctrine of God. (Intemational
Theological Library.) Cr. 8vo,
(Postage extra), net, $2.50
The Use of the Scriptures in Theology, izmo, nett Si-oo
A Study of Christian Missions, izmo, . 1.25
Can I Believe in God the Father? i2mo, . i.oo
"WhatShall We Think of Christianity? 12010, i.oo
An Outline of Christian Theolosy< Cr. 8vo, net, 2.50

SIXTY YEARS WITH
THE BIBLE
A RECORD OP EXPERIENCE

BY
WILLIAM NEWTON CLARKE

NEW YORK
CHAELES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1909

Copyright, 1909, by
Charles Scribnee's Sons

Published September, 1909

CONTENTS I Page
The Motive  1
II
The Fifties  11
III
The Sixties  33
IV
The Seventies ... . . . . 70
V
The Eighties  124
VI
The Nineties .... .... 193
VII
The New Century  244

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE

THE MOTIVE
Not for the sake of telling the story,
but for the sake of what the story may
tell, do I sit down to write these notes of
memory. With respect to the Bible, I am
one of the men who have lived through
the crisis of the Nineteenth Century, and
experienced the change which that cen
tury has wrought. I began, as a child
must begin, with viewing the Bible in the
manner of my father's day, but am end
ing with a view that was never possible
until the large work of the Nineteenth
Century upon the Bible had been done.
Thus I am entering into the heritage of
my generation, which I consider it both
my privilege and my duty to accept. To
[ 3 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
some of my friends it may seem that I
have changed too much, and to others
that I have changed too little. It may
indeed be that I have made mistakes,
sometimes in one direction and some
times in the other. That is the human
way. But I know that I have followed
iny light, and passed through the revolu
tion to which my generation was born,
and have never come into danger of los
ing my faith in God and Jesus Christ.
If a man may say it of himself, I have
passed without ruin over what many
deem to be a very dangerous way — ^nay,
over a road that truly has its perils, not to
be forgotten or despised.
Many, I know, have gone over that
road of change at my side, or a little be
fore or after, and many, willing or unwill
ing, are making the journey now. Many,
too, are wondering whether they shall be
compelled to go, and are looking with
alarm on the perils that beset the way.
[ 4 ]

THE MOTIVE
Very many are pitying those who have
been compelled to set forth. Is it possi
ble, these inquirers ask, for a man to
make this change with regard to the
Bible without losing his faith, not to say
his soul ? Can there be good reasons for
it? Is it credible that the steps are
legitimate.? Is it to be supposed for a
moment that a man can be led by sound
reason and good religious experience
from the old attitude toward the Bible
to the new ? Can there possibly be any
leading of the Spirit of truth in this ex
perience ? Is it not a mere wandering on
the dark mountains without a guide ?
For the rank and file of the Christian
people these are living questions, since
facts that lead directly toward the great
change are pressing into common knowl
edge and cannot be ignored. Many are
asking these questions with godly sin
cerity though, perhaps, with trembling;
while there are too many who have only
[ 5 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
indignation for the change, and denun
ciation for those who believe it to be of
God. An argumentative answer to these
questions might be useful, and there are
men to make it; but upon such a prac
tical issue the best witness is experience.
What if a man who has made the change
without losing his faith were to recount
the stages of his journey? What if he
were to show by what steps he had come,
and offer his comrades opportunity to
judge whether his processes had been
legitimate, valid, spiritual, worthy of a
child of God ? I can well believe that
such a revelation of experience might be
an enlightening and encouraging thing to
many a perplexed and anxious soul.
More than once it has occurred to me
that if I were to tell the story of my own
life in the single character of a student,
lover, and user of the Bible, exhibiting
the mental processes through which the
[ 6 ]

THE MOTIVE
change in my own attitude toward the
Bible has come to pass, I might be offer
ing to many a veritable helping hand.
For I know that in my case the change
has been an honest one, and am equally
sure that it has been a legitimate one,
which I could not have refused to make
without being false to the true light. It
sprang out of the very necessities of my
life and thought, and resulted directly
from my worthiest work. It has followed
sound processes, and stands as a genuine
element in Christian experience. It was
necessary, it was Christian, it was benefi
cent. Knowing well these facts about it,
I am inclined to place my experience
with the Bible at the disposal of any
whom it may help.
No man can tell the whole of such a
story, and yet I think I can trace my
course clearly enough through the years,
and trust that I can truthfully represent
the way in which the Lord my God has
[ 7 ]

SIXTY YEARS. WITH THE BIBLE
led me. The chief influences from with
out, the main crises in thought, and the
entrance of significant results, I certainly
can recount, and I can exhibit my present
position in contrast with the old. I shall
have to trace my journey from childhood
to the present day. I cannot expect that
my memories of personal experience will
be as interesting to others as they are to
me, and yet I have confidence that my
story will be interesting, for it will pos
sess at least the interest that belongs to
a human document. If my progress ap
pears to have been more or less irregular,
halting, inconsistent, this element will be
no mystery to any who understand them
selves, for it belongs to human nature.
Yet I can see, and hope to show, that by
a sure and unceasing guidance I have
been brought along the way to the pres
ent goal.
But I do not write for the sake of the
interest that an autobiography might
I 8 ]

THE MOTIVE
possess, and I shall record nothing that
does not bear directly upon my relation
to the Bible and the progress of my mind
with regard to it. If I could tell the story
in any person but the first I should do so,
but I cannot. In no sense do I offer the
story as an Apologia pro Vita Med — ^for
which no one would care; but I do wish
it to stand as an Apologia for the kind of
experience which it records. That ex
perience with respect to the Bible, radical
though it may seem to some readers, and
conservative to others, I desire to illustrate
as worthy of a child of God, and to com
mend to all my brothers in God's family.
I shall accomplish all that I have in mind
to do if I convince my readers that for
reasons that are sound and by processes
that are worthy one man has passed over
from the old view of the Bible to the new.
Yet of course I am desiring more than
this. If I succeed in bringing in this con
viction, I shall hope for fruits following.
[ 9 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
I shall hope that my experience may lead
many a man to commit himself without
fear to the journey that I have been led to
make, assured that the good hand of his
God will be upon him as he moves out
into the broader country.

[ 10 ]

II
THE FIFTIES
W^HEN I speak of sixty years with the
Bible, I am thinking of the period that
extends from about the middle of the
Nineteenth Century to the present time.
I take this whole period for my field, for
the reason that my memory covers it all.
In this ninth year of the Twentieth Cen
tury I am sixty-seven years old, and my
remembrance of the Bible as an element
in my life runs back into the late Forties.
As I give form to my memories, the
decades may well serve me for divisions.
Indeed I could not ask for better divi
sions, for each one of them has in my
memory a character of its own, and rep
resents a distinct stage in the movement
[ 11 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
of my mind with reference to the Bible.
With the first decade that I name, the
earliest memories may be gathered in.
I cannot remember when I could not
read, or when the Bible was not in my
hands for reading. My earliest remem
brance of it brings up the picture of
family worship. How clear it is, and how
calm and beautiful! There were five of
us — ^father, mother, and three children, of
whom I was the second. In the morn
ing, not before breakfast, but after it, we
all sat down with Bibles in our hands,
and read in turn three verses apiece. My
verse was the tenth, and when we read
around twice the twenty-fifth. In this
manner day by day the Bible was read
through. Genealogies were omitted, and
sometimes we passed over other hard
places. I think the New Testament may
have been repeated, while the Old Testa
ment was read but once. But on prin-
[ 12 J

THE FIFTIES
ciple the reading was continuous and
impartial, doing justice to the book as a
whole. There was very little explana
tion, usually none. The reading was fol
lowed by solemn prayer, all kneeling.
Whether I understood it or not, the body
of the Scriptures was thus presented to
my childish mind, and with or without
understanding it made its impression.
The mental atmosphere of which I was
conscious was one of solemnity and rev
erence. Of course I sometimes looked
off and was indifferent: even now I can
hear my father's voice calling me back to
my reading: but that was the exception,
not the rule. It was assumed, and to me
was real, that in dealing with the Bible
I had to do with God.
Was it burdensome and hateful? Did
we dread the morning worship? No.
Probably I should be going too far if I
said that we children actually loved the
service, but I know that for my part I
[ 13 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
never rebelled against or wished it out of
the way. It was a matter of course, and
a good matter of course, a proper part of
the day's life. No hatred of the Bible ever
came from it. For in fact the use of the
Bible was not a matter of the morning
worship only: it was a part of the family
existence. My father, a minister of the gospel,
was constantly in communion with the
book, though he talked little of his work.
He was not a highly educated man, but
he was a man of sweet reasonableness,
and his theories of doctrine were tem
pered in application with a fine practical
wisdom. I suppose he must have had
some theory of inspiration, but he never
made the value of the Bible depend upon
it. He had no need of the theory, for he
was building upon the reality. Here was
God's own message, and for him, and for
my mother, the Bible was the last word.
She, reared in the godliness of an earlier
[ 14 ]

THE FIFTIES
day, carried the Bible in mind and heart.
She was not always quoting it, but for
guidance of her life, and of ours, it was
always with her. It is true that she was
in unconscious bondage because the Bible
brought her the spirit of Judaism as well
as the Christian faith, and not until old
age did she come out into the liberty of
the children of God; but with a willing
loyalty she held the Bible as her law.
Reverence for it we learned from both
our parents. It was never a theme for
jests, and I grew up with almost a hor
ror of joking on biblical subjects. About
the Bible there was a holy air, which to
us children was attractive, not repellent.
Bible stories we early learned — ^and they
were true. We did not question whether
they were easily believable or not, or
whether they were worthy of God. The
bears that rent the children for mocking
at the prophet, and the thousands struck
dead for looking into the ark of God, were
[ 15 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
as real to us as Joseph and his brothers,
or Ruth, or the child Jesus in the temple.
Morally, all was on one level to us. The
ethical questions did not arise. All that
the Bible said of God or men was true,
all that God or good men did was right,
and the stories were sacred.
Upon my idea of the Bible the Sunday-
school was much less influential than the
home. My teachers had but the hour
with me while my parents had the week,
and the teachers knew much less about
the Bible. Besides, the Sunday-school
was then attempting but very little. The
most of our work there consisted in re
citing, or failing to recite, our seven
verses a week, which we were supposed
to commit to memory. Our lessons were
mainly in the Gospels and the book of
Acts. Only occasionally did we touch
the Old Testament: not at all I think,
except here and there in the Psalms.
There was some attempt at explanation,
[ 16 ]

THE FIFTIES
and sometimes I felt that the teacher was
really adding something to my knowl
edge of the lesson, but usually the con
tribution was small. Late in my period
we used Question-books: I wish I could
see one of them now. It came to pass,
however, by means of Sunday-school and
home influence combined, that large por
tions of Scripture became lodged in my
memory. Now and then there were
competitions in memorizing, and I once
took a very small prize in one of them;
but that was a foolish practice, for we
aimed at quantity, and promptly lost
our gains. The regular quiet practice in
home and school was more effective.
Perhaps there was a foreglimpse of his
torical method in the fact that the first
passage that I ever memorized began
with "Now when Jesus was born, in
Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod
the king." I have always been pro
foundly grateful that my youthful mem-
[ 17 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
ory stored up so much of the Bible, and
only wish it had done more. I never be
came weary of the Sunday-school, as boys
often did, but I think that in the later
years that was due to the influence of a
teacher. The school did not retain my
affection by what it had done for me,
for its contribution was decidedly a minor
one. No one could believe the Bible more
thoroughly than I did. In school with
me when I was perhaps fifteen years old
there was a young man a few years older
who had the name of being an infidel —
so easily did neighbors classify and con
demn upon slight acquaintance. Whether
he deserved the name I do not know: he
was a serious-minded fellow, much in
earnest, and with at least a glimmer of
some large ideas. He loved ^o talk, and
one night he told me that there were con
tradictions in the Bible that could not be
reconciled. This I could not admit, for
[ 18 ]

THE FIFTIES
it would mean that God had contradicted
himself, a thing incredible. I assured
him that he was wrong, and told him to
bring me his contradictions, and I would
tell him how they were to be explained.
This offer was less conceited than it
seems, for my father had a book in which
a man of high repute had dealt with al
leged contradictions in the Bible. I sup
posed that of course so great a man must
have found them all and adjusted them,
and had no doubt that I should find the
young man's difficulties satisfactorily at
tended to. After a few days he brought
me three or four questions. I have for
gotten what they were, though I remem
ber how the paper looked upon which
he had written them. I betook myself at
once to my book, but was surprised to
find that these particular contradictions
were not mentioned there — ^not one of
them. Could it be that this young man
had hit upon difficulties which the great
[ 19 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
man had not noticed, or did not know
how to solve ? I came away with a first
lesson in the disappointingness of books,
and also with a vague feeling that there
were points of uncertainty about the
Bible, though I had supposed there were
none. My confidence was not shaken,
for I had no doubt that the questions
could be answered and the honor of the
Bible be completely vindicated; but
I could not solve the contradictions at
the time, and knew that I could not.
Nothing more was ever said on the sub
ject, for I had nothing to say, and the
other was generous enough not to call the
matter up — a. magnanimous infidel. I
remember the episode as an interesting
one, and it was important, too, for it gave
me my first experimental glimpse of a
point of view about the Bible different
from my own. I had heard of sceptical
questions, and supposed that these be
longed to that class, but had not known
[ 20 ]

THE FIFTIES
whether any of them had any shadow of
reason on their side.
When I was sixteen years old my per
sonal religious life began. The blos
soming of the long-prepared bud came
suddenly, and I was full of fresh delight
in the holy interests that were opened to
me. Food for my soul I knew was to be
found in the Bible, and I remember on
the very first day asking my father what
in the Bible I should read. Wisely or
not, he referred me to the eighth chapter
of Romans. I remember where I sat to
read it, and what Bible I read it in. I
remember the eager expectation with
which I began. I remember, too, the
effect. My soul was fed with heavenly
food. There were solid and splendid ex
pressions of truth there, so clear and
glorious that I could not miss them, and
so harmonious with my new life that they
could not fail of entrance. Some of the
[ 21 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE •
divinest words in the world found me that
day, and entered into the stock of my
life. Nevertheless I rose from the read
ing with a faint shadow of disappoint
ment. Those magnificent lights of God
seemed to shine out through clouds.
There were matters in the chapter that
I did not grasp, and there were forms of
thought and modes of presentation that
did not appeal to me. The Jewish law
in which the apostle had been reared was
real to him when he wrote, but it was not
real to me, and his references to it, which
entered into the very substance of his
discourse, did not seem to belong to me,
or to bring me any message. The glories
of the Christian life stood before me in
this splendid passage, but why should
there be so much more besides ?
I did not exactly state this to myself,
but the two feelings were mingled in my
mind. I had never been taught any
rigid theory of the equality of all Scrip-
[ 22 ]

THE FIFTIES
ture, but the assumption that the whole
Bible was equally from God had carried
with it the assumption that any part of
it would be found profitable for the soul.
I knew indeed, in a general way, that
Leviticus, for example, was not so profit
able as Luke; but when I was sent to a
great Christian passage like the eighth
chapter of Romans I did not suppose
that there would be any drawback upon
its availability, but expected to find food
in every thought. Was it all my ignorance
that I did not find so much ? At any rate
I learned, practically though still inar
ticulately, at the very first endeavor of
the new hunger, that not everything in
the Bible is equally available as food for
the soul.
I have never since judged that the dif
ference was due to my youthful ignorance
alone. Of course a part of it was, and
I have since seen glories in that passage
that I could not discern that day. But I
[ 23 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
have learned that some of Paul's connec
tions for the gospel may have seemed to
him and his first readers to be a part of
the gospel itself and to have like force
with it, while they could never hold that
rank with me, trained in so different a
world. No wonder that the ancient law
was not alive to me, for I had never lived
with it but only heard of it. I think that
my young Christian appetite was healthy,
and seized upon the rich and abundant
food that lay before me, and passed by
what it could not assimilate, as it had
a right to do. And I can well understand
how a writing of the first century may
have contained much that a modern
Christian appetite can never assimilate
as genuine Christian food.
Whether I am right or wrong in this, it
is certain that from that day began the
selection of my personal Bible. From
day to day and from year to year I went
on finding what in the Bible was precious
[ 24 ]

THE FIFTIES
to me, and making it my own. Some
times this Bible of mine within the Bible
has been growing larger and my proprie
torship in it has been becoming more
positive and intense. Sometimes it has
grown smaller, through the dropping out
of something that was discovered to be
less Christlike than I had taken it to be.
This is no process peculiar to me. All
Christians gather out their personal Bi
bles to feed upon, all smaller than the
great book, and for them more available.
I am only noting that my work of selec
tion was going on, though I did not yet
understand what I was doing, from the
very first day of my Christian life. My
childhood with the Bible was ended, and
I was entering upon the work of a man.
Let it not be supposed, however, that the
main work of those early days was rejec
tion, or anything that resembled it. No : it
was recognition, selection, assimilation. I
was taking food, not refusing it. I well
[ 25 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
remember the keen delight with which in
those days I was taking to myself what I
found precious in the holy word.
Scarcely had this personal dealing with
the Bible begun when another significant
experience appeared. Almost immedi
ately I encountered my first real ques
tioning about the relation of the Bible to
science. Thus early in life was this great
question brought home to me. At the
time I was studying Geology in a secon
dary school. Our text-book was the work
of two Christian men collaborating, who
wrote in a reverent spirit. They made
the geological story absolutely plain and
convincing, but were anxious not to dis
turb a student's confidence in the Bible.
At the end we found a chapter in which
they compared the testimony of Geology
with that of Genesis with regard to the
creation of the world. There I became
acquainted with the chief endeavors to
[ 26 ]

THE FIFTIES
reconcile the two records, and was en
couraged to believe that sound recon
ciliation was quite possible. But of
course I had learned earlier in the book
that the doctrine of an earth only six
thousand years old, which I had always
understood the Bible to teach, was for
ever irreconcilable with Geology and
impossible of belief. Facts enough to
convince me of that had already been
presented, and I was convinced. Science
had demonstrated that the earth was
ancient, and it was useless to object. The
Bible appeared to teach otherwise, but
we must have misunderstood the Bible.
Some other interpretation of it must be
possible, and must be sought. So the
text-book argued, and I agreed thereto.
Here, it is true, arose the question
whether a Christian may rightly allow
science to interpret for him the word of
God, or even to call for a new interpre
tation of it. With my new love and rev-
[ 27 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
erence for the Bible, I could not fail to be
interested in this inquiry. My father,
with the reverent caution of the older
generation, decidedly hesitated here,
thinking that the revelation of God must
be interpreted by religion and by that
alone. The Bible stood by itself, and
must be interpreted in its own light.
But though I appreciated the motive of
this reasoning, I found myself yielding to
facts, and allowing science, not my read
ing of the Bible, to tell me what I should
believe about the age of the earth. In
this my opening mind was opening aright.
But I never supposed for a moment that
science was taking the place of the Bible
as the decisive witness: I supposed that
it was only interpreting the Bible.
As to the creation itself, my authors
told me of Hugh Miller's harmonizing
theory, then current — ^the brilliant poetic
fancy of a series of visions supernaturally
opened to the mind of Moses, showing
[ 28 ]

THE FIFTIES
him the course of God's creative work,
and successively described by him in the
first chapter. But they did not urge this
view upon me, since they could not say
that the order of the visions corresponded
to the order of the geological facts. In
other words, they did not hold that the
first chapter of Genesis agreed with the
geological record. Their theory was that
the sublime first verse, "In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth,"
announced the unimaginably ancient fact
of the primeval creation, that between
that verse and the second there lay a
great pause, or chasm, covering the entire
geological period, and that then the chap
ter went on to describe an actual six days'
work of God upon the earth at the end
of that period, "fitting it up to be the
abode of man" — ^whatever that might
mean. This sounds impossible enough
at present, and yet it is as good as any of
the attempts to make Genesis and Geol-
[ 29 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
ogy agree. This I accepted at the time
as a satisfactory explanation, and went
my way untroubled by conflict. The
Bible had been taken out of the way of
the facts.
At the time I could not know how
much this meant. But the fact was that
I had consented to submit one item of
knowledge with which the Bible dealt to
another authority instead of the Bible.
At the dictation of scientific facts I had
accepted a new meaning for the initial
chapter; that is, I had allowed the Bible
to be altered for me to suit the facts.
This I had done, and happily I did
not know that I had done anything of
serious importance. If I had known,
I should have been troubled. But I sim
ply adopted the new meaning into my
sacred book, and understood the Bible in
its proper meaning to stand as a witness
to the view of the facts which I had ob
tained. No shadow of change had fallen
[ 30 ]

THE FIFTIES
upon my confidence in the Bible, but
here was a first step in a new manner of
understanding it and using it. And at
present any one can see that this was a
part of the work of the coming age.
When this was done, old things were
passing away.
Owing to the religious character of my
early training, my lot was happier than
that of another youth who long afterward
told me his experience. A few years later
than this he entered college, and went on
the first Sunday to the students' Bible
class. The teacher began with the Bible
at the beginning, and in that first hour
my friend learned for the first time that
there were people who believed that
Genesis and Geology did not agree. By
the discovery he was utterly broken up.
Geology was a science of facts, and were
facts against the Bible ? So external and
so loose was the grasp of his mind upon
the Bible that under this shock he lost it
[ 31 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
altogether, and years passed before he
got it back. His Christian faith, too,
suffered a like eclipse. Because I had
been better trained than he, and was
holding to the Bible in a more rational
confidence, I was led through this first
stage of revolution without a break with
the past or a shock of fear for the future.
My mind was simply opening to the facts
that must be received. Indeed, I most
thankfully acknowledge that this whole
story which I am to record is a story of
quiet development, with very little of
sharp struggles and alarms.

I 32 ]

Ill
THE SIXTIES
Vert early in the Sixties, near the end
of my college course, I pledged myself in
spirit to the work of the Christian minis
try, and before very long I was a student
in a Theological Seminary. There our
main work was biblical. We had a course
in History, and one in Systematic The
ology, and a little work in the practical
topics; but our chief text-book was the
Bible, and the department of Interpre
tation was the most exacting of them all.
Not that there was any formal appoint
ment to this effect; but this was in har
mony with the view of the ministry that
makes the minister to be first and chiefly,
if not solely, an interpreter of the Scrip-
[ 33 J

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
tures, a view that was largely accepted in
the churches which the Seminary served.
I had not been doing much with my
Bible during my years in college, but
turned to it now with new enthusiasm
under a new influence. This, happily,
was the personal inspiration of a teacher.
He was a good scholar, though I do not
know that he was an exceptionally great
one. But I do know that he was a man
of strong convictions, of a most beautiful
devoutness, of absolute sincerity, and of
perfectly unconquerable industry. His
permanent physical condition was such
as would have many men idle and most
men easy, but his holy resolution held
him to an amount of work that put his
students to perpetual shame. He did not
affect every one as he affected me, but to
me he was simply irresistible. His Chris
tian character held my love and admira
tion, his scholarship commanded my re
spect, and his industry was contagious.
[ 34 ]

THE SIXTIES
What I could do I had to do, while I was
with him.
What was his aim? His aim was to
bring out the meaning of the Bible, and
to train us in ability to do the same. For
him the voice of the Bible was the voice
of God, and therefore he bent his ear to
listen. Since the book brought him the
divine testimony concerning God and
Christ, the great salvation and the com
mon duties, he was its unweariable stu
dent, judging no labor too great if he
could understand the message. I do not
remember what he thought of inspiration,
if I ever knew, but I saw for myself what
he thought of the word of God. The
sacredness of the study dominated every
thing. He was an enthusiastic believer
in textual criticism, and required us to
make use of Tischendorf's text, then the
best in existence, and all for a religious
reason. In reading the message of God
we must have before us as nearly as pos-
[ 35 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
sible the very words that were originally
penned. This was not merely a privilege
that was open to us in modern time, but
an absolute duty in the sight of God. To
use an antiquated and inferior text when
a better was within our reach would be
a sin. From the same devout point of
view he gave his strength to exegesis,
affectionately tracing out the inspired
thought, and laboring to know the very
thing that the divine Spirit had led the
writers to express.
His influence and example made me
a Bible student. Our outfit of helps was
pitiably meagre, but with such as we had
I set myself to the work. He taught us
the right use of commentaries and the
like, insisting that whatever helps we
might use, our conclusions as to the
meaning must be in an honest sense our
own. We must not shirk the responsi
bility of judging what our Bible means.
I learned that lesson early, to my lifelong
[ 36 ]

THE SIXTIES
advantage. He made it impossible for
me to shoulder off upon commentators
my duty of understanding the Bible.
One of his exhortations abides in mem
ory: "Let no word of man come between
your soul and the pure word of God."
It was because in the Bible he found the
pure word of God that he would purge the
text of errors, and let commentaries be
helpers only, and bring his own soul to
reverent and joyful communion with the
divine utterance in the sacred book. I
remember also the joyful zest with which
he once said to me that Christianity calls
for no illegitimate intellectual processes,
and has place for none.
It was under such influence that I now
went to work. Of course my work was
youthful and crude, but it was sincere.
Under my teacher's influence I trained
myself in paraphrasing — a very useful
method for a student — expressing in my
[ 37 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
own words with all attainable precision
the author's continuous thought. In this
there was call for the investigation of
every word, and for the most careful
judgment as to structure, connection, and
purpose. At various times in the course
of my life I have put large labor into such
paraphrasing of parts of the Bible, and
consider the labor extremely well invested.
In the student period I was trying to
master the art of understanding the Bible,
and was making a beginning in the actual
work of interpreting it, gathering into my
storehouse as well as I could, the contents
of the divine revelation. I conceived of
all divine revelation as contained in the
Bible, and was doing what I could toward
making the wealth of it my own. I was
happy in my studies, the best that was in
me going out in search of the truth of God.
Much Scripture, as I have said, was
already in my memory, and now I was
obtaining command of more. With the
[ 38 ]

THE SIXTIES
contents of the Bible I was becoming more
largely acquainted, to my lasting advan
tage. With the substance of the New
Testament, both in English and in Greek,
very few students are as familiar as I was
when I left the Seminary. With the Old
Testament I never did quite so well, though
I was much at home with it, but the New
Testament I had at my fingers' ends. A
little later I could give chapter and verse
on call, for all the great passages and a
host of the minor ones, and could iden
tify a verse when the first Greek words of
it were read to me. Later still I knew out
of what stratum of thought or group of
conceptions in the New Testament any
given expression came — a knowledge far
more valuable than that of verse and
chapter. As for my familiarity with the
New Testament in my student days, it
was unusual, but it was by no means ex
cessive. I think every theologue should
thoroughly master his New Testament by
[ 39 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
way of familiarity, not neglecting the Old,
while he is still a student.
In such an atmosphere it naturally
came to pass that in general theological
thought I was a firm biblicist. I remem
ber how my feeling toward the Bible in
fluenced my feeling about Systematic
Theology. My teacher in that depart
ment was a man of different mould of
mind from my teacher in the Bible. He
ranged more widely, he was more mys
tical in his vein, and he was more of a
philosopher, thinking for himself and
outr caching far and wide. One was
searching in the Bible to discover the
truth of God; the other was using truth
that he had found there or anywhere else,
in the broad excursions of a reverently
exploring spirit. To this speculative
work of the theologian I felt deep objec
tion, because it was not biblical enough:
it was not built on proof-texts, or but
tressed by them, as I thought it ought to
[ 40 ]

THE SIXTIES
be: it was too speculative, I thought, and
grounded elsewhere than in the word of
God. In this judgment I was sincere, but I
was wrong. The theologian was using
Scripture as it had been assimilated by his
mind and yielded him its teaching, a proc
ess that I could not then understand. The
Bible inspired his theology: I thought it
ought to dictate it. His method was legiti
mate and truly Christian, and to his large
uplifting influence, which I understood
better in later years, I am indebted no less
than to the influence that led me at first
to be suspicious of it. In my day his
teaching power was comparatively un
developed, but in later years he became a
teacher of magnificent inspiration.
From neither of the two men did I get
any clear theory of the inspiration of the
Scriptures, though I studied the theories
that were current. I cannot say that I
ever really believed in the ancient theory
[ 41 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
of dictation, or verbal inspiration, though
of course I inherited the effects of ances
tral belief in it; but in the course of my
studies I became aware that it could not
possibly be true. Later, in the early
Seventies, I listened to a strenuous and
elaborate defence of verbal inspiration by
a minister of high repute, which gave the
doctrine its death-blow for me. With
such defences, it was doomed. But al
ready it was outside of my world. It was
impossible that that theory should be
really alive in the presence of my studies,
which rested upon textual criticism with
its uncertainty as to the very words, and
constantly called my attention to the
large and living human element in the
Scriptures. Nevertheless, my view of in
spiration was no dead letter. I looked
upon the Bible as so inspired by God that
its writers were not capable of error. I
did not feel myself at liberty to dissent
from its teachings, to doubt the accuracy
[ 42 ]

THE SIXTIES
of its statements, or to question the va
lidity of its reasonings. This was not the
result of a theory of the manner of inspira
tion: it was my working principle in use
of the Bible, inherited from earlier times.
Anywhere else, I should not have taken
seriously the great age of the patriarchs;
but since it was written in the Bible I
thought that nothing but scepticism would
doubt it. If I doubted that, I might doubt
anything that was written there. So I
believed that Methuselah Kved his nine
hundred and sixty-nine years. The
hand of Paul, I saw, lay heavily upon the
activities of Christian women, but I dis
trusted the arguments by which some
were endeavoring to lift it off — or rather,
I distrusted the entire business of tam
pering with such matters. Paul was an
inspired man, and his prohibitions were
not to be set aside. As a witness to truth,
Paul, or any other inspired writer, was the
same as God. Hence the presumption was
[ 43 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
that his commands were universal and per
manent in their scope, and to argue these
prohibitions down to a local and tempo
rary application in Corinth seemed to me to
belittle the Bible and degrade it from its
high estate. God's written requirements
were presumably universal. And of this
reasoning I do not think so badly, even
now. If I still held the same premises, I
am inclined to think that I should be
compelled to hold the same conclusions.
As to the character of inspiration,
however, I remember the rising of one
rather startling question. No one heard
it but myself, but I heard it and it went
far into my mind. In the Sixties the fa
mous book called "Essays and Reviews,
by Clergymen of the Church of England,"
created a stir that now seems incredible.
At present it would seem gentle as a sum
mer's breeze, but then it was a veritable
storm-centre in English theology. I did
not read the book, but I picked it up one
[ 44 ]

THE SIXTIES
day in the library, and read the statement,
in effect, that any theory of inspiration,
or divine influence in writing, that can be
true of the Bible must be true of all parts
of the Bible: it must account for the
qualities of Judges as well as of John, of
Esther as well as of Isaiah, of the Song
of Solomon as well as of the Epistle to the
Romans, of the Apocalypse as well as of
the Gospel of Luke. That startled me,
and I laid down the book with the feeling
that I had read enough for once. "Of
course that is true," I said to myself, for
there was nothing else to say. The state
ment proved itself. A good theory of in
spiration must be good all round, fitting
all the inspired writings. But before I
had closed the book the conviction had
flashed upon me that I knew no theory
of inspiration that could stand this rea
sonable test. The theories that I had
studied might account for some books,
but were transparently impossible for
I 45 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
others . They were framed to account for the
highest quality of the Bible in its noblest
parts, and assume that that high quality
ran through the whole — ^which it does not.
I felt pretty certain also that it would be
impossible to construct a theory of inspira
tion that would meet this reasonable de
mand, if inspiration was to bear anything
more than a very general and indefinite
meaning. I was not able to imagine a di
vine influence in writing that would equally
account for the composition of Galatians,
Proverbs, Job, and the Gospels, to say
nothing of other books. I went away from
the library "under conviction" that these
things were so. No immediate results fol
lowed upon this silent episode, but it had
its lasting influence upon my life. Strong
confidence in definite theories of inspira
tion was not to be expected of me after that.
Although I did not in my student days
depart from my inherited manner of
[ 46 ]

THE SIXTIES
dealing with the Scriptures, I can now
see plainly that suggestions of the his
torical method, unnamed and unrecog
nized, were creeping in. My studies in
Theology and History were preparing me
for larger methods though I did not know
it yet, and so was my work upon the Bible
itself. Textual criticism is a revolu
tionary thing: I have often wondered
that advocates of verbal inspiration were
so tolerant of it. If we cannot be per
fectly sure of the very words that first
were written, we cannot claim that any
text in our possession is verbally inspired ;
and as for the idea that there was a ver
bally inspired and faultless text whose
faultlessness was lost as soon as it was
copied, the wonder is that any one ever
took it seriously at all. Exegesis is revo
lutionary, too, and quite incompatible
with permanent confidence in verbal in
spiration. The practice of tracing out
each writer's thought, with earnest en-
[ 47 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
deavor to do justice to all his peculiarities
of every kind, is enough to bring other
ideas of inspiration into view. And since
I was bending my attention to exegesis
based on textual criticism, these things
were certain to come home to me. I re
member also certain touches of unreality
in some work of interpretation that I wit
nessed. My teacher once made strenuous
efforts to show that certain words of Paul
did not bear an extremely unorthodox
meaning which they very naturally sug
gested. I listened somewhat wondering
whether Paul needed thus to be steered
into orthodoxy, if I may so speak; think
ing also that there was some trace of
special pleading in the arguments in
which my teacher was so sincere. He
felt that Paul could not be unorthodox,
and defended him in view of this passage
by means of interpretation that needed
itself to be defended. I remember also
how one day I brought in my own interpre-
[ 48 ]

THE SIXTIES
tation of some important verses, which
appeared to me to do justice to the pas
sage, but did not reach the denomina
tional conclusion that was expected. I
afterward reconsidered the work, with a
different result, probably more correct;
but I well remember the dismay with which
my first result was greeted, by teacher and
by class, and my own feeling that their
dismay or their approval ought not to in
fluence me as an interpreter. I remember,
too, how a feeling of incredulity came over
me when I was told that the Congrega
tional church polity was revealed, and
therefore bore exclusively the full author
ity of God. Of course I knew that this
was the theory, though I did not then
know how confidently the same theory was
invoked in support of the other polities.
But it seemed improbable that all non-
congregational Christians were thus per
manently and incurably unchurched by a
word from heaven two thousand years ago.
[ 49 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
On the whole, I love to recall my stu
dent days in connection with the Bible,
because I was then in the freshness and
sincerity of youth, and was taking genu
ine delight in worthy work.
Before the Sixties were half spent I
was settled in a quiet parish, and using
the Bible in the honest and blundering
manner of a beginner in the ministry.
Now came sermons, and therefore texts.
Of course it took years for my young ideal
of exegesis to work out into anything like
good practice, and I cannot claim th-at
my handling of texts from week to week
in my first period was of a high order.
I remember samples of it upon which
I look back with wonder. Yet I was loy
ally at work. I had not many books, and
when I received a present of twenty-five
dollars for the benefit of my library, I in
vested it all in books of the exegetical
type. This was much to the disgust of a
[ 50 ]

THE SIXTIES
retired minister in my parish, who did not
think much of "notes" on the Bible, and
would have guided me in a more specu
lative direction. But I have never re
gretted my choice. I felt that a minister
ought first of all to be a Bible man, and
chose accordingly.
As to my studies, I found, like many
a graduate, that though I could study
very well in the routine of a school and
at the suggestion of teachers, I did not
know how to set myself at work to very
good advantage when I was left alone.
Hence my studying was not very well
organized, and had slowly to settle down
into better method and efficiency. At
first I wasted time from not knowing
how to direct myself. But I was helped
in many ways by one enterprise of that
first pastorate, which is to me as mem
orable as it was audacious at the time.
Under some now-forgotten suggestion,
I asked my people to read the Bible
[ 51 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
through with me in a year, three chapters
a day and five on Sunday, and promised
them help from the pulpit as the reading
went on. A good number accepted the
invitation, and though some fell out by
the way, Bible reading was a prominent
feature in the life of the congregation in
that year. I accompanied it with a course
of Bible sermons, as I called them, each
treating of a book in the Bible, or of a
group of books. Of these sermons there
were between forty and fifty in all. An
accidental interruption carried the course
over beyond the year, and so it happened
that the latter part of the New Testament
was treated a little more fully than it would
otherwise have been. I had an available
storehouse of information in " Smith's
Bible Dictionary," which was then new
and well up to date. The sermons dif
fered among themselves in method, but in
general they contained such information
as I could give about authorship, date
[ 52 ]

THE SIXTIES
and kindred matters: I spoke also of
purpose and historical connections, and
endeavored to represent the religious
value and significance. In a word, I
sought to provide such information as
would make the Bible most intelligible
and useful to the reader, aid to the relig
ious use being quite as prominent in my
mind as help to the intellectual under
standing. I have not seen the sermons
for many years, though I think they still
exist. Certainly I would not have offered
them to a congregation five years later,
but I am extremely glad that I did it then,
and wish I might see every young pastor
undertaking as arduous and worthy a
piece of work. It was a good service to
my people, who appreciated it highly,
and an extremely valuable service to
myself, and I am very thankful that
caution did not forbid courage to under
take it.
As for my own part in the benefit, the
[ 53 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
enterprise caused the whole body of
Scripture to pass before me as student
and as preacher in a short time ; it led me
to make thorough use of the best sources
of information that were then at my dis
posal; it taught me a mass of facts that
I had never learned, and put the facts in
better order in my mind; it helped me to
view the Bible in something like a real
historical perspective; it gave me useful
practice in presenting to my hearers
matter that was unfamiliar to them, and
it trained me in the effort to make general
knowledge spiritually serviceable. Here
also I caught the idea of using results
without exhibiting processes. It is easy
to see how this undertaking became an
important stage in my biblical education.
By the brotherly kindness of older
men I was adopted into a club of minis
ters, in which I received great benefit and
to which I owe some lifelong friendships.
[ 54 ]

THE SIXTIES
I mention it now because of one piece of
work that the club assigned to me, which
brought forth fruit in the field of biblical
considerations. At that time Herbert
Spencer was just rising upon our horizon,
and to me was committed the task, no
small one for a youngster, of telling what
it was that he was trying to convince us
of. Not the whole of his philosophy was
then in print, but I studied his "First
Principles," in which the scheme and
substance of the whole was presented.
I did not know enough to make a very
thorough or intelligent study of so vast a
field, but I did at least obtain some idea
of the essentials of Spencer's system.
Here I got my first clear glimpses of the
evolutionary method. They were only
glimpses, it is true, and yet they did afford
me a rudimentary understanding of what
was meant by evolution. Little as I
learned well, the fact remains that some
of the fruits of that labor have never been
[ 55 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
lost. When the time came I wrote as
well as I could an account of Spencer's
philosophy, and offered it to the club.
I did not accept the evolutionary idea
that I encountered there: probably in
deed it was not so distinctly before me
that I could have accepted it, in any
proper sense. I cannot say that it really
offered itself as a part of my mental fur
niture. Yet I was impressed by the sim
plicity and massiveness of the idea, and
by the almost boundless wealth of illus
tration that Spencer was able to bring to
its service. But my experience with it is
interesting, and worth recording, be
cause it was precisely the reproduction in
miniature of the experience of the Chris
tian world in those first years of evolu
tionary doctrine. Here was my objec
tion : I knew from the Bible what was the
method of God in creating the world and
man, and it was not the method that
Spencer proclaimed as the actual one.
F 56 1

THE SIXTIES
The doctrine was in contradiction to the
Scriptures, and that stood as reason
enough for leaving it aside. This was
exactly the method of the Christian world
for a considerable time in dealing with
the evolutionary idea. Like me, the
Christian world knew God's method of
creation from the Bible, where he him
self had told it to his creatures, and con
sidered the testimony of the Bible suffi
cient to dispose of the differing proposal
of evolution.
Nevertheless, I remember a kind of
dim suspicion that perhaps the question
was not one that could be finally dis
posed of in that way. When in the man
ner of the period I tried to quote texts
against Spencer, somehow the method
did not seem to be as effective as I thought
it ought to be. Any great array of good
texts it was not possible to find. More
over, I found that my brethren in the
club had not counted upon having Spen-
[ 57 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
cer convicted of unscripturalness and so
disposed of, but appeared to think that
some other kind of refutation would be
better suited to the case if refutation
were proposed. But I had done my
best, and they saw that I had, and did
not reproach me. The truth is that in my
youthful mind two ways of endeavoring
to establish truth were standing face to
face, the method of authority and the
method of fact, and I was beginning dimly
to see how incommensurable they are.
Arguments from one field did not seem
to meet and answer arguments from the
other, and I was left with a sense of
inefficiency and disappointment. I was
pained, too, for I felt that the biblical
method ought to be more effective than
I found it. But though I was dimly aware
of this, my difficulty was not sufficiently
urgent to change my attitude, and I settled
down to think of the Spencerian doctrine
as condemned for incompatibility with the
[ 58 ]

THE SIXTIES
Scriptures. I may add that later my
sympathy was somewhat drawn to the
evolutionists by the crudity, ignorance,
and savageness of the attacks upon them
that I used to hear from some ministers.
From this club I must cite another
remembrance. Once in a discussion I
discovered that some of the men, older
than I and better educated, were finding
it difficult to fit the facts of the New Tes
tament into the scheme of their doctrine of
inspiration. The reverse process did not
seem to occur to them. According to their
doctrine the inspiration was outwardly
attested, rather than inwardly; they be
lieved it to be in the Bible because it was
promised to be there, not because of the
evidence of inspiration that was found in
the quality of the book. Their argument
was deductive, not inductive. The doc
trine was built upon the Lord's promise
to the twelve, to bring all things to their
[ 59 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
remembrance and to guide them into all
truth — ^which was understood to be a
promise that they should write infallible
Scripture about him and his gospel. So
the apostles were accepted without doubt
as inspired men, and the writings of
Matthew, John, and Peter could be ac
knowledged at once as writings of the
Spirit. Paul, moreover, had been adopted
into the apostolate, and it was not doubted
that the promise had been carried over to
him. Of course there was no evidence
that it had, but his apostleship was ac
cepted as sufficient evidence, and his in
spiration was unquestioned. But the
writers in the New Testament who were
not apostles — ^how were they to be gath
ered in under a promise that was made
exclusively to another set of men ? Of
course they must be gathered in, for the
inspired Bible contained their writings,
but how ? Suggestions were ready. Mark
was anciently reported to be a represent-
[ 60 ]

THE SIXTIES
ative of Peter, and Peter may, perhaps,
have read and approved his Gospel.
Luke, it was suggested, had abundant
opportunity of conversation with Paul,
and may for all we know have read his
Gospel over to him and received his im
primatur upon it, making it for us equal
to Paul's own work. What provision if
any was made for the Epistle to the He
brews I do not remember : perhaps it was
still regarded as a Pauline writing. I
hasten to say that these suggestions of
possible apostolical sanction were not
offered in the discussion as if they were
final or well established; but I regret to
say that they were offered as suggestions
that were not a waste of breath. I lacked
confidence to discuss the matter in that
presence, and held my peace, but even
then such talk seemed to me utterly
worthless and absurd. I felt that it was
binding the Bible to a theory, not fitting
the theory to the Bible; and I had a sense
[ 61 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
of the fact that men who had any use for
it; however sincere they might be, were
somehow on false ground, dealing with
unrealities. A little later I listened to an elaborate
statement of the doctrine of inspiration
that I had thus seen put to the test. It
was not the ancient doctrine of verbal
inspiration, but one considerably re
moved from that, although it sought in
the end to make the Bible as infallible
and authoritative as that doctrine made
it. I remember the impression of pon-
derousness, laboriousness, and inconclu-
siveness. There was too much of it, and
too much hinged upon points that could
not be proved. All depended upon the
promise made to the twelve, which was
adopted as the centre of the whole argu
ment; and even then I felt that it was
very poor interpreting that would limit
the promise of the Holy Spirit to the
apostles, and make it pledge infallibility
[ 62 ]

THE SIXTIES
in a work of writing that was not so much
as mentioned. But these glimpses of a
better view were not full visions, and
these thoughts remained with me chiefly
as seed for future harvests.
The church of which I was pastor had
suffered sadly from the Millerite excite
ment, expecting the second coming of
Christ in 1843, and all the intervening
years had not been sufficient to wear out
the ill effects. The echoes of that strange
experience had been in my ears from
childhood. Since I became a student of
the Bible I had not heard much discus
sion of the advent, and the most of my
parish had little to say about it now, save
in regretful wonder at the past. But I
found in the church one man of excellent
character who was still strong in the ad
vent hope, and constant in proclaiming
it. With a fine superiority he repudiated
the rashness that would set a day for the
[ 63 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
Lord's return, but he was sure that the
time-signals, of which he found many in
the Bible, all pointed to the year 1868,
then three or four years in the future, as
the time of the end. He called himself
a literalist, and insisted that all that he
had to do with the Bible in order to
understand it was to "take it as it reads."
To him, "as it reads," in the English, it
bore the perfect authority of God. Study
ing with him one day some of his favorite
passages in Daniel, I pointed to the mar
ginal readings, and tried to show him
that in their startling divergence from
the page they proved how far the transla
tors were from being sure that they knew
what the meaning of the original really
was. But all in vain. He had no con
ception of the Bible as a translated book,
though of course he knew and could say
that such it was. To him the words of
the translation were the words of God,
and he had his understanding of them,
[ 64 ]

THE SIXTIES
the only possible one as he conceived,
and from it he could not be moved. I
saw him last about 1870. The date of
hope had moved on, and the end was
still coming soon.
Reflecting upon his method with the
Bible, and upon the calamity of 1843,
I remember questioning how it came to
pass that so strange and widespread a
popular delusion was possible. How,
I asked, could Father Miller convince so
many people, and do it so completely ?
Of course such excitements were no new
thing, for many a generation has believed
itself to be the last of earth; but how was
this special excitement created ? At first
it seemed unaccountable, but on further
consideration I became sure that I under
stood it. Miller's hearers were sincere
Bible readers, of the ordinary literalistic
kind. Without the habit of seeking light
upon the page, except as light shone forth
from the page itself, they were accus-
l 65 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
tomed to "take the Bible as it reads,"
regard it all in its obvious meaning as the
equal utterance of God, and consider it
all applicable to themselves. This was
what preachers and people were wont to
do, using the Bible year after year in this
sincere but superficial fashion. The fa
miliar parts of the Bible were familiar in
this way. And now Father Miller came
along, a godly man and a powerful
preacher, aflame with new discoveries.
He simply applied the very same method
to the predictive and apocalyptical parts
of the Bible, "taking them as they read,"
reading them in the light of history ill
understood and mathematics misapplied,
and bringing out startUng and revolu
tionary results that he believed with
faith invincible; and no one could an
swer him or show him to be in error,
because the average mind that he ad
dressed not only believed in the method
that he employed, but knew no other.
[ 66 ]

THE SIXTIES
In the churches that had a better-edu
cated ministry his doctrine had less
vogue, but with average untrained read
ers of the English Bible he was irresistible.
The great calamity of 1843 was due to
general misapprehension and misuse of
the Bible. Intelligent use of the holy
book would have made it impossible.
Such light upon the Bible as was opening
upon me in my first pastorate, I felt,
would have prevented the disaster from
which my parish like a multitude of
others was suffering still. With rational
conceptions of the Bible such things could
not occur, and I desired to be helpful in
preventing them from ever coming to
pass again.
At the end of my first pastorate I had
promise of an interesting future with the
Bible, but little foresight of what it was
to be. I had not exchanged my inherited
view of the sacred book for another,
[ 67 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
though I was on the way to doing so.
But some things had been done. I was
beginning to know how much it means
that the Bible is a translated book. This
was a revolutionary knowledge, which
most Christians about me, and many
ministers, did not possess at all. With
me it had been growing from my student
days, and was now becoming clear, al
though I still had much to learn of what
is meant by so simple a fact, I was be
ginning to know also, in slight degree,
how much it means that the Bible is a
genuinely historical book, having its rise
and habitat in the human world, record
ing vital dealings between God and men,
and to be understood in the light of its
historical origins, intentions, and devel
opment. No longer an unrelieved level
of equal authority, it was beginning to
have its hills and dales, its lights and
shades, as a book of real life, the life of
God in man and of man with God. It
[ 68 ]

THE SIXTIES
was thus becoming more intimately my
own because it was more alive, and was
more available for my use in the ministry
of Jesus Christ, But by what means
these sound convictions were to be helped
to do their wholesome work I little
dreamed, nor did I imagine how great
were the changes of which they held the
promise.

L 69 ]

IV
THE SEVENTIES
During the entire decade of the Seven
ties I was neighbor and pastor to a Theo
logical Seminary, It would naturally be
expected that such a period in a young
man's life would provide an important
chapter in the story of his relations with
the Bible, and in my case so it did. Under
various influences the story developed
very gradually, perhaps more gradually
than logically, but it advanced to results
for which I am profoundly grateful, I
was aware of this period as largely a time
of harvest from my earlier life, but after
ward I knew it as far more truly a seed
time. How strange it seems to remember a
[ 70 ]

THE SEVENTIES
time when there was neither conscious
ness nor foresight of the changes that
were on the way! Such was the time of
which I speak. So far as they were
aware, the people of my second parish
were unchanged from the past in their
attitude toward the Bible. They knew
that knowledge was increasing, and were
thankful, but increasing knowledge had
not yet reached the revolutionary stage.
The prevailing reverence for the book,
and the prevailing manner of using it,
remained essentially the same in kind as
in an earlier generation. The Bible was
regarded as equally inspired throughout,
and inspiration meant nothing less than
full divine authority. Naturally, how
ever, the using of such a book implied
interpretation, and it was only the book
in its true sense, which sense a Christian
must make his best endeavors to ascer
tain, that we were bound to accept as
God's word and the rule of life; but in
[ 71 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
its true meaning, once ascertained, the
book was binding upon the understanding
and upon the conscience. One was no
more at liberty to doubt its statements of
fact or to reject its judgments upon truth
than to disobey it in conduct. In the
minds of a few this serious and exacting
view of the Bible was fortified by a special
doctrine of its inspiration, but by the
greater number it was held as a matter
of reverent inherited belief; and to both
classes alike the Bible was the object of
sincere reverence and loyalty, I am sure
that this description fairly represents the
attitude of that parish toward the Bible
at the time of my first acquaintance with
it, when the Seventies were coming in; and
I myself had by no means passed out of
practical sympathy with it.
But there were influences that were
surely bringing on a change. In the
school of Theology for many years, until
just before my coming, one of the pioneers
[ 72 ]

THE SEVENTIES
of modern scholarly biblical interpreta
tion, a masterful teacher, had been guid
ing and inspiring his pupils to judge for
themselves what is that true meaning
which is binding upon mind and heart.
The practice that he encouraged is more
revolutionary than any one at the time
was aware. In fact, the inherited belief
was doomed to be altered, when once
men's godliest and most scientific en
deavors were devoted to the interpretation
of that book to which they acknowledged
absolute allegiance. When a man is set to
interpret the standard that he must obey, it
means that henceforth he is to obey a
standard that he has interpreted. For his
own mind, he has helped to determine the
duty that he is required to do. But inter
pretation is not final. Nothing is more
certain than that it will change with
new light, continued study, and personal
growth. Thus as interpretation advances
the standard is altered, and it becomes in-
[ 73 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
creasingly true that the student has had a
share in making the standard to which his
obedience is pledged. This, whatever the
result may be, is on the face of it a pro
found change from the attitude toward
the Bible that the fathers held. They
said, "This is the word: we must obey
it," Their children were saying, "This
is the word : we must find what it means ' ' :
and obedience will vary much with the
meaning that they find. Such change as
this was irresistibly going on in my par
ish, though yet mainly concealed, for
there faithful men were conducting the
studies from which the change must come
forth. The heirs of the scholarly influ
ence that I have mentioned were dili
gently continuing the work upon the
Bible into which it had led them, and
thus were preparing the way of a future
that they did not foresee. In this they
were by no means alone, for they were
simply bearing their part in a large move-
[ 74 ]

THE SEVENTIES
ment of the time. The day was coming
when examination of what the Bible
teaches and requires must take effect
upon conceptions of what the Bible is.
In my new parish the next stage in my
own biblical education was marked out
for me by imperious conditions. The
work was prescribed, and not elective:
I did as I must. First the method of my
weekly work was dictated to me. I was
a very young man in a very exacting pul
pit, and the situation was no easy one.
If I was not to fail, I must preach as well
as I could every time. I became con
vinced that I could do the best work by
writing my sermons; and thus it came
to pass that through all the Seventies
I wrote and read every sermon that I
preached. So uniform was this practice
that my best friends came to think that
I could preach in no other way. Writing
became easy, and preaching from manu-
[ 75 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
script came to be quite compatible with
fluency. The practice had its drawbacks,
but it had also its great advantages, and I
have never regretted that in my earlier
ministry I was for ten years a writer and
reader of sermons. Neither have I ever
regretted that I followed that practice
for ten years only.
Driven to my best work, I was driven
also to my Bible. How vividly I recall
my inexperienced manner of resorting to
it in those days ! Not yet had dawned for
me that great day in a young man's life
after which he knows that by the time
that he has to say something he will have
something to say. It came before long,
but meanwhile I was nervous about get
ting my message in hand. The Bible was
my sole resource, and I never thought of
looking elsewhere for suggestions of ma
terial. I can see myself now, sitting be
fore it and turning it over and over and
over, looking through history and poetry
[ 76 ]

THE SEVENTIES
and prophecy and all the rest, hoping that
something new or old might catch my eye
and offer itself as the message of the hour.
I have spent days upon days in this man
ner, but usually in vain. This external
method of resorting to the Bible rarely
gave me what I sought, and I grew more
nervous rather than less while I used it.
And yet I remember those anxious hours
with gratitude. They were never wasted.
Though I rarely found what I was look
ing for, I always found something that
was worth looking for. The richness of
the book vindicated itself, for even these
hours of random communion with the
Bible, though for the time they seemed
wasted, always left me with something
suitable to occasions that were yet to
arise. But the main point now is that I was
driven to my Bible. My earlier work
came to my aid when I was in need, and
it came to pass that throughout this
[ 77 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
period I was predominantly an exegetical
preacher. A biblical preacher, perhaps
I ought to say> but the more specific ad
jective is appropriate, for the exegetical
method became thoroughly character
istic of my work. A friendly comment of
a student hearer once enlightened me.
From a remark that he made I discovered
that the students had come to expect that
the introduction of my sermon would uni
formly give an exegetical account of my
text and offer textual justification of what
I was to say. I did not know that the
exegetical habit was so strong upon me,
and was glad to be informed. Yet I
ought not to have been surprised, for at
that time I almost believed that the exe
getical way was the only way to preach.
A sermon, I said to myself, ought to come
out of a text, and straightforward exe
getical proceeding was the only right way
to bring it out. Upon this theory I acted
to a very great extent, though of course
[ 78 ]

THE SEVENTIES
not without some exceptions. By neces
sity a man would make exceptions, but
the exegetical method directly underlay
the most of my preaching. Sermons were
oftener textual than topical, and the anal
ysis was most likely to be on a textual
basis. Often the text served as the key
to a larger passage, and the sermon was
virtually expository. I did not expound
the Scriptures in a continuous way, taking
a book together, for I had little confidence
in my ability to sustain the interest of my
congregation in a course announced be
forehand; but my ordinary preaching
contained a good deal of exposition. Our
Sunday-school was at mid-day, and in a
later service, afternoon or evening, I have
reproduced and interpreted many a his
torical lesson. Many a Bible story have
I retold, many a character have I set
forth, and many a familiar scene have
I placed in its local and historical setting.
Many an out-of-the-way matter in the
[ 79 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
Bible also have I brought into the open
for my hearers.
In all this work it was my constant
endeavor to act as a loyal and faithful
interpreter. I took it as my task to find
out, as far as I had the power, exactly
what my passage meant in the intention
of the writer; and I was not willing to
give it any meaning or use that was incon
sistent with its original sense. Misuse of
texts seemed to me a kind of irreverence,
or profanity. I can truly claim that in
interpreting the Bible I was profoundly
conscientious. I had to feel that my in
terpretation was correct before I could
use my passage. I remember once being
suddenly stopped in the composition of a
sermon. I had written two or three
pages when by some means I became
informed for the first time that compe
tent authorities gave my text a meaning
practically opposite to the one that I was
using, Down went my pen. I was pow-
[ 80 ]

THE SEVENTIES
erless to go on until I had weighed the
question whether I had a right to pro
ceed. In that instance I became con
vinced that my exegesis was correct, and
wrote the sermon. If I had judged oth
erwise, it would have been unfinished
until now. I am sure that in those days
no listening student learned from me to
be unfaithful to his Bible or indifferent
to accuracy in interpreting it. Until now,
indeed, I believe I can say the same.
And I am sure that no one can have
learned from me to seek additional inter
est for his preaching by turning away
from his Bible. I never felt the need of
that. Other fields are legitimate, but
fine surprises in preaching are to be
found by going farther into the biblical
mine, as I have illustrated many a time.
In this endeavor after fidelity the
habit of writing was very helpful. I
might have had the best of intentions in
preaching extemporaneously, but in un-
[ 81 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
considered speech my painstaking inter
pretation might easily have been dissi
pated. The habit of writing tended to
make me careful in doing justice to the
paeanings that I had found. In fact,
I regard my ten years of sermon writing
as a very valuable term in that course of
biblical education which I am here
describing. The desire for accurate understanding
of the Bible led me, as it had led my early
teacher, to take an interest in textual
criticism. What are the words that I am
to interpret ? was a necessary question,
and I became deeply interested in search
ing it out. Of course, I was never more
than an amateur in textual criticism, but
I was an eager amateur, and one who
attained to some little knowledge. Al
ready in my student days, as I have
said, the Received Text had retired
never to return and been superseded
[ 82 ]

THE SEVENTIES
by Tischendorf, who held the field until
the coming of Westcott and Hort, in
the early Eighties. But meanwhile for
daily use I exchanged his text for the
New Testament of Scrivener, with its
foot-notes that gave all the important
various readings. My pocket Scrivener
became very dear to me. Then I bought
Tischendorf's eighth edition of the New
Testament in its complete form, with
all the critical apparatus, and made
much use of it. In some degree I became
acquainted with the methods and mate
rials of textual criticism, and learned to
judge for myself the true text. I never
used my New Testament without the
question of the correct reading in mind,
and never used a text from it without
considering whether it stood before me
as nearly as possible in its original form,
I keenly enjoyed such researches in
Tischendorf as I was competent to make,
and accounted these studies greatly to
[ 83 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
my advantage as a Christian student.
The interest has always continued. If
I have not consulted my books so much
of late, it is largely because I have gath
ered into memory many of the passages in
which there are variant readings that would
make serious difference in the sense.
Another important influence now came
in. In those days commentaries were
relatively much more in use than they are
at present. With my method of study
I was using them a good deal, and alike
by the good and the evil that I found in
them I was led to desire the best. So I
bought Meyer on the New Testament in
what was then the latest edition, and for
many years Meyer was my principal
counsellor in interpretation.
There were some things in Meyer that
I did not prize, but I could pass them by.
When he wrote, the history of interpre-
iation was accounted more important
than it is now felt to be. I imagine that
[ 84 ]

THE SEVENTIES
Meyer initiated the conditions in which
it naturally came to be less regarded.
But on any given passage, if there were
any serious differences about it, he care
fully reported the judgment of all im
portant commentators. In condensed
form, arranged in groups when classifi
cation was possible, he laid before me all
the explanations that had reputable stand
ing up to that date. Sometimes this was
a valuable contribution, by which I was
really helped. I was always glad to know
the opinions of the few great exegetes, and
in contested or obscure places a larger roll
of witnesses was often useful. But some
times the list seemed superfluous, and on
the whole I came to feel that I was in
vited to give too much attention to miscel
laneous judgments of men of earlier time.
It did not seem to me that the best guid
ance was to be obtained by such compari
son of opinions. But I could always leave
this if I chose, and turn to Meyer himself.
[ 85 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
For his influence I have always been
profoundly grateful. I had used good
books before, but I had also had ex
perience of commentaries that dealt in
allegory and fanciful renderings and in
terpretations that ignored historical con
ditions. Meyer was to me the master of
sound processes, the apostle of common-
sense. Occasionally I was compelled to
dissent from his judgment, but usually he
carried me with him. His discernment
of the main point, his rational setting
aside of minor matters, his clear, straight
forward stroke into the very midst of a
question, his lucid judgment and trans
parent expression, his loyalty to the spirit
of Jesus which ought to rule in interpret
ing the gospel, all this commanded my
enthusiastic admiration. He appealed to
me as the most reasonable interpreter of
the Scriptures that I had ever known, and
I rejoiced to put myself under the lead
ing of so able and rational a guide. The
[ 86 J

THE SEVENTIES
years of his immediate influence cleared
my convictions and improved my methods,
and his contribution abides in my life.
It was very early in this decade that
Meyer came to my help, and he was w^th
me while I was doing the exegetical work
of which I have spoken. He was my
chief companion in the study that pre
pared me for the pulpit. He taught me
how superfluous are homiletical com
mentaries, by doing far better for me as
a preacher than they could do. Together
with Meyer I came into the daily habit of
using Grimm's Wilke's "Clavis," which
was then the standard Greek lexicon of
the New Testament, a work that was
thoroughly worthy to rank with Meyer's
Commentary and was superseded only
by the coming of Thayer, its English
representative, a decade later.
I must not fail to mention certain per
sonal influences that were upon me in
[ 87 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
those years. Earliest among them, and
latest, too, was that of the theologian to
whom I looked up almost as to a father.
Older than I by more than a score of
years, he received me from the first into
a warm friendship, which remained unal
tered to the end of his days. As soon as
I knew him I was attracted by the sweet
ness of his spirit, and also by his candor,
his patience, and his well-balanced judg
ment. I did not always agree with him,
but in all his work I knew him as the tru
est of men. Toward the Bible his atti
tude was one of the utmost reverence and
loyalty. To him it brought the truth and
will of God, and he joyfully acknowl
edged its authority upon his conscience
and his intelligence alike. In his work
of theological construction he considered
himself bound, and limited, by what the
Bible contains. To him a text was a
proof; but it must be a text critically
verified, fairly interpreted, and used in
[ 88 ]

THE SEVENTIES
accordance with its meaning. The real
meaning of a text thus handled was God's
meaning, and the text was God's word.
He held a distinct doctrine of inspira
tion, but his theory was the result of his
reverence for the Bible, and in no sense
the cause of it. Sometimes I thought that
he interpreted too theologically, and I
often felt that he was too much in the
power of his doctrine of inspiration, but
he was never wanting to me as an ex
ample of godliness at work. The pres
ence and fellowship of such a scholar
could not fail to influence me in the use
of the Bible. Preaching to him, consult
ing with him, and watching his work all
kept the preciousness of the Bible before
my eyes. At the same time his influence
was strong and wholesome upon me in
leading me to think for myself. His can
dor and quiet zeal inspired me to inde
pendent work, in which his example en
couraged me to take my own way. And
[ 89 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
if my way sometimes led me to differ with
him, he would not call me back on that
account. The man of my own age who was
nearest to me was teacher of New Testa
ment Interpretation. He was one of the
last pupils of the great exegete whom I
mentioned at the beginning of this chap
ter, and had been called to take his place;
and I was with him in the years when he
was growing to his work. He was a man
of immense force, keen of intellect, deep-
seeing and far-seeing. By patient con
centration he developed a rare exegetical
sense, and became a very remarkable in
terpreter of the Scriptures, He was a
powerful teacher, too, Contrarious stu
dents had small chance with him, and
open-minded students were led by his
strong reasonableness into larger thought.
In teaching others he taught himself, and
from stage to stage his clear-seeing mind
marched steadily forward in apprehen-
[ 90 ]

THE SEVENTIES
sion of the Christian truth. The years
brought changes in his conception of the
Bible, He began, as I did, with the
assumption that all the Christian doc
trines were developed within the New
Testament, and that our permanent stand
ard of belief there lay before us, needing
only to be interpreted. But as he went
on he became better acquainted with the
writers of the New Testament, and
formed a different conception of their
relation to Christian students of the
present day. He came to think that the
writers, instead of being final authority
concerning divine truth, were fellow-
interpreters of the gospel with himself
and with all Christians. He was not
bound by all their statements, but counted
it his privilege to seek the light of
Christ for himself by their help. He read
the New Testament as the inestimably
precious record of Christianity, not as
its source, or as our final standard
[ 91 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
for defining its doctrines. I remember
his saying one day, "A man has no idea
how great a man Paul was, or how great
was his teaching, as long as he feels
obliged to agree with him." Released
thus from the claim of conformity, he
took his place among the free searchers
for the truth of God. I need not tell how
helpful it was to me to have so conscien
tious and enterprising a student for my
companion in the study of the Bible.
Many a single passage and many a large
meaning have I worked out with him,
and my permanent indebtedness to him
is very great.
Of these two personal companionships,
each inspiring in its own way, perhaps it
may be said, though with a margin of in
accuracy, that one would hold me where
the Bible had brought me, and the other
would send me wherever the Bible might
lead me. But the influence of my own
generation was strong upon me, as It was
[ 92 ]

THE SEVENTIES
upon my friend of my own age, and it was
quite inevitable that I should respond,
though slowly, to influences that tended
to change. Slowly, I say, for it seems to
me now that it took me a long time to do
what appears to have been quite natural
and very simple. But time is a peculiar
element in such experiences. Progress
from one realm of thought to another is
apt to be halting and uneven: gains
sometimes seem to be lost, and progressive
experiences have to be duplicated. Once
in one of my removals I came across a
bundle of forgotten sermons about a
dozen years old, and found that they
gave pretty good expression to a set of
ideas that I really supposed I had only
just begun to hold and to preach. So
little does a man understand his own
journey while he is on the way. At the
beginning of that dozen years I had met
the ideas in question, but my acquaint
ance with them had been so slight that
[ 93 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
I could forget the meeting. At the end
of it they had come to live with me.
The history of the first exegetical paper
that I ever published illustrates much in
the movement of my mind with regard to
methods of interpretation. About the
middle of the Seventies I wrote an article
on the seventh chapter of the Epistle to
the Romans, discussing whether or not
that tragic story of the divided self was
intended by Paul to be descriptive of an
experience in the regenerate life. I
brooded long over the passage, viewing
it in all the lights that I could see, and
wrought out an interpretation which I
felt to be correct. It seemed to me the
only one that the passage would bear,
and I wrote it out in full confidence.
Exactly when this confidence began to
desert me I do not remember, but it did
desert me, and in the course of time, long
after the paper had been published, I be-
[ 94 ]

THE SEVENTIES
came fully convinced that I had been at
work on the wrong side of the question
with which I began. A friend who dis
sents from this later judgment says that
I have never answered the arguments by
which I established my first conclusion.
I think he feels that they have never been
answered. It may be that they have not:
in their own place they may be unan
swerable. But I do not feel constrained
to answer them, for I have ceased to re
gard them as arguments that are decisive
of the meaning. It seems to me that my
interpretation of the passage in the Sev
enties was a work of word-exegesis, while
the one that afterward displaced it was
rather a work of thought-exegesis. In the
former, I was impressed by the force of
certain particular expressions, which I
could reconcile with only one view of the
meaning of my passage; and to the re
quirement of these expressions I was
bending the interpretation of the whole.
[ 95 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
In the latter, I was more impressed by the
general thought of the passage and the
larger relations in which it stood; and
when I had entered into this larger view
I found that it gave new light upon the
particular expressions that had formerly
seemed so decisive. Under this broader
treatment I saw that the passage most
naturally bore the meaning that I had at
first rejected; and I am sure that I was
acting on the right principle when I ex
changed the one interpretation for the
other. I can now see that my earlier work
had been more minute and special, and
that in my later work I was using larger
and sounder principles. A man hesitates
to say that he has advanced from narrower
to broader and juster methods in his
work, lest he be judged guilty of conceit
or of spiritual blindness. But I may be
allowed to record my belief that my mind
was moving in the right direction.
Perhaps I may say that I have never
[ 96 ]

THE SEVENTIES
had any hesitation about giving up an
interpretation that I have held when a
better one appeared, or about avowing
the change. If I cling to what I have
because it is my own, I have no assurance
of finding that which is the Lord's. I am
reminded that before the same body of
ministers I have read two papers, a few
years apart, on what is called the Bap
tism of the Holy Spirit, maintaining two
opposite views of the matter. The differ
ence between them was very much like
the difference between my two views of
the seventh chapter of Romans. The
earlier interpretation was narrowed in
this case also by too exclusive attention
to special terms: the later was broadened
by the free admission of general princi
ples. My conviction in favor of the latter
was a conviction of sounder and worthier
kind than its predecessor. At first I said,
"The Scriptures limit me to this": later
I said, "The Scriptures open my way to
[ 97 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
this." At first I was regarding the re
straints of the Bible: afterward I was
following out its spirit.
The decade of the Seventies was the
period of Lives of Christ and similar
books, and I, like all my generation, came
thus under a healthful influence. Not
that the entire contribution of the Lives
of Christ was either permanent or essen
tially valuable. Most of them have al
ready been left behind, and in general the
idea that a genuine biography of our
Master can be written is passing away.
We are learning that our materials are
not of the right kind for such work.
Nevertheless, the Lives of Christ brought
us a genuine blessing. They were the
popular and effective part of a large move
ment to bring him out of the region of
dogmatic conceptions, partly unreal, into
the realm of real life. To vivify our men
tal image of Jesus the modern knowledge
[ 98 J

THE SEVENTIES
of history, geography, and archaeology
brought its treasures, and the great theme
was presented by an imagination enlight
ened by this new knowledge, as well as
by the old love and reverence. The apos
tolic history, too, was enriched by the
same manifold contribution. But the
main point was that study of the Saviour
of the world, from being a study of doc
trinal conceptions, now became study of a
living person, into which all the wealth of
this illuminating knowledge was poured.
My own share in this benefit was just
such as I have now described. For me
Jesus really took his place among the
living facts of history, more vividly than
ever before. The Old Testament had
never ceased to glow with the light it
had received in the days of my first pas
torate from Stanley's "Lectures on the
History of the Jewish Church," and now
the New Testament received a similar
illumination. Here I am indebted to a
[ 99 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
book that did not long remain among my
counsellors. Farrar's "Life of Christ"
even then seemed much too rhetorical for
its subject, and much too ingenious in
piecing the narratives together and build
ing up meanings that depended upon the
combination; but despite its faults it did
give my mind a powerful impulse toward
conceiving Jesus Christ as real. His
"Life and Work of Paul" brought similar
help toward living in the midst of the
apostolic age. Other books stood in the
same helpful company. Out of this
period of biography there came to me an
influence that made the whole New
Testament more full of the glow and in
terest of life. But more important than
this general result was the distinctness,
the practicality, the living force, that
these studies imparted to my conception
of Jesus Christ himself. The Jesus of
my later years is the Jesus that rose be
fore my vision in the divine beauty of his
[ 100 ]

THE SEVENTIES
human life under the influence of this
period of biographies. And I wish to call
attention to the fact that this new vitaliz
ing of my conception of Jesus Christ is
an essential element in that change con
cerning the Bible which these reminis
cences are intended to record.
An influence of quite another kind
now came in effectively to modify my con
ception of the Bible, and I can truly say
that in the resulting change I was follow
ing whither the Bible itself led me. I
have never been urgently interested in
the subject of the second advent, and yet
that subject has filled a more prominent
place in my religious history than one
would expect. I was brought up in a way
that promised trouble, for I was taught in
my childhood that the kingdom of Christ
had a long and glorious future in this
present world, and yet that the end was
always imminent, and any day he might
[ 101 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
descend from heaven for judgment. The
theory put the end indefinitely far away,
and yet I listened trembling for the
trump of God in every thunder-storm.
Some time, of course, this contradiction
would have to be disposed of; and in fact
this was one of the first regions in which
my views of the Bible began to be clarified.
During the Seventies I was usually in
attendance upon a weekly conference of
ministers living in and about a city, at
which all sorts of religious and theological
topics were discussed. More than once in
the decade the advent question was taken
up, being a question that men were inter
ested in discussing as they are not now,
and on both sides of it I heard as able ad
vocates as our denomination contained.
Thepremillennial andpostmillennial views
of the advent were presented, elaborated,
and defended, sometimes with conspic
uous power. It was not in vain, though
the results were not such as the dispu-
[ 102 ]

THE SEVENTIES
tants were seeking. In consequence of
the discussion several things became clear
to me, some at once and some on further
reflection. The first thing that I observed was that
neither of the two theories could be better
defended from the Bible than the other.
Either could be defended perfectly well,
by making proper selection of proof-
texts. The Bible contained the confident
prediction of an early advent, and at the
same time it contained an outlook upon
the future that neither included an early
advent nor had place for one. I observed
that both doctrines were obtainable from
the Bible, but was impressed by the fact
that neither one was the doctrine of the
Bible as a whole. In the sense of being
found in the Scriptures, both were script
ural; but in the better sense of rightly
representing the Scriptures, neither was
scriptural. The contesting theories had
been too successful in debate: each by
[ 103 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
its very success had destroyed not only
the other but itself.
At first I did not see how much this
meant, but gradually it came to me, and
a very important change in my convic
tions was a necessary result. It was
borne in upon me that the Bible con
tains material for two opposite and
irreconcilable doctrines about the early
return of Christ to this world. Both
doctrines cannot be true: one of them
at least must rest upon misjudgment.
Since this is the fact, it certainly cannot
be that I am required to believe all
that the Bible says because the Bible
says it. If either one of the theories is
true, no matter which, I certainly am not
bound by the testimony that the Bible
bears in favor of the other. Whatever
its nature may be, the book in which these
facts are found cannot have been given
me by God as a book that bears his own
authority in support of all its statements.
[ 104 ]

THE SEVENTIES
The book from which these two theories
can be drawn is of necessity a different
book from that. Thus the Bible itself,
upon examination, shows me that it is not
a book infallible throughout, in which error
does not exist, and that I am not required
to say that it is. This negative statement
followed plainly from the discussion.
Of course the corresponding positive
statement was just as evidently true.
The discussion showed that upon one
point at least the early Christians, includ
ing apostles and writers of the New Tes
tament, were mistaken — not only could
be mistaken, but were. They believed
that their Lord was soon to return to
this world in visible glory. He did not
so return: hence they cherished an ex
pectation that was wrong. This I was re
quired to affirm on the authority of facts,
even though the disappointed expectation
stands recorded on the pages of the Bible.
I was required to affirm it in fact; on the
[ 105 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
authority of the Bible itself. Of this I
could have no doubt. It is true that I
heard some of the best men I knew labor
ing hard to show that the expectation did
not exist, but their labor was in vain. I
saw that it did exist, and that it proved
to be a false expectation. Arguments to
the contrary were quibbles, well-meant
though they were. | At present, of course,
the intense vitality of the advent hope is
one of the commonplaces of New Testa
ment knowledge. No one who professes
scholarship at all ever thinks of doubting
it. At that time, however, understanding
of the matter was less advanced, and it is
less surprising than it would be now that
the fact could be argued against .j Never
theless, upon me the truth was dawning:
how could it fail to dawn ? I perceived
that writers in the Bible had recorded
unquestioning expectation of the almost
immediate occurrence of an event that
has never occurred at all. Certainly they
[ 106 ]

THE SEVENTIES
were in error on that point. Their in
spiration, of whatever kind It was, was
not a safeguard against this error, but
allowed them, or rather perhaps impelled
them, to work their mistaken view of the
immediate future into our holy book.
From all this it followed that I was not
obliged to agree with these writers in all
that they had written, or to look upon
them as infallible guides. It did not fol
low that therefore I ought to throw the
Bible away, and I am thankful that that
foolish suggestion so often supposed to
attend upon such discoveries did not
occur to me. But it did follow that I was
not required to accept all statements in
the Bible as true and all views that it con
tained as correct. Apparently I was a free
reader, not a reader upon whom assent
was obligatory. Apparently I might judge
its statements in view of facts. And it
was not some outside heretic or unbeliever
that was persuading me to this conclu-
[ 107 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
sion : I was led to it by examination of the
book itself. Its own contents bore wit
ness to its errancy — ^to use a word with
which I afterward became familiar. In
coming to this judgment I was simply
going whither the Bible led me. As I
look back I wonder on what ground I
ought to have proceeded if I was to judge
otherwise. What would any friend ad
vise ? How, starting from the facts that
I first encountered, should I have reached
the conclusion that all statements in the
Bible were binding upon me?
I have said that I moved slowly and
unevenly in the change that I am now
recording. I have dated this conviction
against the inerrancy of the Bible here in
the Seventies, and here it belongs, for at
this time it was planted in my mind and
I began to be aware of its presence and
its importance. But its growth was
gradual, and its victory over my thinking
was slow in coming — usurer perhaps for
[ 108 ]

THE SEVENTIES
being slow. Years passed before it came
to its own. This is no wonder, in view of
my early training. Nevertheless, when
the new conception had made so valid an
entrance it deserved well of the future,
and was sure to do its work.
Not from without myself, but from
within, came the next great modification
of my view of the Bible. The hint in
deed was external, but no more. The
field was doctrinal. At various times
already I had given some study to various
doctrines of the Christian rehgion. In
my first pastorate I studied, as well as I
could, the doctrine of sin, and made some
gains that were permanent. But what I
now entered upon was not so much a study
as an experience. Now for the first time
I was impelled, and compelled, to work
my way through from obscurity to clear
light, upon one of the great historical
Christian doctrines. [ 109 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
One Sunday, late in the Seventies, I
was conversing with a Sunday-school class
about the fourth chapter of the First
Epistle of John. We were talking of the
words, "Herein is love; not that we loved
God, but that he loved us, and sent his
Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
Of course the conversation turned upon
the atonement, which was a fixed point in
the doctrinal belief of us all. I do not
remember what was said by any of us, but
I do remember how the impression was
borne in upon me that I did not know
what the familiar passage meant. I con
fessed to myself that in my heart I did not
know what an atonement was, or what
was meant when the Son of God was
called the propitiation for our sins. I
had always believed in the atonement of
Christ, in the ordinary manner, which is
not a very vital manner. While I was a
student I had worked out a sketch of the
history of the doctrine, and had some
[ no ]

THE SEVENTIES
conception of the course of Christian
thought on the subject. I had never sup
posed myself to be holding any very
definite theory of the atonement. As a
matter of fact, like most ministers then
and now, I had held a group of ideas that
represented fragments of various theories
which, if I had analyzed them, I should
have found ill-assorted and inconclusive.
I had long been dimly aware that in the
centre of that doctrine there lay a region
that I had never adequately explored.
I had not been especially uneasy about
it, for I knew the subject to be mysteri
ous, and had not blamed myself for not
understanding it; moreover, I had been
occupied with other works and studies, and
the question had not forced itself upon me.
But now it claimed its rights. On that
Sunday afternoon I went home under the
spell of a new compulsion, for I knew that
from that hour I was called to find out
for myself what the atonement was. It
[ 111 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
proved that I was right. There was no
rest for me till I had worked the prob
lem through. Not in agony, it is true,
and yet with all earnestness, I bent to the
work. I read some books on the doctrine,
without finding anything that went to the
bottom of it. I remember reading a book
that was then offering itself as a standard
on the subject, rushing eagerly along in
suspense till I should reach the conclu
sion that I saw held out before me in the
final chapter, only to find it vague and
lame and unsatisfactory. I remember
another book, that claimed to be all bib
lical; but its very abundance of biblical
language weighed it down with a hopeless
burden of ambiguities. I studied the
Bible faithfully. But I found there vari
ous views of what Christ had done — one
set of ideas in Paul, another in the Johan-
nine writings, and another in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, I perceived that these
[ 112 ]

THE SEVENTIES
were views of the great reality from
various points, and that they could not
be combined into one clear doctrine, I
perceived, too, that it was not possible
for any mind to agree with all these utter
ances, except in the broadest sense, if in
deed a modern mind could really think
any of them precisely as the writers
thought them long ago. So I could not
solve my problem by adducing the testi
mony of Scripture concerning the atone
ment as clear and final.
But I was not seriously troubled by
being thus left without an authoritative
statement, for my subject was drawing me
on in another direction. The question
before me was not one that could be de
cided for me by authoritative statements
unless I was content with the most exter
nal kind of explanation; and I was seek
ing nothing less than the genuine interior
meaning. The question was. What is it
that the good God and Father of Jesus
[ 113 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
Christ has done in him for us in our sin
fulness? If this could be answered by
a text or a formula, still, I should have to
inquire what the text or formula meant,
for it would not serve my necessity at all,
except as it embodied some large spiritual
principle. And I now saw clearly in what
region the question lay. It lay in the
realm of ethics. The decisive fact is the
character of God. The God whom Jesus
Christ has revealed to us has acted in ac
cordance with what he is. In this work
he has acted out his real self. It was
morally Impossible for me to believe that
he has done anything for our salvation that
does not accord with and express his own
character. If a voice of inspiration or a
voice from heaven had told me that he
had, I should have been compelled to say
that the voice was not from God. And if
I am to find out what he has done, I must
find it out not at the dictation of voices,
whether from earth or heaven, but in the
[ 114 ]

THE SEVENTIES
light of the ethical and spiritual princi
ples that the revelation of Christ gives
me to be the guides of my inquiry. That
is to say, God does not dictate to me an
explanation of his gracious work. If I
wish to understand it better, I must
search it out in the light of God himself.
So I found myself doing just what I
felt that I had been commissioned to do:
I was inquiring for myself what the
atonement was — ^not what the Old Tes
tament had foreshadowed, or what Paul
thought it was, or what it seemed to be
in the light of the Jewish law, or what
the church had taught, or what theolo
gians had built up into doctrine, but what
it really was, in the best moral and spirit
ual light that the Christian revelation min
istered to the inquiry. To do a man's work
In this great quest was my business for the
time, and I could no more take my con
clusion from dictation of the Bible than
I could from dictation of the church.
[ 115 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
I was constrained to go back of both.
I must search out for myself how the
principles of the divine character had
been wrought out in a work of help for
sinful beings: and this I found myself
bending my best energies to do. The
Bible was my indispensable and inval
uable helper in the quest, but it had not
been offered to me by God as containing
the ready and final answer to my ques
tion, as I once supposed it had. The
answer I myself must find.
For months I was held to my task by
a power from which there was no escape
— ^from which indeed I had no desire to
escape. It was a great experience; for
now, under an impulse that I knew to be
from God, my best powers were for the
first time grappling with the prime moral
facts of existence. I had been handling
divine realities all my years, but never
until now had I been under such strong
and joyful constraint in dealing with
[ 116 ]

THE SEVENTIES
them. Such labor could not be in vain in
the Lord, and to me it was richly fruitful.
After a time, when I had begun to be
satisfied that my work was yielding true
results, I embodied my conclusions in a
paper, which I entitled, " The Saving In
terposition of God." Naturally it con
sisted of two parts, a negative and a
positive, or a destructive and a construc
tive, if one chooses to call them so. Nat
urally also, the first part was better than
the second. In the first part I brought
out the ethical principles of the divine
character, which the Christian revelation
has brought to light, and allowed them
to sweep away such elements in the in
herited doctrine of the atonement as
could not abide in their company. They
swept much away. I felt, and still feel,
all things considered, that this indispen
sable preliminary work was well done.
I certainly set forth some unquestionable
truths, by which some ancient statements
[ 117 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
of the doctrine of salvation were rendered
impossible, I did not need to prove the
impossibility of these, for the ethical po
sitions that I advanced carried their own
evidence. Having thus cleared the ground
I proceeded to constructive work, endeav
oring to set forth the true doctrine. But I
had not yet followed my problem far
enough to be thoroughly ready for the
constructive task, and it was only natural
that the second part should not satisfy me
so well as the first. Yet even in this more
exacting field I know that I presented
some affirmations that belong to the body
of eternal truth, and offered a doctrine
more In accordance with the divine char
acter revealed in Christ than any that
I had ever been taught.
I read the paper before a club of min
isters of which I was a member, where it
was variously received, as I expected. It
was never published, but it had a consid
erable circulation by lending. Men of
[ 118 ]

THE SEVENTIES
my own age, many of them, were eager
to be led into more simple and spiritual
thought upon this great theme, and wel
comed a comrade's work. Several times
for months together the paper was out of
my possession, travelling from hand to
hand. As much as twelve or fifteen years
later I received a request for the loan of
it, from a man who was beyond the orig
inal circle of its acquaintance. How far
the readers agreed with it I do not know,
but It helped them to think in normal
fashion, to accept their freedom of reject
ing the untenable, and to apply their
best moral judgment to the apprehension
of divine truth. The subject was alive
for them, and my treatment of it, spring
ing from my own soul, was recognized as
a vital work.
It now seems to me strange and rather
sad that I had lived well toward my for
tieth year without encountering that strong
inward necessity that compelled me to
[ 119 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
make my doctrine my own. But I fear
there is reason to believe that many min
isters live as long, or longer, perhaps even
all their lives, without experiencing this
particular kind of work of grace in their
souls. A work of grace it is, and any man
Is to be congratulated who hears and
answers this call of God to better knowl
edge of divine realities. With me the ex
perience was not an agonizing struggle,
but if It had been it would still have been
a gift to be thankful for.
This story has its rightful place in the
present narrative, because this experience
counts very largely in the history of my
relation to the Bible, The work of years
had brought me up to a point where I was
ready for a method different from that
which I had followed before, I may de
scribe my forward step by saying that
hitherto I had been using the Bible in the
light of its statements, but that now I
[ 120 ]

THE SEVENTIES
found myself using it in the light of Its
principles. Its great revealed truths,
rather than Its special declarations, were
guiding me In the study to which I was
now Impelled, I was not asking what the
Bible specifically said upon my theme,
but was taking the large truths that the
Bible brought me, and wielding them as
my Instruments in a spiritual work of in
quiry, I was not collecting the testimony
of authoritative passages; I was moving
In the spirit of the Bible toward appre
hension of the great salvation of God.
Thus in my Investigation I was using the
Bible as a man naturally and rightly uses
helps to knowledge — ^not that he may
serve them, but that they may serve him.
I was acting on the principle that the
Bible was made for man, not man for the
Bible, as I am sure the Master would
have me act. I was exercising my Chris
tian freedom In seizing the great princi
ples of divine revelation, and using them
[ 121 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
for further exploration of the works of
God. In thus applying the great princi
ples of revelation I was doing exactly
what Paul and the writer to the Hebrews
had done before me. They sought out
the meaning of the divine gospel of re
demption in days when it meant some
thing to talk of the Jewish law: I was
called to do the same in days when the
Jewish law belongs to the far past, and
universal ethical principles must be the
guiding light, and the character of God
revealed in Christ is the decisive test.
This work, so like the work of prophets
and apostles, I was not afraid to under
take, for I had come out into the liberty of
the sons of God, where I could freely take
my Father's revelation as the guide of my
personal endeavor. At the end of these
studies I was another man than on that
Sunday afternoon when my face was
turned toward the new investigation.
Far more truly than ever before I had
[ 122 ]

THE SEVENTIES
entered upon freedom of inquiry, and a
broad world was before me, which I was
sure that I should find to be the world of
God, And the Bible had become the in
strument of my liberty.

[ 123 ]

V
THE EIGHTIES
At the very beginning of the Eighties
a great change came to all my mental
operations through a change in the scene
of my work. From my pastorate of the
Seventies I went to another which was as
unlike It as possible in the conditions of
life and thought. I carried myself with
me, and all my past, but no man could
be the same in the two places. Any man
would be changed by such a transfer:
that is, to speak after the manner of the
operation of God, he would be devel
oped, the new atmosphere stimulating in
some new manner the growth of his mind.
In my case, changes began at once. For
one thing, I immediately threw off the
[ 124 ]

THE EIGHTIES
practice of reading sermons. That Is to
say, I threw It off as a regular practice
from the very first day In my new field,
and my bondage to it, such as It was, fell
away. I wrote and read when I chose,
and preached in all ways between that
and purely extemporaneous work. This
emancipation the spirit of the new en
vironment brought me, and evidently this
was an exercise of freedom that tended
to the enlargement of freedom. This In
general was the characteristic of the new
life upon which I now entered, that I
found greater liberty In my mental and
spiritual movements than before. I stood
as a freer man. I can see plainly now
that the experience which I have just
narrated had been leading me straight
out Into the larger place In which I found
myself; but I did not understand it so
well then.
I was not designing any new methods
in the use of the Bible, but expected sim-
[ 125 1

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
ply to go on using it as I had done hith
erto. At first I was doing no special work
with it, except In preaching. But in
preaching I felt the new liberty and ex
altation. Utterance was more and more
a delight. With this new joy came nat
urally a fresh enjoyment in the wealth of
the Scriptures. Never more than in
those days have I enjoyed bringing out
of the treasury things new and old, and
at no period have I found larger things in
the treasury to be brought forth. But
though I was not planning new methods
with the Bible, I was using them. It was
impossible that my experience in search
ing out the atonement should be without
immediate and valuable fruit in my ordi
nary work. In preaching now it was im
possible that I should refrain from using
the Bible as I had discovered my right to
use it then. The bygone conditions could
never be restored. I was handling the
Bible now more personally, more as my-
[ 126 ]

THE EIGHTIES
self, and more as If I had a right to handle
it. I still practised exegesis with undimin
ished fidelity, but the process was further
removed from my sermonizing than be
fore. My message was not so directly
borrowed from the Bible as in former
years, and was more suggested or inspired
by It. Not the sight of my eyes upon the
page, so much as the experience of mind
and heart with its truths, was placing it
at my disposal. Around me were many
who seemed to me to reverence the Bible
more for what it was than for what it
contained; but for my part I was priz
ing It now for what it contained, and
was using my Christian liberty, as man
fully as I might, to make Its spirit
ual message clear, unhampered, and ef
fective. It scarcely need be added that my the
ology was changing meanwhile, for neither
the outcome nor the method of my work
on the atonement could allow it to stand
[ 127 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
unaltered, and in the new atmosphere of
liberty I was certain to advance. The
process of change consisted mainly In this
same thing, that I was taking up the
great truths of revelation, and using them
for myself as truths, and following them
to their application and result in doc
trine, and allowing them to assimilate
whatever could live with them and ex
pel whatever could not. This I con
ceive to be the right way to form one's
doctrinal conceptions. This revolution
ary and reconstructive work, which is
the proper work of truth as it is In
Jesus, was taking a place in my life
that it had not held before. The time
was a period of enlargement to me, and
of enlargement that I felt to be normal
to a child of God. The experience was
defective enough through fault and weak
ness of my own, but it was a genuine ex
perience of growth into more abundant
life. And If I were to give it a name,
[ 128 ]

THE EIGHTIES
I should call It a passing over from
traditionalism to reality.
Now It was that the Revised New Tes
tament appeared. The first copy of it
that I saw was sent to me by a religious
newspaper, to be read and reported upon.
I welcomed it with all my heart, and used
it in public worship, from the first Sun
day. One of my men, seeing it in my
hand on that first Sunday morning, said,
"I hate that." But I was able to con
vince him that he had not hated wisely,
or understood the book that he hated.
How glad I was when it came ! I remem
bered back into the days when revision of
King James's Bible was discussed among
American Christians, and recalled the
bitterness of the opposition — opposition
grounded largely In failure to understand
the fact that the Bible is a translated
book, and still more in that reverence
for the familiar words which sprang from
[ 129 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
belief in verbal inspiration. I had had
my hereditary hesitations about revision,
but they were long since vanished. And
now, when I was barely in middle age, the
prejudice against revision had already
been so far overcome that the book was
actually in my hands, issued with splendid
backing on both sides of the Atlantic.
Doubtless it was not perfect, and it had
still to win its way, but the beginning of
improvement had been made, the new
conditions had been established, and the
good result was sure. Now, I said to my
self, those things that I had known to be
true about many a passage, but which
the people could not know except through
explanations which they might deem
pedantic, and destructive, too, could be
known to all readers. Now, when this
book had won its way, the thoughts of the
Bible would be more independent of the
words: there was some chance that peo
ple who hung upon the very words of
[ 130 ]

THE EIGHTIES
Scripture might come to glory in the
preciousness of the very thoughts and
the very truths. Now was doomed that
narrow reverence for the very words
which gathered around the impossible
doctrine of verbal Inspiration. For the
coming of this book was only a part of a
great movement of the age toward mak
ing the Bible and Christ and divine re
ligion more real to the people, a move
ment In which I with joy would bear my
little part. When the Revised Old Tes
tament appeared, four years later, there
was less of thrill and glow in the recep
tion of it, but the welcome was the same
in principle. The Bible was now more
ready to my hand, for the uses to which
I was called to put it. I grasped the Re
vision as a better weapon for the warfare
of the Lord.
It was at this time that my first book
was written, a Commentary on the Gos-
[ 131 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
pel of Mark, for a series on the New
Testament, issued by a denominational
publishing house. By no fault of mine,
the writing was crowded into a very short
period, and for months I almost thought
of nothing else. But the work was done
with eagerness and joy. New thoughts
about the Bible were not diminishing my
zest for it. I was now studying the Lord's
life in Its simplest and most vivid form,
and it was a perpetual delight to comment
upon the doings of the living Jesus.
My manner of treating the Scriptures
was not satisfactory to all my readers : in
fact, it was suspected by many, and con
demned by some. At present, however.
It would have good standing as conserva
tive, so far has conservatism moved on.
It is true that I had little occasion to
speak of the nature of the Scriptures, or
to raise the question of their inspiration;
but when I went right on Interpreting my
Gospel in the best light of reality that I
[ 132 ]

THE EIGHTIES
could obtain, without regard to any the
ories at all, some thought me to be on
dangerous ground. The only paragraph
in which I alluded to inspiration con
tained the remark, which seems to me to
have been tenable, that the Bible is In
spired as it is inspired, and not as we may
think It ought to be Inspired. This was
stricken out by the editorial secretary of
the publishing society, with the remark
that my views of inspiration, whether cor
rect or not, were far in advance of those
of the denomination. This may have
been true. I thought that whatever in
spiration there might be in the book must
be determined by the qualities of the
book, not identified by reference to a
definition or theory framed outside. I
well remember the strong dissent with
which years earlier I encountered a defi
nition intended to safeguard Christianity,
to the effect that Inspiration Is that divine
influence in writing which produces an
[ 133 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
infallible record. I felt that the definition
approached the subject from the wrong
side: if the Bible is inspired, we must
learn from the Bible itself what the
qualities of its inspiration are. It was
this that I was trying to say, in the pas
sage that was unacceptable. But as a
matter of fact, I was not writing on in
spiration: I was simply commenting on
the book that lay before me, without in
quiring what qualities of inspiration it
might possess, or how It came to have
them. Work upon one Gospel naturally made
all the Gospels more familiar. It was
a part of my task, in fact, to compare
them and note their identities, resem
blances, and differences. Inevitably the
differences came to light — differences not
only in phraseology but in narrative, in
discourse, and In general portrayal. In
statements of fact and in views of truth
I found them more or less divergent. The
[ 134 ]

THE EIGHTIES
point here to be recorded is that these
differences suggested to my mind no
difficulty as to the acceptance of the
Gospels and their testimony. Of course
they were fatal, as I had long known, to
the claim of perfect accuracy in all the
records, and of an inspiration that would
produce It, but they were not fatal to
confidence in the books. The writing of
this commentary cured me of confidence
In the possibility of harmonizing the
Gospels with much completeness, or of
weaving them Into a continuous narra
tive, and placed them before me as sepa
rate witnesses, differing as witnesses will
differ. When they had taken this posi
tion there was no trouble about accepting
their general testimony: there was noth
ing in variations to invalidate their story,
and I could read them as living records
of a real life. At that time the problem
of the Gospels was simpler than it is now,
and many present-day questions I did
[ 135 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
not meet. Nevertheless, the principle
that gave me confidence then gives me
confidence still. My hold upon the cen
tral Person and his story is such that
changes in my conception of facts about
the Gospels have not shaken my faith.
Now again the doctrine of the second
advent took a disproportionately promi
nent place in my affairs. It was neces
sary that I should explain the thirteenth
chapter of Mark, the great eschatological
discourse, the dread of expositors — ^unless
Indeed it chances to be their delight. It
was the part of my task that I dreaded
most, for I was well aware of the diffi
culty of the passage, and certain that I
could not stand for any of the old inter
pretations. But I had been thinking
more or less in that field, ever since the
discussions of the advent that I have
spoken of. Moreover, In the late Sev
enties a book treating the general subject
[ 136 ]

THE EIGHTIES
of terrestrial eschatology had appeared,
and had been much read and discussed
in the circle of my acquaintance. The
book was crude in some respects, and
was far from uttering the last word in the
constructive part, but it was unanswer
able in its refutation of certain long-
accepted doctrines, and at least it pre
pared the way for something better. It
has now gone out of sight, for it lacked
some of the qualities that make for per
manence; but it freed many of us from
Inherited untenable views of the second
coming, and offered us at least a tentative
doctrine in their place. Under this influ
ence I wrought out an Interpretation of
the difficult chapter which satisfied me
at the time, and this I embodied In my
commentary. It Is Interesting to note what this inter
pretation was, for the nature of it indi
cates again how far from being even and
consistent was the movement of my
[ 137 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
mind. I have spoken of the growing con
viction that the early advent hope was
disappointed. This conviction was stead
ily settling into certainty, and yet at this
time I was fascinated by the claim that
the hope had not been disappointed. I
still felt that the prediction of an early
advent must have been fulfilled, and that
the fulfilment must be sought in the early
history. So I accepted the idea that the
fulfilment occurred In the destruction of
Jerusalem. The taking of this position
was not a consistent step in my progress,
and yet it is quite accounted for by that
blending of old influences and new to
which every advancing mind is subject.
Knowing that my interpretation would
be objected to, I purposely made my
presentation of it just as positive and con
vincing as I could, In order that It might
have as good a chance of favor as I could
give it. As for the interpretation itself. It
now seems to me to have been a very
[ 138 ]

THE EIGHTIES
good way-station on the journey to the
true solution of the problem. At the
time, however. It was the best that I could
do, and it was farther along the road than
most of my readers were prepared to go.
As I expected, it suited almost no one.
After the first edition, the publishing
society obtained another commentary on
the chapter from an older man, embody
ing one of the more accepted views, and
bound it into the book at the end of my
chapter, under the title of "An Addi
tional View." To this I had no objection
whatever, and cordially gave the consent
which the society courteously asked. At
any rate, I had made my contribution to
ward a substitute for the old untenable
views, and that was as much as I could
hope to do.
As for the commentary Itself, it con
tains much that I should now be glad to
set right, for I can see in it many marks
of immature judgment and insufficient
[ 139 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
knowledge. But the writing of it marked
a great step in the forward movement of
my mind in dealing with the Bible. It
was the first large work of a new out
spokenness. Views that had mastered
me and become my own I was daring to
offer to a larger company ; and such work
always takes hold upon the future of a
man's own mind. In my case It was a
preparation for still larger use of Chris
tian liberty of thought and speech in
handling the holy book. And my com
mentary occupied its place, though a very
small one, in the progress of the general
thought about the Bible.
In the city where I lived there were
many warnings against crude though
reverent use of the Bible. I came across
much influence of the Plymouth Breth
ren, whose attitude toward the Bible was
reverent almost to the point of worship,
but who seemed to me utterly to miss the
[ 140 J

THE EIGHTIES
point, and to be making of the Bible the
very thing that God never intended it to
be. Under this influence profoundly
ignorant persons were exhorted to regard
their own understanding of the Bible as
unquestionably the interpretation of the
Holy Ghost — usually with the result of a
most comfortable superiority to all other
Christians. I met with much interpreta
tion that claimed to be simple literalism;
and I was confirmed in my old conviction
that there is no man who will find more
fanciful meanings than the average liter
alist. I found people who were using the
Bible to Identify the British nation with
the lost ten tribes, whereby they brought
over to the existing British Empire all the
promises of God to Israel. I knew many
who found prediction of great things yet
to come in what seemed to me passages
of plain and simple meaning. The han
dling of unfulfilled prophecy, indeed, was
a favorite employment with very many,
[ 141 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
who deemed this one of the most impor
tant uses of the Bible, In a farmhouse
I met a godly soul who said he had long
desired to see me, because he wished to
get my views on the millennium; but I
fear he obtained less from me than he
had hoped, I knew a village where the
favorite topic of conversation when the
people met was the return of the Jews to
Palestine, I remember a man, a some
what professional interpreter, I think. In
his own little circle, who asked me for my
view of a certain passage of Scripture, of
which an elaborate explanation entered
Into his framework of doctrine. When
I had given him my understanding of It,
he looked up at me with a fine expression
of surprise and puzzlement upon his
countenance, "Is that it?" he said:
"you'll spoil me — it's so simple," There
was danger indeed, for elaborateness was
necessary to satisfy him, I once said to
a man that I did not think the Bible was
[ 142 ]

THE EIGHTIES
Intended to provide us with a map of the
future, whereupon he exclaimed, "Well!
then I don't know what the word revela
tion means," When I said, "Revelation
of God," the words seemed to make no
impression on his mind. And once I
went, a few minutes late, into a prayer-
meeting of another church than my own,
which a deacon, in default of a minister,
had been unexpectedly called to lead.
When I entered he was saying that he had
had absolutely no opportunity for prepa
ration, and could only read a passage
from the Epistle to the Galatians, as he
had just done, and offer as his contribu
tion to the meeting a thought that had
been with him much of late, namely, how
good God is, to let us Gentiles in to the
privileges of the Jews, So near, and no
nearer, his mind had come to the religious
situation of the present age.
By no means would I represent that the
general Christian community used the
[ 143 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
Bible In these strange and misleading
ways, for that would be a slander. Very
much of devout and intelligent use of the
Scriptures there was, and I have never
enjoyed sweeter fellowship over the Bible
than I enjoyed with some Christians In
that time and place. Nevertheless there
was an Immense amount of such unfortu
nate work, and it all seemed to me a sad
perversion of the sacred book. I plainly
saw that what was needed was a different
conception of the whole matter from be
ginning to end. No mendlng-up would
answer: these groups of earnest people
needed a revolution in their entire concep
tion of the book that they were both using
and misusing. They held in their hands,
as they understood the case, an infallible
book, equally full of revelation in all Its
parts, and all addressed to them : and this
book they were uncritically and unscien
tifically reading, taking their impressions
of it as the word of God. When the book
[ 144 ]

THE EIGHTIES
was thus viewed and used, the perversions
that I was lamenting quite naturally fol
lowed. It was natural that the recondite
parts should be the most fascinating, and
that the unintelligible parts should seem
to offer the best prospect of fresh revela
tion to the reader. It was natural, too, in
certain stages of mental training, that the
reader's interpretation should seem to him
to partake of the infallibility of the book
that he was interpreting. It was natural
that the Bible should thus come to be
regarded as a storehouse of mysterious
information, rather than as a spiritual
guide of life. There was need of a rev
olution: and I understood the case well
enough to know that the only effective
revolution must follow the line in which
my own mind was moving. The mis
taken methods must give way to a free,
intelligent, and reverent handling of the
Bible as it really is. Of course this
sense of need intensified my convlc-
[ 145 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
tions. By sad observation of the suffer
ings of the Bible in the house of its
friends, I was confirmed in my judgment
as to the treatment that Christians ought
to give it. This manifold discovery of the
tremendous necessity urged me on In my
course, and in those years I labored with
my best powers to set a clear and safe
example in rational use of the holy book.
But I remember an incident of this pe
riod that shows how uneven my progress
was. It illustrates also the various lights
in which the uniqueness of the Bible may
be viewed. One Sunday evening there
strolled in to hear me a pair of scientists
with whom I had a slight acquaintance,
one of them rather eminent in his genera
tion. Afterward I wondered what they
thought. I do not remember what my
text was, but it was one of the condensed
expressions of truth that abound in the
First Epistle of John. I spoke of this
[ 146 ]

THE EIGHTIES
epistle as later in origin than the book
that stands at the close of the Bible, and
as occupying a place at the very end of the
long course of divine revelation. I ap
pealed to its testimony as the last and
highest word, the ripened fruit of God's
great revealing process, the very climax of
that which has come from him to his
world of men. I spoke, in fact, as if
nothing had been heard from God since
that epistle was written, I did not know
at the time how far away I was putting
God from his world. But the retributive
power did not overlook me. After a while
a wave of remembrance swept over me,
to my humiliation, and I wondered what
my scientific acquaintances thought that
I, a Christian minister, believed about the
living God, If they believed In God at
all, as I think they did, they believed in a
God who did not close his work of self-
expression and betake himself to silence
eighteen hundred years ago, but who
[ 147 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
"worketh hitherto," a God self-uttering
as the light; and I had been addressing
them as if God had been silent to men
through all these ages, I wish I might
have the opportunity of preaching to them
now ; but one of them is gone to the other
life, and the other I shall never meet,
I remember a similar limitation upon
my thought at an earlier date. One even
ing in my study long ago I had in my
hand a volume that contained only two
or three of the shorter Epistles : probably
it was a commentary: and I remember
reflecting upon what It would be if that
were the entire Bible, the sum of revela
tion, the whole of what I had or was to
have from God. How earnestly, I thought,
would I search the volume through and
through, eager to miss nothing of that
unique treasure, to which nothing would
ever be added! In the Bible, I said to
myself, I had more than In that little
book, but with equal eagerness I ought
[ 148 ]

THE EIGHTIES
to search through that unique possession,
the revelation of God. Revelation I was
then regarding as something begun and
ended, done and finished, written and
preserved, gathered into one place, differ
ent from anything else that God has given
or will give to men. Even as" late as my
preaching to the scientists the influence
of that conception had not passed away,
and later still It was upon me, though in
diminished power. I was right In holding
the Bible as a unique book, uniquely
precious; but when one thinks of the
living God, near to his human creatures
and the same forevermore, it cannot be
that he has given men no word of revela
tion from himself since it was finished.
To know God as Jesus has revealed him
is to know better than that.
I have spoken of the hand of Paul as
lying heavy upon the activities of Chris
tian women. For me the traditional def-
[ 149 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
erence for the Pauline prohibition long
continued; but in the three parishes that
I have spoken of there was a curious suc
cession of attitudes on the subject of
women in the church, which became an
element in my biblical education.
In the first parish the general under
standing was that Paul forbade the women
to take part in the meetings of the church;
arid yet there was a peculiar line of un
conscious compromise. The women
seemed to have a habit of confidence in
the pastor as Interpreter and representa
tive of Paul. If he thought that Paul's
prohibition was not binding upon them,
they would feel free to speak; but if he
disapproved on Pauline grounds, the
most of them would not speak at all, and
those who did would have some constraint
in doing so, or at least some conscious
ness. In this way my opinion obtained
an exaggerated importance. I was not
understood to be very rigid in judgment
[ 150 ]

THE EIGHTIES
against the woman's right, and I was not,
for In fact I wanted all the gifts In the
little church to be In use, and did not
conceal the desire — and a large half of the
gifts were feminine. But at the same
time Paul made me timid and half
hearted about it: it became known that
I understood him to be against us, and
there was constraint upon the women.
There were exceptions, but this was the
rule. Their activity did not increase in
my day. I think It rather diminished.
The training of my second parish had
been rigidly Pauline for generations, and
the atmosphere was full of the great
apostle's Influence. Rarely was a wom
an's voice heard in the church, his judg
ment of silence being accepted as the
judgment of God. There was some pri
vate dissent, but the public sentiment, so
to call it, was of one effect. The women
of the parish were nobly going out into
activities of larger and more important
I 151 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
significance, against which no inspired
voice had been lifted up ; in fact, a large
missionary organization of women had
its origin there in my time; but in the
church, with rare exceptions, even the
women of the largest gifts were silent. In
this parish, however, the young people's
meeting came in as an institution in my
time, and in this the girls began freely
and simply to do what their mothers
had not dared, or even desired, in the
face of an inspired apostle. Various ex
cuses were made for this, though not by
the young people themselves. Some used
to suggest in those days that perhaps this
was not a meeting of the church, and did
not come under Paul's prohibition. Simi
lar excuses were offered for the larger use
of women in public work which was com
ing in. As to my understanding of Paul's
words and intention, I had not changed;
but gradually there was dawning upon
me the improbability of God's intending
[ 152 ]

THE EIGHTIES
to govern our movements in America
through Paul's directions to the church
in Corinth two thousand years ago. The
method did not seem like the reasonable
God. At the same time the quibbling
arguments by which I heard good men
evading the prohibition wearied me, and
were almost enough to convert me. Thus
the old influence was slipping away, and
I did not blame myself.
In my third parish, with its brisker
movement of life, all was changed. The
women were taking part in the meetings
of the church, as many of them as wished
to do so, with perfect freedom. They
knew all about the arguments for reading
Paul's prohibition as local and temporary,
at least the Corinthian one, and so had no
fear that they were sinning against the
Scriptures. But the real reason of their
freedom was that in this matter they were
not governed by Paul any more. Some
of them had fine gifts for speaking and
[ 153 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
something to say, and would have found
some way to speak their minds If Paul
himself had been there with all the weap
ons that he was supposed to carry. They
were acting out their real life from the
heart, and the ancient hand was off from
them. A few years of such freedom lifted
It from me. I came to the conviction
that the Christian life of women, as of
men, must have free course in the activi
ties that are normal to the age in which
they live, and that Paul would be the first
to have It so. In fact, I think he would
have cancelled the prohibition, if he had
foreseen what would come of it through
long centuries. Better a little disorder in
Corinth, he would have said, than such
a handicap on the sex of Phoebe and
Priscilla, In later years I have had no
trouble with these Corinthian counsels;
and since I ceased to believe myself re
quired to accept all arguments in the
Bible as valid because they are there, I
[ 154 ]

THE EIGHTIES
have not been troubled by the inconclu
sive reasons for enforcing silence upon
women that are found in the Pastoral
Epistles. Thus by a long and slow evolu
tion I have come to recognize the normal
freedom of the Christian life. It seems a
pity that I had to unlearn so much upon
the way.
After this third pastorate I spent a few
years as teacher of New Testament In
terpretation in a Theological Seminary.
Before I accepted the position I had a long
talk with the president of the institution.
In which I told him all about my point of
view with regard to the Scriptures, and
the various departures from the usual
views in theology to which I had been led.
I did not know but he would withdraw
the Invitation, as he had full opportunity
to do; but he was not afraid of me, and
I went to the new work, which had at
tracted me from the first, and which I
[ 155 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
found full of Interest and enjoyment.
Not more truly than in the pastorate, but
in a special sense, the Bible was now my
specific field.
I do not think that my work was very
well planned, or that I gave my students
as comprehensive or helpful a course of
instruction as they were entitled to re
ceive, I could devise a much better
method of proceeding now. Neverthe
less, however imperfectly, I was aiming at
the right point, and was working with
enthusiasm. I was trying to train the
men in ability to find out exactly what a
writer meant by what he wrote. Lexical
and grammatical considerations came
first; then purpose, connection of thought,
side-lights, and, most important of all,
sympathetic entrance to the writer's point
of view, and endeavor to think his thought
along with him, as far as this was possi
ble. I did not require them to study the
Inspiration of the Bible before they studied
[ 156 ]

THE EIGHTIES
the Bible. I did not inquire beforehand
whether the book was inspired in some
particular manner or not inspired. I
simply opened it as It was and began to
read, seeking to Interpret, in the sense
that I have just presented.
How difficult genuine interpretation Is,
If one wishes to be exact, I was beginning
to know. The fact is that absolutely
perfect understanding of what a writer
meant by a written page can never be
obtained. Even the more external mat
ters cannot be managed to perfection.
Perfect translation is Impossible, The
meaning of words and the structure
of sentences can never be so determined
that there shall be no ambiguity what
ever, and the historical setting can never
be perfectly reproduced in the reader's
mind. But even farther beyond reach is
the Inner work of interpretation. One
man cannot perfectly take another's point
of view and think his thought after him:
[ 157 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
least of all can this be done when the other
speaks out of another age and training,
thinking his thought In a world of per
sonal experience which to the student
does not exist. The thought of Paul, for
example, precisely as he thought it, no
modern mind has thought or can ever
think. Part of the indispensable condi
tions are lacking and cannot be supplied.
It is one of the delusions of theologians to
think that they have done it. No one has
done It. And if no one has perfectly
thought the thought of Paul, of course
no one has ever perfectly accepted It, or
agreed with it. Very many have agreed
with Paul as they understood him, but
with the very actual Identical Paul, with
his very thought, no one has ever per
fectly agreed, for no one has had the
opportunity. Was I trying then to train my students
to do the impossible ? In a sense yes, in
another sense no. A long way toward full
[ 158 ]

THE EIGHTIES
success in Interpretation we can go. We
can understand Paul, for example, ap
proximately, and In general we can under
stand him well; and we may be sure that
with proper use of means, we can un
derstand him as well as we need to, God
does not require the impossible, and we
may be sure that he has not made an
unattainable understanding of the Bible
essential to our welfare.
This fact of the possibility of an imper
fect and the Impossibility of a perfect in
terpretation carries with it an Important
lesson as to the nature of the Bible; and
better progress would have been made In
my class-room if we could all have done
justice to It, It confirms the conviction
that had met me but not wholly mastered
me years before. It means that in the
Bible God has not given us an infallible
standard, to all of whose statements he
requires our assent. If he had given us
[ 159 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
such a standard, he should, and would,
have Insured to us the power of under
standing it perfectly. There is no good
answer to the claim of the Roman Catho
lic Church that an Infallible standard of
belief requires an infallible interpreter.
But since for the Bible God has not given
us an infallible interpreter and perfect
interpretation is impossible, we may be
sure that he has not given us the infallible
book with which we must everywhere
agree, the perfect standard that requires
Infallible Interpreting. The Bible is a
book that we can hope to understand as
well as we need to understand It, through
the best human endeavors with the help
of God. In handling It we are free stu
dents, not required to agree to every
statement that we find.
The method of interpretation Into
which I was trying to guide my students
may be called the historical method, or
there may be other names that describe it
[ 160 ]

THE EIGHTIES
truly. The point never to be forgotten is
that the writer is to be allowed to mean
exactly whatever he intended to mean by
his words, so far as our studies can find it
out. The student is not dictating to him,
or even guiding him. Paul, If he is the
author, provides the statement, and the
student endeavors to find what he meant
by It. We study our author to discover
his meaning. Perfect success we do not
expect, but the only genuine success lies
before us on this road. If we dictate to
our writer, we are off the track.
This Is where we got into trouble,
A good many of my students understood
Paul already — other writers, too, per
haps, but Paul the best. They were
familiar with his theology, and knew
already what kind of doctrine they were
going to find in the Epistle to the Ro
mans, where especially this trouble came
upon us. So sure were they in advance,
that they were studying him not so much
[ 161 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
to find out what he really did think, as to
find the teaching that they were already
attributing to him. Their tendency was
to find In Paul what they had brought to
him, and then think in all sincerity that
he had given it to them. This manner of
using the Bible had been ingrained in
them by early training, by years of listen
ing to doctrinal sermons, by attention to
Articles of Faith, by discussion of doc
trine, and by practice of their own in
preaching what they had been taught.
I do not mean that they were worse In this
respect than other students, or preach
ers, or Christians, They were a fine set of
men, some of them of the very best, I
only mean that their theology was stand
ing between them and a proper under
standing of their Bible — ^in which position
they can claim large company.
Here they were yielding to an insidious
temptation well disguised. Like Chris
tians generally, they believed that God
[ 162 ]

THE EIGHTIES
required them to agree with Paul, They
supposed also, as Christians usually do,
that they did agree with Paul, and that
they were certain to agree with him still
further as soon as they understood him
better. This may be a very convenient
attitude if one wishes to quote Paul, but
it is a very treacherous attitude if one
wishes to understand him. When a man
in this frame of mind sits down to inter
pret Paul, It is extremely easy to find Paul
agreeing with him. In fact, it is the most
natural thing in the world. When it is
assumed that the student, God's loyal
child, is in the required attitude of sub
mission to God's written word which he
is reading, it is only too probable that the
written word will be read in harmony
with the views of the loyal child. And if
this process is going on, it is evident that
the real meaning is certainly not sought,
and is by no means sure to be found.
I criticise my students for this the more
[ 163 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
freely now, because I myself was falling
under the same condemnation. I did
the same myself, and the remembrance
of It is one of the stinging and profitable
remembrances of this period. It is true
that I did not vitally believe that God
required me to agree with Paul. As I
have said, the power of that belief was
already broken. Yet I was not free from
the surviving infiuence of It, and prob
ably my environment was doing more
than I was aware to keep the influence
alive. I was still studying Paul with the
feeling, though without a real belief, that
his arguments must be received as sound
and his views of truth in religion as
authoritative. But of course this position
was unstable. By this time It had come
to pass that on some subjects of the first
importance, with which Paul dealt, my
mind was made up, and was becoming
more intelligently settled every year.
These immovable views of mine, whether
[ 164 ]

THE EIGHTIES
orthodox or not, were no whims of my
own: I saw them to be absolutely neces
sary in ethics, and of the very substance
of truth in religion, and that was why
I held them. Now, therefore, when I
studied Paul with my students, it was
very difficult for me to think, or to ad
mit, that he did not hold them too, or
to find in him any meaning inconsistent
with them. My students, often differing
from me in theology, were constantly at
tributing their own views to Paul. I re
proved them for it, and sought to teach
them a more excellent way; and yet I
myself was really doing no better, I, too,
was scarce willing to let him mean just
whatever he did mean, and was inter
preting him more or less according to my
self. In this I was sinning against my
own sound theory. I confess the fault.
If any of my pupils of that day read this
page, my confession Is for them. My
only defence Is that It was my better part
[ 165 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
that was doing It, The fault was not all
condemnable. If I must agree with Paul,
my better part cried out that he must be
on ground where I could agree with him :
therefore, in defence of my own moral
Integrity, I felt compelled to insist that
on such ground he was. Since I must
agree with the Bible, my soul clamored
for a Bible that I could agree with with
out sacrifice of my best moral judgment.
The demand for conformity throughout
has driven many a mind to rejection of
the Bible, At this time It was driving
mine to make the Bible conform.
Whether the students or I or neither
of us understood Paul correctly Is neither
here nor there for the present purpose,
I am only telling how we all used the Bi
ble, and why we used It so. More or
less, we all read It as agreeing with us,
because we supposed that we were re
quired to agree with it. In this we were
carrying our inherited idea of authority
[ 166 ]

THE EIGHTIES
to one of its natural results. They and I
were burdened, they In thought and I still
in feeling, with a sense of obligation to ac
cept every statement in the New Testament
as God's truth for us; and this peculiar
perversion came naturally In consequence.
But for me the obligation was vanish
ing as an impossible one. This was its
last prominent appearance. I was learn
ing that in human language there can be
no book so Infallible that God can re
quire all readers to accept all its state
ments. Such a book would have to be
perfectly unambiguous, so that in accept
ing all Its statements all would be accept
ing the same things. But no book In
human language can be perfectly unam
biguous. Experience In Interpretation of
general literature demonstrates that, and
how far from being unambiguous the
Bible is, the long history of its interpre
tation shows. In such a book, too, all
statements must needs be final; for God
[ 167 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
could not possibly require the assent of
all, in successive ages, to provisional
statements of some past time, the nearest
true that the times were ripe for, but cer
tain to be superseded, containing truth
partly wrapped up in temporary forms.
But in just such statements the Old Tes
tament abounds, as all readers know,
and so. In Its measure, does the New. It
is so of necessity, for no book whose
statements were all final could ever be
understood by men or appeal to them.
And If we are told that our familiar Bible
calls in God's name for our assent to
everything that it says, we still must ask.
The Bible in what stage of our under
standing it ? Our present stage of under
standing Is imperfect, as all past stages
have been. We know what It Is to under
stand "as a child," and "as a man," and
still imperfectly, and we expect year by
year to leave behind our former under
standings as we attain to better ones. So
[ 168 ]

THE EIGHTIES
surely does the Bible change for us as we
go on to know it better, that we can never
be sure that we have quite attained to
that sense which Is binding upon our
souls. A book thus unfolding as we
study it we can use as a divine gift and
a perpetual Inspiration, but not as an in
fallible standard. The experience that I
have been recounting settled these con
clusions In my mind for permanency, as
I think it ought.
During a year or two of this period, to
meet a temporary necessity, I gave in
struction also in Homiletics. Throughout
the period too I was preaching a good
deal. I preached in many places, to con
gregations great and small, in pulpits of
various denominations. Thus both in
theory and in practice I was still dealing
with the Bible in the field with which
my life had made me familiar. Here
there was no change in my attitude. I
[ 169 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
was urging students to be correct and
faithful in their handling of the Bible,
and to put it to no use inconsistent with
its original intention. A little earlier I
had delivered some lectures In which I
insisted that every preacher ought to
make of himself an exegete, that is, a
man who could read his Bible intelli
gently, and explain it. This claim was
not based upon any special view of in
spiration, but upon the sacredness of
the Bible and the seriousness of dealing
with the truth that it brings. On this
simple principle I was now helping my
students to use texts in their proper
meaning, and was trying for myself to
do the same.
In my own preaching, I was gaining in
freedom and variety In the use of the
Scriptures. I had learned that preaching
was more versatile work than I used to
think it was: there were more legitimate
ways to preach than I had once supposed,
[ 170 ]

THE EIGHTIES
and I was employing texts with a wider
range of method. Once — though that
was later — ^I received a letter of protest
from an old Scotch minister about a ser
mon that he had heard me preach on
Christian liberty. He told me the only
line of thought by which that subject
could be approached according to the
gospel, and practically gave me the ser
mon that I ought to have preached. But
I had learned that a great many differ
ent sermons could be legitimately made
from one text, as the long history of
preaching proves. In this period the
manifold suggestiveness of the Bible was
growing upon me, and thus its prac
tical richness and vast availability. It
is interesting to remember, by the way,
that in preaching for half-a-dozen de
nominations it never occurred to me
to vary or select my message accord
ing to the pulpit to which I was in
vited, nor did I ever have reason to sup-
[ 171 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
pose that any one wished me to do so,
I was drawing from the Bible a gospel
that was as welcome in one place as in
another. After this period of teaching I returned
to the pastorate. The place was the
scene of my own education in college and
seminary, and a chief attraction in the In
vitation was that it offered opportunity
of preaching to a large number of stu
dents, among whom were many for the
ministry. My old teachers also, of whom
several remained, were among the best
hearers that a man ever had. In this last
of my pastorates my Bible was better in
hand than ever before, and I was using it
with my best energies for real benefit to
a most interesting congregation. What
wonder that the work was delightful?
In looking over the sermon record of the
time I do not find that I was attempting
anything out of the common course. I
[ 172 ]

THE EIGHTIES
was simply bringing my message from
the Bible with gladness.
It was at this time that the higher criti
cism began to influence my thinking about
the Bible, Of course many questions of
the higher criticism had long been fa
miliar, and entirely free. With such light
as I had, I had unreservedly discussed
questions of authorship, date, historical
setting, and literary character. But thus
far these questions had practically been
separate from one another, pertaining to
one book at a time, or to some one group.
Inquiry as to the authorship of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, for example, was abso
lutely free, and decidedly Interesting, and
quite indispensable to our studies, but it
had not yet presented itself to my mind
as a sample of a method that was to be
applied with equal freedom to the entire
Bible, Now, however, I became aware of
a new situation of great Interest and Im-
[ 173 J

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
portance. The method that I had used
as a matter of course in fragmentary fash
ion was now organized into a system, and
was used in examination of all that the
Bible contained. It now presented Itself
as the coming method, destined to be
characteristic of a period in the history of
biblical science. Its advent marked a
new era. I had been brought up in a
period of exegesis, in which attention was
directed to the contents of the sacred
books, sentence by sentence and word by
word; a period therefore of textual criti
cism also, verifying the very words as far
as possible. But now was ushered in a
period in which attention was to be turned
less upon the contents of the books for in
terpretation, and more upon the books
themselves, their origin, their general
character, and their external history. On
general principles it might seem that this
class of questions would be considered
first, when once the scientific study of the
[ 174 ]

THE EIGHTIES
Bible had begun. It would seem right to
search out the quality and history of the
books before sitting down to read them
word by word. But the esteem in which
the Bible was held determined the order
of the studies, and it was quite inevitable
that the first scientific work upon it should
be devoted to ascertaining what the Bible
says. But it was equally inevitable that
after a generation of students had bent
Itself to this task, another generation
should set Itself to inquire with equal
diligence what the Bible is. This was the
Inquiry of the higher criticism.
In the late Eighties I read the debate
between President Harper and Professor
Green on this later method of study.
The discussion did not cover the whole
ground, but it contained samples that
illustrated the method and indicated the
nature of the outcome. Some men of
modern thinking were inclined to speak
words of quietness, to the effect that the
[ 175 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
new style of work would make but little
difference. I could not agree with them.
I well remember how the conviction was
borne In upon me that the higher criticism
was a thoroughly revolutionary thing. I
plainly saw that the Bible would not come
out of this crucible as it went in. From
the generally accepted views there would
certainly be great changes. No one could
tell beforehand what they would be, but
it was not to be supposed for a moment
that the popular conceptions of the Bible,
Inherited from the Jews and from uncrit
ical Christian ages, would all stand the
test of critical investigation. Many of
them would have to yield to new con
ceptions. The coming of great changes
was as certain as the coming of the future,
if this work went on.
What should I think of all this? and
what should I do ? There was no room
for doubt. The Inquiry that was under
taken by the higher criticism was per-
[ 176 ]

THE EIGHTIES
fectly legitimate, and I had no right to
resist it or to wish it away. It was as legit
imate, and as Important in its place, as
laboratory work in chemistry or Investiga
tion of the causes of disease. Moreover,
though I should never be an expert in the
practice of criticism, I was pledged to
approval of the enterprise by all my his
tory as a student of the Bible. I had
sought to be a sound interpreter of the
sacred writings; but sound interpretation
Is quite impossible without just such
examination of time, place, history, and
literary character as the higher criticism
proposes. This I had always assumed,
for long before I ever heard the name of
It I had undertaken elementary work of
higher criticism, as something indispen
sable to the understanding of a book.
However imperfectly I had lived up to it,
my rule had always been to let the Bible
mean whatever it does mean. But if I
am to let It mean whatever it does mean,
[ 177 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
J. must consent to let it be whatever it is.
I must not dictate its character, any more
than its utterance : I must leave these to be
determined for me by the facts, and must
do my utmost to ascertain the facts. If
they prove to be other than I thought, it is
I, not they, that must change, and to make
the needful change must be my first desire.
And if by tradition or by reverence I were
tempted to exempt the Bible from critical
judgment as to its origins and character,
my experience in interpretation should
recall me to a braver and more reason
able mind. I had not found it to be
an infallible book in its counsel to a
reader, for it contained old forms of
truth that were long ago superseded by
truth in higher forms, and the Bible itself
contains the record of that superseding.
It was not Inerrant, for I had found its
writers often irreconcilable in details, and
sometimes demonstrably in error. The
Bible was commended to me by its spirit-
[ 178 ]

THE EIGHTIES
ual character as exceeding precious, but
it was not marked by qualities that should
set it apart from examination — if indeed
any qualities could do that. Least of all
did I find the Bible claiming any such
exemption. It claimed neither inerrancy
nor perfection of any kind. It was sim
ply Itself, and asked for no privileges.
Thus by all my studies I was pledged
to this new form of study which they
called the higher criticism. How it has
been misunderstood! Well I remember
the solemnity with which a minister said
In my hearing, "The higher criticism is
not higher, morally." No one ever said
it was. But It is legitimate morally, and
necessary to the understanding of the
Bible. And so it has been my duty to
accept the general conclusions of the
higher criticism. I must be patient In
doing so, and must allow time for a good
degree of certainty to be reached, for I
do not wish to accept new views prema-
[ 179 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
turely. Yet even on this point I must not
be too cautious. It is just as undesirable
to retain an erroneous idea as it is to ac
cept one. It is a popular charge against
the higher criticism that its conclusions
keep changing; there is no finality; if we
adopt something now we may have to
change again by and by. This aspect of
the matter is often alleged as a sufficient
reason for doing nothing at all about it.
"When the higher critics have got their
final conclusions," it is said, "we will be
gin to think of dropping our old ideas."
But students do not talk In that way
about chemistry, or physics, or astron
omy, or any other science, or even about
the geography of the North Pole. All
genuine study assumes that knowledge is
a growing thing, and as changes have
come already, so they must come again.
No one waits for the end of a movement
In thought to be reached, before begin
ning to go along with it. All students of
[ 180 ]

THE EIGHTIES
science are glad to let old Ideas give place
to new, with the perfect understanding
that final conclusions may still be far
away. All sciences, indeed, are revolu
tionized as often as new facts can revo
lutionize them. In like manner, if my
old notions of the Bible are untenable,
I must leave them behind and join those
who are seeking for true Ideas to take their
place. In the search I may accept con
clusions and be obliged to give them up
again and receive others In their place;
but that Is what all students of reality are
doing all the time, and If I do It I shall
only be exercising my duty and privilege
as a seeker after truth. Nevertheless,
although I still retain the prospect of
changes, the fact is that the work of higher
criticism has already led to many conclu
sions that are not likely to be reversed.
If ttey are to be altered hereafter, they
will be altered by pursuance of the line
of change, not by reversion to what has
[ 181 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
been left behind. Certain general large
results, and many more special ones,
may fairly be said to have been estab
lished to remain. At the present day,
therefore, it is both my duty and my
privilege to accept such conclusions. I
shall be wilfully mistaken If I refuse.
And if I accept them I am not to accept
them on the sly and shamefacedly, but
freely and frankly, like an honest man;
and when they have been accepted I am
not to lay them on the shelf, as if by mere
mental assent I had fulfilled my duty to
them. I must live up to my acceptance.
I must take them into daily use in my
own understanding and presentation of
the Bible. I must manfully move with
the movement of truth. I have sympathy
with the man who said, "If it is heresy to
think ahead of one's time. Is it not heresy
to think behind one's time?"
Thus the case opened to me when the
claims of the higher criticism were first
[ 182 ]

THE EIGHTIES
presented. I have never seen it In any
other light, and for many years I have
not talked as if Moses wrote the Penta
teuch, or the book of Isaiah had but one
author, or Job or Jonah were historical.
On these points and various others I am
sure: naturally there are some on which
I am waiting for certainty, and hold only
provisional conclusions. At any given
moment doubtless my opinions upon such
matters of fact could be convicted of in
completeness and inconsistency, for I
have learned more in some fields than in
others. But I have found comfort in the
statement that there Is no moral obliquity
in giving simultaneous shelter to propo
sitions that may afterward prove incom
patible. I must make progress as I can.
But I believe in the process, and in the
progress, and I am living in daily use of
great benefit from these studies. Late in
the Eighties I read the statement that the
higher criticism had already relieved us of
[ 183 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
more than half of the moral difficulties of
the Old Testament. I thought it true,
and have never doubted it. Indeed, more
is true. The higher criticism removes the
cause of the deepest of those moral diffi
culties, for it shows us that Christians
need not attribute to the God of Christ
all the acts and passions that Israelites
attributed to the God of Israel, or approve
the moral judgments that were recorded
in days of inferior moral light. In the
history, I have found the new light mak
ing much intelligible that was once con
fused, and much credible that was once
hard to believe. Thus the modern method
has come to me not mainly as a perplex
ing thing, though of course it has brought
perplexity now and then, but far more as
a means of light and help.
Particularly In one respect has the
higher criticism deserved well of me. By
the revolution that it has wrought in my
[ 184 ]

THE EIGHTIES
conception of the Old Testament it has
largely unified and Christianized my Bible.
It was a day of mingled good and ill
when Christianity adopted the Old Tes
tament as its original sacred Scripture.
Near the beginning of these reminiscences
I spoke of my mother as unconsciously in
bondage because of the blending of Ju
daism with the gospel in the Bible that
guided her religious experience. We were
all subject to the same divided infiuence,
part Christian and part non-Christian,
proceeding from our sacred book, and
we all suffered in consequence. I was
brought up to suppose that the funda
mental and character-giving element in
the Old Testament was the law, by which
was meant the Judaic law in Its complete
ness — ^not merely the Instruction and re
quirement of God for the soul, the simpler
and more spiritual torah, but the great
complex Institution whose means of grace
was altar-sacrifice and whose principle
[ 185 J

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
was legalism, with its law of merit in the
sight of God. The entire body of the law,
I was taught, was proclaimed at Sinai by
the same God who was revealed in Christ,
and stood through the Old Testament
period as expressive of his mind and will
for Israel, and In fact for all men apart
from Christ. The Levitical law repre
sented God as truly as the gospel, and
represented his ancient way of saving
men. The principle of legalism was of
God, and bore divine honors in the Old
Testament. I supposed that in the days
of the old covenant men were accepted by
God on the ground of legal righteousness,
and that only in the gospel did the prin
ciple of grace come in — ^and that even then
grace had to make terms with law right
eousness before it could have its way.
Both methods, the legal and the gracious,
represented God; which meant that God
was a being who could be fairly repre
sented by either. [ 186 ]

THE EIGHTIES
It Is true that this belief, which was the
outcome of my early training, had its
difficulties. Paul seemed to think quite
differently from this at times, condemn
ing the central principle of the law as none
of God's own. The Epistle to the He
brews, with all its reverence for the an
cient institution, declared It worthless for
the highest spiritual purposes. Words of
Jesus sounded out like thunder against
the whole legalistic principle and method.
The ceremonial and sacrificial system
seemed to have nothing in common with
his view of religion. Thus I was drawn
Into a very hard dilemma. If my hered
itary view was right, one and the same
God and Father had taken two opposite
attitudes in two successive periods, first
proclaiming and insisting upon a princi
ple of acceptance with himself which he
afterward repudiated and condemned.
There were minor difficulties besides,
like the impossibility of finding the com-
[ 187 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
plete institution of the law existing through
the Old Testament period, and the fact
that the prophets uttered their clearest
note when they were repudiating the
principle of legalism; but the chief diffi
culty was the impossibility of attributing
legalism and Jesus to the same God.
My early reverence for the Bible led me
to suppose it must be all right, but as I
grew older the case grew harder. Within
the Bible God seemed to be contradicting
himself. With what delight and satisfaction then
did I welcome the message of the higher
criticism! I was now led to see that the
central thing In the religion of the Old
Testament was not the law but the proph
ets and their teaching; and the prophets
held forth essentially the same religion of
spiritual inwardness and sincerity that
Jesus preached — ^save as some of the
later among them partook somewhat of
the legal spirit. Not legalism but godli-
[ 188 ]

THE EIGHTIES
ness was the religion of the Old Testa
ment, as of the New. The law was
ancient in its rudiments, and the divine
instruction came gradually, but the de
veloped law with its cramping legalism.
Instead of being most ancient, came late
into the field of life. Instead of being the
ground upon which the prophets stood
when they delivered their burning mes
sages of righteousness, the legalistic sys
tem grew up after the greatest of the
prophets had spoken their word and
passed away. Instead of being the voice
of God in old time, legalism came in
because the genuine voice of God, uttered
in the prophets, had not mastered the
mind of Israel. The teaching that rep
resented God in old time was the spiritual
teaching that most nearly resembled that
of Jesus Christ. In this light I saw that
God had not held two contradictory
attitudes in the two Testaments, or taken
back his own teaching, or trampled upon
[ 189 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
his own earlier methods. Throughout
the Bible religion was one, and God was
one. His method of salvation was one in
all ages, true to his own ethical nature.
So then there was no need that a learner
from the Bible be in bondage to legalistic
notions of the way to be acceptable to
God, and suffer the accompanying temp
tations to self-righteousness or despair.
No longer could the Bible seem to require
a Christian still to be half a Jew of the
old legalistic dispensation. For me the
Bible was redeemed from this old divi
sion, and brought into clear Christian
unity. At the same time the Old Testament
law itself was redeemed from its evil name
by the help of the higher criticism. By re
vealing the strata in which that law was
formed, the higher criticism has made it
more intelligible, and shown us why It
was so useful to Israel and so delightful
to men of God in the Psalms. When the
[ 190 ]

THE EIGHTIES
legalistic element Is mainly taken out of
the earlier law and shown to have come
In at the end of the period, the earlier law
itself Is left more spiritual, and more like
the prophets and the gospel. It appears
as a righteous and kindly social order
according to the standards of the age,
and as a religious order in which the men
of the period could find uplifting and sat
isfaction for their minds. It told of God
in his goodness, and was adapted to
nourish the best spiritual life that was
possible In that time. It was far more
worthy of God and helpful to men than
that elaborate system could have been
which I had supposed to have been re
vealed In full by God through Moses.
So while I could see that Jesus was right
In his estimate of the legalism of his day,
I could enter with equal fellowship into
the feeling that Psalmists entertained
toward the law of the Lord as it stood in
their time, and could understand the
[ 191 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
deep spiritual delight with which they
regarded it.
I commend this experience of mine to
the ma^y Christians who have been led
to suppose that the higher criticism can
be nothing else than a weapon of unbe
lief. For me it has made the Bible to be
far more consistently a Christian book
than It had ever been before, and has
placed it in my hands more ready for all
Christian use. In my progress toward the
restful attitude concerning the Bible which
I now hold, I thankfully recognize the
higher criticism as one of the most valu
able of helps.

[ 192 ]

VI
THE NINETIES
In the first week of the Nineties my old
teacher in Systematic Theology, who had
been inspiring students through all the
intervening years, very suddenly died,
and after a few days I found myself seated
in his chair, engaged to conduct through
the remainder of the seminary year the
class that he had left. My favorite work
had always been biblical, and I had never
looked forward to teaching theology, or
desired It, or dreamed that any one would
ever wish me to do it, or imagined that I
could ever assent if I were asked. Noth
ing could have lain more completely be
yond my field of contemplation. But now,
within two weeks of a time when such
[ 193 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
views were undisturbed, I was actually
doing the work, and a few months later
the temporary engagement was exchanged
for a permanent one, and the work that
was neither expected nor desired was be
fore me as the work of the remainder of
my life. No man was ever more sur
prised to find himself where he was, or
felt himself less responsible for being
there. But there I was, and my experi
ence with the Bible in the Nineties was
that of a teacher of theology.
The teacher had to be constructor also.
It chanced that my predecessor's text
book, privately printed, went out of print
just when he went out of life. He did not
leave copies enough to supply a single
class. There was no text-book at hand
that I could successfully use, and there
was no way but to make my own. Theol
ogy was coming into a new period; all
the older text-books were framed upon a
method of using the Bible that I could
[ 194 ]

THE NINETIES
not employ. To make my own book
was what I desired from the first, but
the conditions compelled me to begin at
once. So in the summer of that first
year I set myself to the laying-out of my
system, and formed the outline of my the
ology as it has ever since remained. In the
next three years I rewrote my treatise three
times, enlarging It each time. In the fourth
year I rewrote it again and printed It. A
few years later I revised and enlarged it
once more, and it was published.
In those years of constructive labor It
was of course necessary that I should act
upon some principle as to the relation of
the Bible to a system of theology. But the
question of method here did not present
itself as a present question, or as a prob
lem that had then to be solved. My life
had given me my method with the Bible,
and I found myself readily putting it to
this new application. If I had been
[ 195 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
waiting for a method, or had had still to
decide on what principle I should use my
Bible in constructing theology, I should not
have dared to undertake my new work,
nor should I have been qualified for it.
It was my task to give form to the the
ology of the Christian religion: therefore
I could not do otherwise than regard the
Bible as my chief source. Other sources
I must use, and in all theology there Is
truth for which no written source can ex
ist; but for that which is distinctive in
Christianity, and for the Christian aspects
of universal truth in religion, the Christian
Scriptures provide material that can be
obtained nowhere else. Of the Christian
Scriptures therefore I must make primary
use ; and from their primacy in Christian
theology they can never be deposed.
Formerly It was assumed that If the
Bible was to be used as a primary source
for theology, that course must be justified
by presenting proof that the Bible was di-
[ 196 ]

THE NINETIES
vinely inspired. Conceptions of divine
authority were very external, and very
external were the modes of evidencing
himself to men that were attributed to
God: very great and exclusive also were
the claims that were made for the Bible,
In such conditions it is not surprising that
a strong theory of inspiration was felt to
be indispensable. If I had been claiming
that the Bible was the sole repository of
God's communications to men, and that
It was inerrant in all its statements and
infallible in all its contents, and that I
had no right to pass judgment upon what
It offered me, but must absolutely accept
it all as the word of God, I should have
needed to support my claims by positive
proof that these extraordinary qualities
had been imparted to the book, and a
clear account of the manner in which it
was done, A theory of inspiration is a very
difficult thing to make, it is true, and none
has ever been made that corresponded to
[ 197 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
the facts; but it is no wonder that up to
recent times the effort to construct such
theories has been continued as something
Indispensable to theology. In my case,
however, there was no need. I belong to
a generation that has outlived the neces
sity of such theories. If one observes it,
no new theories of inspiration have been
formed lately: the theories that stand in
theological books are old ones, discredited
by later knowledge of the Bible, but not
yet abandoned, because their superflu-
ousness has not yet been perceived. But
they are destined to be left behind. We
are able now to take the Bible as it is, and
listen to its testimony, without first prov
ing by a doctrine of inspiration that it
must be listened to. At present a more
interior and spiritual idea of the evidence
of the present God may be applied. If
God is in a book he will be found : we do
not have to justify our sense of his pres
ence there by building up a theory to
[ 198 ]

THE NINETIES
show how he got there. God shines by
his own light.
My own experience here was very sim
ple, I found that the Bible set before me
the historical and spiritual figure of Jesus
Christ, and showed me the principle on
which he taught us to live the true life of
men: it showed me the Saviour, and the
salvation. In this twofold vision I had the
key to the Christian theology; or, to use
a better simile, I had the light which it
was my privilege to hold up for illumi
nation of the field. This light which I as
theologian was to use I found in my Bible
just as it lay In my hands, without refer
ence to any theory as to how the divine
Spirit Influenced the men who wrote it,
I could read the book, and get my Infor
mation. How the book was written is a
matter of indifference to me : what It con
tains is the point. Under what special
kind of divine influence It was written I
can never discover, and my theories can
[ 199 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
never be anything but guesses, as all such
theories have been; but what It contains
I can read and put to use. Viewed in this
light, the Bible did not need any theory
of Inspiration to justify its admission as
a main source of theology. I am sure
that I was right In thinking myself enti
tled to take it for just what it was and
learn its lessons; and I judge that recent
theological thought is right In allowing
theories of inspiration to lapse. The fut
ure will need no such theory, and will
use the Bible more intelligently with none.
Theories of Inspiration have always been
dictating the contents of the Bible, telling
us what we must find. When theology has
used the Bible for a generation or two with
out them, our successors will wonder how
we ever thought that Its testimony could
be ascertained when they were In mind.
Another change in method was inevita
ble. In constructing a system of theology
[ 200 ]

THE NINETIES
I did not find myself proceeding upon the
ancient and familiar proof-text method.
The proof-text idea has appeared In va
rious forms. Texts, or quotations from
Scripture, have been largely relied upon
for support of doctrinal statements, and
have been regarded as sufficient support
for such statements. If the Bible can be
quoted for a doctrine, that doctrine has
been accepted as true. It has usually
been held that a theologian must work Into
his statement of a doctrine the testimony
of all the texts in the Bible that bear upon
the subject In question, and must con
struct a statement that will include the
teaching of them all. If this cannot be
quite accomplished, still it is the ideal, to
be reached as nearly as possible. Some
times, again, a doctrine has been made to
take its form from some classical biblical
passage, felt to be so important that It
must be made determinative. But I did
not find myself following the proof-text
[ 201 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
method in any of these forms. A critic
once remarked concerning my published
result, that although the pages were freely
marked with Scripture references — ^'spat
tered," I think he said — the work was not
really an expression of the results of exe
gesis. He was wrong in the deeper sense,
but superficially he was right. I was not
simply gathering in the meaning of pas
sages, and fortifying my positions by the
citation of texts. I was not simply re
porting what the Bible said upon the
Christian doctrines. I was working under
a different conception of the relation of
the Bible to theology.
My life had brought me entirely over to
the position of my early teacher in the
ology, now my predecessor, from whose
method I had so conscientiously dis
sented In my youth. I had almost de
manded, as I acknowledged to him long
afterward, that his theology be dictated
to him by the Bible. But by this time I
[ 202 ]

THE NINETIES
had learned that instead of being dictat
ed by the Bible, a man's theology should
be inspired in him by the Bible— or, more
truly, inspired In him through the Bible
by the Spirit that inspired the Bible.
Theology should be a result of exegesis,
but a second fruit, not a first. Between
exegesis and theology there are inter
mediate processes, not only legitimate but
necessary. Toward this view of a theologian's task
it is easy to see that my whole life had
been leading me. A more genuine move
ment toward an end it would be difficult
to find. In my exegetical years I had
been gathering material from the Bible.
In preaching I had been making It my
own. In the doctrinal studies to which
I had been Impelled I had been thinking
for myself and organizing what God had
given me. In this earlier work I had
made certain my later method. When I
[ 203 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
was searching out the doctrine of the
atonement, I had explored the Scriptures
as thoroughly and honestly as I was able,
and had also called to my aid universal
ethical principles. Thus I had endeav
ored to interpret God's saving work in the
light of his character as it was revealed by
Jesus Christ. I had allowed the divine
character and the great moral principles
that are involved In It to condemn and
expel whatever doctrine could not abide
In their company, and had invited them
to inspire the doctrine that I should hold.
I had thus sought to clear the ground of
all that must pass away In the divine
presence, and to build up a positive doc
trine that could bear the light of God.
In all this I had simply been following the
Christian revelation out to its doctrinal
development, and had been using only
such means as were in keeping with Its
character. I had been introducing proc
esses between exegesis and doctrine, or
[ 204 ]

THE NINETIES
between the Bible and theology, but the
processes were legitimate. By such work
I had come into possession of a method
that I could not abandon when I came to
the construction of theology. When my
results were reached of course they were
illustrated and confirmed abundantly by
reference to the Bible; but the proof -text
method was a thing of the past. I be
lieved, however, and still believe that I
was using the right method of drawing
doctrine from the Christian revelation,
and of forming theology. Not that the
method was an invention of mine. Even
the stoutest rellers upon proof-texts had
always used it more or less. But I was
coming out into the liberty of It, and using
it as a free child of God.
After all, this ought to have been the
only way. The Bible is not a book of
proofs for theology. Not for such a pur
pose was it made, and with reference to
the truths that theology seeks to express,
[ 205 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
Its real utterances can properly find their
way into theology only through such a
process as I have described. These utter
ances fall naturally into three groups:
and these in three very different ways re
quire to be brought into theology as it
were in their distilled essence. First we
have the religious utterances of the Old
Testament, various in quality, some in
deep harmony with the spirit of Jesus,
and some belonging to earlier and inferior
stages of religious life. This group of
utterances, pre-Christian, must, of course,
be analyzed and classified before they are
used. In order that only those of them
that are in the spirit of Jesus may become
contributory to our scheme of Christian
thought. The character of the God of
Jesus must make Its discriminations and
selections In the material that comes from
before Jesus' time.
Next, ushering in the new age, we have
the utterances of Jesus himself. These
[ 206 ]

THE NINETIES
are words of religion and of life. They
were not spoken in order to provide ma
terial for the construction of a system of
theology: they were spoken for the re
vealing of God, for the enlightening of
men, for the illuminating of religion, for
the establishing of eternal life. If we use
them directly as timbers for the frame
of a system, we put first a use of them
that was Intended to be second. They
enter Into theology with their sure and
glorious testimony, but they must enter
through the medium of religion and ex
perience. It Is thus that they are power
ful. Above all others, these testimonies
to divine reality must pass into theology
through life.
And last In the New Testament we have
the Interpretations of the Christian gospel
that were made by Jesus' followers. It
has been the common belief that in these
we have the end of theology, the conclu
sive utterances, and that it is the destiny
[ 207 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
of all theological thought, whether inter
pretative or speculative, to return to iden
tity, with the judgments of the apostles,
and especially of Paul, the best known
among them. Historically, indeed, these
early statements were the beginning of
theology, not Its end; for theology has
always been discussing them and using
them, but has never returned to identity
with them. They have constituted its
warp, perhaps, but never its warp and
woof. It has always expounded them,
judged them, accepted them with inevita
ble modifications of understanding, com
bined them in various proportions, and
wrought them into systems. Such vari
ous use of them Is right. It was never
possible that the beginning of theology
should be its end, the first Interpretation
the final. That would accord neither with
the nature of man nor with the nature of
truth as man has to do with it. These
earliest Interpretations of Christ and the
[ 208 ]

THE NINETIES
gospel require to be analyzed before they
bring their contribution to our doctrine.
These, too, are religious rather than doc
trinal in their intention; but besides this
they were made in condltioni^, that were
more or less provisional and temporary.
In those conditions final interpretations
were impossible. Understandings of the
gospel that were made, for example, in
the light of still existing Judaism, and
were colored by actual experience of Ju-
daistic life, were by very necessity pro
visional and transitory. They were rich
in truth, indeed: not only did they con
tain the central truth of Christ, but they
contained important truth in their very
peculiarities. But the element of finality
in the form of doctrine they could not
possibly possess. In due time doctrine
must pass through them Into other forms,
and through these again into others still.
And so when, in my study of the atone
ment, I used the Pauline conceotlons, not
[ 209 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
in their first form but in what I have
called their distilled essence, I was doing
what their character requires, and what
Paul would wish me to do. When in my
larger constructive enterprise I used the
Scriptures generally on the same principle,
I was doing what the nature of the Bible
requires to be done.
How does this principle work out in
practice ? What result does it yield ?
According to the principle that I ac
cepted and acted upon, a system of
Christian theology has God for Its centre,
the spirit of Jesus for its organizing prin
ciple, and congenial truth from within the
Bible and from without for its material.
As for the Bible, I am not bound to work
all its statements into my system: nay,
I am bound not to work them all in, for
some of them are not congenial to the
spirit of Jesus which dominates Chris
tian theology, and some express truth
[ 210 ]

THE NINETIES
in forms that cannot be of perma
nent validity. The glory of the Bible for
my purpose as theologian is that it
gives me Christ whose revealing shows
me God the centre of the system, that
It Instructs me In that spirit of Christ
which Is the organizing principle, and
that it provides me with abundant con
genial material for the building up of
doctrine. One who uses the Bible thus
is using It In accordance with its char
acter. He may fail in forming his sys
tem through insufficiency of his own,
but he will not fall because his principle
is wrong.
So much for the manner of using the
Bible that I was constrained to follow in
giving form to the theology of the Chris
tian faith. In other writings, and in the
preaching of later years, I have followed
the Inspiration of the same principle,
never doubting that it was right. It is a
more exacting method than the one that
[ 211 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
it has supplanted, but to that a seeker for
truth has no right to object.
In teaching theology I have very nat
urally had a variety of experiences with
students respecting the Bible and the man
ner in which we ought to use it. My pupils
are my joy and crown, and they know
it; and I shall neither disparage nor
offend them if I freely chronicle what
I have learned from them about the harm
of holding wrong notions about the Bible.
Generally speaking, and with occa
sional exceptions, I have found students
more and more open-minded as the years
of my teaching went by. But they have
usually needed much reconstruction of
their Ideas of the Bible — a fact of which
some of them have been aware. I have
said to them year after year that for stu
dents of Christian theology a fundamental
question Is, What is the Bible, and how
does It teach us truth ? For want of a clear
[ 212 ]

THE NINETIES
answer to this question theology has often
groped its way through open country,
and for want of a tenable arid convincing
answer it has been weakened on every
side. If there are conflicting answers to
this question in the minds of disputants
on theology, discussion is ambiguous and
Inconclusive, and therefore endless. I
have often been hampered in teaching by
the fact that my students and I were car
rying in our minds different answers to
this fundamental question. As long as
that was the case. It was Inevitable that
we should be working more or less at
cross-purposes. Students for the ministry,
however, as I have known them, are usu
ally very slow to accept any considerable
alteration of their general conception of
the Bible : many of them resist the change
most earnestly. The fact that this Is per
fectly intelligible does not render it less
unfortunate. Many of them come to us
a generation or two behind the times in
[ 213 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
knowledge of what the Bible is, and hold
beliefs about it that stand in the way of
their obtaining better knowledge. It is
pathetic when a young man's belief about
the word of God prevents his coming to
the best belief In God.
I think theological seminaries would
do well to make some special provision for
this need. The traditional course begins
with exegesis and kindred studies. By
starting with exegesis the seminary as
sumes that the student knows what kind
of book it is that he sits down to Interpret;
but usually the fact is that the student
does not know. He brings inherited and
inbred opinions, which he supposes to be
the only opinions that can possibly be
correct, but it is rarely the case that in his
mind they rest upon sound knowledge.
Usually they have been taught to him,
and are held in deference to orthodox
belief. I think it would be a good thing
for the seminary, before exegetical work
[ 214 ]

THE NINETIES
Is so much as mentioned, to offer a good
stiff course on the question, "What is the
Bible ?" The course should be thorough
ly organized, and should require hard
work, and the teacher should be a scholar
who Is incapable of evasions and double
meanings. Then perhaps the student
might become prepared to do at the best
advantage the work that lies before him.
It Is a frequent temptation for a theo
logical seminary to endeavor to keep a
student along in the ideas that he brought
with him when he entered, alarming him
as little as possible, or as gradually. But
it may be the duty of a theological semi
nary as early as possible to shock him out
of some of the ideas that he brought with
him, in order that he may be ready for
straightforward and intelligent work. One
of my colleagues, in the exegetical depart
ment, has been wont to congratulate me
that I did not have to take the students as
he did, fresh from the outside world, but
t 215 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
only after he had had opportunity to rid
them of some of the ideas with which they
came. I could congratulate him in turn
if, before he led them to grapple with In
terpreting the New Testament, they had
had a good straight opportunity to learn
under a good teacher what the New Tes
tament is, and what is the Bible of which
it is a part.
I have been accustomed to find stu
dents most reverent toward the Bible, and
devotedly attached to it. Many I have
found largely familiar with its contents.
It has formed a most significant element
in their religious life, and they have gladly
looked forward to having it for their life
long companion. It has been a perpetual
support to their faith ; and yet the manner
of their belief in it has often appeared to
be an impediment in the way of a better
faith. I have often counselled students to
transfer to God himself the faith that they
[ 216 ]

THE NINETIES
were building on the Bible, but usually
the counsel has not been very readily
understood. The Impression seemed to
be that I was merely giving two names to
the same thing, and that to believe the
Bible as a witness to God was the same
as to believe In God. The difference be
tween believing in God as a living reality
and giving credit to authoritative state
ments about him did not seem to be under
stood. Many think there is no way of at
taining to vital faith In a living God, except
by assenting to the statements of an infalli
ble book about him : it Is assumed, indeed,
that to assent to the statements is to have
the faith. I have often tried to make
plain the difference between these two
believlngs, but not always with success.
The statements of the infallible Bible
stood as a ready, convenient, and available
foundation for religious confidence, and
I have had great difficulty in convincing
students that there could be a better or
[ 217 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
securer one. It is true indeed that through
the help of the Bible they had come to
believe in God. But by their own ac
knowledgment they were holding their
belief in God on the strength of their con
fidence in the Bible; and often they have
based their belief in God so exclusively
upon the Bible as to be seriously afraid
to admit any change in their conception
of the Bible, lest they should lose their
belief in God. Many a time have I found
students in this frame of mind; and they
have many companions. There are many
who hold their faith in God by so feeble
a tenure as to fear that they may lose it if
they accept the results of the higher criti
cism. This is one of the main causes of
the popular outcry against the higher
criticism : people do not see how to keep
their faith in God except by holding
fast to their old ideas of the Bible,
For my part, I am most thankful for
so precious a means of rising to faith
[ 218 ]

THE NINETIES
in God as the Bible has proved Itself to
be. But I think it must be God's will that
the time shall come when the means gives
way to the end; when confidence in the
living God himself stands independent of
any views that we may hold of the book
In which we have read most about him.
All Christians need a faith in God that
no changes in knowledge of the Bible
can disturb, and I am sure that God
intends such a faith for us all. There
fore It is a sorrow to find a certain type of
belief In the Bible standing in the way of
such faith in God himself.
I have often found students very tena
cious in holding that view of the Bible
which I unwittingly presented to my
scientific guests on a Sunday evening—
namely, that it contains all that God
has ever spoken to men, and nothing
has been heard from him since it was
completed. Of course it Is understood
[ 219 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
that he has ever since been unfolding or
developing the truth that the Bible con
tains, and presenting It in new forms to
successive generations; but I have often
found It held as a primary assumption of
Christianity that no new truth has been
revealed by God since the closing of the
Canon. Men in my class-room have been ready
to fight for this as if It were Indispensable
to religion. "No new truth since the
Bible" has seemed to them a necessary
proposition: Christianity would be dead
without it. Any real reason why God
should not be manifesting truth to his
creatures in one age as well as in another,
and truth that he had not shown to them
before, has not been alleged: it was only
that such action of God was ruled out by
the theory that was held concerning the
Bible. It was assumed that the Bible was
final, and that was reason enough: no
new truth can have been revealed since.
[ 220 ]

THE NINETIES
And thus by their theory about the Bible
Christians were prevented from rising to
belief in the living God, always the same,
whose nature It is to be shining as the
light, always in spiritual communication
with his creatures, administering the life
of his world as a self -revealing God. I am
not careful, however, to observe a sharp
distinction between old truth and new, for
I am not sure that such a distinction can be
maintained. Exactly when in the history
of mankind a truth is new and when it is
old, I suspect that no one can tell; nor
can any one tell at what precise moment
a truth is revealed from God. Revelation
is not a lightning-flash : it Is rather like the
dawn, brightening into the full day. As
for God, I am sure that he is free to utter
his truth when and where he will, and I
will hold no theory that would limit him.
Here is one of the points at which there
evidently is enlargement and uplifting in
the transfer of faith from the Bible to
[ 221 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
God. When he himself is the ground of
our confidence in him, then the Bible
comes to Its place as our helper and brings
us the service for which It was given.
But if we use it Instead of God as the
foundation for our confidence, it even
obscures God for us.
It Is not surprising that the view of the
Bible that I have described should mani
fest itself in a fixed prejudice against
changes in theological thought. I do not
say progress in theological thought, for
that word might seem to beg an impor
tant question. Nor am I complaining
because changes that I have myself pro
posed have found this prejudice awaiting
them. The point is more general. Stu
dents have frequently stood in firm re
sistance to any important modification of
their views- I am not without experience
of that feeling in the earlier part of my
own life: I well know what It Is, though
[ 222 ]

THE NINETIES
I never knew it in its full strength. The
philosophy is simple, and the immova-
bleness comes naturally about. Belief
In the finality of the Bible is apt to be
accompanied by an equal belief in the
correctness of accepted interpretations.
If a man says to his pupil or parishioner,
"I tell you by authority of God that
you iriust believe this," it is necessary
that he should add, "And this is what it
means": for in all words there is ambigu
ity. When he has declared the meaning,
the meaning goes into the words for the
hearer, and partakes of their authority,
and the requirement comes to be, "You
must believe these words in this sense."
But a teacher or preacher will not usually
iriake a personal Interpretation, and put
into the authoritative words a meaning
of his own. Rather will he take up the in
terpretation that has been accepted, either
by Christians generally or by the group of
Christians with whose testimony he is
[ 223 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
most familiar. Thus the orthodox Inter
pretation, approved by the many and the
great, fastens its grasp upon the infallible
words and makes them its own; and to
the humble and reverent individual it
comes to pass that this is the meaning to
which the divine authority is attached.
Then departure from this, and relnter-
pretatlon In new light, becomes departure
from the mind and will of God. The
field is not free to relnterpretation which
may result in change, for sanctity guards
the old, a flaming sword turning every
way that keeps the gate. Thus there
stands a predetermined opposition to
change, assuming that the weight of
God's will Is against it. How often, both
within my class-room and without, have
I found proposals of fresh thought upon
divine themes encountering this solid wall !
The meaning of the law is the law: the
accepted meaning of the Bible is the
Bible, which stands supported by the
[ 224 ]

THE NINETIES
authority of God, And this I have met
with In a day when in every other field
of knowledge change of thought was
welcomed as the very substance of
things hoped for.
Against this view of the method of di
vine authority I have always maintained
with my students, as I have with my own
soul, that we are as free to search out the
truth of God as ever an apostle was, and
that we may be as truly under the leading
of God in doing so as the apostles were.
God has never limited freedom of in
quiry by any commandment of his own,
nor has he authorized his children to
limit one another's freedom by their estab
lished versions of his truth. Orthodoxy
is a human Institution, not a divine, and
God has never set it up as a barrier in
the way of thought concerning divine
realities. I have sought to lead my stu
dents into the sense and exercise of this
normal freedom, and not without suc-
[ 225 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
cess. And my experience in working with
students has confirmed me, I scarcely
need say, in my confidence in this gen
uine Christian liberty. Their frequent
lack of it and my own continual benefit
from It have kept it ever In mind as a goal
of endeavor and a theme of gratitude.
I have scarcely mentioned the move
ment of my mind with reference to the
moral difficulties of the Bible. I have
said that in my childhood all was calm
in this oft-troubled quarter, the disturb
ing questions having not yet arisen.
Somewhat later detached problems, such
as that of the destruction of the Canaan-
Ites and the hardening of Pharaoh's heart,
began to be troublesome. How labori
ously these have been argued, for vin
dication of God! Gradually I became
aware of the unchristlike character of the
imprecatory Psalms. In the Sixties I
heard an essay on the Imprecatory Psalms
[ 226 ]

THE NINETIES
by an elderly minister, in which he began
with a fair statement of the difficulty that
a Christian reader finds in them. But
after offering various tentative explana
tions of the difficulty, he declared them
all needless, and staked the whole matter
on inspiration. However we may feel
about it, we may be sure that It is all
right. His words were, "In any case,
God takes all the responsibility": he has
inspired these psalms with all their im
precations, and we need not suspect that
there is anything wrong about them, for
there cannot be, with him as their in-
splrer. Thought and language are his
own. His solution did not help me, but
rather shocked me; but after all it was
only a bald statement of the doctrine of
inspiration that was commonly held, in
its application to these perplexing pas
sages. I remember hearing another jus
tification a few years later, from another
minister, to the effect that we can all
[ 227 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
understand these ancient psalms of Im
precation: the best of us have felt just
as the psalmist did. The amount of it
was that even a good man will sometimes
want to use bad words, and his passion
may not be altogether an evil one. Nei
ther did this help me much, nor did it
seem a worthy explanation, if any direct
inspiration of God was supposed to be
involved. The dark mystery of such
sentiments in a book attributed to God
remained. Some time in the early Seventies I was
invited back to my first parish to deliver
an address on the Morality of the Bi
ble, in a course that one of my successors
had projected. I delivered my lecture,
but I do not think it was worth anything.
I had thought somewhat on the subject,
but had not yet taken any large grasp of
it, and had no true idea of the way in
which It ought to be treated. I supposed
that the Bible, as the word of God, would
[ 228 ]

THE NINETIES
contain the divine teaching as to the mor
als of human life : therefore I expected to
find God's system of morality presented
rudimentally in the Old Testament, and
perfectly in the New. This of course I
could find, as others did, by judicious se
lection of materials — ^just as I afterward
found men finding their premillennial and
postmlllennial theories of the advent.
This I did, as well as I could, endeavor
ing to state and illustrate the ruling prin
ciples of the divine morality. But I be
came aware how much I had to omit In
order to make the Bible yield this result:
how much there was there that did not
fall Into the scheme of the Christian eth
ics. Hard places had to be skipped.
The biblical material as a whole did not
yield itself to that kind of treatment:
the method was wrong, and my lecture
probably did not help the situation for
any one. The pastor, however, an older
man, told me that he thought I had the
[ 229 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
right Idea, and did not see how much
more could be done than I had included
in my endeavor. Yet his tone indicated
that he did not regard the effort as very
satisfactory, and wished he could see
a better way through the question. He
was no farther along than I.
As long as I believed that I was bound
to approve all that any part of the Bible
said about God and his judgments as to
good and evil, it was natural that I should
look away from the moral difficulties, or
should minimize them as much as pos
sible. If moral contradictions were at
tributed to God, it was natural that I
should be blind to them. The skipping
was a privilege, and seemingly a duty.
Here my conception of Inspiration tended
directly to blunt my moral sense, by pre
venting a straightforward ethical judg
ment upon matters that were laid before
me. In my youth I was taught that con
cerning matters of record In the Bible,
[ 230 ]

THE NINETIES
especially in their bearing upon the char
acter of God, I had no right to the free ex
ercise of my moral judgment. I must not
admit that God had done wrong or ap
proved of evil : hence I must deny that any
act attributed to him in the inspired Bible
was wrong, or that anything was evil that
he was recorded to have approved. In
my childhood, how well I remember the
shocked and grieved expression with
which any sharp inquisitlveness about
such acts was met! "God did it, for the
Bible says so, and what God did was
right: of course it was right — you must
not question It": such was the repressive
reverence that such inquiries encountered.
In later years how often have I heard
good men arguing with unconscious soph
istry that deeds that bore every mark
of being wrong were right because God
was recorded to have done them or ap
proved them! It was a necessity. If we
were to believe in the good God and the
[ 231 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
infallibility of the Old Testament, we had
to Ignore the moral contradictions, or
else to argue them out of the way.
In this manner It came to pass that I
did not fully know how serious were the
moral difficulties of the Bible from the
old point of view, until after they had
ceased to trouble me. I have already
said that my altered conception, formed
under various influences and rendered
consistent and secure by the higher criti
cism, has released me from all obligation
to attribute to God all the traits and
judgments that are attributed to him
within the Bible. In much that I used to
suppose that I must receive as true of
God, I now read the record and effect of
what people thought of God — a difference
that goes to the very bottom of the mat
ter. When I was thus set free from ob
ligation to approve all that I found, I could
see how much there was that I could not
approve, as well as how high and glorious
[ 232 J

THE NINETIES
was the morality of Christ. I now see
clearly, and gratefully, how broad is the
contrast between the Christian thought
of God and much that stands in the Old
Testament: how broad is the contrast,
too, between the best In the Old Testa
ment and much that stands beside it
there. This contrast it Is my duty to note,
and my privilege to keep in memory. In
dealing with the Bible I am as free to call
black black as I am to call white white,
and I am delivered from the too-familiar
temptation to call black white for the glory
of God. Thus difficulty with the Bible on
account of these moral contrasts Is entirely
gone, and can never return to trouble me.
In the class-room it has not come in my
way to discuss the moral difficulties of the
Bible very largely, and except In a few
instances I do not know how seriously
students are troubled by them. But I im
agine that students, like Christians gener
ally, are receiving a good deal of benefit
[ 233 1

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
from views like mine, whether they accept
them or not. Such views, widely diffused,
make an atmosphere of relief that all are
breathing. In the presence of this helpful
Influence, the unresponsive many have
great reason to be thankful for what the
responsive few are doing for them. The
old pressure of Infallibility is not so heavy
as it once was. Readers do not take so
seriously the attribution to God In the
Bible of acts that a good being could not
perform. Moral judgment Is claiming its
rights, even though by some they can be
granted only through inconsistency. I long
for the time when the Inconsistency shall
be done away, by the vanishing of the view
of the Bible that thus hampers the moral
sense. If I could welcome the Christian
people into my own liberty in the matter,
we should all rejoice together.
Neither have I said anything of the
movement of my mind with regard to the
[ 234 ]

THE NINETIES
Canon. In such a life as I have reviewed,
I could not fail to encounter questions as
to how the Bible came to be constituted
as it Is. The list of books that bore God's
authority was, of course, assumed in my
childhood to be identical with the list that
I read at the front of my Bible and com
mitted to memory. In later years I
learned that the Canon had a history,
and that the making of the familiar list
was not so simple a matter as I had sup
posed. From the old point of view the
question is extremely important. Stu
dents have frequently become aware of
this, and brought the subject up by their
questions: "If you found a lost epistle of
Paul, would you bind it into the Bible?
and if you thought a book had better not
have been accepted Into the Canon, would
you throw it out?" To such questions
I have been accustomed to reply that we
are not making or unmaking Bibles now,
and are not called to any such task. The
[ 235 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
Bible is a historical fact, and we have no
need to alter it. That Bible which we call
single is really a collection of books. If
we understand the real significance and
quality of its constituents, and learn to
put a just estimate upon them In practical
use, that is all that we have to do. It Is
for us to treat the various books of the
Bible as what they are, not to revise their
history, or to give them a new grouping.
Let the composite Bible stand as it is,
and be used as what it is. We need not
Increase It or diminish it. If we do not
think well of the book of Esther on moral
grounds, still there Is no reason why we
should remove it from the position In
which history has placed it : we have only
to use it as the kind of book that we have
found it to be. When people judged It
differently they used it differently: we
must follow our own light. In like man
ner we count Ecclesiastes as an element
in that body of Scriptures which the pre-
[ 236 ]

THE NINETIES
Christian time produced and the Christian
time adopted. Hence it Is in our Bible:
but we must make such use of it as our
knowledge of its quality entitles it to
receive from us. If we find those books
inferior to the best in the Bible, we
have only to use them as inferior. As
to a lost epistle of Paul, I heartily wish
that one might be recovered — as con
ceivably it may. The experience would
throw a flood of light for the people
upon the nature of the Bible, its inspira
tion, and its claims. The question of
binding it in with its fellows in the Bible
would then be a living question, not an
academic one, and nothing could be
more wholesome. People would be forced
to see on what principle the Bible was
made up, and to understand that for us
the real sacredness of a book is due to its
quality and Its relation to Christian truth,
not to its authorship or its external attes
tation. But at present, whatever we
[ 237 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
might do with another epistle, we are
handling the Bible that the past has
handed down to us, and have the right
and privilege of using it as it is.
Of course I know that this judgment
about the Canon would not suit the old
conditions. In those conditions the vital
questions were, How was the Canon
formed? and, What is our evidence that
these books and no others are the very
books of God ? Many years ago I be
came aware that if the Bible is to be
recognized as absolutely authoritative,
we must have a Canon that is settled by
divine authority. The God who requires
our submission to certain books of his
own inspiring must not leave us to find
out for ourselves which books they are.
If he would be reasonable or just, he
must show us by his own authority. It
is the only way. Our own judgment,
or the judgment of the Church, or the
selective power of history, will not do:
[ 238 ]

THE NINETIES
an infallible collection must be Infal
libly identified for those who are re
quired to accept it. Long ago I knew
this, and I have often wondered that
the point was so persistently overlooked
by the defenders of high inspiration. In
my earlier days, I wondered on my own
account why the stamp of infallibility was
left off from the Canon, asT discovered
that it was, and why the collecting of the
books was left to the Christian judgment
and the course of events, guided by the
Spirit of God only as many other matters
are. But when I learned what manner
of book the Bible is, I ceased to wonder
why its contents were not brought to
gether under the sanction of supernatural
attestation. It Is not a collection that de
mands the drawing of its boundary lines
by manifest divine authority. The simple
fact is that under a variety of motives the
Church, Jewish and Christian, gathered
up the precious memorials of her faith,
[ 239 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
and here they are. There was never any
guarantee that the collection should be
perfect, and perfect we cannot claim that
it Is. Perhaps some writings equally
precious with these that we possess were
lost, and perhaps some that were of in
ferior abiding value were gathered in. By
this natural process we have received the
greatest book of spiritual reality and
power that the world has ever known,
and at this date in human affairs we have
not to change the Bible that we possess.
We only need to understand it, and value
it according to its worth, and put It to its
uses. From the old point of view I used to
assume, unthinkingly, that to drop the
old conception of a book in the Bible was
to surrender its value. It is true that I
never enjoyed or approved the talk that
I used to hear, about the critics' tearing
book after book out of the Bible and
throwing them away, till there was noth-
[ 240 ]

THE NINETIES
Ing left but the covers. That would al
ways have been a slander, if it had not
been so profound a misunderstanding.
Yet I can remember when I thought that
if the Pentateuch was not written by
Moses it was no part of the revelation of
God, that the book of Isaiah was less
truly a book of heavenly value if it had
more than one author, and that if the
Fourth Gospel was not written by the
apostle John it bore no true and valuable
testimony to Jesus, If I had heard in
those days the suggestion that the book
of Jonah was not historical, I should have
said that in that case it was worthless —
so ignorant was I of the real meaning and
value of that beautiful book. But all that
Is in the far past. It was the book of
Isaiah that dealt the death-blow to my old
idea. I learned that the mighty chapters
of the latter part could not have been so
full of the glow of God if they had not
sprung up In the very time to which they
[ 241 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
had reference; and that time was far on
beyond the days of the prophet Isaiah,
So two authors at least there must have
been: perhaps there were more: and the
dual authorship, instead of detracting
from the rich divineness of the book, was
necessary to account for It, I learned,
too, that there Is more than one way for
a writing to be valuable, and to be a
means of divine revelation. In the para
ble of the Prodigal Son, or of the Good
Samaritan, we do not demand that the
events that are described sball have
actually occurred, before we can hear the
voice of God In the story, and we need
not be more exacting or unimaginative
with the book of Jonah, The first chap
ter of Genesis rises to a sublime height of
revelation, although It certainly Is not a
record of actual events. In any instance.
It is the real book that we wish to discover
and understand, and we may be sure that
it is In the real book that we shall find the
[ 242 ]

THE NINETIES
divine message. I am glad to have been
cured of the unbelief according to which
I thought that I should lose a book out of
my Bible If I lost my Idea of Its author
ship. Unbelief it was, and misconcep
tion, too, A reader will not perceive the
value of the actual book, the Bible in his
hands, until he has gotten rid of the as
sumption that there is peril in changing
from his old opinions. Such fear of dan
ger can only darken his eyes. But who
ever has disposed of that assumption,
and looked at the Bible with the new
confidence Instead of the old fear, may
behold there a glory worthy of God to
which aforetime he was blind.

[ 243 ]

VII
THE NEW CENTURY
At the close of the Nineteenth Century
I had been engaged for a decade In the
work to which my life had led me. My
method of using the Bible had been
longer than a decade In practice, and
through practice had only grown clearer
and more consistent, I had had no wish
to go back from it, and could not have
gone back if I had desired. It had been
attained through one of those movements
of growth that cannot be revoked. Con
sequently the years of the new century
have not recorded any great changes in
my attitude toward the Bible. Neverthe
less, I must say a few words about these
years. The due result of my previous ex-
[ 244 ]

THE NEW CENTURY
perience has appeared in them in a man
ner that I must not leave unmentioned.
In this last period I have not been
working upon my Bible nearly so much
as I was in the Seventies or the Eighties,
but I have been working with It, by means
of it, in the light of It, in a manner that
was then impossible. From being mainly
an object of study, the Bible has passed
on to be more and more a means of
study; and such It has continued to be
until the present time, and will be through
the remainder of my life. I am glad to
report that this has come to pass, for I
am sure that this accords with the will of
God for his children.
The story that I have told Illustrates
this double use of the Bible, first as an
object of study and afterward as a means
of study. In the late Seventies, when
without will of my own I was plunged
all at once Into investigation of the atone-
[ 245 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
ment, the keynote of my later work was
sounded. I have described the change
by saying that I then passed on from
using the Bible in the light of its state
ments, to using it In the light of its
principles. Not that the later method
was then first Introduced, or the earlier
then abandoned. Both enter Into all
sound study, and both have been with me
more or less from first to last, or I should
have no experience with the Bible worth
recording. But the two periods were
unlike, in that attention to statements
was characteristic of the earlier, and at
tention to principles of the later. Once
it seemed sufficient to Inquire what the
Bible said upon a given subject, and to
analyze and classify the answers. After
ward It became necessary to inquire not
merely what the Bible said, but what it
taught, upon a given subject — to ascertain
what light It gave, by means of Its great
revelation of God and life. What it
[ 246 ]

THE NEW CENTURY
teaches through Its large revealing may
be something different from what it says
In its various statements. Certainly what
It teaches in this large way Is different
from what it says in some of its state
ments. In my later years I have had to
look beyond the sayings to the teaching.
The significance in a man's life of this
change Is evident. It needs no proof that
this change of method is in effect the same
as that which was mentioned just before
it. When I viewed the Bible as a body of
statements, it was natural that I should
use it chiefly as an object of study. I
was seeking to know what the statements
meant. When I came to view it as an
expression of principles, the principles of
divine religion, it thereby became to me
a means of study : then I sought to know
whither the principles led. The book
thus became to me an instrument of ad
vance, an opportunity for the obtaining
of further light upon the matters of which
[ 247 1

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
it treats. The significance of these last
years is that in them I have more and
more used the Bible as the divine guide
and inspiration for my own study of the
things of God, It seems to me that this
change must correspond to God's inten
tion for a man advancing from youth to
age. In youth he must wish me to master
the statements of the Bible. In later life
it must be his will that I seize upon the
principles of the revelation that it brings
me, and use them in exploring the heights
and depths of his truth.
In these years of the new century it has
been my lot to be doing such work as this
in connection with the Christian doctrine
of God himself. Having been Intrusted
with the task of giving expression to that
supreme doctrine, I was both entitled and
required to follow the method that I have
now set forth, and to explore the bound
less field in the light which the Christian
revelation affords when its full contents
[ 248 ]

THE NEW CENTURY
have been brought out. The task is too
great for man, but no other task does a
man undertake when he endeavors to
exhibit the Christian doctrine of God.
Exactly this has the Bible been to me in
this great research — the bearer of the
light that guided mind and heart to the
vision of the divine reality. In my en
deavor to see God In the light of Christ,
the Revealed in the light of the Revealer,
the Bible has ministered to me the Chris
tian truth that Illumines all the great
realities, human and divine. In using it
in this manner, I conceive myself to have
been seeking knowledge of God in a way
that he must approve.
It Is evident that in putting the Bible to
such use as this a man needs to be con
fident, and sure of his ground. If I had
been afraid that my Bible was slipping
away from me and likely to be lost, I
should not have been able to employ it
[ 249 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
thus. Many do fear that It is slipping
away, and are not sure that they are en
titled to trust it simply. There are so
many open questions about it — so much
about it is unsettled and liable to change
— ^It seems so certain that open questions
will continue to embarrass our efforts
after knowledge sure and clear: how can
It be put to highest uses with such un
questioning confidence as my purpose
requires ?
With regard to open questions about
the Bible, I can say that within recent
years some of them have been settled for
me. On various points that were doubt
ful I have come to a sense of certainty
that I believe to be well grounded. Many
perplexities have thus been done away.
But by this I do not mean that the era
of open questions Is closed, or closing.
It is equally true that within the same
period some new questions have been
opened for me, and that some, both old
[ 250 J

THE NEW CENTURY
and new, remain open until now, and
seem likely to remain open, I do not know
how long, I fully expect, too, that other
questions may be opened in time to come.
But in all this there is nothing to be won
dered at. In our knowledge of the Bible,
as In all other knowledge, open questions
are to be expected to abide with us. No
knowledge is without them, or ever will
be, any more than any knowledge has ever
been without them in time past. With
reference to the Bible, we have reached a
time when we are more aware of them
than before: that is all. In this field,
as in every other, we must count upon
them as ever-present companions of our
thought. If we cannot have confidence
in our Bible in the presence of questions
that we do not know how to answer, con
fidence we cannot have. If strong and
happy use of the Bible is Incompatible
with waiting for light upon a multitude
of points, we shall always be helpless.
[ 251 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
For my part, there are many points about
the Bible on which I have no certainty,
and many on which I expect future
light to alter present judgment. Many
of these open questions may remain
open for a long time to come, and I
have no doubt that others, equally im
portant with these, may be opened here
after. But to say this is to tell no
strange story. It Is only to say that
knowledge of the Bible is increasing
and destined to increase. New under
standing always opens new matters that
are yet to be understood, and new light
always brings the certainty of future
changes. It Is very true that if I were
still using the Bible in the method in
which I was reared, this condition of
things might be very troublesome, and
my confident freedom might be greatly
impaired. My release from that method
was a necessity. But in my present atti
tude the existence of open questions does
[ 252 ]

THE NEW CENTURY
not distress me, and I have no fear that
the questions outstanding will be settled
in such manner as to destroy the value
of the Bible. My confidence In it rests
on a securer basis.
The ground of my confidence is this.
By this time in the history of the world
the quality of the Bible as the book of
divine religion is so established that we
may think of it with serene confidence.
It Is certain that the Bible gives us knowl
edge of Jesus, and that Jesus gives us
knowledge of God, and that God as Jesus
reveals him In the true light of life. Our
sacred book is thus our guide to Jesus,
to God, and to life divine. This fact has
been established in long human experi
ence, and can be trusted. We are not to
be deprived of it: it will stand. For some
minds it may be obscured, but it is a
steadfast certainty, on which we are en
titled to rest in peace. In this view of the
Bible I hold it, and use it, and expect to
[ 253 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
use it as long as I live, and commend It
to the generation following. I beg my
fellow-Christians not to distrust It or fear
for It, as if open questions were to be set
tled to Its destruction or even to its weak
ening. The question of its religious value
Is not an open question, and we must not
act as if it were. It Is a gift of God that
will abide.
The chief danger about the Bible at
present is, on the one hand, that it will be
studied too much in the mere spirit of
criticism, without regard to its religious
value, and, on the other, that the timidity
of Christian people on critical grounds
will prevent them from holding that re
ligious value in its true rank and place.
In Its religious preciousness and power
the Bible Is gloriously their own ; but there
is danger that they will not hold that fact
In a sufficiently strong and intelligent
confidence. I believe that the religious
confidence in the Bible to which I have
[ 254 ]

THE NEW CENTURY
been led Is a sample of that to which the
Christian people are entitled, and I wish
they all might have it. That is the reason
why I have tried to set it forth in these
reminiscences, and am calling the chil
dren of our Father to join me In such ex
perience as I here commemorate. I am
thankful for the way in which I have
been led to this free confidence, and
gratefully testify that the ancient book
still brings me the light and inspira
tion in which I work; and I invite
all timid souls out Into the liberty
that I have found.
Since these pages began to be written,
I have listened to a sermon that left me
rejoicing in more ways than one — rejoic
ing in so strong and winning a presenta
tion of a searching truth, and rejoicing
again that I did not fall under its con
demnation. The text was, "Now that
I am become a man, I have put away
[ 255 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
childish things," and the theme was the
Impossibility of maintaining a satisfactory
adult religious life on the basis of Ideas
received In childhood. For Illustration
the preacher took the conceptions of the
Bible and of God that childhood can ap
prehend. He showed how full these con
ceptions are of worth and beauty, and
how genuine a religion of childhood they
may support, but he showed also how
Inadequate they are to support the re
ligious experience that is normal to adult
humanity. The childish ideas are too
light and small to bear the strain of ad
vanced life : they need to yield their place
to ideas that have been grappled with
and made one's own by the powers of
maturity. And yet, the preacher said,
the childish Ideas are exactly what thou
sands of Christians are endeavoring to
live upon all their days. The weakness
of much life In the church he attributed
to this unfortunate combination of adult
[ 256 ]

THE NEW CENTURY
needs and Infantile supplies. To his
hearers, or as many of them as the ac
cusation suited, he said, in effect: "You
went out from the Sunday-school in your
teens, with such ideas of God and the
Bible as you had then been able to re
ceive, and you have been living your
religious life upon them ever since. In
the world's work you have bent your
powers to large undertakings, and have
grappled with the enterprises of adult
humanity. But upon the Bible and the
thought of God you have never made
strenuous exercise of your maturer facul
ties: you have never done man's work
in seeking a more adequate knowledge
of these realities, but have tried to live
along nourished by no larger or richer
conceptions than you made your own
when your powers were those of children.
No wonder that your adult minds cannot
more than half believe in the Bible and
the God of your infancy : no wonder that
[ 257 ]

SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
your religious life Is narrow and poor,
your minds are perplexed by the hard
questions of the day, and your energies
are repressed or misdirected. You need
to put away childish things, and to
make your own the Bible and the God
of men." I approved the message with
all my heart and was glad that I was
able to listen to it without remorse. I
might, I said to myself, have tried to
live until now upon the Ideas of the
Bible and of God to which I had at
tained at the end of the Fifties of the
Nineteenth Century — true ideas and not
unworthy then, but too small, too unrea
soned, too ill-supported, too unspiritual,
for the needs of my later years; and I
was glad that I could say to God and my
own soul that I had spent the lifetime of
a man In enlarging, deepening, and cor
recting the ideas that as a. child I had re
ceived, and in seeking better foundations
for a better faith. Thanking God for
[ 258 ]

THE NEW CENTURY
this, I thanked the preacher for his mes
sage, and wished that his sound words
might go forth to all the Christians In
the world.

[ 259 ]

BOOKS BY
WILLIAM NEWTON CLARKE, D.D.
Professor of Theology at Colgate University
SIXTY YEARS WITH THE BIBLE
A Record of Experience
12mo $1.25 net, postpaid $1.35
In this book Dr. Clarke tells the story of his own
life in the single character of a student, lover, and user
of the Bible, exhibiting the mental processes through
which the change from the old to the new attitude
toward the Bible has come to pass. He recounts the
chief influences from without, the main crises in thought,
and the entrance of significant results into his life, and
exhibits his present position in contrast with the old.
He thus traces his journey from childhood to the
present day, and his story possesses the intense interest
which belongs to a genuine human document, reflect
ing the revolution which has taken place in the last
generation with reference to the view of the Bible.
Dr. Clarke maintains that in passing through this revo
lution to which his generation was born he has never
come into danger of losing his faith in God and Jesus
Christ, and he ofEers this revelation of his experience in
the belief that it may be an enlightening and an en
couraging thing to many a perplexed and anxious soul.
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, NEW YORK

BY WILLIAM NEWTON CLARKE, D.D.
THE CHRISTIAN
DOCTRINE OF GOD
{International Theological Library)
Crown 8vo $2.50 net
" We commend to our readers Dr. Clarke's vol
ume."— 7%-? Outlook.
" In the light of modern investigation and modern
thought, this book is to be commended beyond all
others written m recent decades.'' — The Chicago Evening Post.
" It is as fine a piece of theistic study as this age
has produced, and adds special glory to American
theological scholarship." — Heidelberg Teacher.
" The book is delightful reading. Its charm of
style, its clarity of expression, its winsomeness of state
ment carry one unwearied from page to page."
— Congregationalist and Christian World.
" A notable monument of learning, skill and spirit
uality." — San Francisco Argonaut.

BY WILLIAM NEWTON CLARKE, D.D,
An Outline of Christian
Theology
Crown 8vo $2.50 net
" This is the simplest, clearest, most radical, and most
spiritual theological treatise we have ever seen. It is, in
deed, in these four characteristics rather a treatise on
religion than on theology. It is vital, not scholastic ; a
minister to largeness of life, through clearness of thought.
... To ministers holding in whole or in part the new
philosophy, we recommend this volume as showing them
how to use that philosophy to conserve, nourish, and
strengthen the old faith." — The Outlook.
"We have read it with great interest. Its author,
though so modest as not to prefix the word ' Professor ' to
his name, at once commands our respect. He is a clear
thinker, a fine scholar, a scientific and philosophical the
ologian. The work is able ; it is stimulating ; it is fresh,
and reveals him in touch with the latest thought of the day.
It is in many respects an epoch-making book. . . . We
commend this book to any who desire to get the clearest
statement of the new theology that can be founa in
English." — Presbyterian and Reformed Review.
Professor Marcus Dods -writes : — " Has it ever happened
to any of our readers to take up a work on systematic
theology, with the familiar divisions, 'God,' 'Man,' 'Sin,'
'Christ,' 'The Holy Spirit,' 'The Church,' 'The Last
Things,' and open it with a sigh of weariness and dread,
and find himself fascinated and enthralled, and compelled
to read on to the last word ? Let any one who craves a new
experience of this kind procure Dr. Clarke's ' Outline.' We
guarantee that he will learn more, with greater pleasure,
than he is likely to learn in any other systematic theology. "

BY WILLIAM NEWTON CLARKE, D.D.
A Study of Christian Missions
12mo $1.25
" Details of organization and method are discussed with far-
seeing sagacity and clearness." — Christian Advocate.
Can I Believe in God the Father?
(Lectures Delivered before the Harvard Summer School
12mo °' Theology) j^^qq
" Dr. Clarke has handled some of the most profound specula
tions in theology with rare simplicity and force. He introduces
his hearer at once to an exposition of the practical argument for
the being of God which is unusually lucid and suggestive. His
language is simple and the analysis of his thoughts perspicuous."
— The Churchman,
What Shall We Think of Christian-
•itiT''? (The Levering Lectures before the Johns Hopkins
ALy r University, 1899)
12mo $1.00
". . . The address of a cultured man to cultured hearers; they
are intent on what is essential and vital; they deal with facts
rather than theories; the note of realism is heard throughout."
— The Outlook.

The Use of the Scriptures in
i2mo Theology ^^^
"Many a reader will find his own difficulties and struggles
accurately delineated. It is this comradeship in a common men
tal and moral suffering which gives the book its hold and mental
fascination." — -The Standard.

3 9002 08844 1754

ill;. 1,-