V MEMORIAL^—
COLLECTION

Yale University Library

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

THE BIBLE
IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY

O God of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Father of glory, give unto
me a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Thee.
Enlighten the eyes of my heart, that I may know what is the
hope of Thy calling, what the riches of the glory of Thine
inheritance in the saints, and what 'the exceeding greatness of
Thy power to us-ward who believe, according to that working
of the strength of Thy might, which Thou hast wrought in Jesus
Christ our Lord. Amen. Ephesians i. 17 — 20.

THE BIBLE
IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY

BY
CHARLES CROSLEGH, D.D.,
CHAPLAIN OF THE ROYAL INDIAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE, COOPERS HILL J
SOMETIME DONNELLAN LECTURER IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN ;
AUTHOR OF "CHRISTIANITY JUDGED BY ITS FRUITS."

PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRACT COMMITTEE.

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE,
london: northumberland avenue, w.c. ;
43, queen victoria street, e.c.
Brighton: 129, north street.
New York: E. & J- B. YOUNG & CO.
1896.

TO
C|tt £jitc$t lUbtmtb |kntrall Cfprnas,
LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER,
THESE PAGES,
WRITTEN AT HIS SUGGESTION,
ARE DEDICATED
IN ALL DUTIFULNESS AND
WITH VERY SINCERE ESTEEM.

PREFACE
From the date of the close of the Canon of
Holy Scripture, generation after generation has
held and handed down the doctrine that the Bible
is a book essentially differenced from all other
books in the -world. In it all Christendom has
found a message from God to man which no other
book conveys.
Time was when the mere age of a human belief
lent to it a presumption that it was well founded.
But in the course of the present century human
knowledge has made so great advance in so many
different directions, that we have well nigh come to
take it for granted that the presumption lies rather
against, than in favour of, a belief that is old ; and
men's minds have become vaguely preoccupied
with the suspicion that a doctrine cannot be true
unless it be also new.
The writers of a large portion of the periodical
literature of the day;.constantly assume that the
Bible has been proved to have no claim to be from
God. And many of the readers of that literature
are tempted to take it for granted, that the assump
tion is well founded. The question asks itself
unbidden in many an anxious mind — Are there
really reasonable grounds for this assumption ?

viii PREFACE
The century that is closing has brought into use
new methods of research in many fields, and the
unmistakably fruitful results which they have so
largely produced, make it clear that the methods
themselves are right methods. Is it a fact, that,
when they are applied to the Bible, they shew it to
be destitute of all claim to be in any special sense
a divine book ?
Intelligent men, who make no claim to be
experts in questions of theology or ecclesiastical
history, are much perplexed when they try to
formulate a reason for their own- belief in the
authority of the Bible.
They find, on the one hand, that much of the
common teaching about it almost implies that it
was called into existence in a moment, in the form
in which we have it in our hands, by the creative
fiat of God's command, and that therefore it must
be judged by a standard altogether different from
that which we use in criticizing other writings.
Many honest minds, on the other hand, revolted
by the palpable petitio principii involved in this
procedure, fall, without knowing it, into a similar
error on the opposite side.
Both sides in the controversy have been in a
measure right, and both have been in a measure
wrong. The Christian advocate has too often
insisted irrationally, that, in making inquiry into
the nature of the Bible, he has a right to take it
for granted that the book stands by itself, unique,
unlike all others. He has no right to take this for
granted. But to do him justice, he has not always

PREFACE IX
been so illogical as his claim. For instead of
taking his point for granted, he has often abund
antly proved it. His opponent, on the other
hand, while very reasonably demanding that the
inquiry should be conducted on the same principles
as in the case of any other book, has departed
from those principles from the very beginning.
For he lays it down as an axiom that, wherever he
meets any trace of the supernatural it must be at
once rejected as being necessarily unhistorical.1
1 Baur declared that " the cardinal argument for the later
origin of our Gospels remains always this — that severally,
and still more collectively, they relate so much in the life of
Jesus which could not possibly have happened in the way
recorded." — Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die Kanonischen
Evangelien, s. 530, 1847.
Strauss, who was the first to elaborate an argument that
should rob us of our Gospels as trustworthy evidence for the
life of Christ, avows in so many words that his object is
prospective, and not merely retrospective and historical. . . .
It consists in this — that in the person and acts of Jesus no
supernaturalism shall be suffered to remain. — The Life of
Jesus for the People, Authorized Translation, Preface, p. xii.
London, 1879.
Renan lays it down that " at the foundation of every dis
cussion of similar matter lies the-question of the supernatural.
If miracles and the inspiration of certain books are a reality,
my method is detestable. If, on the other hand, miracles
and the inspiration of books are beliefs destitute of reality,
my method is a good one. But the question of the super
natural is decided for us with a complete certainty by this
single reason — that there is no room for believing in a thing
of which the world does not offer any experimental trace." —
Vie de Jesus, Preface to 13th ed. ; 15th ed., 1876, p. ix.
In order to avoid the possibility of doubt as to the position
taken up by the foremost destructive critics of the Gospels, I
have quoted their own words. And those words make it as
b

a PREFACE
Thus to prejudge the question before entering
upon it is to withhold from the Bible the fair
criticism which every other book receives.
The inquirer then must in the first instance pro
ceed on the foot of that criticism which is common
to all scholarship; and on the principles of that
criticism he must prove his right to treat the Bible
no longer as a common book, by making it clear,
on those principles, that in fact it is not a common
book ; that it is marked throughout by a peculiar
distinctive character, which he cannot ignore, and
which must be duly taken into account in deter
mining all questions as to its origin and its
authority. I confess I find myself at a loss to understand
on what ground it has so often been assumed that
we are bound to receive the Bible as being the
bearer of a divine message to us, wholly, so to say,
upon trust. It certainly does not seem to make
the demand for itself. It was not on any such
principle that S. Paul taught Christianity. His
teaching from the beginning was " Prove all things ;
hold fast that which is good." To the Christians
at Corinth he wrote, " I speak as to wise men ;
judge ye what I say." Bearing this in mind, I find
it difficult to conceive anything more opposed to
the spirit of the Apostle, than the proscription of
those who endeavour to ascertain, by the fullest
use of all the powers which God has given them,
clear as language can make it, that such writers at least
do not enter upon the inquiry with an open mind.

PREFACE XI
on what grounds they are to regard the Holy
Scriptures as entitled to demand from us nothing
less than spiritual submission. To me it seems
that to censure such inquiry is nothing less than to
turn an act of dutiful obedience into an act of
faithless disloyalty, and thus to subvert the very
foundations of Christian obligation.
The following pages lay no claim to originality.
They profess no more than to present to the reader
some of the results of an independent application
of principles, long since laid down by Bishop
Butler, to the question of the authority of the Bible.
In them an attempt is made to indicate the lines
on which it is possible to hold the Bible to be
divine, and at the same time to accept without
misgiving, nay, to welcome with gratefulness, what
ever light the increase of human knowledge may
be able to throw upon it,
I have not sought, in the self-sufficient spirit
of independent adventure, to open up a new path
untrod before. It has been my endeavour rather,
treading in the old ways, to catch, in the slowly
growing light, somewhat of the fuller meaning of
truths which, however dimly seen by our fathers,
sufficed to guide their feet into the way of peace.
In doing this, I .have blindly followed no man's
guidance. But I have often rejoiced to find myself
walking in footsteps imprinted, sometimes long
ago, sometimes but yesterday or to-day, by leaders
who have won the confidence and strengthened
the hearts of their age.
The book assumes the truth of the Christian

Xll PREFACE
faith ; and it makes no pretension to be regarded
as anything like a complete treatise on the subject
with which it deals. Such a treatise would fill, not
one modest volume, but a whole library.
I have had some difficulty in selecting the special
points on which my inquiry should dwell. It is
impossible, from the very nature of the case, that
the choice which I have made should recommend
itself to every one. It often happens that what is
a sore stumbling-block to one man, presents no
difficulty to another. To some it may seem that
I have often laboured unnecessarily in beating the
air ; while others, no doubt, will look in vain for
any treatment in my pages of that which is to
themselves the supreme source of perplexity. To
the former I would say, " Be thankful that your
mind is at ease with reference to matters which at
the present time are the occasion of much trouble to
many good Christian people." To the latter I can
only say, that I have chosen for consideration those
aspects of the question which I have found to
present the greatest difficulties to those for whom
I write ; and I can honestly add the assurance that
I have not consciously pushed aside any question
merely because of its difficulty. Much — very much
— I have not dealt with at all. But I have shirked
nothing. I have not attempted to grapple with meta
physical subtilties ; and I have studiously held
aloof from the field of theologie logomachy. I
have avoided as far as possible everything that
savours of the schools. My appeal is addressed to

PREFACE Xlll
the common sense and practical intelligence of
ordinary men. I ask them to apply to the diffi
culties which are in the air, difficulties which cause
them so much vague, but none the less real concern,
the judgment which they bring to bear on the
affairs of everyday life.
I have not written polemically, to combat an
assailant, or to- defend a theory. As a seeker for
the truth about the Bible, I have tried, so far as
opportunity permitted, to state the facts correctly,
to weigh the arguments on both sides of the
question fairly, and to judge soberly. The attempt
is no light enterprise, and I am very conscious not
only that I have failed to reach my own ideal, but
that what I have said is very far from being. all
that might be said in support of the view that has
grown upon me in the course of years, and which
I now earnestly submit to the serious consider
ation of those holders of our faith who feel dis
quieted by strictures against the Bible, made in the
name of advanced knowledge.
On the principles which I have endeavoured to
trace, I believe a reasonable faith may rest secure
amid all the questionings and speculations that
surround us. What I have attempted to do
according to my power and opportunities, others,
wiser, abler, and more learned, will accomplish
hereafter. And as the years pass, these principles
will become better understood, more firmly grasped,
more generally accepted, until in time to come —
and that no distant time — all thoughtful men will
wonder how it came to pass that much in the

xiv PREFACE
present popular belief about the Bible was able to
hold the ground till the close of the nineteenth
century. But superstitions — the relics of earlier
religious faiths — die hard.
Some readers may think that I have called too
much attention to those traces of human blemish
— if blemish it be — which may be discovered in
the pages of our Bible. I cannot make believe
that they do not exist. And if they do exist, then
the full recognition of them is necessary to the
right understanding of what the Bible really is. If
we pretend to ourselves that facts are as they
clearly are not, then we are deceiving ourselves ;d
and anything which may serve to expose the
deception, can only be helpful to the cause of truth.
In writing I have been (to adopt the words of
Hooker) "persuaded of nothing more than this,
that whether it be in matter of speculation, or of
practice, no untruth can possibly avail the patron
and defender long, and that things most truly, are
likewise most behovefully spoken."
The very thought of the possibility of the
smallest error in the Bible is enough to shock and
distress many of the most devout and worthy of
mankind. I certainly would not give them needless
pain. And I humbly pray the divine Inspirer of
all holy desires, and all good counsels, to keep me
from transgressing by casting a stumbling-block in
any brother's way. It is not in the spirit of con
tention — least of all is it in the spirit of offence
against the guileless believer, who possesses his soul
in peace — that I have undertaken a task involving

PREFACE XV
so much responsibility. Far other is my motive,
far different my aim. I have written in the fervent
hope and humble trust that my words may, by
God's grace, uphold him that is falling, and help
him to hold fast the confession of our hope that it
waver not, by recommending to his mind and
conscience as divine, that book which the best of
men have prized beyond all worldly treasure, the
" Book of books," which, more than aught beside
on earth, my father reverenced, and my mother
loved. And iii doing this my heart's desire is to minister
as of the strength which God s'upplieth : that in
all things God may be glorified through Jesus
Christ. It remains to express my grateful acknowledg
ments to many kind friends, especially to the Ven.
Archdeacon Baly, the Rev. H. E. J. Bevan, the
Rev. W. L. Paige Cox, the late Rev. Thomas
Dalton, the Rev. Canon Gore, the Rev. Brownlow
Maitland, the Rev. Edmund McClure, and the
Rev. R. L. Ottley, whose important suggestions
have enabled me to make the work much less
faulty than it would otherwise have -been ; and to
Professor Driver, Dr. Ginsburg, the Rt. Hon. W. E.
Gladstone, Mr. R. R. Holmes, Librarian, Windsor
Castle, Mr. F. G. Kenyon, British Museum, the
Rev. G. Margoliouth, the Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop
of Peterborough, and Professor Swete, who have
been kind enough to supply me with specific in-
ormation on particular points. But the whole

XVI PREFACE
responsibility for the view set forth rests upon
myself, and myself alone.
I am also indebted to my daughters, who have
lightened my labour by verifying references and
typing the copy for the press, and to my wife for
her invaluable assistance, without which the book
would never have been written.
Charles Croslegh.
Coopers Hill, Englefield Green, Surrey,
July 31, 1896.

CONTENTS PART I
^ke ©rototk oi the Jitble: ^istovtcal §fejtch.
CHAPTER 'i
Introductory  page 3
I. Hebrew Manuscripts  4
II. Greek Manuscripts  6
CHAPTER II
how did the several writings which compose our
Bible come to be collected into one volume?
I. The Old Testament Canon
(1) was formed in groups . . . . 13
(a) The Law, (3) The Prophets,' (c) The
Hagiographa  14
(2) was closed before the Christian era . . 19
II. The growth ofthe New Testament Canon . . 22
(1) The compilation of the New Testament was
a gradual process  26
(2) The Canon resulted from usage ... 27
CHAPTER III
Are the books which compose our English Bible
the same books which were originally included
in the Canons of the Old and New Testaments?
I. The Old Testament  28
The books are the same as those which were known
to Josephus.

XV111

CONTENTS

II. The New Testament ....
(i) The Epistles are the same .
(2) The Gospels are the same .
(a) The evidence of the Fathers .
(i) The evidence of opponents .
(c) Our four Gospels could not have
substituted for other writings
(d) The spurious Gospels .

been

303i 3233 5457
65

CHAPTER IV
Have the original Texts of the books of the
Bible been faithfully preserved?

I. The Old Testament

69

(1) The Hebrew Text.

69
(2) The Samaritan Pentateuch
71
(3) The Septuagint
72
(4) The Hexapla Versions .
75
(5) Peshitto Syriac
78
(6) The Vulgate .
79
(7) Versions from the LXX.
80
(8) The Targums
81
(9) Other Documents .
81
II. The New Testament .
82
(1) The Old Latin Version .
82
(2) The Curetonian Syriac .
82
(3) The Peshitto Syriac
83
(4) Coptic Versions .
83
PART II
fUbwto of the (Ebtiumce shetoinj} the JJible to be
from dob
CHAPTER I
The Church attests the divine authority of the
Bible I. What is the Church ?  93
II. What is the witness ofthe Church to the Bible? 98
CONTENTS XIX
(i) The Belief of the Jews  98
(2) The Writings of the Fathers . . . 100
(3) The Teaching of the Nicene Creed . . 103
(4) An early Confession of Faith required of
Bishops at their consecration . . . 103
III. The Testimony of the Church is the continuous
testimony of myriad-fold experience . . . 104

CHAPTER II
Direct claims to divine authority are found in
the Bible itself
I. The testimony of the biblical writers, deemed to
be trustworthy men, is admissible on the ques
tion of the authority which they claim . . 109
II. Claims to speak with divine authority are made
by the New Testament writers . . . .110
III. These claims are in harmony with our Lord's
promises to His disciples  115
IV. Claims to speak with divine authority are made
in the Old Testament  118
V. These claims are confirmed
(1) by the New Testament writers . . . 120
(2) by our Lord  122
(a) He did not censure the Jews for believ
ing their Scriptures to be divine . .123
(6) He used them Himself as possessing
divine authority  124
CHAPTER III
Examination of the subject matter of the Bible
confirms the claims made to divine authority
I. The constituent elements of the Bible are marked
by variety
(1) of composition ...... 132
(2) of language  133
(3) of date .  133
(4) of writers  134

XX CONTENTS
II. Yet their theme is one — Christ . . . .134
(i) anticipated by the Patriarchs . . .138
(2) foreshadowed by the Law .... 140
(3) announced by the Prophets .... 141
(4) coming in the flesh  142
III. The Bible is unlike all other books
(1) in its method of teaching .... 146
(2) in its simplicity, profundity, and moral
grandeur  147
C3) in the consistently upward tendency of its
teaching, contrasted with the degeneration
common to other sacred books . . .147
(4) and in its universal adaptability to all ages
and peoples  15°
CHAPTER IV
The message announced by the Bible has its
witness in itself
I. Spiritual truth is discerned
(1) by our spiritual consciousness, its appropriate
organ . . . . . . . .156
(2) not by intellectual perception . . .160
II. The Bible discovers God to all who read it with
the single aim to find in it the mind of God 164
CHAPTER V
The teaching of the Bible has borne more than
human fruits
I. The moral changes that have followed upon the
acceptance of the Gospel . . . .172
(1) Man had no knowledge of doing right . . 173
(2) no incentive sufficient to induce him to do
right  174
(3) no certainty of immortality . . . .175
(4) no knowledge of inward peace . . . 1 76
II. The personal happiness and material prosperity
that have resulted from the acceptance of the
Gospel  178

CONTENTS xxi
III. The marvellous spread of the Gospel is not to
be accounted for
(i) by the agency employed regarded as merely
human  183
(2) nor by the power of the sword . . .188
(3) nor by the irrational dominion of a senseless
fetichism  188
(4) but by the inherent virtue of its divine
message .... . . 190

CHAPTER VI
What is meant by saying that the Bible is from
God?
I. It is not meant that the Bib"le is the only channel
through which God reveals Himself to man 195
He reveals Himself besides
(1) in nature  195
(2) in history  196
(3) in conscience . ... . . 197
II. The assumption that all divine action must be
miraculous ... . . 199
(1) is contradicted by the plain teaching of the
Bible  . . 201
(2) and is inconsistent with the common belief
of men  206
III. In ascribing revelation to God, the Bible uses
figurative language ; which is . . .212
(1) sometimes akin to our own .... 213
(2) but sometimes very different from it . .214
IV. God speaks in the Bible  215
(1) in many ways ..... 216
(2) It is by spiritual discernment that His voice
is heard  217
V. The Hebrew Prophets were " Seers " of spiritual
truth  221
VI. Less than divine influence could not have pro
duced the teaching of the Bible. For. . 224
c

xxil CONTENTS
(i) outside Israel, Man's conception of God has
always been a false and barren conception . 228
(2) But the Jewish people, under providential
training, acquired a progressive knowledge
of God  230
VII. Summary  234

PART III
Jittjjtoms to Objections
CHAPTER 1
The objection that the Bible cannot be from
God, because it bears marks of faultiness incon
sistent with a divine origin
I. The Church has not made the assumption that the
Bible is free from human faultiness . . . 244
II. The possibility of human defect is traceable in
the Bible  248
(1) Variant readings  248
(2) The writers represent themselves as respon
sible human agents  249
(3) The verbal phenomena of the Bible . . 256
III. The analogy of God's general dealings with us
shews that He employs instruments which we
account imperfect  282
IV. Such faultiness as we meet with in the Bible is
in no way inconsistent with its divine authority . 284

CHAPTER II
The objection that the Bible cannot be from
God, because its history is untrustworthy
I. It is said that the Bible history is inconsistent
with itself  287

CONTENTS xxill
II. It is said that history, as taught by profane
writers and by monuments, contradicts certain
statements in the Bible  288
III. There are no errors in the Bible inconsistent
with its being a trustworthy record . . . 292

CHAPTER III
The objection that the Bible cannot be from
God, because there is that in it which does not
agree with Physical- Science
I. The Bible does not psofess to be a scientific
treatise  305
II. It is a book for all  306
III. That Religion and Science are antagonistic to
each other is a very old assumption . . . 307
IV. The foremost men on both sides have now
realized that they do not come into collision . 308
V. The teaching of the Bible is spiritual teaching . 310
VI. Science as it grows modifies the views of theo
logians, as of others  312
VII. Contradiction has often been assumed when it
does not really exist  313
VIII. Our present knowledge is but of yesterday . 321
IX. Religion and Science are mutually helpful to one
another  322

CHAPTER IV
The objection that the Bible cannot be from
God, because there is that in it which is repug
nant to the Moral Sense
I. The principles which ought to govern our judg
ment on the whole question . . . . 324
(1) The process of education is subject to con
ditions  324

Xxiv CONTENTS
(2) It was under these conditions that the Jews
were taught of God  327
(3) As man's knowledge grows, his conception
of God changes  334
(4) The several parts of the Old Testament
teaching must be judged by their fitness for
their own time and work .... 337
II. A crucial case — the extermination ofthe Canaan
ites  343
(1) The moral quality of actions depends upon
the moral disposition from which they
proceed  344
(a) No action done in simple obedience to
a commandment of God is immoral . 345
(6) No command to do wrong can be from
God  . 345
(2) Is the extermination of the Canaanites in
itself inconsistent with the goodness of
God?  346
(3) Is the employment of human agents in the
work inconsistent with the goodness of
God
(a) as implying the existence of an immoral
principle in Him?  352
(6) or as tending to engender evil principles
in them? . . . 354

CHAPTER V
The objection that the Bible cannot be from
God, because criticism has demolished the tradi
tional account of the d.vte and authorship of
some of its books
I. Questions as to the date and authorship of the
several books belong to the domain of criticism 363
II. The conclusions of criticism ought to be accepted
with caution, because
(1) critics are apt to exaggerate the importance
of their discoveries . . . 369

CONTENTS xxV
(2) negative arguments are easily produced, but
are often worthless  369
(3) criticism from internal evidence alone is not
to be trusted  37 1
(4) unless criticism adopts right methods it must
fail to reach the truth  373
III. The assumption that the conclusions of sober
criticism must be accepted, does not involve
our disbelief in the divine authority of the
Bible, which would still remain
(1) a trustworthy record of the main events of
history  377
(2) and an efficient channel of religious instruc
tion ... .... 383
CHAPTER VI
The objection that the Bible cannot be from
God, because the admitted presence of error in
it is inconsistent with the claims to divine
authority" which are found in it
I. Immunity from all possibility of error is not
claimed for the sacred writers . . . . 391
(1) Our Lord's sanction of the Old Testament
does not imply it  391
(2) Nor does the use of the term ' the Word of
God'  394
(3) Nor the expression ' inspired of God ' . . 397
II. The worthies of the Bible are presented to us as
men liable to err, yet sufficient as ministers . 409
III. There is no such error in the Bible as to render
it unfit to be a vehicle for divine teaching . 416
CHAPTER VII
The objection that the Bible cannot be the
guide of life to men, unless it possess the note
of infallibility
I. It is said, that if the Bible be fallible in aught, its
whole teaching must be uncertain . . . 422

xxvi CONTENTS
(i) Are the spiritual and the non-spiritual so
combined in it, that it is impossible to
separate them from each other ? . . . 423
(2) Are the religious and the speculative so
blended, that if the speculative be fallible,
the religious must be uncertain ? . . . 429
II. It is said that if the infallibility of the Bible be
confined to its spiritual teaching, its spiritual
teaching itself loses its authority . . . 437
(1) Every theory about the Bible is open to a
like objection  438
(2) No theory of infallibility can secure right
faith, or guarantee right conduct . . . 439
(3) God teaches us in the Bible on the same
principle on which He teaches us outside it 440
III. It is said that to admit that the Bible may be
fallible in the slightest particular, is to
deprive us of our Bible, and with it, of all
means of knowing God's will . . . 447
(1) The admission does not take away from us
our Bible, but only our delusions about it . 447
(2) It is a faithless faith that rests in the Bible
as its object  455
(3) The Bible is not the only means which God
has provided for the preservation and pro
pagation of His truth  459

CHAPTER VIII
Conclusion  467

THE BIBLE
IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY

PART I
Wxt (Srototh of the § ible : historical Sketch

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
THIS Bible of ours which is read in our churches
whence does it come to us ?
Its title is : —
" The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments :
translated out of the original tongues : and with the former trans
lations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty's
special command : appointed to be read in churches."
It is, then, an English translation from other
languages, dating from the year 1611. It is by no
means the first English version, nor indeed is it an
independent version at all. King James's trans
lators " never thought from the beginning that they
should need to make a new translation, nor yet to
make of a bad one a good one," . . . but it was
"their endeavour" and "their mark'' to make a
good one better, or out of many good ones, one
principal good one, " not justly to be excepted
against." Upon this " Authorized Version," as we call it,
they bestowed much loving, patient, prayerful
3

4 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
labour. " The work," they tell the reader, "hath
not been huddled up in seventy-two days, but
hath cost the workmen, as light as it seemeth,
the pains of twice seven times seventy-two days
and more, . . . Neither did we disdain to revise
that which we had done, and to bring back to the
anvil that which we had hammered."
Of these good men we may speak in the
generous words which they applied to their pre
decessors, and say "that we acknowledge them
to have been raised up of God for the building and
furnishing of His Church, and that they deserve
to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting
remembrance." But their version could not be a
perfect reproduction of the originals of the books
which compose the Bible. The originals had long
perished. And those learned worthies of the
seventeenth century had access to a very small
portion of the documents which still survive to
represent them. I. — Hebrew Manuscripts.
A complete Hebrew Bible was first printed
at Soncino, in A.D. 1488. And it was from an
edition of this Bible which appeared at Brescia
in A.D. 1494 that Luther made his translation of
the Old Testament. The second independent
version derived from MSS. is found in Cardinal
Ximenes' Polyglot. The third important recension
is the second edition of the Bomberg Rabbinical
Bible, which appeared at Venice a.d. 1525-26.
The Hebrew Codices which have come down to

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 5
us number more than a thousand. But we have
none which go back nearly so far as the Greek
MSS. ofthe New Testament. When they became
unfit for use, they were deliberately destroyed to
secure them against profanation. The earliest
entire Hebrew Bible which has been found is
now in the Imperial Library at S. Petersburg.
Its date is A.D. 1009. The same library contains
the Prophet Codex (Codex Babylonicus), which is
dated A.D. 916. And the British Museum ac
quired a few years ago a MS. "containing the
Pentateuch with vowel points, accents, and both
Massorahs," which, according to Neubauer, seems
to be perhaps a century older, while Dr. Ginsburg
thinks that it may even be two hundred years
older than the Codex Babylonicus. But we shall
see later on that these MSS. substantially re
present a text which was in existence in the third
century B.C.
The Authorized Version was
"an adequate translation of the Greek and Hebrew
texts as they were then known to scholars. The scholar
ship of the day was satisfied with it as it had been
satisfied with no version before it ; and the common
people found its language appeal to them with a greater
charm and dignity than that of the Genevan version, to
which they had been accustomed. As time went on the
Authorized Version acquired the prescriptive right of
age ; its rhythms became familiar to the ears of all
classes ; its language entered into our literature ; and
Englishmen became prouder of their Bible than of any
of the creative works of their own literature." 1
* Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1895,
P- 235-

6 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
II. — Greek Manuscripts.
Of the early MSS. of the New Testament,
available at the close of the nineteenth century, it
is worth while to mention a few of the most
important.1 S Codex Sinaiticus (middle of fourth century),
discovered by Tischendorf in the Convent of S.
Catharine, on Mount Sinai, in 1859. This MS.,
now at S. Petersburg, contains the whole of the
New Testament, — it is the only Uncial which does,
— as well as a large part of the LXX.
A. Codex Alexandrinus (middle of fifth century
or earlier) was presented in 1628 to Charles I. by
Cyril Lucar, Patriarch, first of Alexandria, and
then of Constantinople. It is now in the British
Museum. It contains the LXX. almost complete,
and the whole of the New Testament except some
parts which have been lost through mutilation.
B. Codex Vaticanus (fourth century), now in the
Vatican Library at Rome, contains nearly all the
LXX., and nearly all the New Testament.
C. Codex Ephraemi, a mutilated palimpsest of
the fifth century, now in the National Library at
Paris, contains fragments of the LXX., and nearly
all the books of the New Testament.
D. Codex Bezae (sixth century), Cambridge
1 The general reader may fill in this outline sketch for
himself from the interesting pages in which Mr. Kenyon
tells the story of the ancient MSS. of the Old and New
Testaments.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 7
University Library, contains the Gospels and Acts
in Greek and Latin, except a few chapters.1
" The gross total number of manuscripts of the
Greek text whose existence is known, Uncial [the
older MSS.] and Cursive [the later MSS.] included,
as gathered from Dr. C. R. Gregory's Prolegomena,
seems to be about 3107. He catalogues 107 Un
cials, and about 2800 Cursives, adding the state
ment that he has seen 200 more than he has
catalogued. Among the Cursives he counts the
Lectionaries, even if written -in uncial letters,
because the character of the uncial writing is late.
Of these Cursives, 1273 contain the Gospels, 416
the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 480 the Pauline
Epistles, 183 the Apocalypse ; 936 contain Lec
tions from the Gospels, and 265 Lections from the
Acts and Epistles.
It must not, however, be supposed, either that
they are manuscripts of the whole New Testament,
or that the contents of all of them have been fully
examined." 2
The Greek text which King James' trans
lators used as a standard in revising earlier trans
lations, was Beza's Revision (A.D. 1589) of the
Editio Regia of Stephanus, known as the " Textus
Receptus," which was printed in A.D. 1550.3
1 See Scrivener, hitrod. to the Criticism of the New
Testament. 2 Hammond, Textual Criticism applied lo the N.T., 1890,
p. 26.
3 Between a.d. 1556 and 1598, Beza published several
editions with the aid of additional MSS. which, on the whole,
follow the text of Stephanus closely.

8 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Stephanus used for the production of his text
the fourth edition of Erasmus' Bible (A.D. 1527),
together with Codex Bezae (D.), and fourteen
Cursive MSS.
Erasmus' edition of the New Testament in
Greek — the first published in print, though not the
first printed — was published in A.D. 15 16, from not
more than six MSS. at the most. One was an
early Codex of considerable importance, while all
the others were of a late type. His fourth edition
was corrected by the text of Cardinal Ximenes'
Greek Testament, which had been printed in A.D.
1 5 14, two years before his own first edition, though
not published till A.D. 1522, when it appeared as
the fifth volume of the famous Complutensian
Bible. With one exception the MSS. from which
Ximenes took his text have not been identified,
but it is clear that they were of late origin,
belonging to the Byzantine family.
The table on page 9 shews at a glance what
a small portion of existing Greek MSS. con
tributed to the production of the " Textus Re-
ceptus," used by the translators of the Authorized
Version. And not only were the codices available few in
number, some of them were incomplete. Indeed,
all those which Erasmus had before him in pre
paring his first edition were defective ; and to
supply what was lacking, he actually re-translated
some verses of the Apocalypse from the Latin
into Greek. Nay, strange as it may seem, certain
words of that re-translation hold their place in our

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE

CD <U
¦^ rt w

fc

co

o

£

H

w

Xi

o

W

<u

H

w

iz;

HH

W

1-1

K

w

H

in

H
o
iz;
1 — 1
ps
w
ffi
CO
w
p-1
pq
<
H
-a
S H
COW
H 2* 5 Sis
w - S - «
ri m ™, u m o
W 3 o c^
P^ S.C 0 § «,
O 2 ° K fie
en K W & a. X
13 ui ^ -^
iz; & .=, .2,
< H -  , 
jrj p-< p
£ W c-§
aj
WW CO
w g w
Co t,
a -a u
l-1-1 NO
u-»
W <
a
&~
3 d
o
U f*
IO THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
received text to this day, although they have not
been found in any known MS.
Besides the Greek text, King James' divines had,
in addition to the earlier English versions, a trans
lation of the Syriac by Tremellius, and of the
Greek by Theodore Beza, A.D. 1593 and 1597.
" Of then-existing critical versions — i. e. those
made directly from the originals — they had Luther ;
the Genevan French, 1587-88 ; the Italian, by
Deodati, 1607 ; the Spanish, by C. Reynal,
1569; and Valera's 1602." 1
The text of our English Bible, then, is the
translation of documents handed down to us by
the early Christian Church, which, in delivering
copies of them to us, tells us that those which com
pose the New Testament were written by certain
primitive propagators of the Gospel ; and that
those which are comprised in the Old Testament
were written by holy men of the older dispensa
tion ; and that all of them, New and Old Testa
ment alike, as we shall see later on, are to be
accounted as bearing a message from God.
1 J. J. Mombert, Schaffs Encyclopedia.

CHAPTER II
HOW DID THE SEVERAL WRITINGS WHICH COM
POSE OUR BIBLE COME TO BE COLLECTED
INTO ONE VOLUME ?
THE very name by which we know the volume
of Holy Scripture points to the fact that it is not
one book, but many.
"The first simple collective title of the whole Bible
appears to be that which is found in Jerome, in the
fourth century, 'The Divine Library' (Bibliotheca Divina),
which afterwards came into common use among Latin
writers, and thence into our own Anglo-Saxon language.
About the same time Greek writers came to use the
term ' The Books ' (Biblia, pi.) for the Bible. In process
of time this name, with many others of Greek origin,
passed into the vocabulary of the Western Church ; and
in the thirteenth century, by a happy solecism, the
neuter plural came to be regarded as a feminine
singular, and ' The Books ' became by common consent
' The Book ' (Biblia, sing.), in which form the word has
passed into the languages of modern Europe." 1
The volume is composed of two principal parts,
the Old and the New Testaments ; the first, a
heritage from the Jewish Church, written in
1 Bp. Westcott, The Bible in the Church, p. 5.
11

12 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Hebrew ; the second, the production of the Chris
tian Church, written in Greek. The word Testa
ment comes to us from the Latin Vulgate, which
used it as the translation of the Greek word which
the Jews employed to denote the relation to God
to which He called His chosen people. " At the
close of the second century the terms ' Old ' and
'New Testament' were already in common use,
though a vain endeavour was made by scholars,
both then and afterwards, to substitute for Testa
ment the word Instrument (or Record). In such
cases the popular habit prevails ; and it is a matter
of rejoicing that that title has been retained which
represents the sacred books in connection with
their ultimate Giver, rather than that which
only regards them as official or authoritative
documents." x
There is conclusive evidence from the Bible
itself that it does not comprise the whole round
of Jewish literature known to its writers. The
Book of the Wars of the Lord is referred to as
confirming a geographical statement.2 Two ex
tracts have been preserved from the Book of Jashar,
which was probably a national collection of sacred
songs : a fragment of a poetical account of the
battle of Beth-horon,3 and the Song of the Bow,
— a song from which several gems of thought
and expression have passed into household words
in the languages of modern Europe.4 Of the
thousand and five songs of the gifted King Solo-
1 Bible in the Church, p. 5. * Num. xxi. 14, 15.
3 Josh. x. 12, 13. * 3 Sam. i. 18—27.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE t3
mon,1 there is no reason to suppose that the Bible
contains half-a-dozen. Jeremiah's Lamentations
for Josiah, which were made an ordinance in Israel,
and in the words of which all the singing men and
singing women spake of Josiah,2 are not found in
the Canon. When the canonical books of the
Kings and the Chronicles were written, the State-
records, or chronicles of the two kingdoms, as well .
as sundry writings by well-known men, were still
extant, and are frequently referred to as sources of
information. It is not improbable that portions of
them have been transferred in extenso into the body
of the canonical Scriptures. Indeed something of
our own experience of to-day seems to have been
familiar to the Preacher, when he wrote, " Of
making many books there is no end." And yet, of
all these books without end, scarcely anything
remains but what the Canon has preserved to us.
I.— The Old Testament Canon.
The term Canon is applied to the Old Testa
ment in a somewhat different sense from that in
which it was used of the New Testament. It was
adopted as the name of the official roll, or list of
the books selected for reading in the synagogue,
and it implied that the books had reached the
required standard.
(i) Was formed in groups.
The formation of this official register, or Canon,
is involved in obscurity. But it is clear it was not
made all at once. It divides the sacred Books
1 I Kings iv. 32. 2 2 Chron. xxxv. 25.

14 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
into three groups, known as the Law, the Prophets,
and the Hagiographa.
{a) There can be no doubt that the Captivity
taught the Jews to set a new value upon their
sacred writings. And at least from the day when
Ezra taught them to make the " Book of the Law "
the ruling standard of their religious and social life,
they regarded the books of the Pentateuch as a
thing sacred and apart ; and from about the latter
half of the fifth century B.C. the Canon of the
Law may be looked upon as fixed. It was solemnly
rehearsed in the hearing of the people, and regu
larly read in the public worship of the synagogue.
Indeed the unmistakable priority of the Law is
apparent in the fact that, in later ages, the whole
body of the Scriptures was very commonly spoken
of as " the Law."
(b) It is certain the prophetic Scriptures had
been eagerly and widely read before, during, and
after the Exile. But a complete collection of
them could not have been made until after the
last prophecy had been uttered. As soon as
they became conscious that the prophetic age
had passed,1 the people were naturally impelled to
bring together into one complete whole the pro
phetic Scriptures transmitted to them, — the his
torical books, comprising utterances of the old
prophets, as well as the properly prophetical books,
— and to attach this collection, as a second group
of sacred writings, to the Law. That the pro-
1 i Mace. iv. 46; ix. 27; xiv. 41 ; Song of the Three
Children, v. 1 5.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 1 5
phetical books were also used in public worship
we know from S. Luke, who tells us of our Lord,
that " He entered, as His custom was, into the synagogue on
the sabbath day, and stood up to read. And there was
delivered unto Him the book (or roll) of the prophet
Isaiah." 1
In a celebrated passage in the Second Book of
the Maccabees,2 Nehemiah is spoken of as founding
a library and gathering together the acts of the
Kings and the Prophets, and of David, and the
epistles of the Kings concerning the holy gifts.
In this we have probably a true reminiscence of
the historical preparations for the canonization
of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. But it
is by no means a history of the canonization
itself. How long it was before the prophetic Canon se
cured general acceptance we know not, and just as
little can we tell by whom and in what way the
canonization was carried out. There is some reason
to suppose that the Prophets were not yet regarded
as canonical about the year 300 B.C. But it may
be taken as thoroughly established that the full
prophetic canon known to us was in existence to
wards the close of the second century B.C.
(c) The third collection, the Hagiographa, or
Sacred Writings, dates, at the earliest, from the
middle of the second century B.C., and was not, in
New Testament times, fully established in all its
parts. As compared with the Law and the Prophets,
1 Luke iv. 16—21. 2 2 Mace. ii. 13.

16 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
the Hagiographa were regarded in the estimation
even of later ages as being writings of distinctly
subordinate rank. The Psalms indeed were held in
high esteem, and were used in the Temple service.
But the Hagiographa were not used in the readings
of the Synagogue on the Sabbath day.
The Jews adopted various ways of marking
the distinction between canonical books and extra-
canonical books. They said : —
"Whosoever receives more than twenty-four books in
troduces confusion into his house."
They pronounced it lawful, in case of a fire on
the Sabbath day, to save the canonical writings, and
translations of them, whereas all other books must
be left to perish in the flames. Then, to mark the
special sacredness of the canonical books, they
adopted a curious expedient. ~ They declared them
to " defile the hands."' Impure objects were said
to " defile the hands," in order that men might be
restrained from contact with impurity. And so, to
protect these specially sacred books from careless
handling and profanation, they too were declared
to " defile the hands." This peculiar note of sanc
tity belonged, however, only to the two first classes
of the canonical Scriptures. The Hagiographa
were not said to " defile the hands."
The tripartite division of their sacred books was
first made by the Jews of Palestine, and afterwards
adopted by the Jews everywhere ; and in later days
they compared the three groups to the three
divisions of the Temple, the Holiest of all, the Holy
Place, and the Outer Court.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 17
The first group, the " Torah," consisted of : —
The Five Books of the Law.
The second group, known as the " Nebiim," or
Prophetical Writings, consisted of eight books : —
The " Former Prophets," four books,
Joshua. Samuel.
Judges. Kings.
The "Latter Prophets," four books,
Isaiah. Ezekiel.
Jeremiah. The Minor Prophets (12).
The third group, known as the '' Kethubim," the
" Writings," or more commonly, the "Hagiographa,"
consisted of eleven books, viz.,

Chronicles.

Ecclesiastes.

Psalms.

Lamentations. ,

Job.

Esther.

Proverbs.

Daniel.

Ruth.

Ezra (including Nehemiah).

Canticles.

Five of these — Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes,
Lamentations, Esther — were termed "Megilloth,"
or Festival Rolls.
The whole collection of the twenty-four books is
sometimes called " The Sacred Writings." And
by way of contrast with "The Law," which was
deemed to be the fundamental part of the whole,
and in itself sufficient, the other two classes were
sometimes spoken of as " Tradition."
The first notice that we have of the existence of
the Old Testament collection of books is the men
tion of them in the Prologue of Jesus Ben Sirach,
c

1 8 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
B.C. 132.1 In the so-called Ezra-Apocalypse, writ
ten most probably between A.D. 81 and 96, we find
mention of twenty-four books as being the sum
total of the acknowledged writings of the Old
Testament. But Josephus is the first who is
proved to have known the books of the Old Testa
ment Canon. Writing about A.D. 100, he says that
to the sacred and genuine books of the Jews,
besides the "five books of Moses," there belong
also "thirteen prophetical writings" and "four
books, with Hymns and Precepts for practical life,"
— twenty-two in all, a number which is easily and
naturally made to correspond with the twenty-four
already mentioned, if we suppose Josephus to have
followed the method of reckoning adopted very
generally by Alexandrian writers, and to have
treated the books of Ruth and Lamentations as
being parts of the books of Judges and Jeremiah.
His language as to the canonicity of his twenty-two
books is very forcible. He says : —
" For we have not an innumerable multitude of
books among us, . . . but only twenty-two books, which
contain the records of all the past times ; which are
justly believed to be divine. And of them five belong
to Moses. . . . But as to the time .from the death of
Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, the
prophets who were after Moses wrote down what was .
done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining
four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the
conduct of human life. It is true our history has been
written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not
been esteemed nf ihe like authority with the former by

Ecclus. xlviii., xlix.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 1 9
our forefathers, because there has not been an exact
succession of prophets since that time : and how firmly
we have given credit to these books of our own nation
is evident by what we do ; for during so many ages as
have already passed, no one has been so bold as either
to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or
to make any change in them ; but it has become natural
to all Jews immediately and from their very birth, to
esteem these books to contain divine doctrines, and to
persist in them, and if occasion be, willingly to die for
them."1
(2) Was closed before the Christian era.
How, or by whom, the Canon of the Old Testa
ment was finally closed we cannot tell. But it was
closed at some time after B.C. 170, and before the
time of Christ.
It is true indeed that objections continued to be
urged against the canonicity of certain particular
books, as Ecclesiastes and Canticles and Esther.3
It was not until the close of the first century A.D.
that the whole question came up for formal discus
sion. But when the loss of their material fatherland
involved in the destruction of Jerusalem, and the
fall of the Rabbinical College had driven the
Jews to take refuge in their spiritual heritage ; and
when the growing conflict with Christianity had
1 Contra Apion. i. 8.
2 " Rabbi Jose, contemporary with the Emperor Hadrian,
said, Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, and Canticles
is subject to controversy. . . . The right of the book of
Esther to be considered canonical was also contested ; Eze
kiel was wrapped in obscurity, and its words were deemed to
conflict with those of the Torah." — Wildeboer, The Origin
of the Canon of the Old Testament, pp. 64, 68.

20 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
made it necessary for them to settle definitely
every question concerning their Scriptures; a synod
was held at Jamnia, a city to the south of Joppa,
not far from the coast, about the year A.D. 90, at
which the canonicity of the whole body of sacred
writings was acknowledged ; and the Mishna, col
lected and edited about one hundred years later,
maintained and declared the fullest canonicity of
all the twenty-four books.
By these judgments, indeed, criticism was not
wholly silenced ; x but the discussions which ensued
were mere scholastic controversies, and affected
the general view in a very inconsiderable degree.
There was no dispute about the genuineness or age
of the controverted writings, but only as to whether
they fulfilled all the conditions which were neces
sary to gain admission for them to the Canon.
Nothing indeed could supply stronger proof of the
existence of the Canon, and of the strict jealousy
with which admission 4o it was guarded, than these
impeachments of the claims of certain books to be
included in the official register. The fact that
some books were challenged is evidence that the
position of the others was unassailable. These
impeachments not only presuppose a body of
" Scripture," precisely defined, and marked off from
all other literature, but they shew in the most
unmistakable manner, that nothing was admitted
1 " We learn from the Babylonian Talmud that a scholar,
living in the third century, denied the canonicity of the book
of Esther." — BUHL, Canon and Text of the Old Testament,
1892, p. 25.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 21
that did not fully meet the requirements of a very
exacting standard of qualification. And the Jews
were in the habit of contrasting their small number
of scrupulously selected sacred writings with the
myriads of discordant and contradictory books
possessed by other nations.
From all this it is clear that the Old Testament
cannot be regarded as the sum total ofthe literature
of antiquity of which the Jews found themselves in
possession after the Captivity. It is a selection
made by the Jewish Church from a much more
extensive and older literature.
On what principle was the selection made ? In
the first place, it is manifest that it was not made
on the basis of including all the most ancient
writings known, or those which were attributed to
the most eminent men. Well-known annals of hoar
antiquity, poems of the olden time, even contem
porary state-records, many of which were written,
as we know, by some of the foremost men of the
day, were set aside, while anonymous writings,
hundreds of years later in date, were admitted.
How the Canon grew, under what circumstances,
and under whose auspices certain important addi
tions to it were made, tradition tells us plainly
enough. But as regards much that is embraced
within it, neither written title, nor anything handed
down, helps us to discover who were the men that
made it. Ask the Jews themselves on what the
authority of their Canon rests, and they say, On
the fact that the Church in past ages has accepted the
books that compose it as possessing divine authority.

22 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
II.— The growth of the New Testament Canon.
The New Testament consists of twenty-seven
independent documents, written at different dates,
under different circumstances, by eight or nine
different persons. Twenty-one of these documents
are epistles, or letters, written by some of the first
propagators of Christianity to those whom they
had converted to the Faith. One is a short history
of the Church during the first twelve or thirteen
years of its existence, to which is added a mono
graph of S. Paul's doings for some fourteen years
afterwards. Four are memoirs of Jesus. And one
is a book of prophecies.
Professor Ryle groups the several books of the
New Testament chronologically as follows —
A. Books written before the destruction of Jerusalem:
(i) Historical. Three Synoptic Gospels, and
Acts of the Apostles.
(2) Catholic Epp. James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude.
(3) Pauline Epp. : —
(a) The First Message ; 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
(b) The Gentile controversy ; 1 and 2 Cor.,
Gal., Rom.
(c) Epp. of the Imprisonment ; Phil., Col.,
Eph., Philem.
(d) Pastoral Epp.
B. Books written at or about the period ofthe destruc
tion of Jerusalem : —
(a) Epistle to the Hebrews.
(b) The Apocalypse.
C. Books written after the destruction of Jerusalem: —
(a) The Gospel according to S. John.
(b) The Epistles of S. John.1
1 In the Cambridge Companion to the Bible, p. 9.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 23
These books form the Canon of the New Testa
ment. The term " Canon " means primarily a straight
stick, or pole ; hence a rule, or standard, as well of
faith as* of conduct. It is used in this sense by
S. Paul— " Neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision,
but a new creature. And as many as shall walk by this
rule [the Greek word is canon] peace be upon them." 1
Later it was used to denote the orthodox type
of Christian doctrine.2
Since A.D. 300, the Laws of the Church have
been called Canons.
The earliest assemblies of Christians drew their
devotional edification largely from the Old Testa
ment, which they interpreted in accordance with
the new revelation. And, although we meet with
special citations of particular sentences, generally
sayings of our Lord, we do not find appeal made
to the New Testament writings as of conclusive
authority until the second half of the second
century. It is among the heretical sects that we first meet
with anything like a beginning of a New Testament
Canon. About A.D. 144 Marcion made a collection
comprising S. Luke's Gospel, and ten of S. Paul's
Epistles. But the need of an official catalogue of
the Christian Writings was felt in the several
churches as living tradition expired. Heathen
converts felt the want most of all. And as divergent
1 Gal. vi. 16.
' Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 16.

24 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
views multiplied, it became necessary to fall back
upon a commonly acknowledged expression of the
Christian teaching as generally received. This
was found in the letters of the Apostles, and
in other writings which were generally accepted
as giving an authentic account of our Lord's
ministry, and the rise and first propagation of
Christianity. We may learn from S. Paul's solemn charge to
" the Church of the Thessalonians " — " I adjure you
by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the
brethren " — how the Canon of the New Testament
grew. First one book and then another came to
be read in the several Churches. By no technical
law it would seem, but in obedience to a deep and
hidden instinct, the writings of apostles and holy
men were brought together and joined into a
volume. And so at the close of the second century, in
the Churches of Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa,
Italy, and Southern Gaul, collections of apostolic
writings were found, which contained without ex
ception the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles,
the thirteen letters of S. Paul, one letter of S. Peter,
and one of S. John.
There is, however, also clear proof that along
with these there were in use in the Church several
other writings which in later times came to be
acknowledged as not possessing the same authority.
Yet they were regarded as inspired, and it was only
by slow degrees that they were separated from the
canonical writings. In the first half of the fourth

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 25
century, Eusebius divides the current literature of
his time into three classes.1
The first is the class of " acknowledged " books.
Of this class Bp. Westcott says, " that a book
should be ' acknowledged ' as canonical, it was re
quisite that its authenticity should be undisputed,
and that its writer should have been possessed of
apostolic authority." This class of " acknowledged "
books contains all those already named, and no
others. The second class of Eusebius is that of " contro
verted " books, i. e. books which, though failing in
one or other ofthe two requisites for admission to
the first class, were nevertheless well known (and
used) by most. This second class Eusebius divides
into two sub-classes, in the first of which he places
the remaining letters of SS. Peter and John, and
those of SS. James and Jude ; while in the second
sub-class he places, with others, two books that
have come down to us, the " Shepherd of Hermas "
affid the " Epistle circulated under the name of
Barnabas." In the third class of the literature of his time he
mentions " the writings brought forward by heretics
in the name of the Apostles as containing the
Gospels of Peter and Thomas and Matthias and
some others," and " the Acts of Andrew and John
and the other Apostles, which no one in the differ
ent successions of ecclesiastical writings has deigned
to mention." Of these he says that "the character
1 Hist. Eccl. iii. 25. The passage is given in full by
Westcott, The Bible in the Church, p. 148.

26 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
of the language, which varies from the apostolic
spirit, and the sentiment and purpose of their con
tents, wholly discordant with true orthodoxy,
clearly prove that they are forgeries of heretics ;
whence we must not even class them among the
spurious books, but set them aside as every way
monstrous and impious."
(i) The compilation of the New Testament was a
gradual process.
The Canon of the New Testament, then, was not
settled all at once. And for some time there was
diversity of opinion as to what books should be in
cluded in it. Some of those at first received were
finally excluded, while some, of which doubts
had been entertained in the beginning (and others
which had not been generally received), were
afterwards accepted as canonical. It would seem
that at first it was not definitely determined on
what principles books were to gain admission. On
the one hand there was a tendency to accept only
such books as were actually known to have been
written by apostles of our Lord, or under their
direction ; while on the other hand there was a
disposition to exalt all writings which belonged to
the apostolic age. But before long the general
consent of Christendom decided the matter in such
a way as to make it manifest that the selection
was made not merely from considerations of author
ship, but for the double reason that both external
testimony and internal evidence declared them to
possess more than human authority. The apo
stolic fathers, some of whose writings were actually

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 2"7
read in the service ofthe Church, draw the clearest
line of distinction between their own teaching and
that of the apostles and evangelists.
(2) The Canon resulted from usage.
" The Bible was formed, even as the Church itself
was formed, by the action of that Holy Spirit
which is the Life of both. Usage, and not criticism,
fixed the limits of the Christian Bible ; but in this
case, usage is only another name for a divine in
stinct, a providential inspiration, a function of the
Christian body. Still, however we call it, the dis
criminating power was seen in usage and not in
law." x
The old rule of Church order, which has been
embodied in the dictum of S. Vincent of Lerins,
no doubt had its weight, and we find no books in
our Canon to-day which were ever universally re
jected by the Church, nor are any books excluded
from it which were ever universally received. Yet
it was not on this principle alone that the choice
was made. For certain books of the New Testament
found admission into the Canon notwithstanding
the fact that very considerable doubt had been
entertained as to their claims for many years, and
in different Churches. While others which had
been extensively read as Holy Scripture in the
public services of the Church were set aside.
1 The Bible in the Church, p. 293. Cf. Bp. MobErly,
Administ., pp. 90, 91.

CHAPTER III
ARE THE BOOKS WHICH COMPOSE OUR ENGLISH
BIBLE THE SAME BOOKS WHICH WERE ORIGIN
ALLY INCLUDED IN THE CANONS OF THE OLD
AND NEW TESTAMENTS ?
The autograph prototypes of the several books
alike of the Old and New Testaments perished, as
we have already seen, a long time ago. The
Hebrew Codices were purposely destroyed. And
it is not surprising that the Christian M SS. of the
first three centuries have perished. They were
not held to be of permanent value, nor to have
special interest outside the persons or Churches to
whom they were addressed. The early Christians
were expecting the return of their Lord in the
immediate future, and had no thought of the
expediency of collecting or preserving the writings
of their holy men for the use of succeeding
generations. I.— The Old Testament.
From what has been already said it appears
that the books which make up our Old Testament
28

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 29
of to-day are the same books that were included
in the Jewish Canon when our Lord and His
apostles taught on earth. The son of Sirach (B.C.
190 — 70) refers to them in the same manner, and
substantially under the same names and titles as
do Philo (B.C. 40), the New Testament writers,
and Josephus — a manner of reference which im
plies, beyond question of doubt, the existence of
a defined and well-known collection of sacred
books. If any corroboration were wanting, it is abund
antly supplied not only by the antagonism between
the Jews and the Christians, but also by the party
spirit that existed among the Jews themselves.
Josephus first mentions the Pharisees in the time
of the High Priest Jonathan (B.C. 159 — 154). He
refers to them, however, as no new sect, but as a
body already well known and fully established.
Their bitter opponents were the Sadducees. And
the chief point at issue between the two sects was
the Sadducean dogma that the Scriptures, and the
Scriptures only, were the rule of faith and practice.
Josephus tells us that
"the Pharisees inculcated many rules upon the people,
received from the Fathers, which are not written in the
Law of Moses ; and on this account the Sadducees
reject them, alleging that those things are to be regarded
as rules which are written," 1 i. e. in the Scripture.
And in another place he says that
"their custom was to regard nothing except the
1 Antiq. XIII. x. 6.

30 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Laws ; for they reckon it a virtue to dispute against the
Doctors in favour of the wisdom which they follow." 1
Now this being so, no addition could have been
made to the Jewish Canon without its calling forth
the most determined protest on the part of the
Sadducees. It would have been as easy to intro
duce a new book into the Christian Bible amid
the strife that succeeded the Reformation, without
awakening loud dissent, as it would have been to
make a like addition to the Hebrew Canon by
tacit common consent in those days of hostility
between the two great rival Jewish parties. Yet
no trace has been found of any controversy ever
arising between them on such a question.
But if no addition could have been made to the
Jewish Canon before the rise of Christianity with
out its being the occasion of contentious dispute,
much less could it have been made without our
hearing of it since the Christian Church adopted
the Scriptures of the Old Testament. There is no
room, then, for the least question that the canonical
books of our English Old Testament to-day are
the same books that the Jews received before the
days of our Lord. II.— The New Testament.
Are the books of our New Testament the same
books that were in the hands of the early
Christians ?
1 Antiq. XVIII. i. 4. That this question ofthe Scriptures
was the cardinal question in dispute between the Pharisees
and Sadducees is shewn at length by Winer, Bib. Lex.,
Article " Sadclucaer."

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 3 1
( 1 ) The Epistles are the same.
Among the writings comprised in the New
Testament the Epistles are of earlier date than
the Gospels. The claims of some of the Epistles,
as we have already seen, have not been allowed to
pass unchallenged. They have, however, been
fully vindicated. Any adequate examination of
their claims would carry us too far afield into the
by-paths of historical criticism. The non-pro
fessional student may pass the question by without
fear that the omission will lead him to false
practical conclusions as to the nature of Holy
Scripture generally. Because, although we should
certainly feel ourselves the poorer for the loss
of them, the controverted books contain no vital
teaching which is peculiar to themselves. Against
the genuineness and authenticity of the most
important of S. Paul's Epistles criticism has never
attempted any serious assault. And in them, all
the great foundation facts of the Christian faith —
the fatherhood of God, the incarnation of the Son,
His life of self-denying love, His meritorious death
and passion, His resurrection and ascension, His
continued intercession in heaven, and His abiding
presence with the faithful on earth in the ministry
of the divine Spirit Whom He has sent forth —
are all clearly implied and taught.
It is well to bear in mind that the teaching of
all these facts comes to us independently of any
controverted books. I was once much struck by
the statement of a friend — a prominent man in the
scientific world, Fellow of the Royal Society, a

32 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
President of the Geological Society, and Professor
of Geology at King's College — who told me how
much he had found the intellectual basis of his
faith strengthened by the knowledge, which came
to him only a few years before his death, that S.
Paul's great Epistles were earlier than the Gospels,
and that their position was admittedly unassailable.
What is a commonplace to the ordinary student
of ecclesiastical history was to him, the highly-
educated scientist, a revelation.
(2) The Gospels are the same.
It is round the Gospels that the din of critical
controversy has raged most fiercely. It has been
asserted on the authority of Strauss and Baur,
that the four gospels of the New Testament Canon
were not written before the close of the second
century A.D. And the assertion has been so per
sistently repeated in the name of critical learning,1
that a vague prejudice against their traditional
authorship is still in the air. If they were not
written till after A.D. 170, it is clear they cannot
come from the pens of Matthew the publican, — i.e.
the Galilean agent of the Roman tax-farmer, — of
Mark, the friend and companion of SS. Peter and
Paul, of Luke the beloved physician, S. Paul's
associate, and of John, the disciple whom Jesus
loved. Neither could they have been written by
any one who was eye-witness or ear-witness of the
1 The author of Supernatural Religion declares that there
is not to be found a single trace of any of the Synoptic
Gospels, with the exception of the third, during the first
century and ,1 half after the death of Christ, i. e. until A. D.
180. Vol. ii. p. 246.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 33
doings and sayings which are recorded in them,
nor indeed by any one who was alive at the time
when the things recorded are said to have been
done, and the words reported are said to have
been spoken.
Now it needs neither professional learning to
comprehend, nor expert training to weigh the
evidence on this question. Let us call some of the
witnesses and see what they have to say.
(a) The Evidence of the Fathers.
Origen, a.d. 185 — 253 or 254.
Origen was born A.D. 185, pf Christian parents,
who were Greeks, at Alexandria, at that time the
most famous seat of learning in the world. He
was educated under Clement of Alexandria, at the
celebrated catechetical school in that city. He
succeeded,- while still a young man, to the master
ship of the school, and soon became the pride of
the whole population, alike Christian and non-
Christian, for the eminence of his intellectual
power and the wide range of his learning. He
travelled much and acquired an unusual acquaint
ance with men. In the Decian persecution he was
put to torture, and condemned to death. But the
emperor dying before his martyrdom had deprived
him of life, he was set at liberty, and expired at
Tyre, A.D. 253 or 254. He wrote a great deal,
and his testimony to the character of the New
Testament is important.
Eusebius, who had his works in his hands,
writes : — d

34 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY.
" In the first book of his commentaries on the Gospel
of Matthew, following the Ecclesiastical Canon, he
attests that he knows of only four Gospels, as follows :
' As I have understood from tradition, respecting the four
Gospels, which are the only undisputed ones in the
whole Church of God throughout the world ; the first is
written according to Matthew, the same that was once a
publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who,
having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in
the Hebrew ; the second is according to Mark, who
composed it, as Peter explained to him, whom he also
acknowledges as his son, in his General Epistle, saying,
The elect church in Babylon salutes you, as also Mark,
my son ; and the third, according to Luke, the Gospel
commended by Paul, which was written for the converts
from the Gentiles, and last of all, the Gospel according
to John.'"1 Clement of Alexandria, cir. a.d. 216.
Clement of Alexandria had reached manhood
before he became a Christian. He travelled in
pursuit of learning, visited both Greece and Italy,
and had the good fortune, he tells us, to hear the
" vigorous and animated discourses of blessed and
truly remarkable men." About A.D. 189 he suc
ceeded Pantamus as director of the famous school
at Alexandria. He wrote much. And though
many of his works have not survived, still enough
have come down to us to prove that he was a man
well versed in Greek learning, and familiar with
the schools of philosophy.
Eusebius has preserved for us certain portions
of a lost book of his, called Hypotyposes, written
about A.D. 200, and translated into Latin by
Cassiodorus. Eusebius writes as follows : —
1 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Bk. VI. c. xxv.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 35
" So greatly did the splendour of piety enlighten the
minds of' Peter's hearers, that it was not sufficient to
hear but once, nor to receive the unwritten doctrine of
the Gospel of God, but they persevered with various
entreaties to solicit Mark, as the companion of Peter,
and whose Gospel we have, that he should leave them
a monument of the doctrine thus orally communicated,
in writing. Nor did they cease their solicitations until
they had prevailed with the man, and thus become the
means of that history which is called the Gospel accord
ing to Mark. They say also, that the apostle (Peter)
having ascertained what was done by the revelation of
the Spirit, was delighted with the zealous ardour ex
pressed by these men, and that the history obtained his
authority for the purpose of being read in the churches.
The account is given by Clement, in the sixth book of
his Institutions, whose testimony is corroborated also
by that of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis. . . . Again, in
the same work, Clement also gives the tradition respect
ing the order of the Gospels, as derived from the oldest
presbyters, as follows : — ' He says that those which contain
the genealogies were written first ; but that the Gospel
of Mark was occasioned in the following manner : When
Peter had proclaimed -the word publicly at Rome, and
declared the Gospel under the influence of the Spirit,
as there was a great number present, they requested
Mark, who had followed him from afar, and remembered
well what he had said, to reduce these things to writing,
and that after composing the Gospel he gave it to those
who requested it of him. Which when Peter under
stood, he directly neither hindered nor encouraged it.
But John, last of all, perceiving that what had reference
to the body in the Gospel of our Saviour, was sufficiently
detailed, and being encouraged by his familiar friends,
and urged by the Spirit, he wrote a spiritual Gospel.'
Thus far Clement." 1
Though he rarely refers to their authors by
name, Clement frequently quotes passages from
1 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Bk. II. c. xv. ; and Bk. VI. c. xiv.

36 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
the four Gospels, which he regarded as an authentic
standard of truth. He hesitates to receive a story
which he finds elsewhere on the express ground
that it is not to be met with in any of the " four
Gospels handed down to us." 1
Tertullian, cir. a.d. 160 — 240.2
Tertullian, the son of a Roman soldier, a pro
consular centurion, was born about A.D. 160, at
Carthage, in the province of Africa. He was
converted to Christianity when between thirty and
forty years of age, and became a presbyter. In
his Catalogue of Church Writers, Jerome calls him
the first Latin writer after Victor and Apollonius,
and describes him as " a man of sharp and vehement
temper." He is commonly accounted one of the
greatest men of Christian antiquity. Jerome tells
us that he had seen at Concordia, in Italy, an old
man named Paulus, who said "that when young
he had met at Rome with an aged amanuensis of
the blessed Cyprian, who told him that Cyprian
never passed a day without reading some portion
of Tertullian's works, and used frequently to say,
' Give me my master,' meaning Tertullian." In
later life he embraced the opinions of Montanus.
He was a prolific writer, and is reported to have
lived to a very advanced age.3
His first book against Marcion was written, he
1 Stromata, Bk. III. c. xiii.
2 Farrar puts his death cir, A.D. 220.
3 Ante-Niccite Christian Library, vol. vii. Preface to the
Five Books of Tertullian against Marcion.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 37
tells us, A.D. 207.1 In the fourth book of the
same work, written probably a few years later, he
says : — " We lay it down as our first position, that the evan
gelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom
was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publish
ing the Gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic
men also associated in the authorship, they are yet not
alone, but appear with apostles, and after apostles ;
because the preaching of disciples might be open to the
suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not
accompany it the authority of the masters, which means
that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles
their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John and
Matthew first instil faith into us ; whilst of apostolic
men Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all
start with the same principles of the faith, so far as
relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ,
how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil
the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does
occur some variation in the order of their narratives,
provided that there be agreement in the essential
matter."2
Combating the false claims of Marcion for the
mutilated form of S. Luke's Gospel,3 which he
sought to substitute for the true, Tertullian says
elsewhere : 4 —
" On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true
which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very
beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the
apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as
1 Against Marcion, Bk. I. c. xv.
2 Lbid., Bk. IV. c. ii.
3 See Bk. IV. c. ii. for his charge against Marcion of
mutilating the Gospel according to S. Luke.
4 Against Marcion, Bk. IV. c. v. t

38 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
evident that that comes down from the apostles, which
has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the
apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank
from Paul ; to what rule of faith the Galatians were
brought for correction ; what the Philippians, the
Thessalonians, the Ephesians read out of it, what utter
ance also the Romans give, so very near to the apostles,1
to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the
Gospel even sealed with their own blood. We have
also S. John's foster churches. For although Marcion
rejects his Apocalypse, the order of the bishops thereof,
when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as
their author. In the same manner is recognised the
excellent source ofthe other churches. I say, therefore,
that in them (and not simply such of them as were
founded by apostles, but in all those which are united
with them in the fellowship of the mystery of the Gospel
of Christ), that Gospel of Luke which we are defending
with all our might has stood its ground from its very
first publication ; whereas Marcion's Gospel is not known
to most people, and to none whatever is it known without
being at the same time condemned. . . . The same
authority of the Apostolic churches will afford evidence
to the other gospels also, which we possess equally
through their means, and according to their usage — I
mean the Gospels of John and Matthew — whilst that
which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's,
whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of
the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may
well seem that the works which disciples publish belong
to their masters. Well then, Marcion ought to be
called to a strict account concerning these other Gospels
also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference
on Luke ; as if they, too, had not had free course in the
churches, as well as Luke's Gospel, from the beginning.
Nay it is even more credible that they existed from the
very beginning ; for, being the work of apostles, they
1 De proximo . Westcott translated this " Who are nearest
to us.''

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 39
were prior, and coeval in origin with the churches
themselves."
We learn from Tertullian that "the authentic
writings of the apostles" were read in the Apo
stolic churches.
" Go through the Apostolic churches in which the
very seats of the apostles at this very day preside over
their own places ; in which their own authentic writings *
are read, speaking with the voice of each, and making
the face of each present to the eye." 2
Tertullian quotes largely from both the Old and
the New Testaments. According to the index af
fixed to the English translation of his work, Against
Marcion, which forms the seventh volume of the
Ante-Nicene Christian Library he cites S. Matthew
forty times, S. Mark once, S. Luke two hundred
and seventeen times, and S. John thirteen times.
He also quotes the Acts of the Apostles, and all
the Epistles, except the Second Epistle General
of Peter, the Second and the Third Epistles of-
John, and the General Epistle of Jude. To the
books which he thus quotes, he gives expressly
the title, The Scriptures of the New Testa
ment. And he refers to them as possessing an
authority in no way distinguished from that
which belongs to the Scriptures of the Old
Testament. 1 " Authenticae litterse " might certainly signify the " orig
inals," i.e. the "autographs," as opposed to "transcripts."
But the context implies nothing more than the original
Greek, " echoing the voice of each."
2 De Prcescr. Har. xiv. 36.

40 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Irenseus, b. A.D. 120 — 140.
Irenseus, a native of Asia Minor, probably of
Smyrna, was born, as is generally believed, between
A.D. 120 and 140. His parents, in all probability,
were Greek Christians. His early years were passed
in the vicinity of the Seven Churches to which the
seven letters in the Apocalypse of S. John were
addressed. In his boyhood, Polycarp, the disciple
of S. John, was Bishop of Smyrna ; Papias, the
familiar of Aristion and presbyter John, " disciples
of the Lord," was Bishop of Hierapolis, and Poly-
crates was Bishop of Ephesus. These places were
all near to where Irenaeus spent his early days, and
we cannot greatly err in picturing him to ourselves
as knowing something of these apostolic men,
and living in intimate daily intercourse with many
companions whose parents had been taught by
Paul and Barnabas, and had often seen the disciple
whom Jesus loved, and had belonged to the flock
to which, when no longer able to walk, he used to
address from the litter on which he was borne into
the congregation, the touching words, "Little
children, love one another." While still a young
man, Irenaeus migrated into Gaul, where he minis
tered as a priest under Pothinus, also, it would
seem, a native of Asia Minor, who was then Bishop
of Lyons. This Pothinus was born about A.D. 87,
i.e. some ten years before the death of S. John,
whom indeed, when a child, he may very well have
seen. Irenseus was chosen to be the bearer of a
letter to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, from some
Christians at Lyons who had been condemned to

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 41
death on account of their faith. And he succeeded
Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons, A.D. 178.1
Irenseus writes, in a letter to Florinus :—
"I can tell also, the very place where the blessed
Polycarp was accustomed to sit and discourse ; and also
his entrances, his walks, his manner of life, the form of
his body, and his conversations with the people, and his
familiar intercourse with John, as he was accustomed to
tell, as also his familiarity with those that had seen the
Lord. How also he used to relate their discourses, and
what things he had heard from them concerning the
Lord. Also concerning His miracles, His doctrine, all
these were told by Polycarp, in consistency with the
Holy Scriptures, as he had received them from the eye
witnesses of the doctrine of salvation. These things, by
the mercy of God and the opportunities then afforded
me, I attentively heard, noting them down, not on paper,
but in my heart ; and these same facts I am always in
the habit, by the grace of God, of recalling faithfully to
mind." 2
Elsewhere he writes : —
" Matthew for his part published also a written
Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language,
whilst Peter and Paul were at Rome, preaching, and
laying the foundation of the Church. And after their
departure, Mark, Peter's disciple and interpreter, did
himself also publish unto us in writing the things which
were preached by Peter. And Luke too, the attendant
of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by
him. Afterwards, John the disciple of the Lord, who
also leaned on His breast — he again put forth his Gospel,
while he abode in Ephesus in Asia." 3
1 His famous work, Against Heresies, was written, he tells
us, in the episcopate of Eleutherus, A.D. 177 — 193. Bk. III.
c. iii. 3.
2 Euseb. Eccl. Hist., Bk. V. c. xx.
3 Against Heresies, Bk. III. c. i.

42 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
" Now so great is the stability of these Gospels, that
the very Heretics also bear testimony unto them, and
endeavour each one to establish his own doctrine, setting
out from these. Thus the Ebionites, using only the
Gospel which is according to Matthew, are even by it
convicted of wrong notions concerning the Lord. And
Marcion, while he mutilates that which is according to
Luke, is proved a blasphemer of Him Who is the only
God, by those passages which are still preserved in his
writings. And those who separate Jesus from Christ,
and say that Christ remained impassive, while Jesus
suffered, while they allege the Gospel according to
Mark, may be corrected if they read it with love of the
truth. Moreover, the school of Valentinus, making very
ample use of the Gospel according to John to demon
strate the combinations they talk of, will be from that very
Gospel exposed as maintaining nothing right : as we
have shewn in the first book. Since then our opponents
bear testimony to us, in using these Gospels, our reason
ing drawn from them is strong and correct." J
According to the index to his writings in the
Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Irenseus refers to,
or quotes from, the Gospel according to S. Matthew
one hundred and ninety times, to that according to
S. Mark fifteen times, to that according to S. Luke
one hundred and twenty times, and to that accord
ing to S. John one hundred and thirty, at the very
time when we have been told dogmatically that it
was not till the last half of the second century that
the four Gospels of the Canon were first written
and circulated. Now it was in the last half of the
second century that Irenseus wrote this treatise of
1 Book III. c. xi. 7. This is not the only place in which
Irenaeus asserts that the heretics appealed to the Gospels as
lending support to their views. See Bk. I. c. xxi. 1, 2, 3.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 43
his Against Heresies. What account are we to give
of his witness to the apostolic origin of the Gospels ?
We cannot say that it is to be set down as the mis
taken judgment of a good and honest man, who was,
however, the slave of fanciful theories. No reader
of his work, indeed, will deny that he is given to in
dulge in what must seem, to the modern readerof the
West, strange conceits and fanciful arguments ; but
his account of the origin ofthe Gospels cannot by any
possibility be reckoned among these. For here we
have to do with no phantom creations of the brain.
Irenseus had been the pupil of Polycarp, a man who
was born not later than A.D. 69 or 70, i. e. eighteen
or nineteen years at least before the death of S.
John ; a man who, he tells us, had been " not only
trained by the Apostles, and had conversed with
many of those who had seen Christ, but also had
been constituted by the Apostles Bishop over Asia,
in the Church of Smyrna."1 As was natural, he
treasured in his memory all that belonged to his
old master, and he loved to dwell upon all that old
master used to tell of what he had heard from his
familiar friends who had seen the Lord, — all that he
used to tell concerning our Lord's miracles and
doctrines "in consistency with the Holy Scriptures,
as he had received them from the eye-witnesses of
the doctrine of salvation."2 All this he heard
attentively, and noted down, not on paper, but in
his heart. And it was his habit in a devout and
reverent spirit to recall these same facts to mind,
1 Bk. III. c. iii. 4.
2 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Bk. V. c. xx.

44 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
with no colouring of imagination, but faithfully, as
Polycarp had been accustomed to state them.
This is what Irenaeus himself tells us. He was
no dotard, the sport of second childhood's fitful
dreams. He was in full possession of all his
powers, ruling his diocese, and writing against
theories which he felt would rob the Church of its
heritage of truth. We cannot conceive that if this
modern theory of the origin of the Gospels were
true, Irenaeus, could have been wholly in the dark
as to what it postulates. If the Gospels were only
first written at the very time when he was writing
the passages before us, he must have known it.
He had opportunities of knowing something about
the matter. He had lived in Asia and in Europe.
He had paid a visit to the Bishop of Rome.
He was himself the responsible chief pastor of
no inconsiderable Church. He could call up
vivid pictures of his early days. Could he not
remember the time when the Gospels of which he
writes did not exist? He was alive to all that
men were saying and writing about the Christian
faith. Could he have been wholly ignorant of
these newly-fabricated histories of it ? He has left
us a book, unquestionably genuine and authentic,
as to the approximate date of which there is no
question, a book written against opinions which
we know from independent sources existed at the
time ; a book which bears upon the face of it the
marks of responsible human intelligence. Did he,
the author of this book, dream that he had known
Polycarp, and Pothinus, and Papias, and all the

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 45
other early characters of whom he speaks, and
allow the dream so to obliterate from his memory
the actual facts of his own experience, that he for
got that all his life long, from the day of his birth
till the time of his writing his book, the Gospels,
of which he speaks, and from which he quotes, had
no existence ? It is vain and futile to put such
questions. To elaborate an argument that the
evidence of Irenseus cannot be pushed aside as
the mistaken judgment of an imaginative mind, is
only to strike at a phantom and to beat the air.
We have our choice of two things, and two
only. Either the evidence of Irenseus is true, or
else he is a witness altogether and deliberately
false. But if he be a false witness, his conduct was cer
tainly not that which an ordinary acquaintance with
human nature would lead us to expect from him.
We are asked to believe that at the very time that
he was writing Against Heresies, the four Gospels
which we have in our hands were being forged
under the names of the men to whom they are
attributed. Now if Irenseus lent himself to the
plot — and the supposition that he is a false witness
implies that he did lend himself to it — we should
have expected his contribution to the fraud to have
at least assumed some form which should be as
little as possible provocative of opposition. But
see what he does. He interweaves his false testi
mony into the very structure of a controversial
argument which could not fail to provoke the hos
tility of keen and able opponents, ever on the alert

46 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
to discover any vulnerable point in their assailant's
case. Now if these opponents of his were at all like
other men, they must at once have seized with
eagerness the opportunity which he gave them.
Assuming his statements about the Gospels to
have been in fact false, it must have been matter
of common notoriety at the time that they were
false, and we cannot but believe that some at least
of the clever men whose opinions he was attacking
would have found means of proving them to be
false. It would have been an easy thing to ex
pose their falsehood, by shewing that not a single
copy of the Gospels had existed before a certain
date. Theophilus, cir. A.D. 180.
Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, writes in a letter
to Autolycus, about A.D. 180 : —
" And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the
Spirit-bearing men, one of whom, John, says : ' In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,'
shewing that at first God was alone, and the Word in
Him." 1
The Muratorian Fragment, a.d. 170 — 190.
A Latin MS. of the seventh or eighth century,
defective at the beginning and at the end, was
found in the Library of S. Ambrose, at Milan, and
first published A.D. 1740 by Muratori in his Anti-
quitates ftalicce. Muratori thought it must have
been composed about A.D. 1 90. Tregelles, who pub
lished it, with an introduction and critical notes, at
1 Ante- Nicene Library, vol. iii. p. 88.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 47
Oxford A.D. 1867, supposes it to have been written
thirty years earlier, and Bp. Westcott, who has
published it in extenso in the appendix to his Canon
of the New Testament, thinks that its first appear
ance was not later than A.D. 170. Fragmentary as
the document is, yet we learn from it that the
writer recognised four Gospels ; of which the
second was evidently that according to S. Mark ;
the third was that of S. " Luke the physician,"
the companion of S. Paul ; and the fourth the
Gospel of S. "John, a disciple" of the Lord.
Tatian, a.d. 155 — 170.
Writing about the year A.D. 325, Eusebius tells
us that Tatian, a pupil of Justin Martyr, about
A.D. 155 — 170, "having formed a certain body
and collection of Gospels, has given this the title
Diatessaron, i. e. ' The Gospel by the Four,' or
'The Gospel formed of the Four,' which is in the
possession of some even now."
Justin Martyr, cir. A.D. 100 — 166.
Justin Martyr was born of heathen parentage
at Sichem, in Samaria, towards the close of the
first, or early in the second century A.D. He had
studied the Stoic, Peripatetic, Pythagorean, and
Platonic systems of philosophy.1
He sojourned for a time at Ephesus, and also
dwelt at Rome. He has left us an interesting
account of the circumstances which led to his con-
1 Dialogue with Trypho, c.ii. 8.

48 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
version to Christianity.1 And he was put to death
as a martyr of the Christian faith at Rome, A.D.
166 or 167. His Dialogue with Trypho the few,
written about A.D. 150, and two Apologies, written
somewhat later, have come down to us. They
shew him to have been familiarly acquainted not
only with the Jewish Scriptures, but also with the
life and teaching of our Lord as presented in the
four Gospels of the Christian Canon. It is true
he does not quote them by name — a circumstance
which perhaps is not so remarkable as it would
have been if his writings had been addressed to
Christian readers ; for in the term " Gospel " itself
there is nothing that would convey to the mind of
the Jew, or heathen, unfamiliar with the history of
Christianity, any correct idea of the character of
the documents from which he drew his informa
tion. But he does frequently refer to his author
ities for the statements which he makes about
Christ and Christianity. In the Dialogue, and in
the first Apology, he mentions these authorities
eight times simply as " Memoirs," and five times
as " Memoirs of the Apostles." In one place the
reference is made in these words: "In the Memoirs,
which, I say, were drawn up by His Apostles, and
those who followed them, it is recorded, . . . " 2
And once again he writes of them as the "Memoirs
composed by the Apostles, which are called Gos
pels."3 As to the esteem in winch these Memoirs
1 The story is well told in Professor J. J. Blum's Right
Use of the Christian Fat Iters.
2 Dialogue; c. iii. 3 Apology, c. lxvi.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 49
called Gospels were held by the Christian com
munity at large, he gives incidentally very im
portant evidence ; for, in describing their ordinary
worship, he says : " On the day called Sunday, all
who live in cities or in the country gather together
to one place, and the Memoirs of the apostles or
the writings of the prophets are read as long as
time permits." x
It is difficult to weigh the testimony of Justin
Martyr in few words. I cannot better deal with
it than by quoting the careful and lucid statement
of Bishop Westcott. He says : —
"Justin tells us that Christ was descended from
Abraham through Jacob, Phares, Jesse, and David ;
that the angel Gabriel was sent to foretell His birth
of the Virgin Mary ; that this was a fulfilment of the
prophecy of Isaiah (vii. 14) ; that Joseph was forbidden
in a vision to put away his espoused wife, when he
was so minded ; that our Saviour's birth at Bethlehem
had been foretold by Micah ; that His parents went
thither from Nazareth, where they dwelt, in conse
quence of the enrolment under Cyrenius ; that, as they
could not find a lodging in the village, they lodged in
a cave close by it, where Christ was born, and laid
by Mary in a manger ; that while there, wise men from
Arabia, guided by a star, worshipped Him, and offered
Him gold and frankincense and myrrh, and by revela
tion were commanded not to return to. Herod, to whom
they had first come ; that He was called Jesus, as the
Saviour of His people ; that by the command of God
His parents fled with Him to Egypt for fear of Herod,
and remained there till Arehelaus succeeded him ; that
Herod, being deceived by the wise men, commanded
the children of Bethlehem to be put to death, so that
the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled, who spoke of
1 Apology, c. lxvii.

50 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Rachel weeping for her children ; that Jesus grew after
the common manner of men, working as a carpenter,
and so waited in obscurity thirty years, more or less, till
the coming of John the Baptist.
" He tells us, moreover, that this John, the son of
Elizabeth, came preaching by the Jordan the baptism
of repentance, wearing a leathern girdle and a raiment
of camel's hair, and eating locusts and wild honey ;
that men supposed that he was the Christ, to Whom
he answered, I am not the Christ, but a voice of one
crying, for He that is mightier than I will soon come,
Whose sandals I am not worthy to bear ; that when
Jesus descended into the Jordan to be baptized by him
a fire was kindled in the river, and when He came up
out of the water the Holy Spirit, as a dove, lighted upon
Him, and a voice came from heaven, saying, Thou art My
Son ; this day have I begotten thee ; that immediately
after His baptism the devil came to Jesus and tempted
Him, bidding him at last to worship him. He further
adds that Christ Himself recognised John as the Elias
who should precede Him, to Whom men had done
whatsoever they listed ; and then he relates how Herod
put John into prison, and how the daughter of Herodias
danced before the king on his birthday, and pleased
him, so that he promised to grant her anything she
wished, and that she, by her mother's desire, asked for
the head of John, to be given her on a charger, and that
so John was put to death.
" Henceforth, after speaking in general terms of the
miracles of Christ, how He healed all manner of sick
ness and disease, Justin says little of the details of His
life till the last great events. Then he narrates Christ's
triumphal entry into Jerusalem from Bethphage as a
fulfilment of prophecy, the (second) cleansing of the
Temple, the conspiracy against Him, the institution of
the Eucharist for the remembrance of Him, the singing
of the Psalm afterward, the Agony at night on the
mount of Olives, at which three of His disciples were
present, the prayer, the bloody sweat, the arrest, the
flight of the apostles, the silence before Pilate, the re-

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 5 1
mand to Herod, the crucifixion, the division of Christ's
raiment by lot, the signs, and words of mockery of the
bystanders, the cry of sorrow, the last words of resig
nation, the burial on the evening of the day of the
Passion, the resurrection on Sunday, the appearance to
the apostles and disciples, how Christ opened to them
the Scriptures, the calumnies of the Jews, the commis
sion of the apostles, the ascension." l
In judging the force of this evidence, it is neces
sary to note several points, and to weigh well their
significance. In the first place Justin does not mention any
of our four evangelists by name as the authors of
the Memoirs called Gospels.
There is nothing unreasonable in supposing that
Justin may well have known who had written the
documents on which he based his statements.
Indeed, all the evidence would go to suggest that
he must have known who they were. But unless
Antoninus Pius, to whom he addressed his Apology,
and the unbelieving Jews whom he sought to in
fluence by his Dialogue, knew that two of our
Lord's apostles were called Matthew and John,
and that two intimate friends and companions of
other apostles were called Mark and Luke, the
mention of their names would have in no way
seemed to further the purpose of his writing. And
it is highly improbable that they knew these facts.
Justin's object was to convey to his readers some
correct conception of the authoritative character of
1 Canon ofthe New Testament, pp. 88 — 91. I have omitted
the references to the Apology and the Dialogue, which are
given by Westcott in detail.

52 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
the documents which he used. And this he did
most effectually by calling them Memoirs, or
Memorabilia, composed or drawn up by men who
had been sent forth by our Lord to propagate His
teaching, and by others who had been closely
associated with them.
The evidence of Justin Martyr, taken by itself,
goes to prove two important facts. The first fact
is this : That the Memoirs, on the authority of
which he made his statements concerning Christ
and His teaching, whether they constituted one
single narrative, or more than one independent
narrative, were drawn up by the apostles and those
who followed them, and were spoken of in the
plural as Gospels.
The second fact is this : That it was the common
practice of Christians, before the date at which
Justin wrote, to read every Sunday in their churches
these Memoirs composed by the apostles, and
called Gospels, in the same way as they read the
Scriptures ofthe Old Testament.
Papias, a.d. 98 — 117.
We learn from Eusebius that, between the years
A.D. 98 and 117," Papias was well known as Bishop
ofthe Church at Hierapolis, a man well skilled in
all manner of learning, and well acquainted with
the Scriptures."1 Hierapolis, where a Christian
Church was already established when S. Paul
wrote to the Colossians, in A.D. 62, was a town in
Phrygia, in Asia Minor. Philip, the apostle, dwelt
1 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Bk. III. c. xxxvi.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 53
here ; and his daughters surviving till the time of
Papias, were buried here. He states that he knew
them. Irenaeus calls him "a hearer of John and
companion of Polycarp."1 He also received
traditions directly from the mouth of Aristion,
and ofthe presbyter John, who were "disciples of
the Lord," 2 and companions of the apostles. He
wrote a work in five books, entitled Interpretation
of our Lord's Declarations. All that has survived
of it is a few fragments which have been preserved
by Irenaeus and Eusebius. Eusebius, however,
writes as follows : —
" But Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses,
by no means asserts that he was a hearer and an eye
witness of the holy apostles, but informs us that he re
ceived the doctrines of faith from their intimate friends,
which he states in the following words : ' But I shall
not regret to subjoin to my interpretations, also for your
benefit, whatsoever I have at any time accurately ascer
tained and treasured up in my memory, as I have re
ceived it from the elders, and have recorded it in order
to give additional confirmation to the truth, by my testi
mony. ... If I met with any one who had been a
follower of the elders anywhere, I made it a point to
inquire what were the declarations of the elders ; what
was said by Andrew, Peter, or Philip ; what by
Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the
disciples of our Lord ; what was said by Aristion, and
the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord ; for I do not
think that I derived so much benefit from books, as
from the living voice of those that are still surviving.'
. . . John the presbyter also said this : Mark being the
interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote

1 Irenaeus, Agaiiist Heresies, Bk. V. c. xxxiii.
2 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Bk. III. c. xxxix.

54 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
with great accuracy, but not, however, in the order in
which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither
heard nor followed our Lord, but as before said, he was
in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction
as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord's
discourses : wherefore Mark has not erred in anything,
by writing some things as he has recorded them ; for
he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by
anything that he heard, or to state anything falsely in
these accounts.' Such is the account of Papias, re
specting Mark. Of Matthew he has stated as follows :
' Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect,
and every one translated it as he is able.' " *
(b) Evidence of Opponents.
Much that was said in the early controversies
has no doubt perished. But enough of the assaults
made against the Christians has come down to us
to shew that it never occurred to the early assail
ants of our faith to call in question the authenticity
of the four Gospels.
About the middle of the second century, when
beyond the possibility of question our four Gospels,
and no others, were received by the Church as
written by the men whose names they bear, there
appeared a formal treatise against Christianity,
from the pen of a heathen philosopher named
Celsus. The book in its separate form is lost.
But in the rejoinder which it drew from Origen,
who came about fifty years after him, it is dealt
with in such a manner, that, for the purpose of our
argument, we may say that it is still in our hands.
Wishing to purge himself from all suspicion of
passing by any chapters because he had no answer
1 Euseb, Eccl. Hist. Bk. III. c. xxxix.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 55
to them, Origen says : " I have thought it best,
according to my ability, to confute everything
proposed by him, not so much observing the
natural order of things, as the order which he has
taken himself." It is clear then that Origen has
not omitted any argument used by Celsus in his
attack upon Christianity. Moreover, it is impos
sible to fix upon him the imputation of mis
representing his opponent, for, as Paley acutely
observes, the objection as stated by him from
Celsus is sometimes stronger than his own answer.
Now it is reasonable to suppose that when Celsus
wrote, men were still alive whose memory could
carry them back to the days in which the alleged
substitution of our four Gospels for Justin's
"Memoirs" is said to have taken place. At any
rate his contemporaries must have often heard
their fathers speak of such a sudden and revolu
tionary change, if such a change had ever been
made. All this being so, we know what to look for in
the writings of Celsus. It is obvious, we should
say, that we shall find him using language like
this : " What is commonly taught by the Chris
tians everywhere to-day, in Asia, in Europe, and
in Africa, as to what Jesus did, and what Jesus
said, does not deserve serious consideration. It is
taught on the authority of four documents, which
profess to have been written by men called
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, companions and
early followers of Jesus. But these documents
were never written by those men at all. They

56 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
are spurious documents, falsely attributed to them.
There did indeed exist certain Memoirs, written by
some of the companions of Jesus, which give the
true account of what Jesus really did and really
said. But these documents, to which the Chris
tians of to-day appeal, are quite different from
those old authentic Memoirs. They are full of
mere myth, tacked on to what the Christians used
to believe and to teach. There is nothing open to
question in their history. Every one knows all
about it. A hundred years ago no one had ever
heard of them. There are old men still alive
who remember the time when it was not these
brand-new Scriptures (as they call them), but
quite other writings which used to be read in their
assemblies. None of us can forget how our fathers
used to talk of the men who foisted in these new
fangled legends. The fraud is bare-faced, for these
facts are all notorious. And the Christians them
selves cannot deny them."
This is the kind of argument we should expect
to find Celsus putting forward. But the expecta
tion is not realized. Quite different is the position
which he takes up. And it is clear that his not
availing himself of such vantage-ground cannot be
accounted for by any supposed lack of strategic
skill. For what he does say is quite inconsistent
with the supposition, that it was open to him to
have adopted such a line of argument, if he had
desired to do so. These are the words which he
puts into the mouth of the Jew whom he imper
sonates : —

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 57
" I could say many things concerning the affairs of
Jesus, and those, too, different from those written by the
disciples of Jesus. But I purposely omit them."
He admits, then, that the disciples of Jesus — by
which term he does not mean the followers of
Jesus in general, but His apostles and companions
— had written ofthe affairs of Jesus. And quite in
harmony with this admission he elsewhere makes
a charge against the Christians of dealing fraudu
lently with their writings, a charge which, while
it impeaches their integrity, at the same time
implies their authenticity. But this is not all. He
makes his Jew, who never refers to the spurious
Gospels, to found arguments upon the discrepancies
between the several accounts of the same trans
action which appear in the canonical Gospels, and
to triumph when he thinks he has established his
point by means of evidence drawn from the acknow
ledged authoritative writings of his opponents.
From all this it is manifest that Celsus was
familiar with the contents of our Gospels, and that
he regarded them, and them only, as having
authority with the Christians of his day.
(c) Our Four Gospels could not have been sub
stituted for other writings.
In connection with the novel theory that the
four Gospels of the Canon were not written till
about A.D. 180, and that they thenceforward took
the place of the Memoirs called Gospels which
preceded them, it is necessary to have in mind the
character of the age in which the substitution is
said to have taken place. The time had already

58 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
gone by when the champions of Christianity were
so busily employed in propagating the faith among
the heathen that they had no leisure to use their
pens in defence of it. It could no longer be said
that among the Christians none were to be found
save such as were unlettered and untaught. Many
men of learning and erudition had already been
won to Christianity. Justin Martyr and Clement
of Alexandria were both of them philosophers of
no mean order. Indeed it was an epoch of great
literary activity. In it Irenaeus produced his great
work. Theophilus wrote his striking letter to
Autolycus. Athenagoras the philosopher issued
his Plea on behalf of the Christians. Tatian com
posed his Diatessaron. Rhodo published his trea
tise against Marcion, and Celsus^ delivered his
assault upon Christianity. Clement was already
earning the literary reputation which singled
him out as the natural successor of Pantaenus
as director of the famous school of Alexandria.
Tertullian was reading Roman law.
We should also endeavour to realize how general
was the use of the Gospels among the primitive
Christians. They were read at public worship.
Children were orally instructed from them, and
many private Christians must have possessed copies
of their own. The number of them in use in the
middle of the second century has been estimated
at 60,000. But whether this estimate be correct
or not, the number must have been very large.1
1 " At the end of the second century there were three mil
lions of believers using our present Gospels, regarding them

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 59
Such was the character of the age, such the con
ditions of ecclesiastical life, when, as we are told,
the four Gospels that have come down to us were
substituted for Justin's Memoirs called Gospels.
If the substitution was ever made, this at least is
clear : the thing was not done in a corner.1
The important question about the Gospels is
not as to the year in which they were written. It
is this : Do they, as we possess them, present us
with a faithful picture of the life of Jesus Christ
on earth, of His sayings and His doings, as that
life was a true manifestation of the will of God ?
If it could be proved that the Gospels were not
written before the close of the second century, this,
by itself, would by no means justify the conclusion
that they do not give us a substantially correct
and true account of what actually occurred. Let

with the highest reverence, and anxious to obtain copies of
them ... a common copy of the Gospels was not a book of
any great bulk or expense. . . . Origen, upon quoting a
passage from the New Testament, says that it is written,
not ' in any rare books, read only by a few studious persons,
but in those in the most common use.' In truth there can
be little doubt that copies of the Gospels were owned by a
large portion of Christians who had the means of procuring
them ; and in supposing only one copy of these books for
every fifty Christians, the estimate is probably much within
the truth. This proportion, however, will give us sixty thou
sand copies of the Gospels for three millions of Christians."
Norton, Genuineness ofthe Gospels, vol. i. pp. 31, 32.
1 "The Gospels when written were not hidden in a corner,
or buried in obscurity, but they were made known to all the
world, before enemies as well as others, even as they are
now." — Chrysostom, in Matt. Horn. i. 7.

60 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
us suppose — in presence of all the evidence that
has come down to us — that not one of the four
canonical Gospels was written before the year A.D.
170. It is certainly not less reasonable to suppose,
in presence of the same testimony, that the com
posers of the documents which we have in our
hands wrote them as intelligent men, honestly
using such legitimate materials of history as were
within their reach. It cannot be shewn — and in
deed it is not pretended — that among such materials
there could not have been an earlier written record
from the hand of men who had beheld the works
and listened to the words of Jesus. The assump
tion then that the four Gospels are of later date
than the force of all the evidence compels us to
assign to them, would in no way invalidate their
claim to be nothing less than true histories of
events known to have taken place, unless it were
also shewn that they were written by men whose
judgment or whose probity we have good reason
to mistrust. After all, only a comparatively small
number of those who have written history were
themselves personal witnesses of the events which
they record. No reasonable man would mistrust
Hallam's History of the Middle Ages on the ground
that he lived long after the events, and yet accept
without question Froude's Oceana because he wrote
of what he had seen and heard. We believe that
the Gospel according to S. Matthew and the
Gospel according to S. John were written by men
who saw with their eyes and heard with their ears
much of what their books contain. And we believe

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 6 1
that the Gospel according to S. Mark and the
Gospel according to S. Luke were written by
men who had not the same opportunities of per
sonal observation. But we do not on this account
discredit the accuracy of S. Mark or of S. Luke.
The evidence that I have adduced to shew that
the canonical Gospels were written by the men
whose names they bear must not be considered as
in any way approaching the whole of the evidence
that has been brought forward in support of them.
But enough has been said to justify the conclusion
that " the four Gospels are assigned to those four
persons, whom the Church has always honoured
as Evangelists, on grounds very much superior to
those on which the bulk of classical works are
ascribed to particular authors. The single testi
mony of Irenaeus is really of more weight than the
whole array of witnesses commonly marshalled in
proof of the genuineness of an ancient classic; and,
even if it stood alone, might fairly be regarded as
placing the question of the authorship beyond all
reasonable doubt or suspicion."1
1 Rawlinson, Bampton Lectures, pp. 208, 209. In early
times no question as to the authorship of the Gospels was
ever mooted, because there never was any doubt about it.
The titles of the Gospels as we have them in our English
Bibles are literally translated from some of the oldest Greek
MSS., and come down to us at least from the times ofthe
first Councils. And we find in some of the early versions
titles which are even more explicit as to their authorship.
In the Syriac the title of the first Gospel is " The Gospel,
the preaching of Matthew." In the Persian it is, "The
Gospel of Matthew." And in the Arabic, " The Gospel of
Saint Matthew the Apostle, which he wrote in Hebrew by

62 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
We learn from S. Luke that before he wrote his
Gospel not a few, but many, had already under
taken to draw up narratives concerning those
matters which had been fully established among
those who had believed in Christ. It is not un
reasonable to claim some measure of the sanction
of his authority for the supposition, very probable
in itself, that there were already existing among
the followers of our Lord certain earlier documents
giving an account of His life and teaching, varying
in scope, and varying also in the degree of author
ity currently attributed to them. Among these
were probably the two genealogies incorporated in
their Gospels by SS. Matthew and Luke, and a
collection of discourses which S. Luke alone has
used. There is little doubt that the evangelists
did not overlook any of these writings which they
had reason to regard as supplying trustworthy
matter of history. Since the days of Eichorn, men
have wrought marvels of industry and acumen in
their attempts to resolve the narratives that have
come down to us into their previously existing
literary components. But the theories propounded
with this aim are mutually destructive of one
another, and lead only to confusion. It is now
pretty well agreed among sober-minded students
that the net result of all this prodigious critical
labour is at once to make clear the conditions of
the problem, and to shew that no data exist from
which it can be solved.
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." See Horne'S Introduc
tion, vol. i. pp. 260, 261.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 63
But we may go farther. We may venture with
a considerable degree of confidence to assume that
these earlier documentary fragments of the story
of Christ were themselves little else than written
copies of still earlier oral traditions which had
already crystallized into definite verbal form.1 The
original witnesses of our Lord's ministry on earth
were few in number. And those few were not men
of letters. Immediately after the day of Pentecost
they entered upon their task of teaching the world
what Christ had commanded them. The very
conditions of the task required them to speak, not
to write. It was necessary for them to tell by
word of mouth-— nay, to tell over and over again, —
the same story of the same series of facts. The
form of the story, even the very words in which
much of it was told, would have a natural tendency
to stereotype themselves. For us, who live after
the printing press has been at work for centuries,
it is hard to form a true picture of the conditions
under which instruction was conveyed in the days
of the apostles, and for some time after their days.
It may help us in some measure to realize those
conditions if we remember that the teaching of
the Jews contained in the Talmud was orally pre
served in a fixed form for more than one hundred
years before it was committed to writing. From
the destruction of Jerusalem to the close of the
second century the sole vehicle for transmission
1 See Bp, Westcott's Introd. to the Study ofthe Gospels,
p. 198 ; and Sanday's The Gospels of the Second Century,
p. 100.

64 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
of that strange agglomerate of opinion, was the
memory of the Tannites, or repeaters, as the authors
of the Mishna were called.1
Giesler maintains, and Archbishop Thomson
adopts the view, that portions of the Gospel story
had assumed a fixed oral form before they were
reduced to writing. On the question when they
were first written in their present form, the Arch
bishop says : " Upon the whole we are pushed by
probabilities on either side towards a date some
where about A.D. 63 — 65" for S. Matthew's Gospel.
S. Mark he places chronologically between SS.
Matthew and Luke, from A.D. 65 — 6f, and S.
Luke's Gospel at from A.D. 75— 80.
The attack upon the Johannine authorship of the
fourth Gospel has completely failed. Bp. Lightfoot 2
and Dr. Sanday have gone exhaustively into the
question, and discussed the recent literature of it at
length. And Bp. Westcott, who has also carefully
examined all that has been urged against the
validity of the external historical evidence, shews
in detail how that evidence is confirmed, not only
by the direct internal evidence,3 but by the indirect
evidence which the book itself supplies. He makes
it clear from an examination of little incidental
details, that the writer must have been a Jew ; and
not only a Jew, but a Palestinian Jew of the first
century ; that he must have been an eye-witness of
1 See authorities quoted by Archbishop Thomson in his
Introduction to the Synoptical Gospels in the Speaker's
Commentary. 2 In the Contemporary Review, 1875.
3 John i. 14 ; xix. 35 ; xxi. 24.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 65
the events which he describes ; not only an eye
witness, but an apostle ; not only an- apostle, but
no other apostle than S. John.
There is no evidence from which it is possible to
determine the exact time at which S. John's Gospel
was written. Bp. Westcott has gone carefully into
the whole question,1 and forming his judgment as
well from the indications of date which the Gospel
itself supplies, as from the body of historical tradi
tion, he concludes it to be probable, that " it may be
referred to the last decennium of the first century,
and even to the close of it."
The four Canonical Gospels stand altogether by
themselves. There is nothing to compete with
them. It is not that they are the best accounts,
they are the only authentic accounts of our Lord's
ministry and teaching which have survived.
(d) The Spurious Gospels.
In later days spurious Gospels did come into
existence. But the Church was ware of them,2
1 See his Introduction to the Gospel according to S. John.
2 We read in Bingham that " if any clergyman was convict
of publishing any apocryphal books, or books written by
impious men under false titles, as sacred and pious writings,
to the corruption and seducement both of laity and clergy,
by another ofthe Apostolic Canons (Can. Apost. 51) he was
to be deposed. Tertullian gives an instance of the exercise
of discipline in this case upon an Asiatic presbyter, who
wrote the book called ' The Acts of Paul and Thecla,' under
the feigned name of the apostle. He pleaded in his own
behalf that he did it out. of love to S. Paul ; but this would
not satisfy the Church ; for upon conviction and confession
of the fact, she obliged the man to quit his office for his
transgression." — Antiq. Bk. xvii. c. v. 18. F

66 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
and had no difficulty in discovering the fraud.
They were utterly different from the canonical
Gospels alike in their origin and their aim. They
were rejected. But the reason for their rejection
is that they were proved " to be forgeries ; we know
all about their origin and growth. They are the
myths of primitive Christianity, and in this stand
in sharp contradistinction to its history. We do not
reject them because of their miraculous character as
such ; we reject them because the miracles are not
morally beneficial, because they are purposeless, and
because they are badly attested. The romances
which relate them are not authentic ; they have no
real connection with the persons whose names they
bear." 1
I have been surprised to find educated men of
the present day totally unaware of the gulf which
separates these spurious Gospels from the Gospels
of the New Testament. It needs, however, but
little acquaintance with ecclesiastical history to shew
clearly that they are wholly without authority. It
has been well said concerning them : —
" Justin's writings afford conclusive proof that what
are commonly called the 'Apocryphal Gospels,' if
already written in his time, had no authority among
intelligent Christians. Had he possessed them, and
regarded them as authentic, it is impossible that, with
his full and minute citations of Christ's words and deeds,
he should not have quoted from them. There is, indeed,
no trace of their existence during the first three centuries,
and in the fourth century they are expressly referred to
1 Dr. J. H. Bernard, Literature of the Second Century,
P- 135-

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 67
as late compositions, by unknown persons, and of no his
torical value. They are not in a single instance quoted
with approval within the period in which their sanction
by a Christian writer could have any bearing on the
question of their authenticity or early antiquity. They
are, however, of great worth, as showing what kinds
of traditions must have found ready circulation among
the more ignorant Christians, and thus by their contrast
with our canonical Gospels enhancing the presumption
in favour of the latter as authentic. The Apocryphal
Gospels seem to have been written by sincerely devout
Christians, of large credulity and little spiritual discern
ment, who thought to do honour to Christ by ascribing
to Him marvellous acts of whatever kind, frivolous,
useless, or mischievous, equally with those worthy of
' a Teacher sent from God.' " 1
We have independent catalogues of the books
which form the New Testament. The books them
selves were collected into a separate and distinct
volume. Titles denoting veneration were applied
to them. They were constantly read in the public
services of the Church, and expounded to large as
semblies of every class.2 Versions of them were
multiplied in different languages. They were quoted
so largely by the early Christian Fathers that a great
portion of them might be reproduced from their
writings. Opposing sects, mutually jealous of each
other, appealed to their authority, while Jew and
1 A. P. PEABODY, Christianity and Science, p. 261.
2 " In the primitive Church not only men and women, but
children were encouraged and trained up from their infancy
to the reading of Holy Scriptures ; and the catechumens were
not only admitted to some of the prayers of the Church
peculiarly appropriate to their condition, but also obliged
to learn the Scriptures, as part of their discipline and instruc
tion." — BlNG. Antiq. XIII. iv. 9.

68 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Gentile both examined them intently as containing
the primal statement of the new teaching. Thus
have they been public property from the beginning,
protected from corruption alike by the love of the
Christian community, and by the hatred of its
foes.

CHAPTER IV
HAVE THE ORIGINAL TEXTS OF THE BOOKS OF
THE BIBLE BEEN FAITHFULLY PRESERVED ?
I. — The Old Testament.
The table on the next page gives a bird's-eye
view of the text of the Old Testament, of which
two, three, or possibly four early types are trace
able : — an old text, dating from the second or
third century B.C., the parent of the Massoretic
text ; an old text, parent of the Targums ; an old
text, parent of the Samaritan Pentateuch ; and an
old text, parent of, the Septuagint.
(i) The Hebrew Text.
All the Hebrew MSS. which have come down
to us are singularly free from variation. They are
like one another even in their faults. For instance,
in- reading one of them we meet with a word in
which a letter omitted in transcription has been
added above the line ; or we find here and there a
letter unlike its fellows, too large, or too small.
No amount of care on the part of the copyist can
wholly shut out the possibility of such defects as

70 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY

to XH

to
O g3

CO

a

<!H

o

a

O X

qva £.

w <p^

Pi H •*<«>« en

m ° ° o W
^ W, S Si Si . rtg-g £ 3 C_rt^^^^E
. _ nj.gCL, >
[r] Ph ^c jC pC 3| J g-j- .S jCw jC^C^jCjCj:^

o

a;

p.

pr.

0J

rt

>

-n
c
rt
G
c
<n
rt
s
.t^
rt
cs\
CO
P.
OJ
-C
CO
H
(J
c
a
u
.3
PP
co
"p. 6
u
1
t/5
'5'Ui
'C
_o
1_
OJ
1)
r-«
X
co
'55
>
£
H
7iL<
c
>
S
i-i
5 "
3
rt
c
<+H
c
"C
c
rt
u
r i
o
U
a
"TJ <u <D v i "S3 rt rt asSodOT!.
<to >>>|dE{i;> ^e u I §.m co o w <u
C3 Ph -C -S -C 3 £ g"-= -C .C W _a£l3.S.C.C.C~
> H H H Ceo co H h H H<WHHHHH
tq H «  v  , _^
co Z
W p4 a S g
a to o s|
H £ S |co
fe q § E pu« «
° .3 g. <SSS
go 2 ^ S8p
- u g C rt
rt
Crt
U^ H H co
COW Eh
Q 2
aS : : il
O U rt rt W_S
JX r o. cu •£
W to
O fe"« g c
CJ
rt 3
co «* b b c xi a.S
fa ° Xi b« « .S
I— J
K5 f"1 ^'ca-
¦2; j <; oPU
THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 7 1
these occurring occasionally. But it is surprising to
see what care has been taken to stereotype them in
all the copies. Take up copy after copy and turn
to the same passage, and you will find the same
mistake, the same letter above the line, or the same
letter of abnormal size, repeated in them all.
Such remarkable uniformity not only witnesses to
the extraordinary attention which was bestowed
upon their work by the transcribers, with a view to
exactness in reproducing the very words and letters
of the MS. which they copied, but it also proves
that all the MSS. which have come down to us were
made from one standard text, the date of which
cannot be later than the tenth century A.D. But it
can be traced back unchanged to about A.D. 100,
and it must have existed in substantially the same
form for some centuries before that date.
(2) The Samaritan Pentateuch.
The Samaritans have a Canon of their own. It
includes the five Books of the Law only. They
possess also an independent reproduction of the
Book of Joshua, forming the beginning of a chronicle
which was carried down to the days of the Roman
Empire. But they have never admitted either the
Prophets or the Hagiographa to their Canon.
It seems most probable that the Samaritan
Pentateuch must be referred to a date earlier than
the institution of the Samaritan community, and of
the worship on Gerizim, i. e. not long after the
period of Nehemiah's activity. It is a recension of
the commonly received Hebrew text of the five
Books of the Law. It is written in the old Hebrew,

72 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
or so-called Samaritan character. It is referred to
by Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, Cyril, Procopius, and
Diodorus.1 (3) The Septuagint.
The first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures
into another language — perhaps indeed the first
great labour of the kind ever undertaken in the
world's history — is the famous Alexandrian trans
lation into Greek. The origin of it is hidden in
obscurity. The Jews who returned from captivity
in Babylon to Jerusalem were already beginning
to lose the use of their native tongue. A genera
tion was growing up who " could not speak in the
Jews' language." 2 The pure Hebrew of their
Scriptures was no longer vernacular, and it soon
became unintelligible to the people at large with
out the help of Aramaic Targums.
Shortly after his conquest of Jerusalem, B.C. 330,
Alexander the Great transplanted a large number
of Jews to his newly-founded city of Alexandria.
By degrees the Jews of the Dispersion generally,
and more particularly those of Alexandria, began
to adopt the manners, views, and language of the
Greeks, in other words, to Hellenize themselves.
It was under these circumstances that the Greek
1 The Samaritans have also a translation of the Pentateuch
into their own dialect, which follows closely the Samaritan
text, but contains here and there what seem to be inter
polations from the Targum of Onkelos. It is said to be not
earlier than the second century B.C. Cf. S. KOHN, Zur
Sprache, Literatur, und Dogmatik der Samaritaner. Leipsig,
1876. 2 Neh. xiii. 24.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 73
Version, known to us as the Septuagint (generally
written the LXX.), came into existence.
Whether the great enterprise was undertaken in
the first instance to satisfy the literary cravings of
Alexandria, or to meet the growing needs of these
Hellenistic Jews, is still an open question among
the learned.
We learn from the Prologue to the Book of
Ben Sirach, which was written about B.C. 130,
that the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa
had been translated into Greek before that
date. References made to that Greek translation
by Demetrius, an earlier Jewish writer, and by
other Hellenistic writers of pre-Christian times,
have been preserved ; and they are of such a
character as to establish the essential icjentity of
the LXX. as we have it, with that early Version.
The earliest writing which professes to give us
an account of the circumstances under which it
was made, is the celebrated letter purporting to
have been written by one Aristeas, an officer of
Ptolemy Philadelphus, to his brother Philocrates.
Internal evidence shews that this letter, which is
an admitted forgery, must have been written before
B.C. 198. The story which the letter tells of the
origin of the version is clearly embellished. But
none the less it furnishes good evidence that the
translation of the Law had been made at least a
generation before the beginning of the second
century B.C. And there is no reason to question
the correctness of the statement, that it was made
: — as the letter declares — in the time of Ptolemy

74 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Philadelphus, i.e. B.C. 284— 247.1 Translations of
the other books followed at uncertain dates. And
we know that the version was complete before
B.C. 130.
The translators, who were numerous, were very
unequally equipped for their task, and it is im
possible to deny that some of them did not possess
the requisite knowledge of either Hebrew or Greek.
The Pentateuch is evidently not the work of a
single translator ; but, taken as a whole, it unques
tionably occupies the foremost place in order of
literary merit. The Psalter and the Former Pro
phets hold the second rank. But some of the
Latter Prophets, and the rest of the Hagiographa
are, in different degrees, very inadequately, nay
even badly translated.
Yet in spite of all its defects the Septuagint was
held in the highest honour, and a feast-day is said
to have been appointed to commemorate its com
pletion. The Jews of the Dispersion had no other
Scriptures. It was in the LXX., and not in the
Hebrew, that the Law and the Prophets were read
in their Synagogues down to the end of the second
century A.D. It is constantly cited and appealed
to by both Philo and Josephus. The early Fathers,
too, made copious quotations from it. And from
it sprang all the early translations of the Old
Testament Scriptures, with the exception of the
Peshitto Syriac and the Latin Vulgate. Melito
(a.d. 170), the first Christian writer to give us a
list of the books of the Old Testament, mentions
1 Buhl, p. no.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 75
them under the LXX. titles. It was this Version,
and this alone, which was read in the public wor
ship of the Christian Church during the first four
centuries. And it is the Old Testament of the
Greek Church to this day.
(4) The Hexapla Versions.
Origen found that in his own day, after the lapse
of nearly five hundred years, the LXX. had shared
the lot of other books, and suffered from transcrip
tion. He noted also that it differed greatly in
many places from the Hebrew, adding sometimes,
omitting sometimes, and often making the meaning
obscure by the inadequacy of its rendering. With
a scholarly and critical insight in advance of his
age, he sought to arrest the progress of corruption,
and to stereotype the true meaning of the sacred
writings, by placing side by side in parallel columns
the best-known versions of the Scriptures extant
in his time. The result was his monumental work
known as the Hexapla. Only a comparatively
small portion of it survives. What has survived,
Dr. Field has given us in his great edition, which
Scrivener calls " that glory of the Clarendon
Press."1 Origen published, in fact, two distinct
works, a Tetrapla, consisting of the four best-
known Greek versions", viz. those of Aquila, of Sym-
machus, of the LXX., and of Theodotion, arranged
in parallel columns, and in the order named,
and a Hexapla, which was composed of the four
versions of the Tetrapla, with the addition of the
1 ORIGENIS Hexaplorum quce supersunt. Oxford, Claren
don Press, 1875,

"j6 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Hebrew text prefixed in two columns, one in He
brew, and the other in Greek, characters. The
Tetrapla was quite distinct in its composition from
the Hexapla. But the term Hexapla came to be
applied to Origen's multiple edition of the Bible
generally, as well to those books in which only
the four Greek versions appear, as to those in
which we find an array of five or six Greek ver
sions, side by side with the two Hebrew columns.
The Version of Aquila.
Aquila, a Gentile native of Sinope, was brother-
in-law of the Emperor Hadrian (a.d. 117 — 138),
who put him in charge of the works of the public
buildings at Jerusalem, where, seeing the great
signs of healings and other wonders wrought by
the disciples of the Apostles, he was converted to
Christianity. He was, however, excommunicated
because he would not give up the practice of
astrology, in which he was an expert. He felt
the disgrace keenly, and immediately became a
Jewish proselyte, and was circumcised. He had
a great natural talent for languages, and devoted
himself to the study of Hebrew. The date of his
version has not been fixed accurately. It was,
however, made before Irenaeus wrote, i. e. before
A.D. 177. Many believe it was written before
Justin Martyr's Dialog?^. It was made from the
received Hebrew text ofthe time, and its great char
acteristic is its extreme literalness, its object being
to reproduce the Hebrew word for word in Greek.1
1 Where the LXX. says that Sarai laughed iv iavry, Aquila
has ev e'yKtiri/i auTrjg, Gen. xviii. 12.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE "J%
The Version of Theodotion.
According to Epiphanius, Theodotion was a
native of Pontus, and a follower of Marcion.
Jerome makes him to have belonged to the Ebion
ites, who held that Christ was a mere man, and
maintained the abiding obligation of the Jewish
Law. He embraced Judaism, and learned Hebrew,
from which "he translated the Scriptures into Greek.
His aim was to amend the LXX., correcting its
mistakes, and supplying its omissions ; and his
version, which is~ simple and grave in style, pro
fessed to be rather a revision of the LXX. than a
new and independent translation from the Hebrew.
Nevertheless, he.sometimes departs from the LXX.
The Version of Symmachus.
The story of Symmachus, according to Epipha
nius, is that he was a disappointed Samaritan,
who, in the reign of Severus (A.D. 193 — 211), went
over to the Jews, and made his version of the
Scriptures for the purpose of discrediting the
Scriptures of the Samaritans. Eusebius says that
he was an Ebionite. He published his version
some little time after Theodotion published his.
There is no ground for the charge made by Epi
phanius that he perverted the text. He was more
familiar with the Greek language than the others ;
and Jerome praises his version as the most lucid
and full of the three.1
1 Jerome calls Symmachus a translator "qui non solet
verborum KaKoZr)S.iav, sed intelligentia? ordinem sequi." And

78 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
The Anonymous Versions in the Hexapla.
Of the date or authorship of the other versions
composing Origen's Hexapla, commonly referred
to as Quinta, Sexta, and Septima, nothing certain
is known. Eusebius tells us that he brought them
to light from some unknown corners in which they
had been hitherto lying hidden away. They were
fragmentary. Quinta contained the Minor Prophets, the
Psalms, the Song, and, it would seem, Job. Its
style is the most elegant of all the versions, and
will bear comparison with the best Greek writings
of the age.
The writer of Sexta would seem, from his render
ing of Habak. iii. 13, to have been a Christian. It
has readings peculiar to itself.
(5) Peshitto Syriac.
The Old Testament Scriptures were translated
into Syriac from the Hebrew, probably by Jewish
Christians, in the second century A.D. We do not
know the exact date. It was after the Canon had
been finally closed ; but it was so early, that Ephraem
the Syrian, who died A.D. 373, found it necessary
to explain to his countrymen some of its words,
which had had time to grow obsolete and fall out
of use. The version is called the Peshitto. The
term Peshitto means "simple," and it was pro-
comparing the three he says : " Aquila and Symmachus and
Theodotion, engaged in the same work, may be said to have
produced almost different works." — Hieron. Op. t. viii. 35.
Ed. Migne.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 79
bably applied to this translation in contrast to the
mystical and allegorical paraphrases which were
in vogue among the Jews. The version includes
all the books of the Palestinian Canon, except
the Chronicles, which were afterwards added to it
from a Jewish Targum.
(6) The Vulgate.
At the instance of Pope Damasus, in A.D. 382,
S. Jerome began his definite biblical work by
undertaking an authoritative revision of the Latin
Bible, which had become grossly disfigured by cor
ruptions. And he completed his edition of the New
Testament, in accordance with this idea, two or
three years later. But, as he went on, he appears to
have grown dissatisfied with the task of producing
a revised version of what was itself only a version.
And when he took in hand the Old Testament, he
determined not merely to revise from the Old
Latin Bible, but to make an altogether new trans
lation from the Hebrew itself.
He had made no fewer than three revisions of
the Psalter. The first — still in use at S. Peter's at
Rome — was a mere revision of the Latin version.
In the second he tried to get closer to the Hebrew
by using the Hexapla. And finally, having labori
ously, and at no small cost, acquired a knowledge
of Hebrew himself, he produced what is known as
the Hebrew Psalter, directly from the Massoretic
text. He was now fairly launched on his great un
dertaking of making an entirely new translation of
the whole of the Old Testament from the Hebrew.
This bold enterprise occupied him from about A.D.

8o THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
390 to 404. On the whole it was a work of great
merit ; 1 but it was met by bitter opposition. -" The
sweeping nature of the changes introduced, and the
marked difference in the text translated, alienated
those who had been brought up to know and love
the old version, and who could not understand the
critical reasons for the alteration." 2
It was only by slow degrees that the Vulgate
won ascendence. The Old Latin continued to be
read for a long time, and it was not till the seventh
century that Jerome's translation came into general
use. The name " Vulgate," which in earlier times
had been applied to the LXX., was at length
given to it in the thirteenth century. And " the
history of the Bible in Western Europe is for a
thousand years the history of the Vulgate, and of
the Vulgate alone." It was superseded in Eng
land at the Reformation, but it remains to this day
the Bible of the Roman Church.
(7) Versions from the LXX.
Besides these there were other versions made
from the LXX. which survive, most of them, in only
a fragmentary form. The most important is the
Old Latin, made in the second century. Of this
version the Psalms, and parts of other books have
long been known to survive. And recent discovery
has added to these the greater part of the Penta-
1 S. Jerome was unable to revise his translation, for " he
could no sooner write anything, but presently it was caught
from him, and published, and he could not have leave to
mend it." — Hieron. Ad Pam?iach. pro lib. Advers. Jovinian,
2 Kenyon, p. 81.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 8 1
teuch. There are also the two Coptic versions,
not later than the third century, the Bohairic,
which is complete, and was adopted as the standard
Bible for all Egypt ; and the Sahidic, much of
which is lost.
(8) The Targums.
Targum is the name given to the Aramaic para
phrases of the Old Testament Scriptures, as read
in the Synagogues. Hebrew, in our Lord's day,
was the language of the learned only. An official
therefore gave the sense of the Hebrew Lesson
in the Aramaic tongue, which the people under
stood. The Targums are based on an oral tra
dition, which was systematized and committed to
writing, and practically became the popular Bible
of the Jews. Of these the most important are
the Targum of Onkelos, on the Law, which as
sumed its present form in the second or third
century ; and that of Jonathan ben Uzziel, on
the Prophets, written about the fourth century.
The Targums embrace all the books of the Old
Testament except Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel.
(9) Other Documents.
Talmud is the name given by the Jews to their
body of oral Law not comprised, in the Pentateuch.
And the term Midrash denotes the systematic
study, the " exposition of Holy Writ '' to which the
Jews devoted themselves after the return from
Babylon. The Midrashim consist largely of homi
lies on the Pentateuch. They began to be written
down in the second century of our era. Frequent
quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures G

82 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
occur both in the Talmud and the Midrashim,
which furnish in a measure an additional criterion
whereby we can judge of the agreement of the
present with the primitive text.
II. — The New Testament.
The autographs of the Christian Scriptures must
have been lost at a very early date, for no allusion
is ever made to them by any Christian writer.
But in the great number of MSS. that have come
down to us, in the multiplied versions, and in the
extremely copious quotations from the New Testa
ment which we meet in the early Christian writers,
we have abundant material whereby to test the
correctness of the text of the New Testament.
The following are the most important of the
early versions of the New Testament.
(i) The Old Latin Version.
The Old Latin Version, probably made in Africa,
is a translation direct from the original Greek, at a
very early date. " It was made long before any of
our manuscripts were written, and takes us back
almost to within a generation of the time at which
the sacred books were themselves composed." l
(2) The Curctonian Syriac.
In 1842, Dr. Cureton discovered among- a mass
of MSS. brought to the British Museum from the
Monastery of S. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian
Desert, near Cairo, a Syriac version of the four
Gospels. The MS. is of the fifth century. There
has been much controversy as to the age of the
1 Kenvon, p. 166.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 83
original of which it is a copy. But critics believe
the balance of evidence to be in favour of Cureton's
view, which assigned it to the second century.
What is believed to be a slightly earlier Syriac
version was unearthed in 1892 by two English
ladies from the same monastery where Tischendorf
discovered the Codex Sinaiticus.1
(3) The Peshitto Syriac.
This, the great standard version of the New
Testament for the ancient Syriac Church, was
added to the Peshitto Syriac of the Old Testament
not later than the third, some would say in the
second, century A.D. " That the foundations of the
Peshitto go back to a very early date is shewn by the
fact that it does not contain those books of the
New Testament which were the last to be generally
accepted. All copies of it omit 2 Peter, 2 and 3
John, Jude, and the Apocalypse."2
(4) Coptic Versions.
The Bohairic, in the dialect of Lower Egypt, ex
ists completely in many MSS. And ofthe Sahidic,
the version current in Upper Egypt, fragments
survive which nearly cover the whole of the New
Testament. Neither is later than the third century.
Such are the materials which furnish the basis
1 Recent investigations into the text used in Tatian's
Diatessaron, the quotations of Ephraim Syrus, and the
Armenian version (which was translated from Syriac), con
firm the view that a text of the Curetonian-Sinaitic type was
the earliest Syriac version. I would refer my readers for
an excellent summary of the views of such scholars as West
cott and Hort to Mr. Kenyon's book. 2 Kenyon, p. 158.

84 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO DAY
for our judgment in answering the question at the
head of this chapter.
These versions were once in general use in
countries widely separated from each other. And
we know them to have been in the hands of
learned men, competent to note, and certain to
record the fact, if any of them had seriously de
parted from the rest.
Of many of them there still remains enough —
apart altogether from their value as helping us to
arrive at a critical text — to remove all room for
doubt that the Old Testament Scriptures which
we read in our churches to-day, are identical with
those which were read in the Jewish synagogues
before the birth of Christ ; and that the New
Testament Scriptures are also in substance iden
tical with the early Christian writings which they
profess to represent.
But if the text of our English Bible be indeed a
substantially correct representation of the Holy
Scriptures of the Jewish and primitive Christian
Churches, it must not be thought of as though it
were a literal transcript of those early writings.
Our English Authorized Version has undergone
considerable change since it was first printed.
" Numberless and not inconsiderable departures from
the original or standard edition of the Authorized Trans
lation's published in 1611, are to be found in the
modern Bibles which issue from the press by thousands
every year. Some of these differences must be imputed
to oversight and negligence, from which no work of man
can be entirely free ; but much the greater part of them

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 8 5
are deliberate changes, introduced silently and without
authority by men whose names are often unknown." 1
Not a few of these variations amend manifest
faults of the original translators or editors ; and
Scrivener prints " A Catalogue of the Variations
from the original edition of the Authorized Version
of the Holy Bible (161 1), which, being found in all
modern editions, have been retained in the Cam
bridge Paragraph Bible." The catalogue fills more
than fifty-five pages. He also prints another
" Catalogue of the places from which the modern
Bible differs from the standard of 1611." This
catalogue fills more than twenty-one pages.
When verbal changes have taken place on such
a scale as this since our Authorized Version was
first printed, it would indeed be wonderful if similar
variations had not taken place in the text of
Scripture in the days when it was multiplied by
the hand of the scribe.
In making new copies of a book before the
invention of the printing-press it was impossible
to avoid mistakes. The eye, the ear, the memory,
the judgment, were all liable to error. When the
scribe wrote from a MS., he often mistook one
letter for another, misread syllables and words,
or omitted altogether lines or sentences which
happened to begin or to end in the same way
as those which followed them. When he wrote
from dictation, he did not always catch the word
1 SCRIVENER'S Authorized Edition of the English Bible,
161 1, p. 3.

86 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
read to him, but wrote down another of a similar
sound. When he drew upon his memory, he
sometimes wrote a word of similar meaning instead
of that which he ought to have written, and he
sometimes changed the order of sentences. He
did not always understand an abbreviation. Occa
sionally he made what was in reality a marginal
note appear in the body of the text. And now
and then he failed to divide the words in the same
way as they stood before him. Cases too are
found in which alterations were made deliberately.
We meet with ostensible corrections of real or
supposed mistakes. Conjecture also played its
part when a word seemed doubtful, or unsuitable.
And to many it seems impossible to maintain,
especially with regard to the New Testament, that
the text is absolutely free from all trace of dog
matic bias. Contending parties have continually
thrown in each other's teeth the charge of
deliberate adulteration. And it is acknowledged
in particular that the passage about the three
heavenly witnesses 1\ was first introduced in the
fifth century in the Church of the West.
Our knowledge of the way in which the text
was multiplied and preserved in the earliest times
is very imperfect. Before the Canon w£s formed,
the several books which compose it seem to have
been in a certain measure regarded as the private
property of the scribes ; and as there was no
Church authority to hold them in check, there was
abundant room for the occurrence of irresponsible
1 i John v. 7.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE

87

alterations. A comparison of Ps. xl. with Ps. lxx.
— obviously different renderings of the same com
position — shews that there was a time when verbal
alterations were admitted without scruple.
I print in italics the words in which either
version differs from the other.

Psalm xl. 13.
" Be pleased, O Lord, to
deliver me :
Make haste to help me, O
Lord.
Let them be ashamed and
confounded together
That seek after my soul to
destroy it;
Let them be turned backward
and brought to dishonour
That delight in my hurt.
Let them be desolate by
reason of their shame
That say unto me, Aha, aha.
Let all those that seek thee^
rejoice and be glad in
thee :
Let such as love thy salvation
say continually,
The Lord be magnified.
But I am poor and needy ;
Yet the Lord thinketh upon
me:
Thou art my help and my
deliverer ;
Make no tarrying, O my
God."

Psalm lxx.
"Make haste, O God, to
deliver me ;
Make haste to help me, O
Lord.
Let them be ashamed and
confounded
That seek after my soul :
Let them be turned backward
and brought to dishonour
That delight in my hurt.
Let them be turned back by
reason of their shame
That say, Aha, aha.
Let all those that seek thee
rejoice and be glad in
thee ;
And let such as love thy
salvation say continually,
Let God be magnified.
But I am poor and needy :
Make haste unto me, O
God:
Thou art my help and my
deliverer ;
O Lord, make no tarrying."

The history of the Hebrew text, before the
invention of printing, scholars are in the habit of

88 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
dividing into three periods. The first period
begins with the time when it was still in a fluid
condition, and brings us down to the close of the
first century A.D., when the Canon was finally
settled. After their return from exile in Babylon
the whole life of the nation centred in the Law
of Moses. Public instruction in the law was an
ancient institution.1 In later times selections from
the Prophets also were read in the synagogues.2
Even the Hagiographa acquired high authority in
popular esteem, and it became the growing aim of
the scribes to preserve the text of their Scriptures
from corruption. And to this end a sacred hand
writing — -the so-called square character — was
adopted. The second period extends from the close of the
Canon to the completion of the Talmud, about
the end of the fifth century A.D. During this
time the text was determined ; the pronunciation
became fixed ; the most minute rules were laid
down for the copyist ; and steady advance was
made towards a uniform standard of text.
The third period of the textual history of the
Old Testament is usually reckoned from the sixth
to the eleventh century. It is known as the
Massoretic period. The word Massorah means
"tradition," and is used ofthe tradition concerning1 o
the text of the Bible which had been handed down
by the Talmudists from generation to generation.
At .the beginning of this period a school of Jewish
1 JOSEPHUS, Antiq. B. iv. c. viii. 12. Acts xv. 21.
2 Acts xiii. 15.

THE GROWTH OF THE BIBLE 89
doctors applied themselves to the task of editing
the Old Testament in accordance with these tradi-.
tions. Their work was called the " Massorah " ;
those who devoted themselves to the study of it,
the " Massoretes." Two schools of these students
— a Babylonian, or Eastern, and a Palestinian,
or Western — worked independently. " All the
traditional marks and divisions of the sacred text,
all the recognised, though unrecorded, helps to the
understanding, the pronunciation which had been
handed down — these were recorded by the Mas
soretes in a fixed and official form." x To protect
its integrity, the Talmudists had counted the
verses, words, and consonants of the Old Testa
ment. They had marked the letters which occurred
half-way between the beginning and end of the
books, and had taken note of the unusual form of
certain letters. The Massoretes carefully com
mitted to writing all these elaborate calculations.
And by introducing the vowel-signs, the accents,
and the signs which affect the reading of the con
sonants, they stereotyped the text.
The text of the New Testament, written in
Greek, and therefore lacking the safeguard which
attached to the sacredness of the " holy language,"
suffered even more than that of the Old at the
hands of the copyists.
When we give our attention for the first time to
the textual inaccuracies of the Bible, we are very
prone to exaggerate their importance and effect.
They are apt for the time to fill our field of vision,
1 Dillmann, p. 266.

96 The bible in the light of to-day
and to leave the impression that the text itself is
all uncertain. But to take such a narrow view, is
to ignore the existence of all that is for the
moment shut out from sight. There is no greater
authority on this matter than Dr. Hort, who
declares that
" The amount of what can in any sense be called
substantial variations . . can hardly form more than a
thousandth part of the entire text." 1
Indeed, " It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance
the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the
case with the New Testament. The number of manu
scripts of the New Testament, of early translations from
it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the
Church, is so large, that it is practically certain that the
true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in
some one or other of these ancient authorities." 2
Unexampled pains and care have been bestowed
upon the minute examination and comparison of
MSS. and Versions, and the labour of love is still
proceeding. The full harvest of that labour will
be reaped by future generations in a purer text
than we have at present. But we know enough
already to make it clear that, in spite of the
numberless inaccuracies, our Bible gives us in our
own tongue a copy of the ancient records not
only clearly true in outline, but faithful in every
vital point.
1 The New Testament in the original Greek, p. 2.
2 Kenyon, p. 10.

PART II
lebieto xrf the (Ebibjit.ce shetotng the Jlibk to be
f rum dcrli

CHAPTER I
THE CHURCH ATTESTS THE DIVINE AUTHORITY
OF THE BIBLE
SUCH, briefly told, is the story of the Bible as
we possess it. But we have always taken it to be
a great deal more than this story shews it to be.
We regard the Bible as being a book essentially
different from all other books on earth, as being
not of men, but, as no other books are, of God.
We have now to inquire on what grounds we do
so. Before we hear the Church's evidence on this
subject, it is well to remember what the Church is.
When a witness is called to give evidence in a
court of law, the first question put to him asks
who, and what, he is. It is felt to be essential
to the right ^investigation of truth, that all sides
should, at the outset, have an opportunity of ex
amining into the evidential value of what he may
testify. I. — Wliat is the Church?
It is unnecessary to enlarge upon the theocratic
character of the Jewish Church. But many who
93

94 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
habitually admit the peculiar relation of God to
His chosen people, altogether fail to realize the
divine origin and divine character of the Chris
tian Church. Their conception of it is merely the
conception of a body of men who have voluntarily
associated themselves together for the purpose of
promoting certain religious objects. But to think
thus of the Christian Church is wholly to ignore
the significance of our Lord's own teaching.
We know that, early in His ministry, our Lord
called His disciples,1 and He chose from them
twelve, whom also He named apostles. To these
He gave a triple commission. First He sent them
two and two,2 to preach the kingdom of God and
to heal the sick. Again, after the Last Supper,
He said to them, " As the Father hath sent Me,
even so send I you." 3
None may attempt to fathom the depths of that
profoundest mystery, how the divine mission of
mortal man on earth may correspond to the divine
mission of the co-eternal Son from the bosom of
the Father. Yet God has been pleased to make
known to us concerning it as much as it is neces
sary for us to know. Not to do His own will, but
His Father's will, Who sent Him,4 did Christ come
down from heaven. Christ's own words are : " My
teaching is not Mine, but His that sent Me."6 "As
the Father taught Me, I speak these things."6 "I
can of Myself do nothing."7 "We must work the
1 Luke vi. 13. - Mark vi. 7. 3 John xx. 21.
4 John vi. 38. r' John vii. 16. G John viii. 28.
7 John 1 . 30.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 95
works of Him that sent Me."1 Even so — as the
Father had sent the Son — did Christ send forth
His Apostles not to do their own will, but Christ's,
Who sent them. Their doctrine is not theirs, but
Christ's,2 Who sent them. As Christ taught them,
so were they to speak.3 Of their own selves they
could do nothing.4 They must work the works of
Christ,5 Who sent them.
But this is not all. It is recorded6 that, before
His passion, our Saviour had appointed them a
mountain in Galilee, whither, after His resurrec
tion, He would go before them, and where they
should meet Him. This meeting, so solemnly
appointed, to which not only the angel of the Lord
who had descended from heaven, but the Lord
Himself, Who had risen from the grave, summons
His apostles, must surely be — if ever meeting on this
earth were important — a meeting of transcendent
moment. And so in truth it was. For at that meet
ing, from the triumphant Conqueror of death, unto
Whom all power was given in heaven and earth,
His chosen apostles were finally to receive, in virtue
of His universal dominion, their great commission,
extending over all nations, and lasting alway, even
unto the end of the world. There is Christ to
give unto them the Kingdom, which He had
already appointed unto them, as the Father had
appointed unto Him.7 There it was that He
1 John ix. 4. 2 2 John 9.
3 Gal. i. 12. 4 2 Cor. iii. 5.
5 Gal. ii. 8 ; Col. i. 29. " Matt. xxvi. 32 ; xxviii. 16.
7 Luke xxii. 29.

96 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
spake unto them, saying:1 "All authority hath been
given unto Me in heaven and on earth. Go ye
therefore, and make disciples of all the nations,
baptizing them into the Name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I commanded
you : and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the
end of the world."
This is the history of the foundation of the
Christian Church. It is no fortuitous association
of men, united together for the purpose of doing
God's work.2 From a grain of mustard seed it
has grown into a great tree. When our Lord
ascended into heaven, His followers were an insig
nificant handful of helpless men. But their weak
ness was turned into strength, and to-day there is
no incorporation of men, no organized society upon
earth, which holds over the foremost nations a
sway so long-enduring, and so wide-spread, as does
the Church, which gives its evidence on the ques
tion before us in the character of the permanent
official witness, and the watchful keeper of Holy
Writ. The question upon which we are now about to
hear the testimony of the Church is as to whether
the Holy Scriptures possess divine authority. The
decision of this question involved chiefly the exer-
1 Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20.
2 " The Church . . . doth differ from natural societies in
this, that the persons unto whom we associate ourselves, in
the one are men, simply considered as men, but they to
whom we be joined in the other, are God's angels and holy
men."— HOOKER, Eccl. Pol. I. ii. 2.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 97
cise of spiritual discernment. And surely none
ever excelled the Jewish people and the early
Christians in the possession of spiritual capacity.
Writers most in harmony with the spirit of the
present age never tire of extolling the genius for
religion which they attribute to the Jewish nation
as its special endowment. And it must be re
membered that, unless S. Paul was carried away
by a delusion, certain of the early Christians
were endowed, for the benefit of the whole body,
with special gifts which he calls " discern ings of
spirits";1 and also that the beloved disciple of
our Lord was possessed by the belief that those
to whom he wrote had an unction from the Holy
One, abiding in them, and teaching them con
cerning all things needful for their spiritual well-
being.2 These talents were not given to be kept
laid up in a napkin.3 In his very first epistle,
S. Paul calls on those who received his teaching to
prove all things ; 4 and S. John gave it as a special
injunction to his children in the faith, not to believe
every spirit, but to prove the spirits whether they
are of God.5
The men of later ages who finally formed the
Christian Canon, admitted to it only, such books
as were able to satisfy their twofold requirement, —
that they should possess apostolic authority, and
that they should have been generally received. No
one can doubt that these men had opportunity for
observing, and capacity for judging, whether the
1 1 Cor. xii. 7, 10. 2 1 John ii. 20, 27. 3 Luke xix. 20.
4 1 Thess. v. 21. 5 1 John iv. I. H

98 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
books did in fact fulfil these requirements, while
the mere fact alone that some doubt and hesitation
prevailed for a time as to the reception of some of
them, affords ample proof, if proof were wanting,
that they judged with at least an honest judgment.
That the Jews also were faithful witnesses in
this matter we must be convinced, if we consider
in what light much to which their Scriptures testify
represents themselves. They adopt as a public
monument of their Church and nation, on the
ground that it possesses the authority of God, a
book which proclaims, not their glory, but their
shame, which describes them as a perverse and
crooked generation,1 and from the very first calls
heaven and earth to witness against them.2
The more heedfully we inquire into the character
of the Church as an official witness to the authority
of the Holy Scriptures, the less we shall be disposed
to entertain any misgiving as to the value of its
evidence. II. — What is the witness of the Church to the
Bible ?
What, then, do we learn alike from Hebrew and
from Christian witness ? Do they say that the
Holy Scriptures are from God ? Let us see.
(i) Belief of the fews.
The Jewish Church looked upon them with the
deepest reverence, guarded them with the utmost
jealousy. Josephus tells us that the histories after
1 Deut. xxxii. 5.
2 Deut. iv. 26. See Davison's Discourses on Prophecy,
p. 51.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 99
the time of Artaxerxes were not thought worthy
of the same credit, because there was no more
orderly succession of prophets.1 All the body of
writing which we know as the Apocrypha, in
cluding the beautiful books of Jesus the son of
Sirach, and of Wisdom, was unhesitatingly rejected
by the Jews of Palestine. But to the whole body
of the canonical writings, embracing as they do
such diversity of form and character, the Jewish
Church ascribed, without stint and without reserve,
the possession of divine authority.
" What faith we place in our own writings is seen in
our conduct. They have suffered no addition, diminu
tion, or change. From our infancy we learn to regard
them as decrees of God ; we observe them, and, if need
be, we gladly die for them." 2
This was the view which the Jewish Church took
of those sacred writings which we have received
from it. And it took this view, not as the result
of a blind acceptance of whatever had been handed
down, nor because the books claimed to be in
spired — for other writings which made the claim
had been rejected8 — nor because what the books
contained recommended itself to any inner con
sciousness or verifying faculty — for Ecclesiastes
and the Song of Songs had been retained notwith
standing question of their fitness made on internal
grounds — but because it believed that prophets
and holy men of old, who had played a prominent
part in the history of God's chosen people, had
1 Cont. Apion. i. 8. 2 JOSEPHUS, Cont. Apion. i. 8,
3 Ecclus. xxiv. 32 — 34 ; i. 28, 29.

IOO THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
regarded them as possessing divine authority, and
had for that very reason preserved them, and
handed them down, because they believed them
to contain authoritative teaching from God.
(2) The writings of the Fathers.
S. Clement of Rome (A.D. 95), who was identi
fied by early writers (as Eusebius, Origen, Jerome,)
with S. Paul's fellow-labourer at Philippi, calls the
Scriptures "the true utterances of the Holy Spirit,"1
and he quotes the Gospel of S. Matthew as Scrip
ture.2 S. Ignatius (A.D. 101) bears testimony less
direct, speaking of the prophets as inspired by the
grace of Christ Jesus.3 Justin Martyr (a.d. 140)
declares that the prophets taught us by divine
inspiration.4 S. Irenseus (A.D. 167), the disciple of
Polycarp, the disciple of S. John, speaks of the
Church as having received from the apostles the
faith in the Holy Ghost, Who preached through
the prophets,5 and he refers elsewhere to the whole
body of the Scriptures as being spiritual : " The
Scriptures indeed are perfect, inasmuch as they
have been spoken by the Word of God and by
His Spirit."6
Tertullian (d. cir. A.D. 200) writes : —
" But that we might approach more fully and with
deeper impressions, as well to Himself as His ordi
nances and His counsels, He hath added the instrument
of Scripture, if any desireth to inquire concerning God,
and having inquired, to find Him, and having found, to
1 1 Ad Cor. xiv. 2 2 Ad Cor. ii. 3 Ad Magncs. viii.
4 Justin Mart., Cohort, ad Grcec.
6 Cont. Har. Lib. I. c. a. ° Ibid. Lib. II. c. xxviii. n. 2.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IOI
believe in Him, and having believed, to serve Him.
For He hath from the beginning sent forth into the
world men worthy, by reason of their righteousness
and innocency, to know God, and to make Him known,
overflowing with the divine Spirit, whereby they might
preach that there is One God.'' l
And again: —
" All have access to them every Sabbath day. Whoso
heareth shall find God : whoso, moreover, desireth to
understand shall be compelled also to believe." 2
Origen (a.d. 230) says : "The Holy Ghost inspired
every one of the holy prophets and apostles in
the Old and New Testaments;"3 and he speaks of
the Holy Scriptures being "composed by the Holy
Spirit."4 S. Cyprian (a.d. 248) says: "The Holy
Ghost speaks in the divine Scriptures both of the
Old and of the New Testaments."5 Whether the
men of the ages in which the New Testament
Canon was growing were right or wrong, there is
no doubt they believed the writings admitted to
the Canon to be from God. S. Basil says that the
divine oracles were God's gifts to the Church, to
be read in every assembly, as the food which
the Spirit afforded us for the nourishment of our
souls.6 S. Cyril says : —
" We learn by diligent application, and that from the
Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and
what of the New. . . . Ponder and study those only
1 Apol. xviii. 2 Ibid.
3 De Principiis, i. 4. 4 Ibid., Praf. n. 8.
5 De Oper. et Eleemos. ii. iv. 6 Horn, in Psal. lix. p. 253.

102 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
which we read in the Church with assured confidence.
The apostles and ancient bishops, rulers of the Church,
who handed them down to us, were much more apt in
judgment, and more religious than thou art." 1
Chrysostom says : " God may be said to have sent
a letter to persons at a distance — a letter written
indeed by God, but conveyed by Moses."2
And S. Augustine says : —
" By His assumption of human nature, Christ is the
Head of all His disciples, as of members of His own
body. And so when they wrote what He shewed and
said to them, it must not be said that He did not Him
self write ; since the members of the body were em
ployed in writing that of which they had obtained know
ledge from the dictation of the Head. For whatever He
wished us to read about His own deeds and sayings,
that He commanded them to write as though they were
His own hands. Whosoever understands this fellowship
of unity, and ministry of members, discharging their
several offices in full accord under one Head, will receive
what he reads narrated by the disciples of Christ in the
Gospel, just as if he saw the very hand of the Lord
which formed part of His human body writing it."3
These are only a few samples of the kind of
statement which is to be found broad-cast in the
pages of early Christian writers.4
Whoever will take the trouble to examine care
fully the history of the New Testament Canon, will
rise from the task with the conviction that, among
1 Cyril, Hier. Cat. iv. u. 34.
2 " Deus vt-lut longe absentibus literas misit, quas quidem
literas dedit Deus, attulit Moyses." — Horn. 2 in Gen. n. 2.
3 AUGUSTINE, De Consensu Evang. Lib. I. c. xxxv.
4 For a much fuller citation of such passages, see Lee,
Appendix Gj also Suicer's Thesaurus, Articles yoaipii
and Xoyosp

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 103
the several considerations which weighed with the
early Church in selecting the books which compose
it, the paramount consideration was the belief that
they come to us with more than the authority of
man, come to us with the authority of God.
(3) The teaching of the Nicene Creed.
The Creed, " mainly derived from the older forms
ofthe Eastern Church,"1 which was signed by the
bishops assembled at the first General Council at
Nicaea (A.D. 325), contains the familiar article, <
" I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Life-giver,
. . . Who spake by the prophets."
The formal embodiment of this article into the
Creed proves incontestably that a belief in the
divine authority ofthe Holy Scriptures was already,
not the mere floating opinion of individual writers,
but the settled belief of the Church at large.
(4) An early Confession of Faith required of
Bishops at their consecration.
One of the Canons which pass under the name
of the Fourth Council of Carthage (A.D. 398), and
which are supposed to be partly the work of that
Council, and partly a collection of African Canons
in force about the time when that Council was held,
provided that a bishop at his consecration should
make a confession of faith in these words : —
" I believe also that the one Author of the New
Testament, and of the Old Testament, of the Law, and
of the Prophets, and of the Apostles, is the Lord God
Omnipotent." 2
1 Robertson, Hist, of Christian Church, vol. i. p. 211.
2 Ex Prescript. Concil. Carthag. IV. a.d. 398.

104 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
III. — The testimony of the Church is the continuous
testimony of myriad-fold experience.
But it is not only in this official character that
the Church gives evidence. Its testimony is much
more than a merely perfunctory testimony of an
official witness, however uncorrupt and trustworthy.
It is a testimony to which the ages, as they pass,
ever add new value. For the Church is a body of
men who are each of them individually, as well as
all collectively, interested in the truth which they
attest. This body lives on from age to age, and its
witness to the Bible, being as it is the result of
spiritual experiences personally felt in many lands
and many ages, by countless numbers of Christian
men and Christian women, is nothing less than the
consentient and ever-growing testimony of myriads,
who have found in the revelation which the Bible
records, the fullest answer to their heart's desire.
No council was summoned to determine the
question of the divine authority of the Holy Bible.
And none of the early Fathers has written a formal
treatise on the theme. But this, instead of suggest
ing the existence of any doubt that the Scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments were from God, is
itself a strong proof that the belief was never called
in question. Indeed we know as a matter of
certainty that such utterances of the Fathers as I
have cited, and the confessions of faith made by
bishops, and by all the faithful, were no empty
forms of speech. For in the persecution under Dio
cletian (a.d. 303), a large number of Christians
throughout the empire suffered death rather than

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IOS
deliver up the Scriptures, which the imperial edict
sought to abolish in the flames. It was because
the books were universally held to be divine that
the emperor sought to wipe them out of existence.
And it was for the same reason that the Chris
tians willingly laid down their lives in defence of
them. What stands before us, then, as a matter of un
disputed historic fact is this : That our present
Bible, made up of the books embraced in the Old
Testament Canon, and of the books admitted by
general adoption at an early date into the New
Testament Canon, has been handed down to us by
the Church, its witness and keeper, as a collection
of books differenced from all other literature, as
having impressed upon them, in a way that no
other writings had, the sacred stamp of divine
authority. And it is to be observed that this
essential difference was attributed to the Bible as a
whole. Much acumen was brought to bear upon
biblical criticism by early Christian writers.1 But
we do not find any preference given to the Old
Testament on account of its venerable age and
fixed prestige, nor to the New, because it sublim
ated the teaching of earlier times. The Gospel, it
is true, pronounced the supercession of much that
had been enjoined in the Law. But Christ had
come, not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. And
it was ever the aim of Christian teaching not to
disparage the teaching of times gone by, but to
shew to men, made free by the spirit of the New
1 See Lee, Inspiration, p. 485.

106 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Covenant, that the same spirit had all along lain
hid beneath the letter of the Old.
This creed has the Church confessed, and still
confesses. For we must not regard her testimony
at any time as the lifeless lingering echo of a voice
that died away in ages long gone by. God has
never left Himself without a living witness in the
teaching of the Church to the fact that He speaks
to His children in the Holy Scriptures. That wit
ness has varied indeed at different times and in
different lands, but from the beginning there has
never been a time when the sound of the Church's
testimony to the divine authority of the Scriptures
has not gone forth.
What force it had, how clearly it rang out as
the jubilant theme of an early Christianity, we
little wot.
The reading aloud of the Holy Bible as a divine
message to men formed, from the first, a solemn part
of public worship. Copies of it were multiplied. It
was the chief study of the clergy,1 who used to learn
some portion of it every day ; and many of them
became so expert and well versed in it as to be
able to repeat it by heart. They used to sing the
Psalms and repeat portions of the Holy Book even
at their daily labours. In some places they had
the Scriptures read aloud at table.2 Bibles were
placed in the churches for the private use 3 of those
1 Bingham, Antiq. VI. iii. 2.
2 Ibid.VU. iii. 17.
3 " Another custom observed in the ancient Church was to
have Bibles in the vulgar tongue laid in a convenient part of
the church, for the people at their leisure to employ them-

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 107
who Visited them ; they were read in the family
circle at home ; x from them catechumens were in
structed in the vulgar tongue ; 2 they were orally
taught in the schools, and even the unlettered were
able to gain some knowledge of them.3
It is true indeed that a time soon came when
the Bible was no longer thus in the hands of all, and
when the Church's witness to it grew more faint
and feeble. But that witness never ceased. Even
in the darkest days it still survived, at least in the
vows of the clergy, and in the creed of the people.
And when brighter days returned, the Church's tes
timony to the Bible again waxed strong and in
creased ; until at last going forth into all lands, it
has in our own time awakened anew from the
hearts of heathen men a living response to its truth,
selves, as they were piously inclined, in reading of the Scrip
tures before or after the times of divine service." — Bingham,
Antiq. XIII. iv. 7.
1 As proved by the use of the word " traditores," traitors,
or betrayers of their religion. " A certain argument that
these private Christians had the use of the Scriptures ; else
they could not have been impeached for delivering them up
to the enemy." — Ibid. XIII. iv. 8.
2 " No church anciently denied any order of Christians the
use of the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, since even
the catechumens themselves, who were but an imperfect sort
of Christians, were exhorted and commanded to read the
canonical books in all churches, and the apocryphal books
in some churches for moral instruction." — Ibid. X. ii. 7.
3 Gregory the Great tells of one Servulus, a poor man at
Rome, who, though he knew not a letter in the book, yet
purchased a Bible, and entertaining religious men, prevailed
with them to read it continually to him, until by this means
he perfectly learned the Holy Scriptures.

108 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
which comes back with blessing to strengthen the
faith of the Church that bore it.
The first answer, then, to the question, Is the
Bible from God ? is the answer of the Church, the
" witness and keeper of the divine books," l from
whose hands we receive it as containing the utter
ances of holy men, who claimed to speak as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost, and who stand in a
certain definite historical relation to the moral and
spiritual growth of the human race ; — the answer
of the Church, an aggregate of countless human
beings of all ages, and countries, and conditions,
who say to us with one voice that they know of
their own personal experience that it must be divine.
And on their authority we receive it as divine.
But this does not mean that acceptance of it is
imposed perforce upon our understanding by the
reasonless fiat of a tyrannous, insensate corporation.
It means rather that the Church, a living contin
uous society, divinely planted to be the pillar and
ground of the truth,2 preserves, attests, and accredits
the Holy Book, which, speaking to all that are
wise-hearted, whom God hath filled with the spirit
of wisdom,3 appeals alike to head and heart, to
mind and conscience, and has power to commend
itself by the manifestation ofthe truth.4
1 " Divinorum librorum testis et conservatrix " (Art. XOY).
2 I Tim. iii. 15. 3 Exod. xxviii. 3.
4 1 Cor. a. 15 ; 2 Cor. iv. 2.

CHAPTER II
DIRECT CLAIMS TO DIVINE AUTHORITY ARE
FOUND IN THE BIBLE ITSELF
The Church has put the Bible into our hands as
being from God. Let us now see what is to be
learned as to its origin from its own pages.
I. — The testimony of the biblical writers, deemed to
be trustworthy men, is admissible on the question
of the authority which they claim.
Before we proceed to examine the several pas
sages of Holy Scripture which claim more than
human authority, it may be well to notice a pre
liminary objection against admitting the testimony
of such passages.
Can we accept statements in the Bible as to the
inspiration of its writers as good evidence ? " If I
bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."
But a man's testimony as to his own character is
not to be received with suspicion, if once experi
ence of that character has shewn him to be trust
worthy. As soon as We feel that we are assured
of his integrity and his intelligence, and have good
109

no the bible in the light of to-day
grounds for believing that he is quite free from all
inclination to make himself appear better, or in
any sense other than he is, — from that moment
we feel ourselves justified in accepting his own
testimony concerning himself.
If a man deny the trustworthiness of the biblical
writers generally, he may consistently contend that
they are not to be credited in any statements which
they make as to the authority on which they write.
But no one can reasonably accept them as teachers
of pure morality, and at the same time refuse to
believe their definite assertions as to the sources
from which they derive their doctrines.
II. — Claims to speak with divine authority are made
by New Testament writers.
When the early Christians went forth to pro
claim the Gospel in accordance with their Lord's
commands, they made it clear from the beginning
that what they taught was not from themselves,
but from Him Who sent them.
Much that is contained in the New Testament
the writers assign to the ordinary common sources
of human knowledge. But they constantly assert
that what they teach is the direct teaching of God.
In declaring the Life — the eternal Life which was
with the Father — S. John writes that he declares
no thought, the creation of his own mind, but that
which he had heard, which he had seen with his
own eyes, which he beheld, which his hands had
handled.1 S. Peter says that the announcers of
1 I John i. i, 2.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 1 1
the Gospel preached it to men by the Holy Ghost
sent forth from heaven.1 In another place, he in
sists that in making known the power and presence
of our Lord Jesus Christ, he is not following cun
ningly-devised fables, for he had been himself an
eye-witness of His majesty ; and elsewhere he
associates the operation of the Holy Ghost with
his witness to the exaltation of Christ as a prince
and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and
remission of sins. " We are witnesses of these
things; and so is the Holy Ghost, Whom God hath
given to them that obey Him." 2
These passages serve to shew unmistakably
the view which SS. Peter and John took of their
apostolic position.
It is not questioned that a large portion of
the New Testament comes from S. Paul. The
position of JS. Paul as an apostle of Jesus Christ
is unique. He, who gave the sanction of his
presence to the first Christian martyrdom,3 and
breathed out threatenings and slaughter against
the disciples of the Lord, — Saul, the blasphemer,
the persecutor, the injurious, — was converted in the
midst of his ignorant unbelief,4 and was at once
called to the highest dignity ever given to mortal
man in this life, and .made an Apostle of Jesus
Christ. The Lord, Who on earth had chosen from
among His disciples Twelve, whom He called
Apostles, and to whom He gave three successive
commissions, singles out him who is the persecutor
1 i Pet. i. 12. 2 Acts v. 32.
3 Acts xxii. 20. 4 1 Tim. i. 13.

112 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
of His Church, and therefore of Himself, and sends
him forth in like manner.
"To this end have I appeared unto thee, to
appoint thee a minister and a witness both of the
things wherein thou hast seen Me, and of the things
wherein I will appear unto thee."1
As the Twelve had received directly from our
Saviour while on earth the words which the Father
had given Him to give to them,2 he was taught
from heaven, by direct revelation of Jesus Christ,3
the Gospel which he afterwards proclaimed as a
herald so widely among the nations.
This is the man who, in the earliest of his epistles,
claims to speak "by the word of the Lord,"4 and
in one of the latest declares that the Spirit " saith
expressly" what he proceeds to communicate.5
He claimed to have revelations made to him
through the Spirit, which searcheth all things, yea,
the deep things of God.6 He tells the Corinthians
in so many words, " I received of the Lord that
which also I delivered unto you."7 He makes it
known to the Galatians in express terms, that the
Gospel which was preached by him was not after
man, seeing he had neither received it from man,
nor been taught it on human authority, but it had
come to him through revelation of Jesus Christ.8
He tells the Ephesians that the mystery of Christ,
which in other generations had not been made
known unto the sons of men, was then revealed
1 Acts xxvi. 16. 2 John xvii. 8. 3 Gal. i. 12.
4 i Thess. iv. 15. 6 1 Tim. iv. 1. ° 1 Cor. ii. 10 — 12.
7 I Cor. xi. 23 ; cf. xv. 3. 8 Gal. i. II, 12.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 13
unto His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit.1
And he claims to be himself an ambassador on
behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by
him.2 He speaks of the Gospel of the glory of the
blessed God being committed to his trust,3 and in
another place he declares how " God ... in His
own seasons manifested His word in the message,
wherewith I was intrusted according to the com
mandment of God our Saviour."4 To the Thessa
lonians, he says of the "word of the message" (or
"the Word of hearing"), that it is in truth the
" word of God, which also worketh in you that
believe'';5 and in writing to the same Church,
he makes no distinction between his authority
when teaching by word of mouth, and his authority
when teaching by an epistle.6
In these passages S. Paul claims for the subject-
matter of his teaching a divine source. But he
goes further than this. He represents his teaching
to be in perfect accord with the divine will. In
teaching the Christians at Rome that nothing is
unclean of itself, he assures them that he knows
this, and is persuaded of it in the Lord Jesus.7
He claims that in speaking God's wisdom, which
none of the rulers of this world knoweth, he had
the mind of Christ.8 He says that he writes the
more boldly because of the grace that was given
him of God, that he should be a minister of Christ
Jesus unto the Gentiles.9 And in another place
1 Eph. iii. 3— 5. 2 Eph. vi. 20. 3 1 Tim. i. n.
4 Titus i. 2, 3. s -i Thess. ii. 13. e 2 Thess. ii. 15.
7 Rom. xiv. 14. 8 1 Cor, ii. 7, 8, 16. 8 Rom. xv. 15.
I

114 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
he declares that he writes as he does, not only on
account of this divine gift, but in exercise of it.
He speaks through the grace that was given him.1
He appeals to the spiritual discernment of his
readers to recognise that what he says is the com
mandment of God.2
If he beseeches, or exhorts, or testifies, or com
mands, or gives charge, or pronounces judgment
or forgives, he does it all, not as from himself,
or in his own name, but " in '' or " through " the
Lord Jesus Christ, or in the person of Christ.3
Whatever he does, he does as a minister of Christ,
as a steward of the mysteries of God,4 in the
exercise of that stewardship 5 which had been
committed unto him by Christ, Who, when he
spoke thus officially, spoke in him.6 ;He boasts of
the authority which the Lord had given him in
building up the Church.7 He does not hesitate to
describe what he writes to the Church at Corinth
as the commandment of the Lord.8 He approves
the conduct of the Galatians in receiving him as
an angel, or messenger, of God, even as Christ
Jesus;9 and he will not allow that any authority,
whether of men or of angels, has a right to com
pete with the authority by which he had preached
to them, and under which they had been orally
instructed by him.
i Rom. xii. 3. 2 1 Cor. xiv. 37.
3 1 Cor. i. 10 ; v. 4 ; 2 Cor. ii. 10 ; Eph. iv. 17 ; 1 Thess.
iv. 1, 2 ; 2 Thess. iii. 6, 12. 4 1 Cor. iv. 1.
6 1 Thess. ii. 4 ; 1 Tim. i. 11 ; Tit. i. 2, 3.
0 2 Cor. xiii. 3. r 2 Cor. x. 8.
8 1 Cor. xiv. 37. 9 Gal. iv. 14.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 15
" Though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach
unto you any gospel other than that which we preached
unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before,
so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any
gospel other than that which ye received, let him be
anathema." '
It is impossible to read these passages without
feeling abundantly assured that S. Paul, at least,
believed that his teaching was not from himself,
but that in proclaiming the things of God, and in
calling upon men to lead a life answerable to what
he proclaimed, he was only a minister, a steward,
a servant of God, in Whose name, and by Whose
command, it was the great glory of his life to act.
The great Apostle to the Gentiles was not sin
gular in taking this view of his authority. S.
Peter believed him to write, not as any common
man might write, but according to the wisdom that
was given unto him.2 And he speaks of his
epistles in such a way as to include them among
" the other Scriptures."
III. — These claims are in harmony with our Lord's
promises to His disciples.
As the New Testament was not written until
after our Lord's ascension, we have no teaching
from Him as to its authority. But the promises
which while here on earth He made to His follow
ers are in complete accord with the claims which
they afterwards advanced. " I go away, and come
again unto you," not indeed as heretofore in the
flesh. " I will pray the Father, and He shall give
1 Gal. i. 8, 9. 2 2 Pet. iii. 15.

Il6 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
you another Comforter, that He may be with you
for ever, even the Spirit of truth." " Another
Comforter," and yet their love and their allegiance
were not to be transferred to another, to any
distinct being from Himself, for He adds, speaking
of the same Spirit of truth : "Ye know Him ; for
He abideth with you, and shall be in you. I
will not leave you desolate : I come unto you." 1
" The Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, Whom
the Father will send in My name, He shall teach
you all things, and bring to your remembrance
all that I said unto you." 2 " If a man love Me,
he will keep My word: and My Father will love
him, and We will come unto him, and make Our
abode with him." 3 " It is expedient for you that
I go away : for if I go not away, the Comforter
will not come unto you. . . . He shall guide
you into all the truth : for He shall not speak
from Himself; but what things soever He shall
hear, these shall He speak : and He shall declare
unto you the things that are to come." 4
While our Saviour was with His disciples He
had many things to say to them which they could
not then bear. " Yet a little while, and the world
beholdeth Me no more ; but ye behold Me : be
cause I live, ye shall live also. In that day ye
shall know that I am in My Father, and ye in Me,
and I in you." 5
No one, I think, can read the discourse in which
these words occur without feeling that in it our
1 John xiv. 16 — 18. 2 John xiv. 26.
5 John xiv. 23. 4 John xvi. 7 — 13. 6 John xiv. 19, 20.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 17
Lord did indeed promise His disciples that after
the withdrawal of His bodily presence He would
still be with them, and with them in a nearer and
more living relationship than heretofore — they in
Him and He in them. Now it is to the very men
whom He chose to be His witnesses, whom He
specially instructed in things pertaining to the
Kingdom of Heaven, and whom He commissioned
to spread abroad a knowledge of His command
ments, that these promises were made.
Again, there is nothing that limits the applica
tion of these promises, so as to make them cover
the oral, and not to make them cover the written
teaching of Christ's disciples. We have no reason
for believing that greater authority attached to the
instruction which they imparted by word of mouth
than to that which they committed to writing.
He assured His apostles that when they were in
personal peril, it should be given them what they
should speak. " It is not ye that speak, but the
Spirit of your Father, which speaketh in you."
It is reasonable to ask what right we have to
suppose that this divine aid was given to enable
them to advocate their own cause when they stood
in personal peril, and that it was not given, when,
in discharge of their divine commission as minis
ters of the word of God, they preached the glad
tidings of His kingdom, setting forth whether by
word of mouth or in writing, the teaching, the
life, the death, the resurrection, and the ascension
into heaven of the Son of Man.
If the biblical writers were neither deceivers nor

Il8 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
deceived, — neither impostors nor enthusiasts, — if
they are deserving of credit as honest men, who
believed what they wrote, and who were capable
of knowing whether they had authority, or not,
for the statements which they made, then we must
believe that God did communicate to them truths
which the human mind is altogether incapable of
discovering by the utmost exercise of its highest
powers. IV. — Claims to speak with divine authority are
made in the Old Testament.
When we turn to the Old Testament, we find
that the writers here also frequently claim divine
authority for what they write.
The Lord says to Moses when He appoints
Aaron to be His spokesman : —
" I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and
will teach you what ye shall do." 1
" The Lord called unto him [Moses] out cf the moun
tain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob,
and tell the children of Israel." 2
" The Lord said unto Moses, write thou these words." 3
What we may call the dying declaration of David
is a distinct claim to divine authority for his
teaching: —
" The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word
was upon my tongue." 4
" The word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel
the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans
by the river Chebar; and the hand ofthe LORD was there
upon him."6
1 Exod. iv. 15. 2 Exod. xix. 3. 3 Exod. xxxiv. 27.
4 2 Sam. xxiii. 2. 6 Ezek. i. 3.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 19
" Hear, O heavens, and give ear, 0 earth, for the Lord
hath spoken." 1
"When the LORD spake at the first by Hosea." 2
" Hear ye now what the Lord saith." 3
"And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the
vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run
that readeth it." 4
" The word of the Lord of Hosts came to me, say
ing." 5
" The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by
Malachi." 6
To these few examples taken promiscuously
may be added the familiar prophetical preface,
" Thus saith the Lord." It would be easy to
lengthen the list indefinitely. But these are quite
enough to shew how generally the claim to speak
on divine authority is made in the Old Testament.
Disastrous conclusions as to the nature and ex
tent of the divine inspiration of the Bible have
been drawn from these and like statements of
Scripture. In the cause of truth it is impossible to
be too careful not to overstrain them, nor to build
upon them any superstructure of argument which
they are not undoubtedly able to bear. But they
afford at least sufficient warrant for our saying
that men who have ever been held entitled to the
highest honour, and the foremost place among the
servants of God, men who have yielded up their
lives in attestation of their faith, whose works have
ever followed them, and continue to follow them to
this day, in a constantly growing, constantly spread
ing knowledge of the things of God, believed that
1 Isa. i. 2. 2 Hosea i. 2. 3 Micah vi. 1.
4 Hab. ii. 2. 5 Zech. viii. 1. ° Mai. i. 1.

t20 THE BIBLF IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
certain writings of the Old and New Testaments
alike, are addressed to man on more than the author
ity of man, on nothing less than the authority of
God Who made and governs all things.
V. — These claims are confirmed:—
(i) By the Neiv Testament writers.
Whatever they do, whether they are engaged
in preaching the Gospel of Christ, or in answering
for themselves before the tribunals, or conferring
among themselves, we find our Lord's commissioned
servants continually referring to the Scriptures, the
writings contained in the Old Testament Canon.
They invariably quote them as possessing an
authority higher than that of men, in proof of their
arguments, or in justification of their conduct.
They take passage after passage, and assign to
them a fulness and a depth of meaning which was
never grasped either by the men who uttered them,
or by the men to whom they were first addressed ;
a larger meaning which they attribute, not to the
human writer, but to the divine Author.
S. Peter says : " God spake by the mouth of His
holy prophets, which have been since the world
began." x And he links together in a striking way
the teaching of the Old and New Testaments : —
" I stir up your sincere mind . . . that ye should
remember the words which were spoken before by the
holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and
Saviour through your apostles." ''
In another place he speaks of the Old Testa-
1 Acts iii. 21. 2 2 Pet. iii. 2.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 12 1
ment prophets as seeking and searching diligently
what time, or what manner of time the Spirit of
Christ which was in them did point unto, when it
testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and
the glories that should follow them. Speaking of
prophecy, he says : —
" Whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a
lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and'
the day-star arise in your hearts : knowing this first,
that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation.
For no prophecy ever came by the will of man : but men
spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost.'' »
S. James refers to the Old Testament prophets
as speaking in the name of the Lord.2
S. Paul was, on the one hand, brought up at the
feet of Gamaliel, and, on the other hand, the sub
ject of many revelations directly made to himself.
He was therefore well qualified, and fully entitled
to speak at once the general mind of the Jews, and
of the early Christians, as to the character of the
Old Testament Scriptures. What does he say ?
" Well spake the Holy Ghost by (or through) Isaiah
the prophet unto your fathers." 3 He calls the Old
Testament Scriptures the oracles of God.4 He
speaks of " the Gospel of God, which He promised
afore by His prophets in the holy scriptures, con
cerning His Son." 5 Ina famous passage he assigns
to them a character which implies divine authority: —
"Abide thou in the things which thou hast learned
and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast
* 2 Pet. i. 19 — -21. 2 James v. 10. 3 Acts xxviii. 25.
4 Rom. iii. 2. 6 Rom. i. 1, 2.

122 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
learned them ; and that from a babe thou hast known
the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise
unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which
is in righteousness : that the man of God may be com
plete, furnished completely unto every good work." '
It is unnecessary to discuss the grammatical
structure of this statement which has given rise to
so much dispute. Whether the term " inspired of
God " be used indicatively or predicatively is imma
terial to our present inquiry. Later on it will
become necessary to inquire somewhat carefully
what the exact import of the term as applied to
Holy Scripture may be. At present it is enough
to observe that the use of it shews S. Paul's belief
that the Old Testament speaks with divine
authority. (2) The claims are also confirmed by our Lord.
In all matters of spiritual discernment, " He
Whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God :
for He giveth not the Spirit by measure." 2 In all
our Lord's utterances in such cases there is no
trace of a shadow of indecision.
" My teaching is not Mine, but His that sent Me." s
"The words that I say unto you I speak not from
Myself." 4
"All things have been delivered unto Me of My
Father." 6
"The Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all
things that Himself doeth."0
1 2 Tim. iii. 14 — 17. 2 John iii. 34.
3 John vii. 16. 4 John xiv. 10.
'' Matt. xi. 27 ; Luke x. 22. c John v. 20

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 123
" I and the Father are one." '
" He that sent Me is true ; and the things which I
heard from Him, these speak I unto the world. . . .
I do nothing of Myself, but as the Father taught Me, I
speak these things. And He that sent Me is with Med' 2
Not only are we at liberty to inquire — but it is
our bounden duty to inquire — what the true mean
ing of our Lord's words really is. We must
jealously guard ourselves against reading into them
one jot or tittle which they do not contain. But if
we can once ascertain what authority He ascribed
to the Old Testament Scriptures, we feel that
His decision must be final.
(a) It is an unquestioned historic fact that, when
our Lord came upon earth, there existed among
the Jews a collection of sacred books which were
publicly read in the worship of the synagogue,3
and which were believed by the nation to be espe
cially holy, as being the sacred depository of
Jehovah's will. Indeed, if anything is certain in
history it is certain that the Jews believed and
taught that their Scriptures had in a special sense
a divine origin. This belief had full possession of
the mind, and deeply affected the religious, social,
and national life of the people.
How did our Lord meet this belief? His atti
tude towards it forbids us to regard it as a mere
superstition. We know how He dealt with the
traditions of the Pharisees. This great party of
the Jews were jealous for God's law. It must not
be broken. And that it might not be broken, they
1 John x. 30. 2 John viii. 26 — 29. 3 Cf. Acts xiii. 15.

124 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
fenced it round with a hedge of ceremonial ordin
ances, which were designed to keep it inviolate.
However good the intention which first led to the
adoption of all these minute observances, the
whole system was wrong. And our Lord told them
in the plainest terms that it was wrong ; unjust to
men, as binding upon their shoulders an intolerable
burden, and disloyal to God, as making His word of
none effect.
Now, bearing in mind how our Lord treated
the practice of the Pharisees in the matter of
their traditions, can we think that if the Jewish
views about .the Scriptures were only corrupt
and superstitious, He would not, in this matter
also, have censured their error ? But there is
nothing to be found in all His teaching which
can be regarded as a rebuke to them for ascribing
divine authority to the books which they held
sacred. (b) But it is not only from our Lord's abstaining
to say aught to diminish the national belief of
the Jews in the authority of the Old Testament
Scriptures, that we learn what He taught concern
ing them. His habitual use of them postulates
their divine authority. He calls the fifth command
ment the "commandment of God," and "the word,
or the law, of God." l He tells the Twelve :— " All
the things that are written by (or through) the
prophets shall be accomplished unto the Son of
man." 2 He attributes the error of the Sadducees
as to God's power to their ignorance of the
1 Matt. xv. 3, 6. 2 Luke xviii. 31.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 12$
Scriptures.1 " In part expounding, and in part
expanding, their pure and lofty teachings,"2 He
makes them largely the basis of His own. Pie
appeals to the Old Testament as bearing, not
human, but divine testimony to Himself, a testi
mony superior to that of the greatest of them that
are born of women,3 a witness to be compared
With that of His own mighty works.
" The witness which I receive is not from man 
The witness which I have is greater than that of John :
for the works which the Father hath given Me to ac
complish, the very works that I do, bear witness of Me,
that the Father hath sent Me. And the Father which
sent Me, He hath borne witness of Me. ... Ye search
the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have
eternal life ; and these are they which bear witness of
Me. ... If ye believed Moses, ye would believe Me ;
for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings,
how shall ye believe My words ? " 4
He teaches that the Scriptures of the Old Test
ament declare the Father's will : —
" This which is written must be fulfilled in Me . . ¦
for that which concerneth Me hath fulfilment." 6
He pronounces their teaching to be no less
surely fixed than the laws of nature : —
" It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than
for one tittle of the law to fall." 6
It will be observed that I have not sought to
1 Matt. xxii. 29 ; Mark xii. 24.
2 Gesenius, Ersch und Gruber, Encycl., Vol. I. sec. 1.
3 Matt. xi. 11. * John v. 34—47.
5 Luke xxii. 37. Cf. chap. xxiv. 26 ; Acts i. 16. -
c Luke xvi. 17; Matt. v. 18,

126 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
force any strained interpretation upon our Lord's
references to the Old Testament Scriptures. But
I think no one who reads with unbiased mind S.
Luke's account of His instruction to the two dis
ciples on the day of His resurrection, and His
subsequent statement on the same day to the
Eleven and them that were with them, can fail to
be satisfied, that, taking a broad general view of
the Old Testament Scriptures, He attributed divine
authority to the whole. Beginning from Moses
and all the prophets, He interpreted to them in all
the Scriptures "the things concerning Himself."1
Whence came these "things concerning Him
self" into all those old writings ? He referred to
His earlier teaching : —
" These are My words which I spake unto you, how
that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written
in the law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms,
concerning Me." 2
Why must all these things needs be fulfilled, un
less they were more than the random suggestions
of many men scattered haphazard throughout many
books, belonging to many generations ? The dis
ciples were foolish men, and slow of heart to
believe all that the prophets had spoken. But
when He had opened their minds that they might
understand the Scriptures, He said unto them :
" Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer
and rise again from the dead the third day ; and
that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in His name unto all the nations, begin-
1 Luke xxiv. 27. 2 Luke xxiv. 44.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 27
ning from Jerusalem. Ye are witnesses of these
things, and behold I send forth the promise of My
Father upon you." Who can read this account,
believing it to be a substantially faithful and true
report of what our Saviour said, and yet entertain
any doubt as to His teaching the divine authority
of the Old Testament ?
The divine authority of the Old Testament with
our Lord and His apostles is not a subject of argu
ment. It is from the first, and all along, assumed.
That which gives pertinence to every allusion to the
Scriptures, and point to every quotation from them,
is the presupposition that they express the mind of
God, and that, when the mind of man is opened to
understand them, they possess, in spiritual matters,
both right and power to compel the submission of
the heart and conscience.
What we have now arrived at is this : That the
biblical writers of the New and Old Testaments
alike claim to convey to men instruction which is
more than human. We have seen that the claim,
as made by the New Testament writers, is in har
mony with our Lord's promises to His disciples;
and that He has given in the fullest manner the
sanction of His authority to the claim as made by
the writers of the Old Testament. It is the
unquestionable teaching both of our Lord and of
His apostles, that, in the Old Testament, there
is more than ever came from man. In it, and
in every part of it, they recognise a divine purpose.
It is designed to make us wise unto salvation,
through faith which is in Christ Jesus ; to supply

128 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
us with such knowledge of God's dealings with
men, as may, when rightly applied by the divine
Spirit, guide us into all the truth. It is profit
able for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction which is in righteousness. It is the gift
of God in providence, to teach us His will, and
to shew us the way of life.

CHAPTER III
EXAMINATION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE '
BIBLE CONFIRMS THE CLAIMS MADE TO
DIVINE AUTHORITY.
We have seen that direct claims to divine
authority are certainly to be found in the Bible.
We have now to inquire whether the evidence
which it bears to its own character is in any
way corroborated by such indirect evidence as
may be gathered from an examination of its
contents. If the Bible be from God, we ought to be able to
discern in it the presence of much that is more than
human. But if the alleged revelations be not
divine revelations at all, careful scrutiny will lay
bare the deception. Their subject matter will bear
upon it indelible traces of its origin. The human
character of its teaching will be found to be so
impressed upon it, that we shall have no difficulty
in discovering unmistakable proofs that the Bible
is, like other books, the mere creation of the mind
of man.
Now there are certain well-known tests which it
129 K

130 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
is usual to apply as often as it becomes necessary
to inquire into the good faith of a witness. In the
first place he is subjected to a process of cross-
examination, i. e. his statements are compared
with each other ; and next his evidence is con
fronted by any available facts, the existence of
which has been independently ascertained, i. e. it
is compared with other evidence known to be true.
Both these tests have been applied repeatedly to
the biblical documents. Writers like Paley and
Blunt have cross-examined them with the most
searching skill, and the result has been to confirm
their general trustworthiness in the most striking
way. And archaeology is constantly bringing to
light new proofs dug up from the dust of centuries
to corroborate the general credibility of their
story. Whatever goes to establish the general credibility
of the biblical narrative, goes to shew that the
claims which it contains to more than human
teaching are claims honestly made by men who
believed them to be true. But it does not follow
that because these men believed themselves to be
the channels of divine communications to men,
they were not self-deceived.
What we have to inquire therefore is, not merely
whether the Bible bears marks of veracity, but
whether it is such as its writers could not have
produced unless they had been taught of God.
Now the modern observer cannot fail to be
struck by the contrast which the Bible, regarded
merely as a literary production, presents in one

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 131
respect to the writings of the best secular historians
of the olden times. In some of the Greek and
Roman histories that have come down to us, we
often meet with a freshness, a vigour, an animation,
a charm of style, an indefinable beauty and vivid
ness of touch, which have made them models of
descriptive composition for all time. But even the
best of them fall, in one striking particular, im
measurably below the modern standard. The
classic historians were unable to see events in per
spective. The great characteristic of modern
learning is generalization from an induction of
facts. This art was wholly unknown to the ancient
writers. When they take a broad and comprehen
sive view, it is the result, not of the observation of
phenomena, but of some crude and fanciful specu
lation. They build edifices of theory ; but they
are edifices in the air, which stand on no substan
tial foundation of carefully-collected facts. It is
only in later ages that men have learned the true
art of induction ; that they have come to understand
the necessity of patiently accumulating material.
Yet the Bible is lifted out of the category of all
contemporary literature. For the divers independent
writers of the Scriptures, as ignorant of this literary
art as their contemporaries, have, in writing the
epic of humanity — the grandest theme that man
can deal with — maintained throughout the due
relative proportion of events. Everything is seen
by them in relation to the divine Man. Every
thing is grouped around Him, and points towards
fttm.

132 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
I. — The constituent elements of the Bible are
marked by variety—
(i) Of Composition.
It is a Library containing sixty-six books, writ
ten by more than thirty authors, over a period of
more than a thousand years. In the books that
compose it we have examples of well-nigh every
literary form — traditions of primitive times ;
genealogies, and statements of statistics ; bio
graphical sketches and family monographs ; laws
and regulations ; abridgments of history, and
letters in full, as they were written; prophecies
and prayers ; songs and poems ; proverbs and
parables. We have in the Old Testament, first, a sketch of
the general history of mankind ; then the history
of the Hebrew people down to the middle of the
fifth century before Christ, arranged so that each
book has relation to what has gone before, and
leads up to what follows. In the books of Chroni
cles we have another account of parts of the early
history, and of what is recorded in the second
book of Samuel and the books of Kings. The
prophetical books contain the prophecies, and
histories of the prophets, from the ninth or eighth
centuries B.C., to the middle of the fifth century B.C.
In the remaining books we have lyric, didactic, and
gnomic poetry.
The second division of the Bible, the New
Testament, which contains the oldest literary
monuments of Christianity, was originally divided
into the Book of the Gospels, and the Book of the

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 33
Apostles, to which were added the Acts of the
Apostles, and the Revelation of S. John the
Divine. So that this collection also is composed
of 'historical and didactic books, and one prophetic
book. In the Book of the Apostles, the fourteen
Epistles attributed to S. Paul are naturally
divided from the seven Epistles of other Apostles,
which, as they had originally a less locally circum
scribed object, were generally called the Catholic,
i. e. General Epistles.
(2) Of Language.
Two languages are found in the Old Testament.
Though akin to each other, they are nevertheless
quite distinct. They are both Semitic, i. e. they
belong to the family of languages spoken by the
descendants of Shem. Speaking generally, we
may say that the Old Testament is written in
Hebrew, which continued to be spoken up to the
days of Nehemiah. But here and there inserted
in certain books, we meet with longer or shorter
portions written in Chaldee.1
The books of the New Testament were written
in Hellenistic Greek, which was then the ordinary
language of business and general communication
in the East, and from the time of the LXX. had
come into common use, as the language in which
public worship was conducted.
(3) Of Date.
The Bible is not the production of a single age.
Between its earliest and its latest writings, there is
1 As Ezra iv. 8 — vi. 18, and vii. 12 — 26; Jeremiah x.
11 ; Daniel ii. 4 (part of) — vii.

134 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAV
an interval, according to the lowest reckoning, of
one thousand years.
(4) Of Writers.
The men themselves who speak to us in the
Bible are as unlike one another as we can well
imagine. Lawgivers and kings, priests and
prophets, the hero and the bard, the shepherd and
the gatherer of sycamore fruit, the toll-collector
and the physician, the cultivated Roman citizen,
and the unlearned and ignorant fisherman of
Galilee, — " Men unskilled in Arts,
In several ages born, in several parts : "
all these address us in the Bible. Yet, in the
grand composition which is the outcome of all this
remarkable diversity, through all its various modes,
one phrase recurs, one key is ever dominant. In
the book that embraces all these diverse writings
of all these different men, writing under such
various circumstances, a singular unity of theme
and purpose reigns from beginning to end.
II. — Yet their theme is one, Christ.
The occurrence of any real unquestionable unity
at all pervading such a collection of writings, so
diverse in all the circumstances of their authorship,
cannot fail to strike us as a most remarkable phe
nomenon. It is a phenomenon that calls for
explanation. We meet with unexpected combina
tions in life. We call them coincidences, and in a
vague dim way attribute them to chance. But
the unity of the Bible demands more than an

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 135
explanation such as this, which explains nothing.
It is too plain to be missed. It is traceable
throughout, and challenges our attention from the
first page to the last. "The Bible approves its
divine origin by its obedience to the laws which
are observable in the works of nature. Man works
by addition, God by development. Stone upon
stone, chamber after chamber, is added from
without, until the building is complete. Part after
part is unfolded from within, till the seed having
put forth its tender shoot, and become successively
the twig, the sapling, and the tree, stands forth
the monarch of the forest ; or the fcetus, having
become instinct with life, rises through the infant,
the child, and the youth, to the full-grown man.
Such has been the growth of Holy Scripture." x
In the Old Testament the attitude of mind
presented to us is always one of anticipation.
From Genesis -to Malachi, the writers all point
forward. The writers of the New Testament all
point backward, fixing our gaze upon Him Who
lived, and died, and rose from the dead, more than
eighteen hundred years ago.
One theme2 runs through the whole of the
Divine Library, traced in recording annals, symbol
ized in ordinances, proclaimed in prophecy, hymned
in song, and realized in Jesus Christ. That theme
1 Bp. Perowne'S Essential Coherence, p. 15.
2 See Archer Butler's Sermons, Vol. I. xiv. Also
Trench's Unity of the Bible, pp. 19—36 ; Coleridge's
Remains, i. 320, 321 ; and Hannah's Bampton Lectures,
P- 317-

136 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
is what we know and speak of as the Christian
Faith. The whole action of the great drama of the ages
which the Bible presents to us, moves round one
single figure, the figure of Jesus — the Lord, the
Saviour. We see
" Him first, Him last, Him midst and without end."
Prefigured in type, witnessed by prophecy, given
in promise, — He is the central character of the
whole book. The Seed of the woman, traced from
generation to generation, the Lamb appointed to
be slain, the Prophet like unto Moses, the Branch
out of the Stem of Jesse, the Prince of Peace, the
Plant of Renown, the Root out of a dry ground, the
Desire of all nations, the Covert from the tempest,
the Sun of Righteousness rising with healing in
His wings, — thus is He presented to the forward-
looking gaze of the older dispensation.
In the New Testament we see the type realized,
the prophecy fulfilled ; the Son of Man appearing
in the fulness of time, drawing all unto Him,
and transforming them into His own image, into
the image of God. The Old Testament teaches
Him. The New Testament repeats to us His
words, holds up to us His life. And we are to
learn to know Him, because thereby only can we
live the life which is a true " imitation of Christ,"
the religious life, which, as shewn forth by Him,
presented an entirely new conception to the mind
of the old world, even of its best and wisest.1
1 The successive stages of the development throughout
tlie ages of the mind of Christ are set out with such exquisite

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 37
The Bible exhibits in its various stages the slow
growth, the unfolding, and ripening of this character,
which, childish at the outset, and learning in
childish fashion, yet, tending from the first to the
" mind of Christ," and at last culminating in it in
His Person, is put before us in the pages of the
Bible, and given us to study, to learn from, and,
according to our measure, to assimilate and repro
duce. The life of Jesus Christ is the key of all
its various forms as shewn to us in the Bible, the
interpreter, the reconciler of their differences, the
corrector of their imperfections ; and with that
key we see the moral unity that runs through the
life of faith and obedience from the beginning.
But that key was not given till the fulness of time
came, and the slow and painful steps of necessary
waiting were gone through. But in the Bible we
see them made ; we follow, through outward and
apparent changes, the inward growth of what was
to issue in the Christian character. We do not,
of course, expect to find in the earlier what we
find in the later forms of character. We should be
surprised to find in Abraham what is natural in
word and thought in Isaiah; in Isaiah what is
natural in S. Paul ; in the age of the Kings or the
Captivity what belongs to the age of the Apostles.
But it is no anachronism in us who believe in
Christ the everlasting Word, and in that divine
completeness by Dean Church in his beautiful Discipline
of the Christian Character, that I have thought it well to
follow his treatment of the subject very closely, and to quote
largely from him.

138 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Spirit " Who spake by the prophets," to claim for
the Christian character, of course in early and
rudimentary, yet real, forms, all that was religious
in Abraham, or Moses, or David ; for all that was
good in them came from Christ their Lord ; and
with all their incompleteness, here were the true
beginnings of what led on to what was com
pleted in Christ. We may claim the religious dis
cipline of patriarch and lawgiver, and prophet, as
a contribution, in its own time and stage, to the
ultimate formation of the Christian character.
Very slow was the process of growth ; inter
rupted and thrown back by the sins of men ;
seeming at times to fail and stop. But the
ground gained was never lost ; the light and the
knowledge and the hope once given was kept
through the worst times, and the story of the
education of the human race carries us at last to
the supreme hour when the Master Himself came
to acknowledge and crown the work which he had
so patiently watched over.
The special religious character was to be nur
tured and gradually unfolded in a select nation,
chosen for this purpose, whose fortunes were
directed with a view to this end, and whose insti
tutions, social, political, and religious, were ap
pointed to be, as it were, its cradle and seed-plot.
(1) Anticipated by the Patriarchs.
The foundations of this character were laid in
a great idea which is brought into clear and strong
distinction in the age of the Patriarchs, i. e. the
recognition of responsibility, the individual relation

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 3" 9
of the soul to God, its Maker and its Judge. On
the front and threshold of the history of religion
there stands, as the special contribution of the
Patriarchal times to the discipline which was to
mould men at last into the mind of Christ, the
type and figure of the religious man, the example
to all ages of that faith which realizes God, and
what God is. In Abraham the eyes of the soul
are opened to believe in God, and to understand
its own relation to Him. The singleness, the
solitariness of the human soul, compared with all
other things in the world about it, its independ
ence, and its greatness, is to us the most elementary
of commonplaces. We cannot imagine religion
without assuming it. But this great idea was once
confused, imperfect, obscure. In the early days
of the world, men were looked upon and treated
not as individuals, but as groups. The individual
was merged and swallowed up in the family, the
tribe, the nation. And so the first work of the
discipline which was to lead men at last to the
" mind of Christ," was to enforce and impress deeply
the great and paramount truth that God had His
eye on each separate unit in these innumerable
crowds ; that each separate soul in them had its
direct relations to its Maker ; its course to follow
for itself, its destiny to fulfil or to fail in, its special
calls and gifts according to its Master's purpose
to account for, its own separate hopes, its own
separate responsibilities. In the history of Abraham,
from his call to the last trial of his faith, we see
that great, that new lesson. His life is shewn to

I40 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
us as the history of a man, a soul, by itself in
relation to Almighty God ; not as one of a company,
a favoured brotherhood, or chosen body, but in all
his doings single and alone ; alone with the Alone,
one with One, with his Maker, as he was born,
and as he dies, alone. To teach men from the
first the awful, the difficult truth, that they have
each of them a soul — this was the meaning of
that discipline of Abraham and the Patriarchs; and
the whole history of religion has shewn how neces
sary it was, how necessary it is. We want this
great conviction in life, to elevate, to consecrate,
to purify life ; to give it truth and nobleness, to
raise it to its real power and hope. And we want
it in death, when flesh and heart fail, and God
alone is our strength and our strong salvation.
(2) Foreshadowed by the Law.
The second great stage in that training of men
which the Bible sets before us, is the planting —
nay, the burning into the religious mind — of the
supremacy of duty and the moral law, and the
obligation of obedience1 to its Lord and Giver.
The soul which, in the history of the Patriarchs,
had learned its relation to God, had now to go
through the severe discipline of learning to live
according to His will, with an intelligent and
serious sense of what, and how great the task was.
The characteristic ceremonial law was in its
own time of the most eventful consequence. It
taught, it prophesied, it warned. But it served
its time, and was not meant to last. What was
1 1 Pet. iv. 17.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 141
of ' permanent significance in Judaism was the
paramount place of the moral law. Elsewhere,
in other legislation, in other institutions, more or
less partially, the moral law disclosed itself. But
here it was the very condition of the existence of
a nation, the reason which gave meaning to its
being. It might be disobeyed, but it was acknow
ledged as the tie between God and men, divine
in its source, sovereign in its authority.
•The great governing fact of this period was the
fact of the law. And to impress it on Israel,
however reluctant, was the intention- of all this
early stage of their history, and it was impressed,
never to be forgotten, never to this day to loosen
its hold on the'ir minds. It impressed on them
and on the world, what was then a new lesson —
the inseparable connection of true religion with
the highest human morality, justice, truth, self-
restraint, self-command and mercy. How fruitful
this step was, and how necessary, the whole history
which followed shewed.
(3) Announced by the Prophets.
We go on from the religious character, as shewn
in the Patriarchs, and under Moses, to the religious
character, in a more advanced and developed form,
exhibited in the Psalms and the Prophets. The
Psalms are the first great teachers and patterns
of prayer ; in them we see the growing up in the
religious character of these high gifts of the Spirit
of God — devotion, worship, self-knowledge ; we
see these gifts finding for the first time outward
expression in their own natural language. Where,

142 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
in those rough, cruel days, did they come from,
those piercing, lightning-like gleams of strange
spiritual truth, those magnificent outlooks over the
kingdom of God, those raptures at His presence
and His glory, those wonderful disclosures of self-
knowledge, those pure outpourings of the love of
God ? Surely here is something more than the
mere working of the mind of man.
In the vast and diversified domain of Prophecy
we see other elements of the religious character
gradually appearing, and under God's guiding, and
the lessons of enlarging experience, shaping them
selves distinctly and permanently. In the Prophets
we have the first beginnings of what has never failed
since, religious teaching ; religion,* studied, medi
tated, reflected on, thought out into principle and
inference, explicitly brought to bear on conscience
and duty, on the hopes and welfare of society.
So has the wisdom and goodness of God prepared
the way to build up among His creatures a special
character, the character of true and deep religion.
(4) Coming in the flesh.
But that religious character, hitherto nursed and
fostered in the Jewish Church, was yet to give
place to something deeper and more perfect. The
great change, with which all patriarchal and Jewish
hope and thought were saturated, without yet
knowing all it meant and was to be, came at last.
For " the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us," " and was made man "—with man's life to lead,
and man's life to die, and, if we may venture so
to speak of what words are inadequate to express,

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. 143
with human character to raise to its highest purity
and power, as the model and standard to His
creatures. No change that ever was, none that could be
imagined, was so great as this presence of Jesus
Christ among us ; but this greatest of changes
came into the world in silence ; outwardly it seemed
continuous with the past.
And so indeed it was. It was the old truth,
illuminated, unfolded, enforced, with more solemn
sanction and greater authority. He emphatically
disclaimed, in His teaching, any break with truths
received before. He set His seal and His blessing
on the qualities which are the distinguishing features
of what in His kingdom is accounted the true and
perfect life ; He pointed out the mistakes made
about it : the fatal dangers, — outward show and
hollow untruth and unreality, — which make of
religious life a ruin. The great novelty of His
teaching was that He was in earnest ; that He
put the real meaning to what others taught and
handed down in words. In the Beatitudes were
the marks and tokens of the true citizens of that
Kingdom of Heaven which He was announcing.
But every one of the Beatitudes in substance and
spirit, more than one in actual words, had been
spoken before by psalmist or prophet. He seemed
to be but carrying on their work ; to be but
enforcing once more what their hearts and con
victions had made them feel to be the truth. He
seemed to be only summing up with the authority
of a Master Who knew all things, and could not

144 THE. BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
be mistaken, what His servants had already de
clared to a world which could not be persuaded,
and had remained deaf to their witness.
Truly it was much to have the highest righteous
ness of the Old Testament raised to the complete
ness of the Sermon on the Mount. That was no
mere outward and formal, legal righteousness which
filled the heart of the Psalmists, which spoke and
lived in Isaiah and Daniel, which was preached by
the great Forerunner who was "filled with the Holy
Ghost even from his mother's womb," than whom
" no greater had arisen among them that were born
of women." That was no artificial or conventional
righteousness which passed so naturally into the
first words and teaching of Christ, the first and
fundamental announcement of the spirit and
ethical character which were to be in His disciples.
But, beyond even all this, with Christ there came
— there could not but come — something more.
The example which He shewed was something
the world had not yet seen. The work which He
came to do, was something which the mind of man
could not have dared to imagine. The opening of
the heavens which came with His ministry on
earth, the light which rose with it on the dark
questions of human existence, changed the very
meaning of human life. How could our life be
the same, into which His life had come — in which
we had " seen with our eyes and looked upon, and
our hand handled," the Eternal Word ? How could
things not be new, where " deep called to deep " in
the Cross of Jesus Christ, the deeps of human sin

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 45
and human misery, and the deeps of the love of
God ? The stern Prophet, enforcing obedience ;
the tender Sympathiser, leaving blessing behind
Him wherever He passed ; the severe judge, de
nouncing sin, yet overflowing with love to the
sinner ; and finally the Man of Sorrows, pouring
out His soul unto death in the awful Passion ;— this
is what men saw, and remembered, and wrote
down. And then they learned Who He was Who
had so gone in and out among them. They saw
Him " declared to be the Son of God with power,
by the resurrection from the dead." They found
that they had seen, in the conditions of our mortal
life, the only-begotten Son of the Father. The
great thought of the love of God, familiar as it
was to the elder saints, could not but mean much
more after this surprising revelation of its infinite
measure than it had ever meant before.
And thus there has come — .the crown of the
long travail of the ages of God's patience, in the
only way in which it could come — a form and type
of human character, not in idea, but in real life and
action, which was a new thing among men, which
reflects the thought and temper of Him "Who
loved us and gave Himself for us " — built up on
the foundation of the old religious character, as it
had been developed from the first, inheriting from
it devotion, reverence, and godly fear, its confi
dence, its thankfulness, its triumphant joy, and all
that deep music in the minor key, of which the
Psalms and Prophets are full; but a new and
mighty Spirit had breathed into it— breathed into

I46 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
it from the love and victory of the Passion and
the Cross — breathed into it unearthly serenity,
and sweetness, and daring — breathed into it new
affections and new hopes.
III. — The Bible is unlike all other books,
( 1 ) In its method of teaching.
Many books have been written with the express
object of making God known to men. They are
a priori speculations as to the essence of deity,
attempts to bring the Infinite within the compass
of the finite, thus betraying in their whole scope
and scheme their human origin. Not thus the
Bible. If the Bible would bring God home to our hearts
and lives, it does not enter into elaborate argu
mentation to prove His existence, and to set forth
the nature of essential deity. It shews us God by
His acts. Whether we see Him conversing with
Abraham at the tent door in the cool of the day,
or speaking to Moses from the burning bush, or
from the thunders of Sinai, or leading forth the
Israelites out of Egypt with mighty hand and out
stretched arm, or planting them in the Promised
Land, we cannot but feel that we are indeed in
the presence of God.
Would it teach us the worth of loyal, warm
hearted affection ? It gives us no tedious discur
sive essay concerning that form of virtue. It
imprints the lesson on our hearts by telling us, in
all the beauty of simplicity, the touching story of
Ruth.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 147
Would it have us know the hollowness of ma
terial enjoyments, it gives us, as from the lips of
a blase' sensualist, his cynical account of his own
experiences. And when we read of Jesus, that Man Whom
little children loved, Whom the common people
delighted to hear, Who spake with authority, Who
spake as never man spake, Who knew what was
in man, Who read men's thoughts, and told them
all that ever they had done, we know that this
Man was more than man.
(2) In its simplicity, profundity, and moral
grandeur. Turn from the incomparable pages of Shakspere
to those of the Prophets, or of the Psalmists, and
you find yourself at once in a new world. You
feel the presence of an ineffable something in the
Bible which is peculiarly characteristic of the sacred
writers. There is a ring in its voice which is more
than human.1 It is full of Deity.
(3) In the consistently upward tendency of its
teaching, contrasted with the degeneration common to
other sacred books.
The sacred writings of the East have been trans
lated into our language. It is possible to cull from
them passages of great moral beauty. But a care
ful comparison of those books with the Bible serves
to bring out the marked contrast in which they
stand to one another. We see at once that the
Bible stands apart, unlike all, altogether peerless,
utterly unique. It alone among sacred literatures
1 ALneid, i. 328.

148 THE BlBLF. IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
presents a continuous consistent record of a pro
gressive revelation, advancing with a steady growth
from the childhood of the patriarchs to " the measure
of the stature of the fulness of Christ." 1
If its teaching had originated in the mind of
the men who wrote it, it could not exhibit that
capacity of ever rising with, and ever keeping
above the level of human understanding, ever
shewing to men as they slowly climb to the per
ception of higher spiritual truths, that it contains
them all.
Of late years much has been said to suggest
that after all the ' Light of the World ' is not
essentially superior to the ' Light of Asia.' But
the scholar who is most familiar with the sacred
books of the East introduces them to the English
reader with an apology for the " wild confusion of
sublime truth with vulgar stupidity," 2 which he
finds in them ; while that which, he says, is
" natural, simple, beautiful, and true,'' in them, is
as "solitary fragments of pure gold, disinterred
from a heap of rubbish." They contain no unity
of design, no consistent or progressive ethical
teaching, no practical aid for man's guidance. As
time goes on, from comparative purity of teaching,
they develop into puerility. They are not only
wholly unfitted to edify the Western mind, but
they are in many points absolutely repugnant
to it.
We realize how great has been the effect of the
1 Eph. iv. 13.
* Professor Max Muller. Hibbert Lectures.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 149
revelations which God has given to men, if we
compare the history of the conception of God
which has prevailed amongst those whom these
revelations have reached, and amongst those who
have never received them. With God's chosen
people the conception ever grew fuller, purer,
simpler ; whereas the reverse of this found place
among the nations, until their early conception of
the one supreme God wholly vanishes from view,
lost in the pestilent cloud of minor deities, en
gendered by the continually evil thoughts of the
imagination of man's heart.
Of heathen gods generally Max Miiller says :
" They are masks without an actor, the creations
of man, not his creators ; they are nomina, not
numina ; names without being, not beings without
names." x " What ! " says the enthusiastic student
of the science of religion, " do you seriously mean
to sweep away as so much worthless waste-paper
all those thirty stately volumes of Sacred Books
of the East just published by the University of
Oxford ? No, — not at all, — nothing of the kind.
On the contrary,' we welcome these books. We
ask every missionary to study their contents, and
thankfully lay hold of whatsoever things are true
and of good report in them. But we warn him
that there can be no greater mistake than to force
these non-Christian bibles into conformity with
some scientific theory of development, and then
point to the Christian's Holy Bible as the crowning
product of religious evolution. So far from this,
1 Comparative Mythology, p. 48.

ISO THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
these non-Christian bibles are all developments in
the wrong direction. They all begin with some
flashes of true light, and end in darkness. Pile
them, if you will, on the left side of your study
table ; but place your own Holy Bible on the right
side — all by itself — all alone — and with a wide gap
between." 1
(4) And in its tmiversal adaptability to all ages
and peoples.
" There is nothing which to any reflecting mind
is more signal a proof of the Bible being really the
guiding book of the world's history, than its antici
pations, predictions, insight into the wants of men
far beyond the age in which it was written. That
modern element which we find in it, — so like our
own times, so unlike the ancient framework of its
natural form, — that Gentile, European turn of
thought, — so unlike the Asiatic language and
scenery which was its cradle, — that enforcement of
principles and duties, which for years and centuries
lay almost unperceived, because hardly ever under
stood in its sacred pages ; but which now we see
to be in accordance with the utmost requirements
of philosophy and civilization ; those principles of
toleration, chivalry, discrimination, proportion,
which even now are not appreciated as they ought
to be, and which only can be fully realized in ages
yet to come ; these are the unmistakable pie-
dictions of the prophetic spirit of the Bible, the
pledges of its inexhaustible resources." 2
1 Sir Monier Williams in The Record, May 6, 1887.
2 Stanley, pp. 79, 80.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 151
Compare the hymns scattered throughout the
Oriental books with the Psalms of the Bible. It
would be hardly possible to find one of the former
which could be introduced into the services of any
Church in Western Europe. Whereas the Psalms
have been sung in all times, by all peoples, in all
languages, and all countries, and they are as fresh
to-day, and as fully in harmony with the religious
feelings of the Western nations, as they were
centuries ago with the Jews of the East. No
change of time or place will ever make them
obsolete. This characteristic which is found in the Bible,
and the Bible only, is what we should look for in
a divine exposition of ideal Truth. "We expect
that it should never be effete, that it should adapt
itself to all ages and characters and nations and
climes, with new and unexpected vigour. This is
true, undoubtedly, with respect to the Scriptures.
. . . Ask those who really try and test it, ask
any devout sick person, any reverent and learned
student, any painstaking preacher, and they will
tell you that they daily find a new beauty and
a new use, a. new music and a new instruction,
in their reading." 1
From all this we are justified in concluding that
in the whole taken together, there is more than
can be found in all the parts taken separately.
Just as the human body is more than all the
members together, so the entire body of the Scrip-
1 Bp. Wordsworth, Bampton Lectures, pp. 118, 119.

152 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
tures, the Old and New Testament together, is
more than the sum of the several books that com
pose it. Vitalized by a common life, full of one
and the same Spirit, it has power to effect more
than any detailed examination of its several parts
could lead us to expect. Measure as you will the
interest which men take in this wondrous Book,
which has been read, and is read, as merely human
book was never read. Estimate the amount of
learning and labour expended in illustrating and
enforcing its teaching on the one hand, or in criti
cizing it on the other. Compare it with all that the
highest and noblest of the sons of men have pro
duced by the exercise of their God-given faculties ;
and say whether among them all, anything can be
found that is really akin to the Bible. It is an
appeal to human nature, " not for an age, but for
all time." " It stoops to meet man as he is, in
order to conduct him where he ought to be." 1
Its meaning grows, not only with the growth
of every man, but with the growth of mankind.
It is truly " A linked lay of Truth,
Of Truth profound a sweet continuous lay."
As Bishop Wordsworth says : " It exhibits a
virtue and potency . . . which is divine, if there
be such a thing as divinity anywhere in operation
in the world."2
Taken as a whole, we find that in it we have a
1 J. Miller, Bampton Lectures, p. yy.
2 Bampton Lectures, p. 122.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 53
possession for ever, a solemn trust committed to
us, whose value and whose beauty we can never
perhaps fully gauge. It presents God's own
account of Himself; and of the direct specific
communications of His will made to men ; it
discloses His purposes towards them, and their
duty towards Him ; it exhibits a unity of purpose
running as a golden thread throughout the long
history, which is shewn to be a scheme of prepara
tion, fulfilled in these last days by the Incarnation
of the Godhead, — the expression, in the only way
in which mankind could understand it, of the
awfulness of sin, and of the tender Love which
alone could bring the remedy. There is in it the
"simple, God-fearing, impartial tone of the histories,
setting forth fact after fact with a single eye to
truth, a simple trust in their divine power to teach
without a word of comment, an utter abnegation
of self or selfish interests. There is the wonderful
fulness and profundity of thought of the poems,
prophecies, and epistles, where depths of meaning
are bound up in single words and shortest sen
tences, where language is strained to the uttermost
to express the mighty conception, often too great
for any words fully to unfold. There is the exalted
sublimity and purity of the truths set forth, the
precepts enjoined ; their wise development in
order; their perfect fitness for the ends in view.
Above all, there is the power which this teaching
has, above that of all other books, to convict, con
vert, instruct, train up, make perfect, when received
and apprehended in the heart by Christian faith.

1 54 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
These, with many other like characteristics, are the
proofs which the internal phenomena of the Bible
present us with, that its teaching is truly what it
claims to be, divine." 1
1 Warington, Inspiration, pp. 253, 254.

CHAPTER IV
THE MESSAGE ANNOUNCED BY THE BIBLE HAS
ITS WITNESS IN ITSELF
OUR brief sketch has now shewn us that the
Church attributes a divine origin to the Bible ; that
the biblical writers claim to give us spiritual
instruction on divine authority ; and that we have
good reason to believe their witness to be trust
worthy. The credentials of the Bible which have been
reviewed in the last three chapters appeal to a
comparatively small class. They are addressed to
the reason. And it is only the cultivated reason
that can duly estimate their weight. Their full
appreciation demands qualifications which fall to
the lot of very few ; — a rare combination of natural
gifts, as well as many-sided training, and much
leisure. Anything like a complete statement of
them fills volumes. They are not addressed to the
untrained intellect of ordinary men. For that
intellect an exhaustive examination of them is a
task too intricate, too delicate, too arduous.
But the teaching which we are told was more
i5S

156 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
readily accepted by the ignorant, the depraved,
and the child, than by the wise and learned, appeals
direct to human consciousness without necessarily
requiring the mediation of any authoritative cre
dentials whatever. I. — Spiritual truth is discerned
(i) By our spiritual consciousness, its appropriate
organ. After all, the result of the most careful study of
all the external evidences is only to shew us that
much is to be found in the Bible which cannot be
from man. This indeed they prove unmistakably
by an appeal to our understanding. The setting
forth of the external evidences is, however, like
giving a lecture on the communication of light.
The statement of the evidences, and the lecture,
are both addressed to the understanding. But as
the lecture cannot teach a man who is blind to see,
so neither can the evidences teach a man to
perceive that the Bible is from God, who has not
the eye to see it. The divine in the book can
only be discerned by the divine in the man.
The professor of optics understands the laws of
vision as the peasant does not. But it is not by
virtue of his knowledge of those laws that he sees,
and it may well be that the peasant has much
better sight than he. It is by the organ of sight,
by the eye, not by any familiarity with its structure,
nor perception of its adaptation to the laws of light,
that both of them, professor and peasant alike, are
able to see.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 157
Now the power of seeing differs in different
men, one man being able to see with the utmost
clearness, while another is totally blind. And
between these two extremes lie many degrees of
vision. Instruction in optics does not help the
man of sound sight to see better. It only conveys
to him information as to how it is that he sees.
The same instruction does not enable the blind
man to see, yet it is not wholly lost upon him. It
will convey to him, though imperfectly, still some
idea of what light is, and what seeing means.
The blind man knows, on the testimony of his
seeing neighbours, that they enjoy the use of a
faculty denied to him, which infinitely enlarges
their perception of things around them.
There are those who, reading the Bible, perceive
at once that it is from God. They cannot help
seeing it, any more than a man of sound sight
standing in the light can help seeing the light.
For such persons external evidences are super
fluous.1 There are others again who, confused and
1 " A healthy eye is required for perfect vision. But it is
not needful, happily, to know whether our sight depends on
the cornea or the crystalline lens, on the aqueous or the
vitreous humour, or ' on a combination of the four, or of
some of them, and in what order and proportion,' before we
can discern and rejoice in the presence of a beloved friend.
A humble heart and a healthy conscience will lead the most
unlettered Christian to a firm belief in the Gospel, and in the
truth of the sacred Scriptures, though he may never have
cared to settle what share each kind of evidence may have
had in this result." — BlRKS, Bible and Modern Thought,
p. 201.

158 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
bewildered by the thick mists with which doubt
and controversy fill the air, feel that the divine
light which used to shine from out the pages of
Scripture is fading from their view. To these,
external evidences may render a most important
service, by reminding them that there are reasons,
many and sure, why they should still believe that
the light shines behind the mist.
The external evidences shew the reasonableness
of accepting the Bible as from God. But we
receive it as divine, not because it is reasonable,
but because our hearts feel it to be divine. The
teaching of the Bible comes home to us in a way
that no other teaching does.
" From whence," says Pascal, " would I deduce
the inner truth of the Christian religion ? From
itself. It is called the inner truth, the truth which
has need of no witness from without. ... It
would be surprising if I were to accept a geo
metrical theorem, not because of its being proved,
but because it is to be found in Euclid. I grant
readily that its being found in Euclid may be a
presumption in favour of its being true. But it is
one thing to accept truth on presumption in favour
of it, and quite another thing to accept it because it
is the truth. The religion is not true, because the
evangelists and the apostles teach it. But the evan
gelists and apostles teach it because it is true.
. . . The teaching which God gives is not true
because it is God's will to teach it. But God
teaches it because it is the truth." 1
1 Pense"es.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 59
Coleridge declares that in perusing the books of
the Old and New Testaments, — each book as a
whole, and also as an integral part, — he met every
where more or less copious sources of truth, and
power, and purifying impulses ; and found words
for his inmost thoughts, songs for his joy, utter
ances for his hidden griefs, and pleadings for his
shame and his feebleness. " In short," he says,
" whatever finds me, bears witness for itself that it
has proceeded from a Holy Spirit, even from the
same Spirit, ' which remaining in itself, yet
regenerateth all other powers, and in all ages
entering into holy souls, maketh them friends of
God and prophets '. 1 . . .In the Bible there is
more that finds me than I have experienced
in all other books put together ; the words of the
Bible find me at greater depths of my being ; and
whatever finds me brings with it an irresistible
evidence of its having proceeded from the Holy
Spirit." 2 In fact, Coleridge reasons about the
Bible in the same way that the woman of Samaria,
and those whom she told of Him, reasoned about
our Lord : " Come, see a man, which told me all
things that ever I did. Can this be the Christ ? "
To her, our Lord was a man indeed, but, inas
much as He had power to make her feel that He
knew the secrets of her life, more than a man, a
prophet, nay, the very Christ. Her fellow-townsmen
also believed " because of His word," saying to her,
" Now we believe, not because of thy speaking : for
1 Wisdom vii. 27.
2 Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, pp. 45, 47.

l6o THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is
indeed the Saviour of the world." x Even so to
Coleridge, and not to Coleridge only, the Bible
is indeed a book, a human writing, — yet, because
it reads the hidden secrets of his heart, and tells
him " all things that ever he did," — it is more than
any human writing, even a message from God
Omniscient, a message which in itself conveys its
own credentials.
If the question be asked, Whence, and how we
are to be persuaded that the Holy Scriptures come
from God, we may reply with Calvin by asking
another question, How are we to learn to dis
tinguish light from darkness, white from black,
sweet from bitter ? For Holy Scripture possesses
an inherent quality, by virtue of which it cannot
fail to be recognised as divine, just as black and
white objects, and bitter and sweet objects, possess
inherent qualities, by virtue of which we cannot
fail to know their colour, or their taste.
(2) Not by intellectual perceptio7i.
This personal apprehension of spiritual truth is
in no way limited to those who are learned in the
subtilties of scholastic lore or of theologie discourse.
It is given to those who hunger and thirst after
righteousness. It belongs, not to the intellectual,
but to the spiritual world, and is often found to be
strongest and most fruitful in simple folk to whom
the art of criticism is a thing unknown.
It needs not to be very old to remember many
friends in earlier years whose library consisted
1 John iv. 29, 41, 42.

review of the evidence 161
of the Bible only ; or at most the Bible, and that
which is so largely drawn from the Bible, the
Book of Common Prayer. They could read but
badly, and write still worse. Such views as they
had of history were narrow, distorted, false. The
longest journey that some of them had ever made
was to the nearest market town. And yet among
them were found those who, deaf to all that was
being said, and blind to all that was passing in the
larger world outside, had heard the words of the
Book, and out of obscurity and out of darkness
had seen what was hidden from many that are
accounted wise and prudent. Meek, they increased
their joy in the Lord ; and poor among men, they
rejoiced in the Holy One of Israel. They had
with difficulty spelled out for themselves the words
of Holy Scripture. They
" Just knew, and knew no more, their Bible true."
They had read and listened, that they might
learn God's will. Having learnt it, they had
striven, as far as in them lay, to do it. They
had been diligent to use all the means of grace
which Christ had provided for them. They had
looked for, and learned to see, the hand of God
directing and controlling the homely issues of their
humble lives. They had sought and they had
found the teaching of the Spirit. Their spiritual
discernment was oftentimes astonishing. It was a
marvel to see how the mysteries of the Kingdom-
of Christ, the deep things of God, were revealed to
them. In saying this, I am drawing no fancy
M

162 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
picture. I only try to give a faithful sketch of
what is familiar to many who have been called to
minister to the poor in country parishes.
It is an old experience, but it is none the less an
experience ever new, that those who regard the
Bible as being indeed God's Word written for their
admonition, who read it seeking therein to be
taught His statutes, and to receive understanding,
that they may know His testimonies, who esteem
all His precepts concerning all things to be right,
who love His law, and meditate all the day on
what has been written for our learning in the Bible,
who study to keep His precepts written in that
Book, find themselves wiser than their enemies, and
possessed of more understanding than their teachers.1
The assurance of faith comes not as the reward
of learned labour ; it comes rather as a divine gift,
divinely prepared for hearts that are ready to
receive it ; it is not the result of a process of logic,
it is the fruit of spiritual experience. And with
out the least feeling of grudge, or jealousy, or any
thing like contempt for intellect, the simple believer
is conscious of moving in a higher, serener
atmosphere, being raised as high above the level of
the sage, as love is higher than understanding.
Dogma is necessary for the maintenance and
propagation of religion among men. But it is not
necessary to the religious life of every individual
that he should be versed in all the subtilties of
dogmatic theology. The spiritual life of man is
a fact anterior to theology, just as his intellectual
1 Ps. cxix. 97, 99.

REVIEW of the evidence 163
life is a fact anterior to all science. Theology,
which is a branch of science, comes after inquiry
into the ' how ' and the ' why,' systematizing facts
and deducing from them general laws. But just
as many a man of sound sense who is alto
gether ignorant of the laws of formal logic, reasons
correctly, — so can the simple heart of the man
ignorant of scholastic divinity, see with single eye
the full light of divine truth. He needs no
laboured proof from without, the force of which
depends upon the power of duly appreciating
many things which are often hard to understand.
He has sufficient proof within himself in the
recognition of perfect harmony between the truth
which he feels instinctively, and the truth which he
finds set before him in the pages of the Bible. He
feels himself to be in direct communion with the
divine Spirit, Who bears witness with his own
human spirit. 1
What is needful for all, God has placed within
the reach of all. The air we breathe, the bread we
eat, the water we drink, — these things, indispens
able as they are to the needs of all men, are all
common things. Even so the supply which God
has provided for the spiritual needs of men is of
such a nature as to be available for the use of all.
The glad tidings from heaven are not given in such
a way that only the learned and wise can under
stand and enjoy them. Philosophy can reach but
few, and it affects still fewer. When we read what
it has said, we often wonder at the subtilty and
1 Rom. viii. 16.

164 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
depth of many of its musings. But when we go
into the wide world, mix with all conditions of
men, converse with them, learn what they are
thinking, by what they are impelled, we wonder
still more how feeble is the hold which philosophy
has upon their minds, and how much feebler yet
upon their lives.
If men were dependent upon philosophy for
their knowledge of God, how few could know Him.
But the Bible presents God to us in such a way as
to engage the deepest interest of the greatest
number. It does not present Him as an abstract
idea to be apprehended by the rational faculties.
It presents Him so that the man of devout spirit is
brought into personal contact with Him in all the
concerns of life. It associates God with all our
interests, and powers, and experiences, and brings
Him near to every one of us. The illiterate, and
the little child, can find in the Bible that which
awakens within them the fullest, the tenderest, and
the truest conception of God of which their
natures are capable. The most unlearned and
ignorant possess some knowledge. The most un
philosophical can think after their manner. The
most unpoetical are not without imagination. To
this knowledge, this thought, this imagination, the
Bible conveys truth as nothing else can.
II. — The Bible discovers God to all who read it with
the single aim to find in it the mind of God.
The heart of man is so constituted that it cannot
be satisfied with anything less than God Who made

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE iCj
it. In the daily speech of men no language is
more common than the language of complaint ;
because men have no experience more general than
the experience of something ever lacking to them.
Alike in the repose of what we call a quiet life, and
in the excitement of the wildest pursuit of pleasure,
we can never avoid meeting with a something to
awaken within us an echo to the universal sigh of
" vanity of vanities." The feeling may be vague,
or it may be intensely defined ; but, in one way or
another, we all do feel that we want a life which is
higher, nobler, fuller than the life which the highest
enjoyments of sense can minister. It is the craving
of our hearts for God.
But our eye cannot see, our hand cannot touch
the God for Whom our heart is yearning; while the
material world coming into constant contact with
us through every sense, finds ready access to our
heart, and easily takes possession of it. The
struggle between the spiritual longing and the
prompting of sense, is neither long nor doubtful,
unless God has become to us something more than
an empty idea, or a vague aspiration. But how is
God to become a living reality to us ? The study
of nature can enthral us with its witcheries, but it
cannot give us God. The study of ourselves, and
of our experiences, forces upon us the conviction,
that, unless good and evil be senseless names, and
unless conscience be a mocking delusion, there is a
Supreme Being, who is the righteous Governor of
the universe. But even this is not enough for us.
If nature and man — if physics and ethics and

166 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
history — were the only channels through which we
might hope to win some knowledge of God, then
would our lot be indeed a pitiable lot. Like men
drifting on board some water-logged hulk, without
rudder, without compass, without means of pro
pulsion, and with the tempest and the blackness of
night around them, we might be conscious indeed
that somewhere, far away, we had a home which
was full of affection and love for us. But how
could such consciousness at such a time avail, save
only to aggravate our suffering ? If our faith rested
only on what reason could achieve for us, no words
could express the misery of our condition — the
condition of men unable with certainty to discern
the spiritual through the dense medium of the
material, and yet not blind enough not to see
beyond all question of doubt, how utterly incapable
the material is of satisfying the deepest needs of
their nature.
But when we read our Bible, as it demands to be
read, we feel that we are not thus adrift. We know
that we are not left to grope in the darkness, feeling
helplessly after Him, if haply we may find Him
by the deductions of reason, or by the suggestions
of consciousness. God presents Himself to us
openly in the Bible. In the Bible we may find,
without fear of being mistaken, the one sure found
ation of all our hopes. Seek wherever else we
may, we can only find a quicksand, more or less
stable to all appearance, but still only a quicksand ;
on the surface the opinions of men, below the sur
face the prejudices of men, and at the bottom

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 167
nothing but the illusions of men. But our labour
of rightly-conducted search in the Bible is rewarded
by the discovery of the living rock, by the discovery
of God Himself.
Only we must search in the right way. The
examination of the internal evidence gives scope
indeed to intellectual capacity, but much more does
it demand spiritual discernment. All men are not
cast in one mould, out of an amalgam precisely the
same in every case. We are severally gifted with
an infinite variety of endowments, corporeal, intel
lectual, moral, spiritual. And our capacity for
entering into any particular pursuit depends upon
our being possessed of the faculty appropriate to
its enjoyment. If music has no charms for you, it
is in vain to go to Bayreuth. If you have no eyes
to see, it is useless to sit down before the Sistine
Madonna. Even so, if you have not the appropriate
qualification, you cannot perceive the divinity that
addresses you even in the words of Jesus Christ.
Those that are meek shall He guide in judgment,
and such as are gentle, them shall He learn His
way.1 Mysteries are revealed unto the meek.2
Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.3 It is the
Spirit of God, taking of the things of God, and
shewing them unto us, to our spirits, as we read
the Holy Scriptures, that enables us to discern
spiritual things. This discernment is what the
Pharisees lacked. They searched their Scriptures
because they thought that in them they had their
sovereign good, eternal life. They searched and
1 Ps, xxv. 8. 2 Ecclus. iii. 19. 3 1 Cor. ii. 14.

l68 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
found not because they searched amiss. Their
fault was, not that they did not read the books,
but that they did not read them aright. In read
ing they ought to have discerned the things that
differed. They ought to have distinguished between
the moral and the positive;1 and to have seen that
whereas the positive is occasional and transitory,
the moral is of universal and abiding obligation.
This they did not do. And it was because they
did not do this, that they came to reject the true
Messiah. It was necessary to read and learn with
discernment. And that discernment they lacked.
Why ? Our Lord tells us. Because they " would
not," because they had not the will to come to
Jesus. If they had only had the will, they would
have understood the varied testimony which the
Old Testament bears to Jesus of Nazareth ; and
instead of killing the Prince of life as a blasphemer,
they would have rejoiced to bow before Him as
their King, Who had come to bear witness unto
the truth.
The Light was come unto the world, but they
loved the darkness rather than light, because their
works were evil. They willed not to do God's
will, therefore it was not given to them to know of
the doctrine that it was of God.
Happy are we if, by habitually willing to do His
will, we have cultivated the priceless faculty of
spiritual discernment. If we have, we need no proofs
that God speaks to us in the Bible. But even if we
cannot hear it, because we have neglected to give to
1 Bp. Butler, Anal. Pt. ii. c. i.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 169
the training of that faculty the care and attention
which we bestow on the training of our intellectual
powers, we dare not say that there is nothing to
hear. If we turn to those who have cultivated the
gift which we have neglected, if we apply to those
of our intimate friends whom we know to be most
spiritually-minded, — those who have devoted them
selves with the greatest zeal and constancy to the
study of the Bible, not in the spirit of the mere
literary critic, but with the mind to learn what it
can teach them of the things of God, — we shall
find them, one and all, to pronounce it to be
instinct with divinity.1
1 See Colani, Sermons, iv. Strasbourg, 1858.

CHAPTER V
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE HAS BORNE
MORE THAN HUMAN FRUITS
We have now seen that this unique collection of
sacred writings, which we call " The Bible," has
been guarded, kept, and witnessed to as divine, by
a unique society divinely founded upon earth ; that
the book itself represents its teaching about the
things of God to be divine teaching ; that, taken
as a whole, the collection is marked by certain
characteristics which are not found in any human
literature ; and that it possesses a power — a power
peculiarly its own — to make men feel that it speaks
to them as man never spake. It now remains to
inquire whether the practical test of experience
can be brought to bear upon the questions at issue.
If the teaching of the Bible be from God, and not
from men, we may expect to find it exerting upon
mankind an influence which is more than human.
Has it done so ?
The focus of all the Bible's teaching is Christ.
Of Him the Old Testament Scriptures bear
witness. The Gospels tell us of His human birth,
170

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 17!
His life, His teaching, His death, His resurrection,
His ascension. In the Epistles we are shewn how
all these facts bear upon the needs of men.
In the teaching of Jesus Christ the teaching of
the Bible culminates. He gave to men a new
doctrine — no novel speculation — but the assertion
of an absolute fact. " The Father abiding in Me
doeth His works." 1 "I and my Father are one." 2
And in intimate connection with this doctrine He
claims to have come that men may have life, and
may have it abundantly.3 He promises to give
rest to the weary.4 He claims to have come to
seek and to save that which was lost. He declares
that temporal blessings shall be added to those
who seek first the kingdom of the heavenly
Father and His righteousness.5 These are claims
to which it is possible to apply the test of experi
ence. Is it, or is it not, a fact that the weary
find rest in Him ? Is it, or is it not, a fact that He
has, in a real and true sense, saved what was lost ?
Is it, or is it not, a fact that the blessings of this
life have been given to those who seek first the
heavenly Father's kingdom ?
If an examination of the facts of history shews
that these claims have been justified, that these
promises. have been fulfilled, it will be impossible
to attribute the justification and the fulfilment to
chance. He Who made the claims, and gave the
promises, must be divine. And if it be found that
the teaching of the Bible — a teaching which tran-
1 John xiv. 10. 2 John x. 30. 3 John x. 10,
4 Matt. xi. 28. 6 Matt. vi. 33.

172 THE BIBLE IN. THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
scends all other teaching — stands, when practically
applied to the hearts of men, in a relation to the
attainment of abundant life, and to the enjoyment
of material prosperity, which is altogether unique,
we must believe that the teaching itself is more
than human.
I. — The moral changes that have followed upon the
acceptance of the Gospel.
Wherever the Bible is read in the spirit which
it demands — the spirit of docile obedience to the
will of God — it is accompanied by signs following.
The hearts of countless numbers have felt its
promises to be indeed " comfortable words," because
they have found them to be true. Men, women,
and children of every race will tell you that in
ruling their lives according to the teaching of the
Bible, they have found it to possess a power not
only to purify the heart, to elevate the mind, and
to change the whole character, but a power to give
rest, of which no tongue can tell the virtue, and
no heart that does not feel it can conceive the
sweetness. " As the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven,
and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and
maketh it bring forth and bud, and giveth seed to the
sower, and bread to the eater ; so shall My word be that
goeth forth out of My mouth : it shall not return unto
Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please,
and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." 1
Is there anything in the history of the effects of
the Gospel to correspond to this promise ?
1 Is. Iv. IO, II.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 173
(r) Man had no knowledge of doing right.
In the first place, I will ask you to fix your
attention on the magnitude of the change that has
come upon the world under the influence of the
Gospel of Christ.1 It requires an effort — a very
great effort — to realize how immense that change
is. But it will help you to realize it if I remind
you of the state of things before the coming of
Christ. It needs but a glance at the practices of society
to shew how little both religion and philosophy
availed to promote among the generality of men
" a godly, righteous, and sober life." On all sides
we find men calling evil good, and good evil,
putting darkness for light, and light for darkness.
And it is unfortunately altogether impossible to
regard such moral perversion as being confined to
a few individuals, or even to a degraded class
of the people. The practice of sins which the
Christian shrinks from naming, involved no social
degradation. The moral taste of the people was
utterly vitiated and depraved. As we contemplate
the picture which heathen writers themselves have
given us of the state of society — when we see the
vilest passions idolized, the grossest vices incor
porated into religious worship, and sins of which
it is a shame even to speak, taking up their foul
abode in the very temples of the gods, — we feel
1 I have already set forth this argument more fully in my
Christianity Judged by its Fruits, where I refer in detail to
authorities for my facts. The book is published by the
Christian Evidence Committee ofthe S.P.C.K.

174 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
that there is no exaggeration in the language of
S. Paul, which describes the pagan world as
"working all uncleanness with greediness."
It was not merely that men did wrong. But of
doing right, as we now understand it, the bulk of
mankind had absolutely no idea. Religion made
no pretence of teaching virtue. And, amid the
contradictions of the philosophers, it was impossible
to learn what duty was. No fixed certainty was
found on which the mind could stay itself, and we
are expressly told that men spent their lives in
continued wavering and suspense.
(2) No incentive sufficient to induce him to do
right. But even if man had known his duty, he had no
incentive sufficient to make him do it.
Upon the conduct of the mass of mankind — ¦
including those who possess a degree of culture
which is never likely to become universal — mere
speculative teaching exercises very little influence.
For what is the highest motive which any non-
Christian philosophy has ever supplied, or ever
can supply, to make men good ? It is not in its
power to furnish any higher motive to the practice
of virtue, than that approbation of our minds
which follows well-doing. This is no inconsider
able incentive to the man who is bent on doing
what he feels to be right ; and such a man, no
doubt, was able to find in heathen morals not a
little both to encourage and to help. But this
approbation is practically no incentive whatever
to those who are strangers to well-doing ; so that,

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1^5
as a remedy against evil-doing, non-Christian
philosophy is found wanting, just at the point
where its aid is most imperatively required.
(3) No certainty of immortality.
Some of the philosophers reasoned much and
beautifully upon the immortality of the soul. But
so far were they from convincing others, that they
failed to remove doubt from their own minds. As
the sum of all his speculations, Socrates could only
venture to teach, that upon the whole, there was
good ground to hope that ancient tradition might
prove to be more than a baseless fiction ; and
should that be so, then the generality of men who
led good and virtuous lives in this world, might
not unreasonably expect to pass at death into the
bodies of bees and ants.
Notwithstanding all his arguments for the
immortality of the soul, Cicero too seems to have
entertained serious doubts whether death did not
bring with it absolute insensibility. In any case
the doctrine was to him an abstract speculation,
barren of all practical moral value. I do not
remember that he ever uses it for the purpose of
stimulating men to the practice of virtue. But,
whatever we may believe the opinion of a few
individuals to have been, there is overwhelming
evidence to shew that before the Christian era,
the fear of divine punishment after death was
wholly inoperative in deterring the multitude from
wickedness. A keen observer of men describes
the age of Augustus as leaving no crime un
touched. The fear of the gods had Jost all

176 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
power to restrain the impious hand that spared
no altar.
Had heathenism been able to put into men's
hands a worthy standard of conduct, and had it
been able to make them feel the importance of
living up to this standard — this indeed would
have been much. But more — very much more —
was needful.
(4) No knowledge of inward peace.
Man is conscious of sin ; he knows the will that
is in him to be opposed to what he perceives to be
the will of God. His own heart makes him feel
the need of an expiation for sin.
In order to expiate the sin of his soul, he has
sacrificed with rites of hideous cruelty the fruit of
his body. The thoughtful Greek— the practical
Roman — the rude Gaul — the semi-barbarous,
though not unrefined, Mexican, have all felt an
atonement to be so necessary for sin, that, in
their anxious longing to obtain it, they have not
hesitated to offer, as the most precious of victims,
their fellow-men. Conscious of guilt that it knew
not how to expiate, the world was oppressed by
the burden of a ceaseless dread, — was an utter
stranger to the blessing of being quiet from the
fear of evil.
In presence of this phase of the disease, for
which polytheism vainly prescribed its strongest
remedies, philosophy did not hesitate to own itself
at fault. "Would that I could find truth as easily
as I can expose falsehood," exclaims Cicero ; while
Plato longs for what he feels to be indispensable,

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 77
the coming of a more than human deliverer. The
moral teaching, noblest in conception, and most
effective in action, which has ever appeared outside
the teaching which we have in the Bible, has been
no more than an empirical remedy. In error from
the beginning, it starts from a wrong diagnosis,
mistaking what is, in fact, only a symptom for the
disease itself. It starts, not from sin, but from
suffering. In place of co-operating with nature,
its treatment is repressive ; and though it may bring
partial relief to the symptoms, it leaves the seat of
the disease untouched.
And for the man who, tied and bound by the
chains of a sinful nature and sinful habits, saw the
right, and longed to do the right, but felt himself
all powerless for the task, — for such a man no help
was found. The disease was too inveterate to yield
to any treatment which heathen philosophy or
heathen religion could apply. Both one and other
put forth all their strength, exerted all the intel
lectual and all the moral energy they could com
mand ; and nevertheless they failed to regenerate
society. It was beyond their power to make men
cease to do evil, and learn to do well.
But what the highest wisdom of the heathen
could not do, what the best teaching of their
mysteries could not effect, was accomplished by
the Gospel of Jesus, working with power in the
hands of unlettered men. And why ? Because
Christ gave to the world what, without Him, it
had lacked. He gave men a standard of duty,
authoritative, unbending, and easily applied. He

178 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
shewed them a motive sufficiently strong to induce
them to adopt that standard, and He had power to
replace human weakness by divine strength.
The men who first imbibed the principles of
Christ belonged to the lowest ranks of society,
to the class of which criminals are made. Yet it
was barely two hundred years before the Christians
could proudly challenge their opponents to point
out any one of their number who had been con
victed of the gross offences which usually filled
the prisons. Even earlier than this the conduct of
the Christians had not escaped the notice of the
observant Galen, himself a heathen, who attributes
it directly to the teaching of Christ. In fearless
ness of death, in chastity, in self-restraint, in earnest
pursuit of goodness, he pronounced the conduct
which the teaching of Jesus produced in unlettered
men and women to be worthy of true philosophers.
II. — The personal happiness and material prosperity
that have resulted from the acceptance of the
Gospel.
But let us turn from the question of doing
right to another which is closely allied to it, —
to the question of personal happiness and material
prosperity. Bodily comfort was the avowed object of the
Gentile's pursuit. " What shall we eat, what shall
we drink, wherewithal shall we be clothed ?"
But Jesus forbids His followers to be anxious
about such matters. He declared it to be the
primary object of His mission to save the world

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 79
from evil. The kingdom of God, and the right
eousness of God, — these are the things at which
His disciples are to aim. Their great reward is a
heavenly reward. But the godliness which He
came to implant along with the promise of the life
to come, has also the promise of the life that
now is. It is the clear express promise of Jesus,
that those who live as valuing most highly the
heavenly reward, shall not be left without reward
on earth.
Has this promise been fulfilled ?
This question is not to be answered by any
arguments drawn from individual cases. General
truths are not to be tested by particular in
stances. We must inquire, therefore, how the teach
ing of the Bible affects the temporal prosperity,
not of individual Christians, but of Christian
communities. Announcing Himself as come to seek and to
save the lost, Jesus called upon men to follow
His commands in faith. Feebly and ignorantly,
but not without sincerity, they have responded
to His summons; and in consequence they have
become better, happier, and more prosperous.
Christ's teaching has succeeded in making men to
set a new value upon human life. It has banished
the domestic tyranny which sat enthroned in
Roman law. It has sanctified marriage, and lifted
up woman from the mire. It has exalted labour,
and made industry cease to be a degradation. It
has overthrown the barriers that separated class
from class. It has freed the slave. It has pro-

180 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
vided homes and help for the sick and needy. It
has made the law merciful, and the administration
of the law just. It has stayed the madness of
revenge, and checked the cruelties of war. When
the world was given over to outrage and oppres
sion, the voice of His servants alone was raised in
condemnation ; His ministers were the sole pro
tection of the weak against the strong ; and His
temples were the only sanctuary from violence.
His disciples proclaimed the truce of God, and
taught men stained in blood to learn the arts of
peace. Under His influence, ferocious manners
have been softened, and the violence of passion
has been curbed. He has revealed to man the
priceless blessing of liberty, and is teaching him
to attain it. He has tamed the savage, and
restrained the infuriate commune. He has cheered
the lot of the lunatic, and poured light into the
darkness of the dungeon. He has elevated art,
raised the tone of literature,1 and given to the
critic the standard whereby he measures the short
comings of Christians. Abroad His teaching is
regenerating continents, at home it is enlisting in
its service the hope of the coming age ; it is
restoring the outcast, fighting the demon of intem
perance, and awakening in society a sense of its
danger from the deadly canker of impurity.
These are some of the effects upon the condition
1 It is impossible to measure the good done to society by
Christianity through such books as Addison's Essays, the
Pilgrim's Progress, and the Imitatio Christi. This last book
was the favourite manual of George Eliot, and after her
death was found at her side.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE l8l
of man in this life, which are historically traceable
to the Gospel of Jesus. And in producing them
it has re-established in their primitive splendour
the natural principles of reason and morality ; has
added to them new force and lustre ; has made
them instinct with a life and a fruitfulness un
known before. Teaching a morality at once more
pure and practical, more simple and sublime, more
reasonable and more perfect than men have learnt
elsewhere, it has produced and still continues to
produce, not in a few individuals, but in millions
of human beings, a goodness all its own. For it
alone has had power to convert the admiration
of the mind into the burning of the heart, and to
transform the fair visions of goodness that broke
from time to time upon the heathen's dream into
the reality of actual life, and thus to effect in
the history of mankind such a change as has
never been satisfactorily accounted for on the
assumption that the teaching which has pro
duced it is nothing more than the teaching of
man. Passing by all those writers to whom the sus
picion of partiality might attach, it would be an
easy task to draw up a long list of men, who, free
from all such taint, have felt themselves forced to the
conclusion, that no mere human power could ever
have produced the changes in society which have
been wrought by the teaching of Christ. And
there is no publicist, no critic, no historian worthy
of the name, who fails to recognise in tlie evolu
tion of modern life the action, at every stage, of

1 82 THE BIIJLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
influences which are historically traceable to the
Gospel of Jesus Christ.
And it is plain that they are right. For what
are the facts which are written large on the pages
of history ? Are they not these, that the world
was wrapped in darkness and in superstition ; that
idolatry and polytheism spread their errors and
their shameful vices over the human race ; that
men were lying in a state of hopeless corrup
tion ; that the teaching of Christ has rescued them
from this fatal condition, whenever and wherever
it has been received ; that the worship in spirit
and in truth, of the God Whom Christ reveals, has
taught to common men a philosophy at once more
practical and more sublime than ever crowned
the longings of heathen sage, a philosophy which
pervades and purifies the very atmosphere we
breathe ; that where His teaching has never
penetrated, human nature still remains debased ;
that those countries which, once rejoicing in the
light of Christianity, have cast it aside, have lost
their place among the nations ; and that finally,
the moral, intellectual, and social activities which
characterize the highest civilization follow the
steps of the preaching of Christ : die out and re
appear with the worship of Christ ; fall back or
gain ground in proportion as they depart from or
abide by the precepts of the Gospel of Christ ?
Does not all this seem to declare that the highest
civilization emanates from His teaching, since in
it there is a power which raises human nature to
a height that it has never attained without it, a

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 83
power that keeps it steady on its high level, and
is helping it to rise yet higher?
In a word, we cannot but recognise in the
Gospel a principle, which gives to humanity such
a perfection of intellect, of morality, and of manners
as humanity has never been able to give itself,
notwithstanding all the efforts of the ages before
this principle was revealed ; a perfection which can
be found in no land where that Gospel is not
taught, and which has always vanished when that
Gospel is rejected.
III. — The marvellous spread of the Gospel is not
to be accounted for by —
(1) The agency employed, regarded as merely
human, The rapid spread of Christianity is a fact which
— however men have differed as to the account to
be given of it — has never been called in question.
The work may be traced to the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Then at
Jerusalem were assembled representatives of every
section of the Dispersion — Parthians, Medes,
Elamites (i. e. Persians), and the dwellers in Meso
potamia, commonly spoken of as the Dispersion
of Babylon ; the dwellers in Western Asia, in
Judaea and Cappodocia, in Pontus and Asia, in
Phrygia and Pamphylia, representing what was
known as the Syrian group of the Dispersion ; the
dwellers in Egypt and the parts of Lybia about
Cyrene, the African group, commonly known as
the Dispersion of Egypt. To these was added

1 84 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
another section, made up of sojourners (z. e. pilgrims
to the feast) from Rome, both Jews and proselytes ;
others too were there, Cretans and Arabians, who
did not belong to any of these divisions. Through
all these the glad tidings were carried to the three
continents. About the year A.D. 63 it was not unreasonable
to speak of the Gospel as being in all the world,1
as having been preached in all creation under
heaven.2 This is, of course, hyperbole. But it
implies that Christianity had already spread far
and wide. In the time of Irenseus, numerous
churches had been planted in many countries, in
Germany, in Spain, in Gaul, in the East, in Egypt,
in Lybia, and in the central regions of the world.3
Tertullian declared (A.D. 200) that they who were
but of yesterday had already filled the palace, the
senate, the forum, and the camp, and left to the
heathen their temples only.4 And about the same
time Clement of Alexandria wrote in less ex
aggerated words : " The word of our Teacher re
mained not in Judea alone, as philosophy did in
Greece, but was diffused over the whole world,
over every nation, and village, and town, bringing
already over to the truth whole houses, and each
individual of those who heard it by himself, and
not a few of the philosophers themselves." 5
The growth of Christianity has been a marvellous
growth. From being a little handful of despised
1 Col. i. 6. 2 Col. i. 23.
8 Against Heresies, Bk. I. c. x. 2.
4 Apol. Bk. I. c. xxxvii. 6 Stromata, Bk. VI. c xviii.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 185
men, Christians have become the commanding
power of the earth.. In the eloquent words of
Mr. Gladstone, " the Christian thought, the Christian
tradition, the Christian society, are the great, the
imperial, thought, tradition, and society of the
earth. There seems to be one point, at least, on
the surface of the earth — namely among the negro
races of West Africa — where Muhammedanism
gains ground upon Christianity ; but that assuredly
is not the seat of government from whence will
issue the fiats of the future to direct the destinies
of mankind."
Within seventy years of our Lord's crucifixion,
His followers are computed to have amounted to
half-a-million. In two hundred years more the half-
million had grown into five millions, — a number
which was doubled in another hundred years.
During the four hundred years that followed there
is a steady rise, until, in the year 800 of our era,
the number had reached thirty millions. Thence
forth the regular increment is exchanged for a
growing increment, notwithstanding the temporary
check caused by the incursions of barbaric hordes
from the north, and of the Saracens from the south
and east. In the year A.D. 1000, the number stood
at fifty millions. Five centuries sufficed to double
this number. And the hundred millions of the year
A.D. 1500 were doubled again in three centuries.
During the present century the figures grow still
faster. In 1880, the two hundred millions with
which the century began had become four hundred
and forty millions.

1 86 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
But even these figures do not by any means
represent the dominant advance of Christendom.
These four hundred and forty millions are pro
fessors of the Christian Faith living under Christian
government. But Christian government sways a
much vaster number. One hundred and eighty
years ago, the subjects of the Christian powers
were one hundred and fifty-five millions. In 1876,
they numbered six hundred and eighty-five millions,
and to-day they stand at a much higher figure.
And it will further help us to form some adequate
conception of the marvellous way in which Christi
anity has identified itself with all that is powerful,
if we remember that, in addition to these tributary
millions, vast empires of non-Christian people re
tain to-day their independence only on sufferance
of Christian powers ; while not a single conquest
made by any Christian people has ever been lost
to men of another faith.
How is this wonderful spread of the religion
which the Bible teaches to be accounted for ? If
we regard the means employed in its propagation
as merely human, they were pitifully inadequate.
" Twelve men of obscure and poor birth, of con
temptible trades and quality, without learning,
without breeding ; these men were sent into the
midst of a knowing and wise world, to dispute
with the most famous philosophers of Greece ; to
outwit all the learning of Athens ; to outpreach
the orators of Rome ; to introduce into a newly-
settled ¦ empire, which would be impatient of
novelties or change, such a change as must

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 87
destroy all their temples, or remove thence all
their gods.
" That such a religion, in such a time, preached
by such mean powers, should triumph over the
philosophy of the world, and the arguments of the
subtle, and the sermons of the eloquent, and the
powers of princes, and the interest of States, and
the inclinations of nature, and the blindness of
zeal, and the force of custom, and the pleasures of
sin, and the busy arts of the devil ; that is, against
wit, and power, and money, and religion, and wil
fulness, and fame, and empire, which are all the
things in the world which can make a thing
impossible ; this, I say, could not be by the proper
force of such instruments."1
Truly it was an extraordinary providence which
attended the propagation of this doctrine. " That
it should in a short time so vastly prevail, so that
within a while all the power, and wit, and eloquence
of man submitted to it, and served under it, is an
argument that God did interpose His Almighty
hand : no less power could effect so unaccountable
a change. It seems no less a miracle in matters of
this nature (a moral or political miracle I may call
it), than to blow up a great oak with one's breath,
or remove a mountain with a word speaking, would
be a miracle in nature." 2
1 A Moral Demonstration Proving that the Christian
Religion is from God, by Bishop Jeremy Taylor. Works,
vol. xii. pp. 39 — 66, ed. 1882.
2 The Divine Authority, Excellence, and Certainty of
Christianity, by Dr. ISAAC BARROW. Works, vol. x. p.
159, ed. 1830.

1 88 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
(2) Nor by the power of the sword,
It is not to be denied, indeed, that the history
of Christianity is marred at times by the occurrence
of pages which tell how little the spirit of peace
and love had found a home in the hearts of some
of its teachers, — what strangers they were to the
method of the great apostle, who commended him
self to every man's conscience in the sight of God
by the manifestation of the truth.1 And it must
be admitted that the presence of very mixed
motives is oftentimes traceable in the action of
those who -have been instrumental in the introduc
tion of Christianity in many quarters. But it is
impossible to maintain that its predominance in
the world to-day is due, either to sinister motives,
or to the use of unworthy means in its propagation.
These, instead of promoting, have retarded its true
progress. (3) Nor by the irrational dominion of a senseless
fetichism. As little can it be contended with any show of
reason that its influence has been that of a fetich.
Multitudes no doubt there have been and still are,
to whom the holy book has been little more than
a fetich. But, it is not as a fetich that it has
wrought its mighty wonders among men. It is
by revealing to men the truth that it has swayed
their conduct. It is the well-spring of religious
culture to the foremost nations of the earth. Its
votaries are not the superstitious and the ignorant.
They are to be found amongst the noblest of men.
1 2 Cor. iv. 2.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 89
Bishop Harvey Goodwin called attention to the
fact that the five occupants of the Woolsack,
during the time that he had a seat in the House of
Lords, were all of them penetrated through and
through with the belief that the message of the
Bible is the message of God : —
Lord Hatherley, the author of an evidential
book on the Bible,1 to whom for years, during his
laborious professional life, it was a labour of love
to expound its truths to a class in the Sunday-
school ;
Lord Cairns, who, on his death-bed, bade his
children take heed that the faith of the Gospel of
Jesus " is the only Faith to live and die in " ;
Lord Selborne, also a Sunday-school teacher,
who refused the highest honours of his profession,
rather than have a share in what he conscientiously
deemed to be hurtful to the Faith ;
Lord Herschell, whose sense of duty in connection
with the exercise of his Church patronage drove
him to make for himself more rigid rules than he
had found in use ;
And the present Lord Chancellor, Lord Halsbury,
the ever-active member of many societies whose
object is to recommend the Faith of the Gospel to
men's minds and consciences, who declares plainly
that, in his belief, the real remedy for the religious
dangers of the age is "the diffusion of God's
Word." 2
Mr. Gladstone's testimony on the same point is
1 Continuity qf Scripture.
2 Bible Society Monthly Reporter, June 1888.

190 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
very remarkable. He says: "Throughout the
entire period of Christian history, the balance of
brains has been on the side of Christianity. During
the many years of my public life, I myself have
been associated with the most prominent men of
our times ; and all of them but the merest and
smallest handful were professors, and consistent
professors, of the Christian religion ; while the
minority respected it. To me there is only one
question in the world, and that is, how to bring
the divine revelation to the heart of the human
race." 1
If any one will call to mind at random the
names of a dozen famous Englishmen, — such men,
for instance, as Bacon, John Locke, Newton,
Addison, Dr. Johnson, Sir Walter Scott, Brewster,
Faraday, Clerk Maxwell, the Lawrences, — he will
find that, whatever his list, the majority of names
on it are the names of sincere Christian men, and
of men, at the same time, whose whole nature
would recoil from the worship of a fetich.
(4) It is due to the inherent virtue of its divine
message. The traceable connection between human pro
gress and man's acceptance of that religious system
which the Bible teaches, is due to the realization
of its message as a true message. Goethe very
aptly says —
" It is to the worth of its contents that the Bible
1 From a statement published in the Standard, Wednesday,
Oct. 24, 1894, and acknowledged and corrected by Mr.
Gladstone in a letter to the author, dated Biarritz, Feb. 9,

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 191
owes the veneration with which it is environed
among all the nations of the globe. It is not so
much a popular book, as ' The People's Book,' for it
describes the lot of one people as the symbol of
the lot of all, connects its history with the Origin
and the Author of the world, and follows man's
earthly and spiritual development through a long
series of events, over the fields of time, and into
the regions of eternity." x
Elaborate attempts have been made to shew
that the early spread of Christianity, considered
as a merely human system, may be explained by
the natural operation of the forces which act upon
mankind. But they are futile attempts. Had
there been nothing divine in the Gospel message,
it could never have taken possession of men's
hearts as it did. Its nature and excellency was
such that, as Bishop Jeremy Taylor says, " it
entered in, like the sun into a window, without
noise or violence. It defended itself against enemies
by patience, and overcame them by kindness. It
was the great instrument of God to demonstrate
His power in our weakness, and to do good to
mankind by the imitation of His excellent good
ness." z
From age to age the rising Sun of righteousness
has slowly illumined a long succession of holy
men with a brightness that was not their own, and
made them to shine as a light in a dark place.
That Sun shines still, but the fulness of His glory
is too often hidden from our view by the thick
1 Farbe7ilehre, ii. p. 138. 2 Works, vol. xii.

192 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
clouds of selfishness and ignorance, of passion and
prejudice, and spiritual pride. Yet the truth of
God is stronger than the error of man. And our
eyes must be holden indeed if we cannot see in
the drama of the world's history the constant
action of something that is more powerful than all
that is in man, — if we cannot perceive the gradual
advance of divine truth slowly dissipating human
error like a morning cloud, and shedding a fuller
light upon the paths of men.
Other influences no doubt have had their share
in the production of some of the social results,
which we witness in the world to-day. But it is
not unreasonable to claim them for Christianity ;
seeing that, without its aid, the combined action
of all other causes together, operating under the
most favourable circumstances, has failed to yield
them ; while the simple acceptance of the Gospel
of Jesus, alone, always succeeds in evoking them
in some measure, even in the midst of the corrup
tions of the heathen world, and the chaos of
barbarism. The teaching of Christ — which is, in fact, the
highest teaching of the Bible — is no stagnant
pool. It is a fertilizing stream that, flowing down
the ages, feeds all the life along its mighty course,
from its birth in the remote heights of time, till it
shall lose itself at last in the limitless ocean of
eternity. " The words that I have spoken unto you are spirit,
and are life." ' 1 John vi. 63.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 1 93
We believe, then, that the Bible is from God,
not only because a society which is unique among
the associations of men, and which we believe to
be more than any human society, vouches for its
having a divine origin ; nor only because we find
in it language which claims to speak to us from
God ; nor because it exhibits characteristics which
no mere human literature has ever been found to
possess ; nor because it is able to quicken the
spirit as the teaching of man cannot quicken it.
We believe that it is from God for yet another
reason ; because the test of experience shews that
its unique promises are fulfilled.
In those who receive its teaching as it demands
to be received, we see it produce effects such as no
human influence produces. It stirs them to the
very depths of their being. It makes them the
conscious possessors of a power that they did not
know before. It enables them, as they never before
were able, to combat, and to overcome the evil that
is in them. They feel themselves near to their
heavenly Father, they learn to know Him more
and more, they hear His voice, and they have
power to obey it.
And when we look to its effects upon mankind
at large, the promises of our Lord — promises which
form an integral part of the Bible's teaching— rhave
been fulfilled, and fulfilled in such a way that there
can be no question of their fulfilment. Indeed, if
we embrace in one single view all the manifold
effects of the teaching which we have in the Bible,
— if we try to realize the momentous importance 0

194 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
of religious belief, "the belief that there is one
God to be worshipped, that virtue is His law, and
that mankind shall be rewarded and punished
hereafter, as they obey or disobey it here," — if -we
bear in mind to what an extent the prevalence of
this belief is due to "the revelation, whether real
or supposed, contained in this Book," we cannot
regard the language of Bishop Butler as in any
way exaggerated, when he speaks of the effect
which the Bible's teaching has produced upon the
world as " the most conspicuous and important
event in the story of mankind." x And we cannot
be wrong in regarding it as furnishing the strongest
corroboration of the proofs already advanced that
there must be in it that which could not come
from man.
The teaching of the Bible has ever shewn itself
to be no dry, decrepid, lifeless doctrine, but a seed-
germ, teeming with life, and producing in its season
fruit, such as nothing else produces.
Are we wrong in deeming this fruit to be divine ?
If not, then is the teaching which produces it
divine also. 1 Analogy, p. 276.

CHAPTER VI
WHAT IS MEANT BY SAYING THAT THE BIBLE
IS FROM GOD ?
HAVING reviewed five different and independent
lines of reasoning which all tend to shew that the
Bible cannot be from man, and must therefore be
from God, let us next inquire what its being from
God implies.
I. — It is not meant that the Bible is the only channel
through which God reveals Himself to man.
Men often think and speak as if it detracted
from the divine authority of the Bible to allow
that God has ever spoken to mankind otherwise
than through its pages. The Bible itself, however,
teaches very differently. It recognises that God
reveals Himself in many ways, (i) in nature, (2) in
history, (3) in conscience.
(1) He has ever manifested Himself to man
through His works in nature, in
" That eternal language which He
Utters Who from eternity doth teach
Himself in all things, and all things in Himself."
195

I96 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Since the creation of the world, His everlasting
power and divinity have been clearly seen, being
perceived through the things that are made.1 The
heavens declare the glory of Him Who stretcheth
them out as a gauze, and spreadeth them out as
a tent to dwell in.2 Although in the generations
gone by God suffered all the nations to walk in
their own ways, yet He left not Himself without
witness, in that He did good, and gave them from
heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling their
hearts with food and gladness.3 Who that has
ever lived a country life has not found an echo in
his own heart to the words of the psalmist ? —
" Thou visitest the earth, and waterest it,
Thou greatly enrichest it ;
The river of God is full of water :
Thou providest them corn, when Thou hast so
prepared the earth.
Thou waterest her furrows abundantly ;
Thou settlest the ridges thereof:
Thou makest it soft with showers ;
Thou blessest the springing thereof.
Thou crownest the year with Thy goodness ;
And Thy paths drop fatness.
They drop upon the pastures of the wilderness :
And the hills are girded with joy.
The pastures are clothed with flocks ;
The valleys also are covered over with corn ;
They shout for joy, they also sing." *
(2) Again, listening to what our fathers have
told us, we come, by learning what work He did
in their days, in the days of old,5 to see God's
1 Rom. i. 18 — 20. 2 Ps. xix. 1 ; Is. xl. 22.
3 Acts xiv. 16 — 18. 4 Ps. lxv. 9 — 13. 6 Ps. xliv. I.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 197
hand in history. The record itself declares the
Power that is behind it. We need not to be
informed — we feel within ourselves — that the
events of history do not occur by haphazard.
And we know that we are right in believing them
to be ordered by the hand of the Most High,
Who doeth according to His will among the
inhabitants of the earth.1
Or if we dwell on the biography with which
we are most familiar, and consider the events of
our own lives, we acquire some glimpses of a
knowledge which is too wonderful for us — how
God searches us, and knows us, - understands
our thoughts, and is acquainted with all our
ways.2 (3) Yet again, the still small voice that speaks
within the heart of every man tells us of God. It
was from the beginning God's design that men of
every nation should seek Him, if haply they might
feel after Him, and find Him, though He is not
far from each one of us.3 And in doing by nature
the things of the law, the Gentiles shew the work
of the law written in their hearts, their conscience
bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts, or
reasonings, one with another accusing or else
excusing them.4 We need not deny — and certainly
the theologians of our own Church have betrayed
no tendency to deny 5 — that God has at all times
1 Dan. iv. 35. 2 Ps. cxxxix. 1 — 3.
3 Acts xvii. 26, 27. 4 Rom. ii. 14, 15.
6 Witness Archbishop TRENCH'S Hulsean Lectures,
Christ the Desire of all Nations j Dean BLAKESLEY'S Five

198 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
vouchsafed to other nations of mankind, besides
His own chosen people, some revelation of religious
knowledge;1 and whatever there is found in the
sacred books of other religions, to make for the
cause of divine truth in the world, being as it is
the utterance of the voice of God in conscience,
must be referred to the one eternal Source of all
truth. But all revelations vouchsafed to the
Gentile world were only as the crumbs that fall
from the rich man's table.
The very word revelation itself is a pictorial
expression, representing the process by which God
is made known to man. It sets forth that process
under the figure of drawing back a veil, or curtain,
which hides from human view the things of God.
And by the things of God, I understand the
character of the divine Being, the relations in
which He stands to man, and man to Him, and
the duties of man which result from those relations.
It is unnecessary to quarrel with any one for
applying the term revelation to any means whereby

Sermons on the Dispensation of Paganism j Maurice's
Religions of the World, and their Relation to Christianity,
and Hardwick'S Christ and other Masters.
1 In illustrating this revelation to the heathen from
Scripture, Hannah gives the following references (pp. 46,
47): Gen. xx. 3—6 ; xxvi. 28, 29 ; xxiii. 8 — 17 ; xii. 38, 39 ;
xviii.; xix. 1 ; xxiv. 31 ; xxx. 27, 30; xxxi. 24, 49; Exod.
xviii. 1, 9, 10, 11, &c. ; i. 17, 20, 21 ; 1 Kings xvii. ; 2 Kings
v. (Luke iv. 25—27) ; Jonah iii. 5 ; Dan. ii. &c. ; Matt. i. 5 ;
Heb. xi. 31 ; James ii. 25 ; Ps. ex. 4 ; Heb. vii. 3, &c. ; 2 Pet.
ii. 15 ; Num. xxiii. 10 ; Mic. vi. 8; xxiv. 17 ; Job ii. 3 ; xiii.
7 ; Matt. ii. ; John iv. 20 ; Acts x. 2.

REVIEW OK THE EVIDENCE 1 99
the veil that hides these things from us may be
withdrawn. These books of God — the book of
conscience, the book of providence, the book of
nature — have ever been lying wide open before
the eyes of men. Men have been able, now and
then, to see that they were books of divine
revelation, able sometimes to spell out here and
there some fragmentary sentence. But by reason
of their blinded sight they were not able so to
read them as fully to grasp the lessons contained
in them. God came to the aid of our blindness,
and placed before us the volume of Holy Scripture,
— a book which has power to open our eyes that
we may see the wondrous things of the Law divine.
II. — It is often assumed that all divine action must
be miraculous.
From the Jews and the early Christians we have
received the Bible, a book admittedly containing
the highest spiritual teaching known to men.
Enough has been said to shew that it is unlike all
other books, and to carry the fullest conviction to
many minds that it needs must be the gift of God.
There are others who are unable to take this view.
They have learnt to think that nothing can be a
gift from God which is not miraculously given ;
and as they do not recognise the miraculous in the
production of the Bible, they refer it to no higher
source than man. I am persuaded that much of
their difficulty arises from this fundamental mis
conception as to what constitutes a gift from God.
They may find help in their difficulty by consider-

200 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
ing what is meant by the expression that the
Church has given us, or that the State has given
us, the Book of Common Prayer. It is another
way of saying that the book is set forth on the
authority of the Church and of the State. If we
speak of the constitutional authority of the Prayer
Book, we imply that its use in public worship is
enjoined upon all ministers and curates within the
realm of England, by virtue of powers inherent in
the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
the Commons. And in order to prove that the
Book of Common Prayer possesses constitutional
authority, it suffices to shew that its use was in
fact enjoined by virtue of powers inherent in those
bodies, and in none besides.
If we speak of the ecclesiastical authority of the
book, we imply that it is put forth by virtue of
power dwelling in the Church. And in order to
prove that it possesses ecclesiastical authority, it is
enough to shew that it issued under sanction of
power that dwells exclusively in the Church.
In the same way, when we speak of the divine
authority of the Bible, we imply that it is given to
us by virtue of power that dwells in God, and God
alone ; and to prove that it does in fact possess
that authority, it is only necessary to shew that it
has come to us through the exercise of powers
which belong to Him, and to Him only.
So far the cases are analogous. But there is an
essential difference between them. The Estates
of the Realm, and the Church of Christ, are both
visible bodies. The power of the visible body is

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 201
put forth in acts that pass under our eyes. We
know that the Convocations completed their
revision of the Book of Common Prayer on Dec.
20, 1661 ; that it passed the House of Lords as part
ofthe Act of Uniformity (14 Car. II.) on April 10,
1662; and the House of Commons, on May 8; and
received the royal assent on May 19, in the same
year. But God is a Spirit. His acts are not as
the actions of men.
" He doeth great things past finding out ;
Yea, marvellous things without number.
Lo, He goeth by me, and I see Him not :
He passeth me also, but I perceive Him not." 1
We cannot see God's hand in action. His
presence is to be inferred by what it effects.
(1) The assumption is contradicted by the plain
teaching of tlie Bible.
S. Augustine has laid down a most sensible
and important rule for the interpretation of the
language of Holy Scripture.2 In order to learn
the import of expressions, we must first inquire
what sense is assigned to them in passages of
which the meaning is clear and unmistakable.
1 Job ix. 10, 11.
2 " Turn vero facta quadam familiaritafe cum ipsa lingua
divinarum scripturarum, ad ea quae obscura sunt aperienda
et discutienda pergendum est, ut ad obscuriores locutiones
illustrandas de manifestioribus sumantur exempla, ut quae-
dam certarum sententiarum testimonia dubitationem incertis
auferant." — Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. II. 14,
vol. iii. p. 24.
" Ubi autem apertius ponuntur, ibi discendum est quomodo
in locis intelligantur obscuris." — Ibid. Lib. III. 37, p. 56.

202 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Their use in such cases will help us to understand
their force in others which are uncertain and
questionable. This principle may, I think, be
extended with advantage to the examination of
the writers' modes of thought. Simple instances
which give us an insight into their customary
views, teach us to interpret other cases in which
their habit of thought may be different from our
own. Turning over the pages of Scripture, we find
repeatedly that results, which are brought about in
natural course by the action of forces around and
within us, are directly referred to God.
In our fond jealousy for the honour of the Bible,
we have got into the habit of insisting that every
communication of the divine will recorded in it,
must have been made in a manner altogether un
known to our common experience.1 We have
1 Dean Cowie speaks to the point : " I should strenuously
insist on the liberty which every student of the Divine
Records may claim of interpreting the narrative, either as an
express statement of facts, or as a vivid picture which the
prophet saw mentally, and with exactly the same conviction
of its reality as if it had been physical. And I rest the
conclusion on this proposition — That an impression produced
on the mind is a real thing in itself, the senses being only
one means by which such impressions are made, and that
when an impression is produced, of the origin of which we
are ignorant, we naturally connect it with impressions of a
similar kind which have come through the senses ; and in
a truthful exercise of our powers of memory and description,
wc may ascribe an impression which was purely spiritual in
its origin, to physical causes which seem to us fitted to
produce it in the way to which we are chiefly accustomed."
The Voice of God, pp. 60, 64.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 203
fallen into the way of thinking that God cannot
act, cannot speak, without a miracle. Unless we
see signs and wonders we will not believe. This
is altogether opposed to the view of God's action
which is presented in the Bible itself. For there,
God is expressly stated to be the doer of things
which, speaking in the language of to-day, we
should attribute to natural causes.
He is represented as planting a garden eastward
in Eden;1 as planting the lign-aloes;2 and the
cedars of Libanus. 3 We recognise at once that this
language is anthropomorphic. We do not suppose
that it means us to understand that the Eternal
Spirit assumed the human shape of a mortal
forester, and laid out the park, and dressed the
ground with the tools of a man, with spade and
mattock. But we do not on this account the less
believe that the trees are the result of the work of
the Supreme Spirit, the product of the laws which
He established.
Turning from nature to history, we find the
writers ascribing events directly to God which, never
theless,, they tell us are the result of the common
forces which habitually determine human conduct.
Of Joseph's going down into Egypt we read not
only in the figurative language of poetry 4 that God
sent him thither, but he himself says expressly to
his brethren: —
" God sent me before you to preserve you a remnant
in the earth, and to save you alive by a great deliverance.
1 Gen. ii. 8. 2 Num. xxiv. 6.
3 Ps. civ. 16. 4 Ps. cv. 17.

204 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God :
and He hath made me . . . ruler over all the land of
Egypt." 1 " As for you, ye meant evil against me ; but
God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day,
to save much people alive." 2
Nevertheless we are told at some length, how
the presence of Joseph at the court of Pharaoh
was brought about by the envy and ill-will of his
brethren. Another instance presents itself in the story
of Jonathan's attempt to bring about David's
restoration to the king's favour. Jonathan under
takes to sound his father, and discover whether it
be still in his mind to do his friend evil. He
promises to let him know by a signal whether Saul
would receive him kindly or not. If the sign were
unfavourable, he tells him to secure his safety in
flight, " for the Lord hath sent thee away." 3 His
banishment would be the result of the king's
enmity. Yet Jonathan sees in it the Lord's doing.
Similarly, in the First Book of Kings, we are
told that " the Lord raised up an adversary unto
Solomon, Hadad the Edomite," and the story
goes on to tell us how Hadad, one " of the king's
seed in Edom," had escaped into Egypt, while
"yet a little child," in the days when David and
Joab " had cut off every male in Edom " ; and how,
after he had " found great favour in the sight of
Pharaoh," and had married the sister of the
Egyptian queen, he returned to his own country,
as soon as he heard that David slept with his
1 Gen. xiv. 7, 8. 2 Gen. 1. 20. 3 1 Sam. xx. 22.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 20$
fathers, and that Joab, the dread commander of
the Hebrew host, was dead.
Here the opposition of Hadad is expressly
attributed to the action of God. God raised him
up. And immediately afterwards it is explained
how his opposition arose in the ordinary course
of human events, being due to the play of an
admixture of natural feelings in the heart of the
exile.1 In connection with the revolt of the ten tribes
we have another instance of the same thing.
We are told expressly how the result came about.
As soon as Rehoboam came to the throne, the
people applied to him at the instance of Jeroboam,
saying : —
" Thy father made our yoke grievous : now therefore
make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his
heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will
serve thee. . . . But he forsook the counsel of the old
men that had stood before Solomon his father, and
spake to the people after the counsel of the young men
that were grown up with him, saying, My father made
your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke : my father
chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with
scorpions."
On which the comment of the historian immedi
ately follows in these words : —
" So the king hearkened not unto the people ; for it
was a thing brought about of the Lord."
And the story goes on to tell how, when Reho
boam had assembled a great army for the purpose
of reducing the revolting tribes, the word of God
1 i Kings xi. 14 — 22.

206 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
came unto Shemaiah, the man of God, telling him
to speak and say,
" Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, nor fight
against your brethren the children of Israel : return
every man to his house ; for this thing is of Me." 1
The causes which led to the separation of the
two kingdoms were what we should call natural
causes. The separation is assigned to motives
such as we see determining human conduct every
day around us. Nevertheless, it is expressly
declared to have been " brought about of the
Lord." In the same way we read that God gave Israel
a king, and that God took him away.2 But we
also learn that both the establishment of the
kingdom, and its destruction, were brought about
by the natural operation of political and inter
national exigencies.
(2) It is inconsistent with the common belief of
men. This biblical mode of speech is in common use
amongst the Easterns to the present day.
On August 1, 1895, an inquest was held at
the Kensington Town Hall on the body of Sheik
Nubie, a native of Bombay, a juggler at the Indian
Exhibition at Earl's Court. A medical witness
deposed that he died of pneumonia, the result of
exposure to rain. Two fellow-countrymen of the
deceased, being sworn on the Koran, declared that
in their belief his death was " the work of God."
The British jury, believing all the three witnesses,
1 1 Kings xii. 1 — 24. 2 Hosea xiii. 11.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 207
saw no contradiction in their evidence, and re
turned a verdict in accordance with it. But the
terms in which their finding was expressed referred
the death neither to pneumonia, nor to " the work
of God," but to " natural causes."
The anthropomorphic language of the Muham-
medans might have been interpreted to mean that
the man's death was brought about by, what we
call, a special visitation of providence. The
Englishmen, however, accepted it as meaning that
it was the work of God, wrought out through His
laws of nature. The fact is, that our description of
any occurrence depends upon the point of view
from which we look at it. And it is quite possible
for men who are in full agreement as to a fact
itself, to speak of it in language which seems
contradictory. It would be no difficult matter to add indefinitely
to this evidence of the habit of Hebrew thought
and of Hebrew speech to which I refer. Indeed no
student of the Bible can try to place himself, as he
reads, in relation to what is written, in the same
point of view as the writers occupied, without
feeling that it was their ordinary common practice
to look through and beyond all natural agencies
and human instrumentalities to God, the prime
Mover of all things, to Whom all agents, whether
consciously or unconsciously, minister service, and
to see in their action the expression of His
supreme will.
The peculiar training of the Jew rendered this
view altogether natural to him. But it is not

208 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
always so easy to us to acknowledge the action of
God's hand.
There are cases indeed, in which we, too, re
cognise it without an effort, almost as naturally as
the Hebrew. A great national deliverance is such
a case. When David's enemies are scattered by a
thunderstorm and tempest, he writes a song, in
which he attributes their discomfiture to the Lord
Most High, Who uttered His voice and sent out
His arrows, rebuking them at the blast of the
breath of His nostrils.1 In the same way, when the
Great Armada is scattered on our coasts by a furious
gale, our admiral calls God our best friend, and we
strike a medal bearing, under the name of Jehovah,
the legend, " Flavit . et . dissipati . sunt." 2
Even in the events of personal history we are
ready to acknowledge the operation of the divine
will and power.
I remember how in Germany more than thirty
years ago all the town in which I stayed was
talking of an incident that had occurred some time
before my arrival. A bricklayer's attendant had
fallen from a scaffold, a distance of some thirty
feet. At the moment of the accident an ass hap
pened to pass by, and before the man reached the
ground his fall was broken by the intervention of
the poor creature's head. The donkey was killed
on the spot. In less than half-an-hour the man
was at his work again.
At another time, the rector of a country parish,
finding something wrong in the water supply, pro-
1 2 Sam. xxii. 14 — 16. 2 Med. Illust., I. p. 145.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 209
posed to go down the well to make an inspection.
The well, which was deep, had been furnished
with ladders standing on wooden transoms. The
stone that closed the dome was removed. The
rector, a very heavy man, let himself cautiously
down the first few rungs, still supporting himself
partly by his arms across the opening of the well.
He was about to get his arms inside, when the
beam on which the ladder rested suddenly gave
way, the ladder dropped from under him, and he
found himself suspended over a chasm one hundred
feet deep, his whole weight resting on his arms.
Had the beam held for one minute longer, he
must have gone with the ladder to the bottom.
In both these cases we have a story of wonderful
escape from imminent sudden death, — an escape
of such a kind as no believer in the governance of
One supreme God, ordering all things in heaven
and earth, could refuse to call providential.
But the preservation of these men from day to
day, all through their simple, uneventful lives, was
just as directly due to the hand of God, as the
special deliverance granted to them on those two
marked occasions. The difference lies, not in the
protecting power itself, but in our recognition of it.
Zeal for God's honour, and love of truthfulness ;
the unbidden impulse that urges to better things ;
the sudden flash, or slowly dawning light, dis
closing views of the spiritual world unseen before ;
the glimpse of truth too deep for words to tell ; all
these — whatever account the psychologist may
give of them — we must acknowledge to be a gift
p

2IO THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
of God, immediate or indirect. Yet they are, in
fact, no more the gift of God than all the material
blessings which fill our life from day to day. But
as they do not seem to come to us through familiar
channels, we are more prompt to trace them to
their divine source.
Indeed we do believe these daily blessings also
to be from God. We pray, not only that under
the protection of His good providence we may be
made to have a perpetual fear and love of His
Holy Name,1 and, guided and governed by His
good Spirit, may be led into the way of truth ; 2
but that He Whose never- failing providence
ordereth all things both in heaven and earth, will
put away from us all hurtful things, and give us
those things which be profitable for us.3 We pray
that those evils which the craft and subtilty of the
devil or man worketh against us, may be brought
to nought, and dispersed by the providence of
God's goodness.4
We acknowledge that it is by the grace and
providence of the Lord our God, Who upholds
and governs all things in heaven and earth, that
our Sovereign Lady, Victoria, has been set over us
to be our Queen ; 5 that Almighty God has of His
divine providence appointed divers orders in His
Church ; 6 that it is the grace and providence of
our heavenly Father which doth cause the former
and the latter rain to descend upon the earth, that
1 Coll. 2 p. Trin. 2 Coll. All Conditions of Men.
i Coll. 8 p. Trin. J Litany.
6 Accession Thanksgiving. 6 Occ. P. 8.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 211
it may bring forth fruit for the use of man ; l and
when an epidemic passes away, we thank our most
merciful Father for His preservation and provi
dence over us, whereby He restores the voice of
joy and health into our dwellings.2
The teaching of the Bible is that every good
gift is from the Father of lights. We have its full
authority for holding, as we do, that all holy
desires, all good counsels, and all just works,
proceed from God ; that we are justified in asking
Him to cleanse and purify our hearts by the inspir
ation of His Holy Spirit, and to give us by the
same Spirit a right judgment in all things.
We have a right to believe that God hears and
answers such prayers. But we cannot single out
certain specific words and actions of our lives, and
say, This word was spoken, that act was done, by
the special instigation of the Holy Spirit. Even
in those cases in which there is least room for
doubt that His direct influence has moved us, we
cannot analyse the motive of our conduct, and say,
So much of it was from God, and so much of it
from my own natural feelings. For what are my
natural feelings ? In so far as they are not the
evil outgrowth of my own rebellious will, they too
are from God.
Thus we see that the Bible attributes to God
results which are brought about, not at all by
what we are accustomed to call miraculous inter
vention, but by the natural action of the laws
which He has made ; and that we ourselves
1 Occ. Thanks. 2. 2 Last Occ. Thanks.

212 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
recognise the action of God in the providence that
controls our daily life.
III. — In ascribing revelation to God the Bible uses
figurative language,
In the next place, it is to be remembered
that, when we speak of spiritual facts, we are
obliged, by the nature of the case, to describe them
in language framed to meet the needs of our
material surroundings. This is well shewn by a
learned exponent of modern Jewish thought —
" In the Bible, anthropomorphic expressions are
employed in order to illustrate the different acts of
Divine Providence in such a way as to render them
more intelligible to us human beings. We consist of
body and soul, and we produce an impression or exer
cise an influence on others by means of our body and
by the activity of our bodily organs. How an incor
poreal being acts upon the corporeal world we are
unable fully to comprehend, much less to describe. If
we desire to picture to ourselves or to others the fact
that through Divine Providence something has been
produced on earth, we must employ the same phrases
which we use in describing human acts which effect a
similar result. In reality, however, there is no com
parison or similarity between God and corporeal beings,
between His actions and ours." x
The language of the biblical writers is marked
by an abundance of peculiar imagery, alien to our
modes of thought and expression, and in order not
to misunderstand its meaning, it is necessary to
acquire an intelligent acquaintance with -its idiom.
To read it aright, we must habituate ourselves to
1 The Jewish Religion, by M. Friedlander. London,
Kegan Paul, 1891, pp. 41, 42.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 213
its peculiar forms of speech, and learn the art of
instinctively measuring aright the force of its
figures. When a speaker aims his words higher than the
precise idea which he uses them to convey, we say
that he speaks hyperbolically. The figure is by no
means unused even by the unimaginative Teuton.
In the Bible, as in other Eastern writings, it is a
very common form of speech.
(1) Which is sometimes akin to our own ;
When the hyperbole of the Bible does not trans
gress the limits to which the reader is accustomed
in his own language, he interprets naturally what
is written, and arrives without any effort at the
true meaning of the writer. For instance, in the
Bible we find it written that many very different
things are " as the sand of the sea for multitude."
The posterity that is to spring from Abraham j1
the corn laid up by Joseph in Egypt (" very
much, until he left numbering, for it was without
number ") ; 2 the tribes pitched together at the
waters of Merom to fight with Israel in the days
of Joshua;3 the camels of the Midianites and
Ammonites in the days of the Judges ;4 the Philis
tines pitched in Mickmash, in the days of Saul ; 5
the Israelites whom Hushai counselled Absalom to
gather unto him against David from Dan to
Beersheba ; * Judah and Israel eating and drinking
and making merry in the days of Solomon ; 7 Israel
1 Gen. xxii. 17 ; xxxii. 12. 2 Gen. xii. 49.
3 Josh. xi. 4, 5. 4 Judges vii. 12.
5 1 Sam. xiii. 5. ° 2 Sam. xvii. 11. 7 1 Kings iv. 20.

214 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
in the days of Isaiah;1 the captives ofthe Chaldeans2
— all these are likened to " the sand of the sea."
In none of these cases, any more than when
Moses says to the Israelites before his death, " And
now the LORD thy God hath made thee as the
stars of heaven for multitude,"3 is the English
reader likely to interpret the words in a literal
sense. The thought of the Hebrew writer finds
expression in words which the English reader
might himself employ to express the same thought,
and so he is in no danger of misconceiving the
writer's meaning.
When it is said that God hears prayer, anthropo
morphic language is used to describe the action
of the Deity in one particular. But the habitual
contemplation of our own personal spiritual re
lationship to God in prayer has made it quite
natural for us to interpret the figure without at
all attributing to the Father of our spirits anything
of a material character.
(2) But sometimes very different from it.
If, however, on the other hand, the biblical
writer describe the action of God in such an
thropomorphic language as the reader would
not naturally himself employ, then, unless pains
be taken to ascertain what the writer's usage
is, the reader will most probably misinterpret his
meaning. When we read of God's speaking to
men in past ages, the divine operation described
has no direct relation to us personally ; and not
having learned to bring our thought about it into
1 Is. x. 22. 2 Hab. i. 9. 3 Deut. x. 22.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 21 5
harmony with the anthropomorphic language of
the writer, we are apt to impart into his words
the meaning which the usage of our own idiom
would naturally attach to them, instead of the
meaning which the writers naturally used them
to convey.
In the pages of the Bible we meet with such
expressions as — " God spake, saying," " Thus saith
the Lord," "The angel of God said unto me in
the dream -,"1 " God appeared unto Jacob ; " 2
" God spake unto Moses ; " " The LORD called
Samuel;"3 "The LORD came, and stood, and
called ; " 4 " The Lord sent Nathan unto David." 5
In the Book of Job we have a vivid picture of
a divine communication being made by means
of a dream : —
" Now a thing was secretly brought to me,
And mine ear received a whisper thereof.
In thoughts from the visions of the night,
When deep sleep falleth on men,
Fear came upon me, and trembling,
Which made all my bones to shake.
Then a spirit passed before my face ;
The hair of my flesh stood up.
It stood still, but I could not discern the appearance
thereof ;
A form was before mine eyes :
And I heard a still voice." e
IV. — God speaks in the Bible.
All these various forms of speech are an attempt
to convey to men some conception of the action
1 Gen. xxxi. n. 2 Gen. xxxv. g. 3 i Sam. iii. 4.
4 1 Sam. iii. 10. 6 2 Sam. xii. 1. 6 Job iv. 12 — 16.

2l6 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
of God. But we must not be misled by them to
attribute to God what is proper to our limited
humanity. And just as when we say that God hears
prayer, we mean that He permits us to enter into
communion with Him, so, when we say He speaks,
we mean that He condescends to enter into
communion with us.
(i) He speaks in many ways.
" God speaketh in one way,
Yea in two, though man regardeth it not.
In a dream, in a vision ofthe night,
When deep sleep falleth upon men,
In slumberings upon the bed;
Then He openeth the ears of men,
And sealeth their instruction."1
If the vision of the night be not enough to with
draw man from his evil purpose, God does more,
to keep back his soul from the pit. The divine
love that has spoken to him once in one way
speaks to him yet again in another. If his un
covered ear still fail to receive the instruction
with which God would impress it, the lesson of
that persistent love is taught by yet severer means.
Elihu goes on to give a picture of the good and
happy results that come to men from the provi
dential chastisement of bodily suffering. And he_
adds immediately
" Lo, all these things doth God work,
Twice, yea thrice, with a man,
To bring back his soul from the pit,
That he may be enlightened with the light of the
living."2
1 Job xxxiii. 14. 2 Job xxxiii. 29.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 217
From this passage it is clear, that when Elihu
says " God speaketh," he is not thinking of any
mere utterance of words. What he means is,
that God makes known His will ; and that He
makes it known not in one way only, but in many
ways. He speaks by direct spiritual communi
cation, He speaks no less in His providential
dealings with mankind.
And we may not say that this is merely a poetic
figure which will not bear to be interpreted into
matter-of-fact language. The words of the prosaic
Laban are even more express.
When Abraham's servant goes to Mesopotamia
to take a wife for Isaac, he prays God to send
him good speed, and he asks that God would let
it come to pass that the damsel, who answers his
request to be allowed to drink from her pitcher
by offering water to his camels also, may be she
whom He had appointed for His servant Isaac.
It came to pass as he had desired. And when
his meeting with Rebekah is explained to Laban
and Bethuel, they at once see God's hand in it,
and say " The thing proceedeth from the LORD. We cannot
speak unto thee bad or good. Behold, Rebekah is
before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master's
son's wife, as the Lord hath spoken." 1
(2) It is by spiritual discernment that His voice
is heard.
It is only by the communion of man's spirit
with the Spirit of God, that man is able to attain
1 Gen. xxiv. 12 — 14, 50 — 57.

2l8 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
to the fullest knowledge of God. Man is en
dowed with various organs and faculties by the
use of which he is enabled to acquire knowledge
of things around him. But each organ and
each faculty has assigned to it its own proper
office, and its own special sphere of operation.
By the eye we perceive the forms and colours
of material objects. By the ear we become cog
nisant of sounds. By reasoning we evolve
mathematical truth. By the exercise of our in
tellectual faculties we are enabled to improve and
extend all our knowledge. But we can neither
see sounds, nor hear colours, nor by the exercise
of our reason form any correct idea either of
colour or of sound. In other words, neither eye
nor ear nor reason will enable us to perceive
objects outside their respective spheres of operation.
Similarly, man is endowed with a faculty whereby,
and whereby alone, he can know God. " Spiritual
things are spiritually discerned." " God is a spirit."
And it is by the faculty of spiritual discernment
alone that we can attain to the highest know
ledge of God. When the Bible uses the language
of sense to record facts of spiritual experience,
and represents men as hearing God speak, it is
to this faculty of spiritual perception in man
that the divine communication must be referred.
There is a spirit in man which God the Father
of spirits1 breathed into him when He called
him into being,2 and the further inspiration of
the Almighty, the quickening and enlighten-
1 Heb. xii. 9. 2 Job xxxii. 8 ; Gen. i.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 219
ing influence of the Holy Spirit, giveth him
understanding. Why should it be thought incredible that this
is so ? In the world of matter, by the aid of rays
which to us are darkness, God enables us to see
the hidden framework of our bodies. Shall we
say that He Who gave their being to those rays,
and to our eyes, is, in the world of spirit, unable
to lay open to man's view what seemeth Him good ?
Shall we say that He, Who has given to man
the power of conveying his thoughts and express
ing his will to his fellow-men, is Himself powerless
to declare His own thoughts and to make known
His own will ?
" He that planted the ear, shall He not hear ?
He that formed the eye, shall He not see ? " 1
He that created the organs of speech, shall He
not speak ? He that gave man his spirit, shall He
be unable to touch and to affect that spirit ?
It was certainly the teaching of S. Paul that
God has revealed unto man through the Spirit
" Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not,
And which entered not into the heart of man." 2
And we have the teaching of One greater than
S. Paul, that God is seen, not by the eye of the
flesh,3 nor even by the eye of reason, but by
the spiritual eye of the pure heart.4
In other matters much of our knowledge has
been acquired by the exercise of our intellectual
1 Ps. xciv. 9. 2 1 Cor. ii. 9.
3 John vi. 46. 4 Matt. v. 8.

220 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
powers. But spiritual truth is reached in a different
way. It is not thought out. It is " seen." Those
holy men of old, who were endowed in a remark
able degree with the gift of spiritual vision, were
called " seers." Many of us can point to something
in our own experience which may serve to illustrate
this contact of man's spirit with the Spirit of God.
Some of us have been conscious at times of the
sudden intuitive acquisition of knowledge of the
things of God. It has been as though a great
light had burst in upon us, enabling us to see at a
glance something which years of studious research
had failed to disclose to us. A clergyman, who
had seen three-score years and ten, once told me of
a memorable incident in his own life. At fifteen
years of age he was at school in Germany, where
he fell into the habit of using very blasphemous
language. One of his school-fellows had had the
manliness to refuse to join his companions in doing
something which was wrong. This was an in
sufferable offence, and the boy was put into
Coventry, and otherwise persecuted by the whole
school. One day, while things were in this state,
my friend, catching sight of him, suddenly sprang
forward, with the intention of assailing him with
the most violent imprecations which his vocabulary
could command. But, as suddenly, he "saw," as he
had never seen before, the sin of his own blasphemy.
He had always known that the manner of speech
which he had learned was sinful, but then the true
bearings of the whole business flashed upon him in
an instant, with a vividness which made him see it

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 221
all, as he felt that God must see it; and from that
moment the evil habit was stopped, and he never
uttered curse again. His comment to me upon
the story fifty-five years after the occurrence, was
made in these words : " I felt myself at that
moment as I have never felt at any other time,
in actual contact with the Spirit of God."
V. — The Prophets were "seers" of spiritual truth.
The Hebrew prophets enjoyed this spiritual
communion with God in a more uninterrupted
form. These " seers " x of spiritual truth were men
highly endowed with an insight into the ¦ things
of God. They were not mere spokesmen of
their age. They have been sometimes depicted
to us as being merely the leading intellects of the
time, men born to command, in whom the spirit of
the age was brought to a focus, and who could not
help impressing their fellows by the sheer force of
their personal eminence. It has been said that
the new truth was in the air ; that the public mind
was saturated with it ; and that it needed only the
casual touch of the common observer to form the
crystals, only the rise of the eminent man to
discharge the clouds. This theory will not hold.
Was there anything in the degraded life of Israel
in Egypt to give promise of the law of Moses ?
1 " The seer, as his name implies, is one who possesses an
insight into the unknown, and reveals it to ordinary men.
His name did not originally refer to the faculty of seeing
visions, though it afterwards acquired a connotation of this
kind." — Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures, p. 72.

222 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
They were a stiff-necked people x whose whole
bent was towards idolatry. Was there anything in
the condition of Jerusalem who killed the prophets,
and stoned them that were sent unto her,2 at all
likely to produce a Jeremiah ? Anything in the
atmosphere of Nazareth that augured the advent of
the Son of Man ? His teaching and the manner of
it moved His hearers to astonishment. Even the
choicest spirits of the time were slow to understand
Him. The age evolved indeed its type of man.
But that type was not the Prophet like unto Moses,
it was the zealot of the pages of Josephus.
I do not think that an unprejudiced man who
reads Jeremiah's account of his own mission, can
rise from the perusal with the feeling that he was
merely a mouthpiece, giving utterance to the
opinions of the age in which he lived.
He feels himself, indeed, to have been set apart
before his birth and appointed a prophet unto the
nations. But he regards himself as altogether
unfit for the office. He cannot speak. He is a
child. But the Lord said unto him —
" Say not, I am a child : for to whomsoever I shall
send thee thou shalt go, and whatsoever I shall com
mand thee thou shalt speak." "Then " (he tells us) "the
Lord put forth His hand, and touched my mouth ; and
the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put My words
in thy mouth : see, I have this day set thee over the
nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to
break down, and to destroy and to overthrow ; to build,
and to plant." 3
In discharging the work imposed upon him, his
1 Exod. xxxii. 9. 2 Luke xiii. 34. 3 Jer. i. 9, 10.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 223
heart is faint within him. He felt himself to be a
man of strife and a man of contention to the
whole earth,1 sitting alone in perpetual pain, with
a wound incurable, that refused to be healed.2
While he listens to the taunts of his persecutors
asking in mockery, "Where is the word of the
LORD ? let it come now," he is fain to cry to
God, his refuge in the day of evil
" As for me, I have not hastened from being a
shepherd after Thee ; neither have I desired the woeful
day ; Thou knowest : that which came out of my lips
was before Thy face." 3 . . . " O LORD, Thou hast deceived
me, and I was deceived : Thou art stronger than I, and
hast prevailed : I am become a laughing-stock all the
day, every one mocketh me. For as often as I speak, I
cry out ; I cry, Violence and spoil : because the word
of the Lord is made a reproach unto me, and a
derision, all the day. And if I say, I will not make
mention of Him, nor speak any more in His name, then
there is in mine heart as it were a burning fire shut up
in my bones, and I am weary with forbearing, and I
cannot contain."4
Surely it is impossible to think of the man who
gives utterance to words like these, as being no
more than the spokesman of thoughts that have
already found their home in the hearts of those
whom he addresses.' Here is no cry giving vocal
utterance to thoughts that were already stirring in
the collective heart of the age. This is not the
way in which the mere dreamer of dreams lays
bare the vision of his fancy to the minds that he
would captivate. In all this there is no note of
1 Jer. xv. 10. 2 Jer. xv. 18.
3 Jer. xvii. 15, 16. * Jer. xx. 7 — 9.

224 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
that keen joy of militant heroism which marks the
preacher of his own opinions. The whole story of
the man forces upon us the irresistible conviction
that it was by no spontaneous exercise of choice
on his own part, that Jeremiah became a prophet.
An imperious necessity was laid upon him. Woe
to him if he did not deliver the message that had
been given him to deliver. And that which alone
enabled him to bear the burden of the task that
was imposed upon him, was the sure consciousness
that he was uttering no fallible fancies of his own
heart, that he was in fact nothing less than a
prophet ofthe Lord, a commissioned herald of the
King of kings.
VI. — Less than divine influence could not have
produced the teaching of the Bible.
The growing knowledge of God in Israel is
historically traceable to the teaching of a line of
such prophets. " No considerable change has occurred in the social
state of any community, without a previous change in
their intellectual convictions. And such a change of
convictions has ever been preceded by the advent of
some great man, or of a few great men ; who have
gathered up the truths already possessed by their people ;
have freed what was true in the old faith from the
superstitions or materialisms that had gathered around
it ; had re-embodied it in a new form, adding to it the
further truth, the want of which was falsifying it, and
have succeeded in impressing this new revelation on
their age and nation. . . . Thus all the life of history
proceeds from individuals ; and all that is truly creative,
conservative, propulsive in the life of an individual,

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 225
flows from the image of God which is in him. So far
as he does not resist being made the organ of the divine
thought, he becomes a spiritual power for the whole
community, for which he feels, thinks, acts, writes, and
creates. The thought he has taught is assimilated,
and becomes common property ; and this heritage of
ideas works on through the action of the individual
minds who are bound together by its power, and stamps
its mould on the succeeding generations, as truly as it
received its impress from one great personality." 1
The older divines were wont to attribute the
acquisition of the progressive knowledge of God
which we find in the Bible to a series of successive
divine revelations. They noted, indeed, that these
revelations were adapted to the capacity of the
several ages to which they were addressed. But
they had no clear perception of the continuity of
divine operation in the spiritual world, any more
than early physicists had a clear perception of it
in the natural world. It was reserved for modern
thought, in both alike, to discern that God's method
of working is not by fitful, independent, successive
exertions of power, but by a process of unbroken,
continuous progress. The process itself has been
the same from the beginning, whatever conceptions
men have formed of it at different times. But
whether we use the old formula, " God spake,"
or adopt that of modern thought, " Man became
conscious of God," — whether we regard the process
as a revelation, or as a development, — it must be
ultimately referred to God, Who not only im
planted in man the capacity to apprehend Him,
1 Bunsen, God in History, Bk. i. par. 8, pp. 35, 36.
Q

226 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
but bestowed also upon him the environment
requisite to make it fruitful.1
That which makes it possible to instruct a child
is the fact that he is endowed with mental powers
which are capable of being educated. No teacher
can impart to him that which he has not power
to receive. And man could never have received
revelations from God, if God had not first breathed
into him that spirit which renders him capable of
receiving them.
God has given to the child certain mental
powers, and by virtue of those powers the child
is capable of learning certain truths. You may
say, if you please, that the teacher can impart
nothing to the child which he does not already
possess in germ, in the powers with which he has
been endowed. But, on the other hand, it is no
less true that the teacher can impart to the child
who does possess the powers, much which, if left
to himself, he never would have been able to
learn. Even so we may say, if we please, that man
can receive no spiritual lesson, which does not
already exist in germ in the spiritual powers with
which God has endowed him. But the mere
possession of those spiritual powers would never
have enabled man to attain the spiritual knowledge
1 An observant and thoughtful writer has lately called
attention (Guardian, Dec. n, 1895) to the fact that Newman,
in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine*, first
published in 1845, anticipated in a measure SPENCER'S
application of evolution to ideas and institutions, in his
First Principles, published in 1862.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 227
which he has attained, if he had not received
spiritual instruction from a Spiritual Instructor
Who possessed the knowledge.
But, it may be said, if man can give to man
the necessary help in the acquisition of intellectual
knowledge, why should he not be able to supply
the necessary help in the acquisition of spiritual
knowledge ? If an intellectual giant — a Newton or
a Laplace — can indefinitely extend the intellectual
horizon, why may not a moral giant equally extend
the moral horizon ? The answer is, that there is
no analogy between intellectual and moral progress.
In outstripping others, Newton and Laplace were
moving in the same direction in which mankind
has always shewn a capacity for moving — in the
direction of intellectual progress. If it were a
fact that man ever shewed a like capacity for
moving forwards, however slowly, however fitfully,
in moral and spiritual knowledge, it would not
be unreasonable to expect that he might be able,
by the mere exercise of the powers first implanted
in him, to arrive at a knowledge of spiritual truth
as far in advance of his earlier attainments, as
our present intellectual position is in advance of
primitive times. But outside God's chosen people,
the conscience of man has never — I will not say
developed — but has never shewn the least tendency
to develop the spiritual teaching of the Bible.
We have no reasonable ground for supposing that
man could ever, by any efforts of his own, have
learned to know God, if God Himself had not
been his teacher.

2 28 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
(i) Outside Israel mans conception of God has
always been a false and barren conception.
There seems to be no doubt that it did please
God to vouchsafe some occasional glimpses, to
open out some "broken lights" of divine truth
to the Gentile world. But the knowledge which
they conveyed was indistinct, vague, incoherent,
never sufficient to become the basis of a system
of religious instruction capable of preventing men
from sinking into ignorance and unbelief.1
In all the fruits of the intellect, the civilised
Gentile nations were greatly superior to the despised
people from whose hands the Bible has come down
to us. But their theology was false, from its very
root. It had no higher origin than man. Priests,
sages, poets, agreed with one another in believing
that God is made in the image of man, not man
in the image of God. Man was the measure of
all things. The Gentile systems of theology and
philosophy, taken at their best, bear upon the
very face of them the fact that they are the thoughts
of man about God. In proof that in making this
assertion I am not putting a strained interpret
ation on the facts, I may quote the words of the
great authority on comparative mythology. " We
cannot expect among pagans a more profound
conception of the relation between God and man
than the saying of Heracleitos, ' Men are mortal
gods, and gods are immortal men.'"2
Plato, indeed, whose guesses at truth have often
1 See Dean Vaughan on Rom. i. 18 — 32.
2 Max Muller, Compar. Myth. p. 8.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 229
a wonderful show of near approach to it, tells
man, as the Bible tells him, that it is his duty to
be like God. But of what God does Plato speak ?
Not of the God of the Bible, the living God, the
most holy and the most good, the God Whose
name is love, the God of Whom Jesus Christ is the
express image. This is not Plato's god. Plato's
god is only a sublime idea, a being of the reason,
separated from man by a vast interval, and holding
no communication with man.1 If this be Plato's
teaching as to the relation that subsists between
the divine and the human, what may we expect
from Aristotle ? Here and there indeed, we meet
with expressions scattered over his practical
treatises, which seem to suggest a nearer view of
duty. But we must not be misled by these. For
elsewhere he deliberately asserts, nay he devotes
a whole chapter to prove, that it is impossible for
the deity even to think of aught except his own
being.2 It is little wonder that the immediate
disciples of this philosopher went a step farther,
and deliberately set aside the god of philosophy
altogether, affirming that "a divinity was un
necessary to the explanation of the formation of
the world." 3 Ina hymn of welcome to a success
ful general, the Athenians contrast with other
gods, who keep far off, or have no ears, or do not
exist, or give them not the smallest heed, the human
god whose presence they can see, not made of
1 De Pressense, Religions before Christ, pp. 122—127.
2 Aristot. Metaph. 9, p. 1074, b. 21.
3 DE Pressense, Religions before Christ, p. 140,

230 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
wood or stone, but real and true, and congratulate
themselves on paying their vows to him.1
Wherever we turn to look upon the face of the
whole earth, we find that man has fallen from the
worship of the one true God. North, south, east,
or west, wherever men have dwelt, they have
given to the creature what of right belongs to the
Creator only.
" Knowing God, they glorified Him not as God,
neither gave thanks ; but became vain in their reason
ings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed
the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an
image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed
beasts, and creeping things." 2
It is not among the lower types of race alone
that this debasement is found. Egypt, the source
of learning, Greece the nurse of philosophy and of
art, Rome the ruler of the earth, all practised
idolatry of the vilest sort. A bull, a bird, a reptile,
or some lewd emblem of unholy lust, — these are
the things to which men built altars, and before
which they bowed themselves down.
(2) The Jewish people under providential training
acquired a progressive knowledge of God.
But while all the earth beside thus exchanged
the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and
served the creature rather than the Creator, there
was one country in which He was not forgotten.
In an obscure land, a despised people, the scorn
1 Muller, Fragmenta Histor. Grac. ii. 477, quoted by
Hannah, p. 296.
2 Rom. i. 21 — 23.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 23 1
and derision of all who knew them, still maintained
the worship of the self-existent Creator of all
things. Who made them to differ ? The Spirit of
God that breathed in them.
Nor is this all. An uncultured nation, they
"have bequeathed to mankind an inheritance of
spiritual teaching with which there is nothing on
earth to compare. What account are we to give
of this unique phenomenon ? It has been said,
Just as the Greeks had a genius for art, and the
Romans for dominion, so the Jews had a genius
for religion,1 a peculiar bent of natural disposition,
which prevented them from going the way of other
nations of the earth. This is true as far as it goes,
for it was God, and God only, Who gave to the
Greek his pre-eminence in art, and to the Roman
his mastery in statecraft. But it is not all the
truth. The Jews had spiritual instincts such as
we do not find elsewhere. But they were as ready
as other nations to succumb perpetually to the
temptation of idolatry ; and it was only the
additional gift of divine Providence, in their
theocratic government and their theocratic laws,
which, so far as we are able to judge, made them
to differ from the rest of mankind.
Even if we assume that those laws, and that
government, may be traced back to the circum
stances of the nation, we have only traced them
one step nearer to the divine Source from which
they have their rise.
Without in any way interfering with the freedom
1 Matthew Arnold, Literature and Dogma, p. 324.

232 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
of the human will, God uses the actions of men as
an instrument whereby He works out His own
designs in the government of the world. The
intentions of men are constantly modified by a
thousand forces which act upon them from out
side, and which the believer in God refers to His
controlling providence.
Moreover, the common terms by which we
describe our natural powers as "gifts," "endow
ments," " talents," witness to our habitual acknow
ledgment that they are from God. And He alone
has power to breathe into them such a quickening
influence as, stirring all that is best in them to
active vigour, may fit them to subserve His holy
will. Since, then, our personal wills are so much
affected by the providential ordering of events, and
since we owe the very possession of all our powers
and faculties to the good bounty of our Creator, there
is nothing by any means forced in the contention,
that it is quite possible that acts done by human
agency may be done by divine authority. On the
contrary, the view is altogether natural to hold, and
reasonable to maintain. " Qui facit per aliuni facit
per se '' is a maxim of our common law.
And so it comes to this. If God gives to man
His gifts, instils into him high purpose, and enables
him to translate it into action, the result of his
action is God's work. Can we believe all this, and
yet doubt that the spiritual light which illumines
the pages of the Bible comes down from the Father
of lights ? Can we doubt that the spiritual food

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 233
which every soul, hungering and athirst for
righteousness, finds in the Bible's teaching is
indeed from God ?
Can we believe that Elihu was right in declaring
that God in His providence speaks to men by the
mystery of pain ; that Laban was right in hearing
the voice of God call away his daughter from
watering the flocks to become the mother of Israel,
and yet doubt that He speaks to us in the story of
His providential dealings with men from generation
to generation, in the words of prophets and apostles,
and above all in the teaching of His Son ?
Taking the Old Testament as a whole, it reflects
the consciousness of God experienced by the Jewish
people, expresses the highest thoughts awakened
in their holiest men from age to age. Those
thoughts were the gift of Him from Whom all
holy desires and all good counsels do proceed.
They were conveyed to their minds in many ways :
sometimes as the fruit of devout meditation, some
times as lessons drawn from history, sometimes as
imperative commands irresistibly borne in upon
them by the direct impulse of the Spirit of God.
But however imparted, they were the voice of
God speaking to them. For all the earlier modes
of divine revelation led up to the final revelation
in the Man, Christ Jesus, Who, by virtue of His
mysterious union with the Godhead, spake as
never man had spoken, and disclosed to man, in
human words and human deeds, the will of God,
with all the fulness of which man is capable of
understanding it.

234 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
VII. — Summary.
In the first chapter we saw that the Church,
the most competent witness, has always borne
unequivocal testimony to the divine origin of the
Bible. Countless numbers have found in it the
only satisfactory solution of the great mysteries of
life, have ruled their conduct by it, and have found
in their own spiritual experience the strongest
confirmation of their assurance that what they
have accepted as coming from God is indeed from
Him. In the second chapter we saw that the claims
to speak from God which we find in the Bible
are good claims. We have our Lord's warrant for
believing that God spake in the Old Testament.
He Himself speaks in the New.
In the third chapter, we saw that the contents
of the Bible are such as never could have come
from man.
In the fourth chapter we saw that the message
of the Bible has its own witness in itself that it
is divine. It discovers God to all who read it with
the single aim to find in it the mind of God.
And in the fifth chapter we saw that the teaching
of the Bible has affected the condition of mankind
for good, as no mere human teaching has ever
affected it.
The argument in each of these five chapters is
based on facts, — facts which are natural if God
speaks to man in the Bible, but quite inexplicable
if He does not.
If the Bible be not from God, how are we to

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 235
account for the fact that the society which, by
teaching the doctrines of the Bible, has succeeded
beyond all others in reducing to practice a high
ethical ideal, — a society, moreover, on the side of
which the brains of the world are found, — has
continually declared it to be from Him ?
If the Bible be not from God, how are we to
account for the fact that in it — a book, which
many of the most determined opponents of much
that the Church has taught admit to be a unique
treasure of ethical instruction — claims to speak
from God are found ? If its teaching be the best,
how can it be based on a foundation of falsehood ?
If the Bible be not from God, how are we to
account for the fact that its teaching, conveyed
in such divers ways under such differing circum
stances, forms not only a consistent whole, but a
whole that so far surpasses all human learning?
If the letters of the alphabet spilled at random
on the table . do not fall so as to spell out a play
of Shakespere, can we suppose that a mere chance
medley of human utterances will be found to pro
duce a system of teaching more adapted to the
needs of man than man has ever produced for
himself? If the Bible be not from God, how are we to
account for the fact that those whose spiritual
vision is soundest declare that they can see in it
the mind of God, as clearly as they can see the
sun in the sky above them ?
And if the Bible be not from God, how are we
to account fpr the fact that obedience, even imper-

236 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
feet obedience to its teaching, has been followed
by the blessings which it promises ?
It has often been said — but it cannot be said too
often — that the evidences for the divine authority
of the Bible are cumulative. They are no iron
chain, the strength of which is only the strength
of the weakest link that goes to form it. They
are rather a cable of steel, composed of many
strands, each one of which is itself made up of
many separate wires. If the wires be unskilfully
wrought into strands, or the strands be unskilfully
united, some wires may give way, nay, even a
strand may fail to bear the strain, without the
cable parting. If therefore any line of evidence
which I have adduced should appear to be weak
at any particular point, it only takes away so
much from the combined strength of the whole.
Whereas, on the other hand, " by the common
rules, by which we judge of probable, evidence in
common matters," the force of the argument that
depends upon the whole body of the evidences
taken together — and I have reviewed only a part
of them — is greater than the sum of the forces of
the arguments from them all taken separately, for,
as Bishop Butler says, " probable proofs, by being
added, not only increase the evidence, but multiply
it." 1 And it is further to be observed that the
force of some of the proofs increases with the
increase of human knowledge. For, as the same
great thinker shrewdly remarks elsewhere —
1 Analogy, Part II. ch. vii. See Bishop Fitzgerald s
note on the dictum.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE 237
"Whereas some imagine the supposed doubtfulness
of the evidence for revelation implies a positive argu
ment that it is not true ; it appears on the contrary
to imply a positive argument that it is true. For could
any common relation, of such antiquity, extent, and
variety (for in these things the stress of what I am now
observing lies), be proposed to the examination of the
world : that it could not, in an age of knowledge and
liberty, be confuted, or shown to have nothing in it,
to the satisfaction of reasonable men ; this would be
thought a strong presumptive proof of its truth. And
indeed it must be a proof of it, just in proportion to
the probability, that if it were false, it might be shown
to be so; and this, I think, is scarce pretended to be
shown, but upon principles and in ways of arguing, which
have been clearly obviated." '
Some of my readers will possibly have felt dis
satisfied with my conclusions, as not going far
enough. It will seem to them, that some of the
facts from which I argue justify much larger
inferences than I have drawn from them. If
any one can satisfy himself that he has found a
reasonable basis for what he may consider a
higher doctrine of biblical authority, I certainly
have no desire to regard him as an adversary.
But in my attempt to build I have felt the import
ance, in the first place, of laying a firm foundation,
and, in the second place, of rearing upon it no
superstructure that I do not feel quite confident
it is able to bear.
Others again, taking exception on the opposite
side, may believe that some of the arguments on
which I rely are not so strong as I represent them
to be, and may thence infer that my conclusions
1 Bishop Butler, Analogy, p. 273.

238 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
must fall to the ground. They may possibly
think that I have attached too much importance
to the authority of the Church ; or that I have
assigned to the teaching of Christ an undue pre
dominance among the forces which have produced
the progress of mankind ; and may be ready to
conclude that therefore I have failed to shew that
the Bible comes to us on divine authority. But
a little reflection will make it clear to them, that,
even though I may have fallen into such error,
their conclusion is not a necessary consequence.
If I defer too much to the judgment of the Church,
that cannot justify any sane man in ignoring its
judgment altogether. I may fancy that modern
civilization owes more to the teaching of Christ
than in fact it does. But no mistake of mine can
undo what the teaching of the Bible has done, and
is doing every day.

PART III
^ngtoers to mjections

CHAPTER I
THE OBJECTION THAT THE BIBLE CANNOT BE
FROM GOD, BECAUSE IT BEARS MARKS OF
FAULTINESS INCONSISTENT WITH A DIVINE
ORIGIN
OUR examination of independent lines of evidence
has brought us to the conclusion that the authority
on which we have the Holy Bible is the authority
of God.
In attempting to indicate generally the chief
reasons for our belief that in Holy Scripture we
have an authoritative revelation from God, I have
hitherto purposely avoided all reference to the
many objections which are made against this
belief. I have done this, however, not because I
ignore them. I have had them in view all along.
But if we are to arrive at a true judgment, it is
important that the evidence on both sides should
be presented to us, and that in the natural order,
the positive before the negative. It is not in this
natural order that the objections come before the
minds bf a great many intelligent people. The
question is no longer a question for professed
241 R

242 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
theologians only. The periodical literature of the
day has brought the negative side of it prominently
before the general reader, who has not the same
opportunity given him of considering the cumu
lative force of the various lines of positive evidence.
But now that we have reviewed the positive
evidence for our belief, the objections to it demand
our attention.
I cannot attempt even to mention, much less to
deal exhaustively with the countless exceptions
that have been taken to the dogma of the divine
origin of the Bible. But I hope to shew that some
of the principal arguments on which different classes
of objectors rely, have no force to over-balance the
weight of evidence in favour ofthe belief that the
Bible is a unique gift of divine Providence.
With this aim, I devote this first chapter to the
consideration of the general objection, that the
presence of human faultiness of any kind in the
Scriptures is inconsistent with their being from
God. I next examine the allegation that it embodies
statements of fact (Chapter n), views of nature
(Chapter III), and conceptions of morality (Chapter
iv), which shew that it cannot be regarded as a
message from God.
Chapter v deals with the misgivings suggested
to many minds by the results of modern criticism.
Chapter VI inquires whether the presence of any
such human defect as the examination of these
specific objections has disclosed, be inconsistent
with its divine inspiration,

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 243
And Chapter VII considers the objection, that
the Bible cannot be a guide of life to man, unless
it possess the note of infallibility.
The objection which stands at the head of this
chapter takes it for granted that a Christian man is
bound to believe, that the divine authority of the
Bible implies absolute immunity from all possi
bility of error in every particular.
What grounds are there for the assumption ?
Have we any good reason for supposing that every
view put forward by every writer in the Bible on
every subject which he touches is to be regarded as
also coming to us on divine authority ? Is every
word, every particular statement, every expression
of feeling in the Bible from God, as the sum of its
religious teaching is from God ? In a word, is the
Bible in all things faultless ? These are the ques
tions now to be examined.
The mere proposal to make such an inquiry is in
the eyes of many good pious people an impious
proposal. A very general impression prevails that
it is part of the Christian faith that the subject-
matter of the Bible has come to men directly from
God by some mysterious process, called inspiration,
which vouches for its absolute faultlessness. I fancy
I can hear the solemn, indignant remonstrance —
" What ! are we not told by the word of God
Himself, that ' all scripture is given by inspiration
of God ' ? And in face of such an express state
ment of God, how can any man venture to call in
question anything which is to be found in the sacred

244 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
volume ? " Let me hasten to allay the adverse
feeling. God does not say that the Bible has been
given by any process which shuts out from its pages
all human imperfection. S. Paul does not say it.
The idea that he does, arises from a misconception
of a statement which he makes to S. Timothy — a
misconception which may be due to the rendering
of his words in the Authorized Version. The one
Greek word, which is there translated "given by
inspiration of God," is more closely rendered in the
Revised Version "inspired of God." The import
of S. Paul's statement will appear later on. I refer
to it now only for the purpose of shewing the
futility of an objection which rests on a foundation
that does not exist.
Let us proceed then to inquire, in the first place,
whether the mere presence in the Bible of an element
that is human, and therefore imperfect, is consistent
with its being the channel of divine communications
to mankind.
I. — The Church has not made the assumption that
the Bible is free from human faultiness.
The supposition that the doctrine ofthe divine
authority of the Bible necessarily involves its being
free from taint of human error in all things, derives
no sanction from the teaching of the Church.
The only official pronouncements of the Church's
judgment as to the divine authority of the Bible
are to be found in the adoption of the Canon, and in
the statement of the Nicene Creed. The adoption
of the Canon involves no certain decision on the

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 245
question now under review. Neither does the
Creed. In its words, ever since the time when it
assumed its present form, Christendom has declared
its belief that the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-
giver, spake by the prophets. This " holy and apo
stolic faith handed down to us," this "canon of
primitive faith," this " rule of faith " x makes it quite
clear, as we have already seen,2 that the Church
has always ascribed divine authority to the Holy
Scriptures. But neither here, nor elsewhere, have
we any authoritative declaration, setting out and
defining either the nature, or the extent of the
control exercised by God over the human writers
of the Scriptures. Synods debated, and councils
determined questions which, under the exigencies
of the times, demanded decision. But the relation
of the divine to the human in the structure of the
Bible was not among them. The divine authority
of the Holy Scriptures was never called in question.
The human character of the agency by which they
were produced was fully recognised. For this
reason we have neither public decrees of the
Church, nor formal treatises of its doctors on the
subject. Yet, although the question was not dis
cussed as a formal thesis, it constantly presented
itself from a practical point of view to the minds of
the fathers. And from their writings we have no
difficulty in gathering what they believed about it.
A careful observer, in whose early death our own
1 These were the names used in both East and West to
designate the early Creeds.
2 See above, p. 103.

246 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
times have suffered a distinct loss, has been at
pains to collect a number of statements, bearing on
the human element in the Bible made by Irenseus,
Origen, Jerome, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Augustine,
and John Presbyter, and to summarize the result.1
He finds that these early Christian teachers
recognised in the Bible the occurrence of hyper
bolical expressions ; of grammatical errors ; of
such defects as barbarisms ; of such apparent dis
crepancies between different parts, as imply their
human origin. He finds further that it was held,
that the evangelists, writing from recollection, did
not always record facts in historical order, and
were liable occasionally to slips of memory ; that
the spiritual authority and worth of Scripture was
sometimes to be sought exclusively in the sense,
and the intention of the writer, as contra-distin
guished from the words, or particular form em
ployed ; and that the writers, especially in the
Epjstles, spoke here and there solely in their own
name, and from their own feelings, quite independ
ently of any suggestion from the Spirit.
It is very easy to exaggerate the effect of such
admissions of human imperfection in the Scriptures.
And unfortunately there are too many ready to
misapply them, as furnishing evidence that the
early Church did not believe in the divine authority
of the Sacred Writings. Such a view is a delusion
which needs no more to dissipate it than an ac
quaintance with the writings of those very authors
1 See Warington, Inspiration of Scripture, p. 36, where
he refers to authorities.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 247
from whom the foregoing admissions are cited.
These admissions in no way disturb the unanimity
of the consent with which the Bible was regarded
as being from God. But they may be fairly ad
duced in proof that the same men who most
strenuously upheld its divine authority, as a rule
of faith and a guide of conduct, upheld it on grounds
which did not prevent them from acknowledging,
in the fullest measure, the presence of an element
in it truly human, and therefore liable to error.
The early Christians were accustomed to the
objection that their Scriptures could not be divine
because of the marks of human imperfection which
they bore. It was perpetually cast in their teeth
that they were the work of unlearned and uncul
tured men, whose speech was common and mean ;
and whose teaching, because it was full of barbarisms
and solecisms, and marred by ungainly inelegance,
was not readily to be believed. The defective style
of the Scriptures was urged as a proof that the
doctrine which they taught could not be divine.
The answer was ready. It was not a denial of the
presence in the Bible of human imperfections. It
never occurred to those primitive believers to sup
pose that the presence of such imperfection rendered
the book in the least degree unfit for all the pur
poses for which it was given. The cavil was puerile,
and indicated narrowness of mind. Pretentious
display had no place in the treatment of subjects
in which the point to be considered is not how a
thing is said, but what it is that is said ; not what
pleasure does it give to the ears, but what advantage

248 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
does it bring to the hearers. The practice of certain
learned men was pointed to, who, though gifted
with eloquence, studiously adopted the homeliness
of common speech, as more in harmony with the
gravity and strictness of their theme, and appeal
was made to the authority of Plato, who had said,
that, while youthful wits set store upon the turn
of a sentence, refinement of language was a thing
unworthy of philosophers.1
Thus the early Christians fully recognised the
presence of human defect in the Holy Scriptures.
But they never deemed it to be in any way incon
sistent with their divine origin.
I do not argue from these statements, that the
early Church teachers have left us anything in the
nature of a theory, of man's part in the production
of the Bible. This they certainly have not done.
But I do argue from the occurrence of such ad
missions, coupled with the fact that they did not
give rise to controversy, that the belief of the early
Church in the divine authority of the Bible was
certainly not such as to be in any way inconsistent
with the view at which we have arrived, as the
result of our inquiry.
II.— The possibility of human defect is traceable
in the Bible.
( 1 ) Variant Readings.
We have seen that the Church does not claim
for the Bible absolute infallible accuracy in every
thing. 1 Lee, pp. 360, 361, note 3.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 249
Absolute accuracy in everything implies the
complete exclusion of the least possible error in
anything. Nowhere is the Bible to be found of
which it can be said in this sense, that we know it
to be the faultless Bible. It is quite possible that
the variation of a single letter might altogether
reverse the sense of the most momentous state
ment. And the variations that occur in the MSS.
that have come down to us, are to be counted by
tens of thousands. They are said to amount to
something like one hundred and twenty thousand.1
Out of the innumerable multitude of different texts
that might be formed by different combinations of
these thousands of various readings, it is clear that
not more than one can possess absolute accuracy.
Which of them all is it? On what grounds can
we attempt to decide? The mere statement of
the case at once shews the hopelessness of dis
covering the faultless exemplar. Thus we are
taught, on the threshold of our inquiry, by the
way in which it has pleased God to give us the
Bible, that we are not to receive it as though it
were a book which had miraculously come down
from heaven, untouched by the frail hand of
man. (2) The Writers represent themselves as responsible
human agents.
The biblical writers neither assert nor deny
in express terms that what they write is in any
way subject to the ordinary defects of human
1 For the bearing of these variations on the question of
the authority of the Bible, see above, p. 90.

250 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
writing. Nevertheless they say much which, when
carefully considered, leaves no doubt that they did
not regard themselves as mere amanuenses, in no
wise responsible for the truth of any of the state
ments which they make. If on the one hand they
come before us as setting forth their great theme
on the authority of God, and in obedience to His
command, it is quite clear on the other hand that
they hold themselves accountable for a great part
of what they lay before us.
(a) The sacred writers often refer the reader to
well-known existing documents as the source from
which they have drawn their facts. The Book of
Jashar,1 the Book ofthe Kings of Israel,2 the History
of Nathan the Prophet,3 the Prophecy of Ahijah the
Shiloni'te, the Visions of Iddo the Seer concerning
Jeroboam the son of Nebat,4 the Histories of She-
maiah the Prophet, the Histories of Iddo the Seer,5
the History of Jehu the son of Hanani,6 are all
referred to as authorities for the facts narrated. It
is clear that, in much of what they have transmitted
to us, the writers of the historical books were com
pilers, — careful, honest compilers, — incorporating
into their books records of facts which others had
written before them.
{b) Looking to the New Testament we find that
the apostles obtained a knowledge of much that
they taught through ordinary channels. When
S. Peter preached the resurrection, he preached it
1 Josh. x. 13 ; 2 Sam. i. i-8. 2 1 Chron. ix. 1.
3 1 Chron. xxix. 29. 4 2 Chron. ix. 29.
r' 2 Chron. xii. 15. ° 2 Chron. xx. 34.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 25 1
as a fact of which they were all witnesses.1 When
the rulers of the people would prohibit SS. Peter
and John from speaking in the name of Christ,
they reply, " We cannot but speak the things which
we saw and heard." 2
Indeed it is the common practice of the apostles
to put forward themselves and others as witnesses
of the facts on which their teaching was based.3
And this appeal to the ordinary sources of know
ledge, so commonly made by the apostles in
speaking to the men of their own day, does not
refer merely to their oral addresses. We find the
same appeal made by the writers of the Gospels.
Speaking of the crucifixion of our Lord, S. John
tells us that one of the soldiers with a spear pierced
His side, and straightway there came out blood
and water.4 But he does not pretend that the
knowledge of this fact had come to him through
any supernatural channel. He tells us how he
knew the fact ; for he adds immediately, " He that
hath seen hath borne witness." The same writer
says elsewhere : —
" That which we have heard, that which we have seen
with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands
handled, concerning the Word of life (and the life was
manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and
declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with
the Father, and was manifested unto us) ; that which we
have seen and heard declare we unto you also." 6
In what language could S. John have asserted
1 Acts ii. 32. 2 Acts iv. 20.
3 Acts v. 32 ; x. 31 — 41 ; xiii. 31.
4 John xix. 34 ; xxi. 24. 5 I John i. I — 3.

252 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
more clearly that in writing of Jesus he was
stating facts on the authority of his own personal
observation ?
In like manner S. Luke is equally explicit as to
the source of his knowledge of the facts which he
recorded. " Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up
a narrative concerning those matters which have been
fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto
us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also,
having traced the course of all things accurately from
the first, to write unto thee in order . . J'1
S. Luke recorded his facts, after careful and
systematic investigation on the testimony of well-
known eye-witnesses. He had traced the course
of all things accurately from the first. And having
done so, it seemed good to him to commit the
result to writing for the benefit of his friend. He
represents himself as one who is conscious of the
exercise of his mental powers and of his personal
will. There is nothing here which lends counten
ance to the assumption that S. Luke was divinely
compelled to write his Gospel as a mere passive
instrument, committing to paper nothing but divine
suggestions. What he says plainly excludes such
a view. (c) In other places again the biblical writers
point to the faculties with which they are endowed
as being the source from which they draw what
they write. Much of the teaching of " The Proverbs
of Solomon " and " The Words of the Preacher," is
1 Luke i. 1—3.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 253
drawn from human reflection, and human experi
ence. In like manner the psalmists constantly refer
their utterances to a personal source within them.
" Give ear to my words, 0 Lord :
Consider my meditation." x
" Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my
heart be acceptable in Thy sight,
O Lord, my rock, and my redeemer." 2
These, and many like passages, shew us that large
portions of the. Psalms are the result of devout
meditation on the things of God, the natural ex
pression of feelings, which, on reflection, a godly
man perceives to be moving within him.
The Bible contains much also in the way of
reasoning from spiritual facts — much argument
ation, which we naturally refer to the exercise of
the human faculties. Of this S. Paul's common
practice supplies abundant illustration.
(d) The way in which the several writers of the
Bible deal with matters of fact which involve
questions of number, time, distance, or measure,
is very significant. They do not profess to give
them with strict precision. They speak as intending
us to receive what they put before us as approx
imate estimates, arrived at by the ordinary processes
of human computation. The number of the people
who were slain by the sons of Levi, on the occasion
of their breaking loose during Moses' absence in
the mountain, was "about three thousand men."
They that did eat of the bread and fishes were
1 Ps. v. I. 2 Ps. xix. 14.

254 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
" about five thousand men." Mary abode with
Elizabeth " about three months." The number of
the men who believed on hearing the word from
SS. Peter and John came to be " about five
thousand." Jesus Himself was at the beginning
of His ministry " about thirty years of age." The
waterpots in Cana of Galilee contained " two or
three firkins apiece." Before the disciples beheld
Jesus walking on the sea they had rowed " about
five-and-twenty or thirty furlongs." The distance
from Bethany to Jerusalem was " about fifteen
furlongs."1 All this accords ill with a theory
framed to establish as its chief end the absolute
exactness of every word in the Bible. But it is
all characteristic of true human testimony, and is
at once seen to be most natural, as soon as we
recognise the fact that the Bible was not written
mechanically, but that it comes to us from God by
the hand of responsible human agents.
(<?) There is evidence to shew that the sacred
writers did not deem themselves so wholly fitted
for their task by special guidance, as to exempt
them from the necessity of seeking such help as
is to be found in ordinary study.2
It does not appear that any created man has
ever been more highly favoured with divine com
munications, or more fully inspired to know and
to give utterance to the truths revealed to him,
1 Exod. xxxii. 28; Matt. xiv. 21 ; Luke i. 56; Acts iv. 4;
Luke iii. 23; John ii. 6; vi. 19; xi. 18.
2 See Bull, vol. ii., Sermon X. London, 1713. The
whole sermon is well worth reading.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 255
than the great apostle S. Paul. Yet S. Paul did
not regard the fact that he was inspired of God as
in any wise supplying him with a complete and
exclusive equipment for the discharge of the
stewardship imposed upon him. Brought up at
the feet of Gamaliel, and familiar with Greek ¦
literature, he uses his knowledge, alike, of Jewish
and of heathen learning, to enforce the lessons he
would teach. He shews himself familiar with the
teaching of Philo.1 He draws upon the traditional
history of the Jews for the names of the two
Egyptian magicians who withstood Moses.2 If he
would persuade an assembly in the centre of polite
learning to serve the God Whom he himself
delighted to serve, he skilfully ingratiates himself
with his auditory by quoting from the Cilician
poet Aratus.3 If he would rebuke the national
vices of the Cretans, he disarms their patriotic
jealousy by an appeal to Epimenides,4 who enjoyed
a high reputation among them as a prophet.5 If
he would warn the Christians at Corinth against
the fatal doctrine of the Epicureans, — " Let us eat,
and drink, for to-morrow we die " — he does so by
reminding them, not in his own words, but in the
words of Menander, of the destructive danger
that lurks in evil company.6 It was the apostle's
delight to adapt himself to his auditory, — to become
all things to all men. And he deemed it a matter
of no small importance to the due discharge of the
1 1 Cor. x. 1 — 5. 2 2 Tim. iii. 8.
3 Acts xvii. 28. 4 Tit. i. 12.
6 Cicero, De Divinatione. 6 1 Cor. xv. 33.

256 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Christian ministry to be well equipped in human
learning. (/) In answering a taunt levelled against him
by certain persons at Corinth, S. Paul says
expressly that he speaks not after the Lord, but as
•in foolishness, even as one beside himself.1 In
combating the party spirit that had grown up in
that city, he refers to what he himself had done
there. And in doing so, he speaks in his own
person, and trusts to his own natural memory.
" I thank God that I baptized none of you, save
Crispus and Gaius ; lest any man should say that
ye were baptized into my name." Then discover
ing that his memory had failed him, he adds :
" And I baptized also the household of Stephanas."
Finding his recollection thus at fault, he tries to
call to mind any others to whom he may possibly
have administered baptism, and when none occurs
to him, he goes on, " Besides, I know not whether
I baptized any other." 2
Thus it appears that the biblical writers never
regarded themselves as mere amanuenses, whose
duty it was to commit mechanically to paper words
dictated to them. They acted rather as respons
ible secretaries, giving expression in their own
language, as best they could, to the divine message
which they were commissioned to proclaim.
(3) The Verbal Phenomena of the Bible.
Let us now examine the verbal phenomena
of the Bible, to see what light they throw upon the
question of its immunity from human faultiness.
1 2 Cor. xi. 17, 21, 23. 2 1 Cor. i. 14—16.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 257
(a) Numerous passages occur in which the arrange
ment of the words gives rise to doubt as to their
meaning. A notable example of this is found in
the introduction to the Gospel according to S.
Johh.1 Is the familiar passage to be rendered as it
is in the Authorized Version,
" That was the true Light, Which lighteth every man
that £6nieth into the world" ?
or, as the Revised Version renders it,
"There was the true Light, even the Light Which
lighteth every man, coming into the world " ?
or are we to adopt one of the two renderings that
appear in the margin,
"The true Light, Which lighteth every man, was
coming,"
and " Every man as he cometh " ? 2
The passage is ambiguous because of its form.
And the ambiguity is altogether unnecessary. It
would have been quite easy to write the sentence
in such a manner, that no question could arise as
to its grammatical structure. Now we have no
reason to , suppose that the form of the statement,
as it appears in the MSS. which have come down
to us, is in any way different from what S. John
wrote. If the form of the expression used is not
to be referred to the human choice of the apostle,
but to divine direction, we make the Spirit of
1 John i. 9.
2 See Rom. vii. 21 ; 1 Cor. ix. 4 ; Phil. i. 10 ; James iii. 6 ;
iv. 5 — all quoted by Warington (pp. 83 sq.) as instances
of unnecessary ambiguity. s

258 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
truth and order accountable for involving us in
doubt as to the meaning of the words, — a conclusion
which will not recommend itself, I think, to the
mind of the candid reader.
(b) But these are not the only traces of human
defect which careful scrutiny discovers.
Examining the discourses of our Lord, Warington
finds that integral parts of them are omitted in such
a way as to render what remains defective, and at
times misleading; that there are differences between
the reports of them given by the different evangel-'
ists which can only be attributed to mistake as to
the actual words spoken by our Lord ; that separate
and distinct discourses are mingled into one ; that
some of His sayings are so thrown out of their
proper connection that we may miss some of the
finer touches of His teaching, and that mistakes
occur as to the circumstances under which partic
ular incidents took place.1 These facts indeed
have given rise to a voluminous literature of
Harmonies of the Gospel, which attempt to shew
that the discrepancies are only apparent, and that
the several accounts may be all reconciled with
each other by a process of careful adjustment and
dovetailing. I do not think any fair-minded person
can deny that the effect of patient, docile study of
the Gospels leads to the removal of many difficulties
which are apt to suggest themselves at first sight
to the observant reader. But all that has been said
has failed to remove from the sacred page the
manifold evidence which it bears to the fact that
1 P. 192.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 259
the imperfect powers of man had a definite share
in producing it. In spite of every effort to erase
them, indelible traces of human imperfection still
abide. (c) We find divine utterances which are recorded
in the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament
with a verbal inaccuracy which is quite inconsistent
with the theory that God is directly responsible for
the verbal form of the quotation. Warington sets
out a number of instances which, as most readers
will, I think, admit, fully sustain the inference which
he draws from them, " that, in regard to the letter of
such quotations, the writers were certainly not
directed, guided, or authorized by the Spirit, but
were left entirely to themselves ; " and further, in
respect to two examples which he adduces, that
" the inspired reports of God's authoritative words
were not so inspired as to be either (r-) verbally
exact, (2) textually complete, or even necessarily
(3) precisely true in detailed sense." 1
(d) One single case — a very familiar one — will
supply a crucial test as to whether the biblical
writers use verbal exactness. If it is their manner
to attach importance to textual form, we must find
evidence of the fact, — if anywhere, — in the account
which they give us of the voice that spoke out of
the heavens at our Saviour's baptism. S. Matthew
records the utterance of the voice out of the heavens
as " This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well
pleased." 2
1 Pp. 112, 113, 121. 2 Matt. iii. 17.

260 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
while SS. Mark1 and Luke2 agree in reporting
it as "Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well
pleased."
" The voice from heaven may well have spoken of
Christ in the third person, it may well .have spoken to
Him In the second, but it cannot have spoken in
both . . . The opposed expressions cannot by any
twisting to which the passages may be subjected,
be regarded as variations caused by condensation
in report. They are simply incompatible rivals,
one of which must be set aside as incorrect. What
conceivable form of expression is there, of which it
could be said ' Thou art My beloved Son,' and
' This is My beloved Son,' were equally correct
representations ? The only conceivable form would
be one which omitted entirely the points of differ
ence, and retained only what is common to all, —
' My beloved Son.' But then, instead of an abstract,
we have an amplification ; and words are asserted by
all the evangelists to have been spoken by God,
which in this view were never spoken at all ; and
so, instead of being required to pronounce one or
two of them to be in error, we should have to con
demn all three alike." 3
(e) The quotations from the Old Testament in
the New throw a very instructive light upon the
character of Holy Scripture.
S. Jude is the only one of the eight or nine
writers of the New Testament who has not quoted
the Old. And of the thirty-nine books into which
1 Mark i. il. - Luke iii. 22. 3 Pp. 123, 126, 127.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 26t
the Old Testament is divided in our English Bible,
twenty-five are quoted in the New. It is not an
easy matter to state in a few words the actual
number of quotations made. Passages are cited
which occur more than once in the Old Testament.
Quotations are found which are made up of several
different passages. And many passages are quoted
in several different places in the New Testament.
It is not surprising therefore to find that writers
who have devoted attention to the subject by no
means agree as to the actual number of quotations
made, One puts it at about 350, while another
makes it somewhat less than 225. But whatever
be the number, it is sufficient to give unmistakable
indication as to the true character of Holy Scripture,
If, as certain theories of inspiration would have us
believe, there be nothing of human defect in the
Bible, then an examination of these quotations will
discover superhuman faultlessness in every minutest
particular. But if, on the other hand, the quotations
be found to bear the mark of substantial consonance
with immaterial dissonance, then strict accuracy in
every detail cannot be a note of the divineness of
the Bible.
Does then the manner of quotation lend any
countenance to the theory that the very words of
the Bible are words written down one by one under
the controlling direction of God ?
It is the common practice ofthe New Testament
writers in quoting the Old Testament not to repro
duce the very words written in the Old Testament
at all. Let us look at a passage — the only one so

262 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY

far as I remember — which is cited not only in all
the Gospels, but also in the Acts of the Apostles,
and by S. Paul.
Isaiah vi. 9, 10.
Massoretic Text.
"And He (i.e. the Lord)
said, Go, and tell this people,
Hear ye indeed (or, contin
ually), but understand not ;
and see ye indeed (or, con
tinually), but perceive not.
Make the heart of this people
fat, and make their ears
heavy, and shut their eyes ;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their
heart, and turn again and be
healed."

S. Matthew.
" And unto them is fulfilled
the prophecy of Isaiah, which
saith, By hearing ye shall hear,
and shall in no wise
understand ;
And seeing ye shall see,
and shall in no wise per
ceive :
For this people's heart is
waxed gross,
And their ears are dull of
hearing,
And their eyes they have
closed ;

Isaiah vi. 8 — 10.
LXX.
" And He (i. e. the Lord)
said, Go, and say to this
people, Ye shall hear indeed,
but ye shall not understand ;
and ye shall see indeed, but
ye shall not perceive. For the
heart of this people has be
come gross, and their ears
are dull of hearing, and their
eyes have they closed ; lest
they should see with their
eyes, and hear with their
ears, and understand with
their heart, and be converted,
and I should heal them."
S. Mark.
" Unto them that are with
out, all things are done in
parables : that seeing they
may see, and not perceive ;
and hearing they may hear
and not understand ; lest
haply they should turn again,
and it should be forgiven
them." 1

1 Mark iv. 11 — 12.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS

263

S. Matthew.
Lest haply they should
perceive with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their
heart,
And should turn again,
And I should heal them." 1

S. Luke.
"But to the rest in parables ;
that seeing they may not see,
and hearing they may not
understand." 2

The Acts.
" They departed, after that
Paul had spoken one word,
Well spake the Holy Ghost
by (or, through) Isaiah the
prophet unto your fathers,
saying,

S. John.
" For this cause they could
not believe, for that Isaiah
said again,
He hath blinded their eyes,
And He hardened their
heart ;
Lest they should see with
their eyes,
And perceive with their
heart,
And should turn,
And I should heal them." 3
Epistle to the Romans.
" According as it is written,
God gave them a spirit of
stupor, eyes that they should
not see, and ears that they
should not hear." 4

2 Luke viii. 10.
xn. 39, 40. — in order to make the comparison
I have departed from the parallelism adopted by

1 Matt. xiii. 14, 15.
3 John xii. 39, 40. — In order to
more easy.

the revisors of 188 1 in translating S. John, and followed that
which they have used in translating S. Matthew and the Acts.
Mr. Humphry assigns no reason in his Commentary on the
Revised Version of the New Testament for their departure
in this one case from the parallelism which they have adopted
in S. Matthew and the Acts. 4 Rom. vi. 8.

264 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
The Acts.
Go thou unto this people,
and say,
By hearing ye shall hear,
and shall in no wise
understand ;
And seeing ye shall see,
and shall in no wise per
ceive :
For this people's heart is
gross,
And their ears are dull of
hearing,
And their eyes they have
closed ;
Lest haply they should per
ceive with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their
heart,
And should turn again,
And I should heal them." 1
Can anything be more fatal to the notion that in
the Bible we are to expect to find strict formal
accuracy of expression than is the evidence supplied
to the eye by the merest glance at these parallel
forms of this one Scripture ? The men who quoted
it in such divers fashions could not have regarded
the words themselves as divinely dictated.
This passage presents a good illustration of the
way in which the Old Testament is cited in the
New, Sometimes the very words, of the Old
Testament are repeated at full length. Sometimes
there is nothing approaching to a textual repro
duction of the passage quoted. And — what per-
1 Acts xxviii. 25 — 27.

ANSWERS TQ OBJECTIONS 265
haps is most to the purpose of our inquiry — the
quotations are often made from the LXX., and not
from the Hebrew.
(/) Now it is important to observe, that, while
the Hebrew and the Greek agree with each other
substantially, there are many noticeable variations
between them.
The chief of these may be divided into six
classes : —
i. Different readings due to traceable causes ;
ii. Transpositions ; iii. Omissions ; iv. Additions ;
v. Paraphrases ; vi. Chronological discrepancies.
Let me briefly illustrate these.
(i.) Different readings due to traceable causes.
Some of these variations are easily accounted
for, For instance : Genesis xy, 11.
Hebrew. LXX,
" The birds of prey came " The birds came dawn
down upon the carcases, and upon the carcases, and
Abram drove them away." Abram sat down along with
them."
To the English reader the difference here appears
unaccountable. But in the Hebrew it is merely
the difference of a single vowel.
In the same way,
'' He communed with Saul upon the housetop,''
is made, by the change of one letter, to become, in
the LXX.,'
" They spread a couch for Saul on the housetop," *
1 1 Sam. ix. 25.

266 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Another instance ; Samuel challenging his oppo
nents says, according to the Hebrew,
" Of whose hand have I taken a ransom (or bribe) to
blind mine eyes therewith ? "
but according to the LXX.,
" From whose hand have I taken a bribe, even to a
sandal ? "
When we remember the apparently proverbial
expression which in slightly altered form occurs
twice in the Book of Amos,1 it would seem open
to question whether the reading of the LXX. is
not the right reading, more especially as it is that
which is followed by the son of Sirach, who says of
Samuel, that
" Before the time of his long sleep, he made protesta
tions in the sight of the Lord and His anointed, I have
not taken any man's goods, so much as a shoe : and no
man did accuse him." 2
(ii.) Transpositions.
The several parts of the different books are not
always arranged in the same order.
The Book of Proverbs supplies an example of
diverse arrangement of the parts. Open your
English Bible, which represents the Massoretic
text, and read the book through with a view to
making a general analysis of its contents. Use no
foreign help of any kind whatever, neither note
nor commentary, but just write down the heads of
1 Amos ii. 6 ; and viii. 6. Heb. " They have sold the
righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes."
LXX. " They sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for
sandals." 2 Ecclus. xlvi. 19.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS

267

what appear to your own judgment to be the
several main divisions of its contents. When you
have done this, I think you will find your notes to
correspond pretty well with the first column printed
below. The second column shews the order in
which the subjects are treated in the LXX.

Hebrew.
I. General Title, i. 1—6.
II. A poetical encomium
of piety, virtue, and
wisdom, i. 7 to end
of ix.
III. The Proverbs of Solo
mon, x. 1 to xxii.
16.
IV. A collection of the
Words of the Wise,
with preface.
V. A second collection of
Sayings of the Wise,
"These also are
sayings of the wise."
xxiv. 23 to end of
xxiv.
VI. A second collection of
Proverbs of Solo
mon, " which the
men of Hezekiah,
King of Judah,
copied out." xxv. I
to end of xxix.
VII. The Words of Agur.
xxx. 1 to 14.
VIII. An anonymous sec
tion, xxx. 15 to
end of xxx.
IX. The Words of King

LXX.
I. General Title.
II. A poetical encomium
of piety, virtue, and
wisdom.
III. The Proverbs of Solo
mon.
IV. A collection of the
Words of the Wise,
with preface.
VII. The Words of Agur.

V. A second collection of
Sayings ofthe Wise.

VIII. An anonymous sec
tion.
IX. The Words of King
Lemuel.
VI. A second collection of

268 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY

Hebrew.
Lemuel, " The ora
cle which his mother
taught him." xxxi.
I to 9.
X. The eulogy of the vir
tuous woman, xxxi.
10 to end.

LXX.
Prov ribs of Solo-
mo. i.

X. The eulogy of the vir
tuous woman.

Again, if we open our English Bible, which
follows the Hehrew, and turn to the Book of the
Prophet Jeremiah, and compare it with the Greek
Version, we find considerable diversity between
them, as to the way in which they give us the word
of the Lord which came to Jeremiah the Prophet
concerning the nations. The order is quite dif
ferent. It is as follows : —

Hebrew.

LXX-

Egypt

xlvi. 2.

GElam

xxv. 34.

The Philistines

xlvii. 1.

Egypt

xxvi. 2.

Moab

xlviii. 1.

Babylon

xxvii. 1.

Ammon

xlix. 1.

The Philistines

xxix. 1.

Edom

xlix. 7.

Idumea (Edom)

xxix. 7.

Damascus

xlix. 23.

Kedar, the Queen

of the Palace
xxx. 28.
Kedar and Hazor
xlix. 28.
Damascus
xxx. 23.
Elam
xlix. 34.
Moab
xxxi. 1.
Babylon
I.i.
How are we to account for this difference in
arrangement ? We cannot assume that the Greek
translators, having a MS. before them which gave
the prophecies in one order, deliberately substituted
for it quite a different order. It is much more
natural to suppose that the order which they have
given us is that which they found in the Hebrew
ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 269
from which they made their translation. But if
this were so, it still remains to explain the differ
ence between the two Hebrew texts, the Massoretic
and that used by the Alexandrine translators.
Now we know that the several lists of the pro
phetical books, while agreeing as to what was
contained in the canon, varied very much from each
other as to the order in which they placed the
twelve Prophets (Minor) whose prophecies together
composed one of the four Books of the Latter
Prophets. And we know that this variety of use
was accounted for by the Jewish custom of writing
the several prophecies on separate rolls. About
A.D. 200 1 the question was canvassed as to whether
it was permissible to include more than one single
writing in the same roll. From which it seems not
unreasonable to infer that the practice had to some
extent at least come into use, and that certain
inconvenience had been found to attach to it. It
may well be that such transpositions as that before
us were reckoned among these inconveniences.
However this may be, the fact remains that such
transpositions did occur. We may explain it in
one way, or we may explain it in another way, or
we may not be able to explain it at all. But
whether we can explain it or not, the fact is there,
and if we would understand the character of the
scripture records we must take note of it.
We know that as matter of fact the prophecies
of Jeremiah were . not written down in the first
instance at the moment of delivery.
1 Buhl, p. 38.

270 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
We read in the thirty-sixth chapter of Jeremiah,
that in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of
Josiah, King of Judah,
"This word came unto Jeremiah from the Lord,
saying, Take thee a roll of a book and write therein all
the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel,
and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the
day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even
unto this day."
i. e. during a period of twenty-three years. When
the King had cast the roll into the fire, Jeremiah
took another roll and gave it to Baruch, who wrote
therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all ¦ the words
which Jehoiakim the King of Judah had burned in
the fire : and there were added besides unto them
many like words. This is what we read in the
thirty-sixth chapter.
But it is noticeable that twelve chapters earlier,
i. e. in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Massoretic
text, we have the prophecy connected with the two
baskets of figs, which was not spoken until after
that Nebuchadrezzar, King of Babylon, had carried
away captive Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim, i. e.
more than eight years after Baruch had written the
record of the twenty-three years prophesying. And
again, twenty-one chapters further on, i. e. in the
forty-fifth chapter, we find a prophecy that Jeremiah
spoke unto Baruch when he wrote these words in a
book at the mouth of Jeremiah in the fourth year
of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, King of Judah.1
It is clear therefore that we do not possess in the
1 Chap. xiv. i.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 27 1
Massoretic text a chronological record of the pro
phecies of Jeremiah, written at the several dates at
which they were spoken, but rather a collection of
them made at different dates, and copied out with
out regard to the strict order of their original
utterance. (iii.) Omissions.
Some MSS. omit entirely 1 Sam. xvii. 12 — 31
and 55"^5^> passages which present a prima facie
contradiction to the other narrative of David's first
introduction to Saul. The passage x in which,
according to the Hebrew text, Jeremiah predicts
the perpetuity of the Levitical priesthood and its
sacrifices, is omitted in the best MSS. of the LXX.,
and Professor Robertson-Smith prints in forty-two
lines a part of the twenty-seventh chapter of Jere
miah, denoting by italics what is not found in the
LXX. What is printed in italics amount to some
eighteen lines.2 This is an unusual example, not
at all an ordinary specimen of such divergence.
(iv.) Additions.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews we have a quota
tion, " Let all the angels of God worship Him." 3
This passage is not to be found in the Hebrew
text of the Old Testament. But it occurs in the
forty-third verse of the thirty-second chapter of
Deuteronomy according to the LXX.
1 Chap, xxxiii. 14 — 26.
2 The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 104.
3 Heb. i. 6.

272 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
On the occasion of Moses' return to Egypt, we
read in the Hebrew,1
" It came to pass on the way at the lodging place,
that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him."
To this account the LXX. makes an addition,
interposing the agency of an angel, telling us that
an angel of the Lord met him, and sought to kill
him. Speaking of the Gittites who were smitten with
tumours, the LXX. mentions that they " made
themselves seats," 2 a circumstance which is not
mentioned in the Massoretic text, although in the
Latin Vulgate, a translation made from the Hebrew,
it is still further enlarged upon, " they took counsel,
and made themselves seats of skin."
A more important addition is the mention of
Cainan, son of Arphaxad, in the tenth chapter of
the Book of Genesis. The following table sets out
the generations between Shem and Eber, according
to the Hebrew, the LXX., and S. Luke.
Hebrew. LXX. S. Luke.
Gen. x. 22. Shem. Gen. a. 22. Sem. iii. 36. Shem.
,, ,, Arpachshad. ,, ,, Arphaxad. ,, Arphaxad.
,, x. 24. Cainan. ,, Cainan.
,, x. 24. Shelah. ,, ,, Sala. „ Shelah.
,, ,, Eber. „ ,, Eber. iii. 35. Eber.
It is solely on the authority of the LXX. that
S. Luke interposes Cainan between Arphaxad and
Shelah. (v.) Paraphrases.
The wa)- in which the LXX. often paraphrases
1 Exod. iv. 24. 2 1 Sam. v. 9.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 273
the Hebrew will sufficiently appear if I refer to a
few instances cited by Dean Farrar.1
According to the LXX. it is Eli's servant, not
Eli himself who tells Hannah that she is intoxi
cated.2 David is represented as walking up and
down once or twice in Saul's armour, and finding
that it fatigued him.3 David replies to Goliath's
question, Am I a dog ? " No, but worse than a
dog " ; 4 and he runs on all fours, as one of his ways
of simulating madness.5
(vi.) Chronological discrepancies.
Then in the matter of chronology, the LXX.
differs from the Hebrew by more than fourteen
hundred years, and thus approaches nearer to what
even the most orthodox of our modern divines per
ceive to be imperatively required by the data of
history brought to light in recent times by the
discoveries of archaeology.6
It is not possible to account for all such differ
ences as these by saying that the Hebrew is always
right, and that the Greek, wherever it departs from
it, must be wrong. No unprejudiced mind, I think,
can doubt that the LXX. sometimes corrects the
Hebrew text. A conspicuous instance of this is
1 Expositor,' vol. i. 2 1 Sam. i. 14.
3 1 Sam. xvii. 39. 4 1 Sam. xvii. 43.
6 1 Sam. xxi. 13.
6 " Recent discoveries absolutely preclude us from main
taining the earlier part of the ordinarily received Bible
chronology. The period before the birth of Christ must be
enlarged by at least two thousand, or, more probably, three
thousand years." — Bishop ELLICOTT, Foundations of Sacred
Study, 2nd Ser., pp. 129, 130. T

274 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
adduced by Dean Farrar.1 A battle with the
Philistines is imminent, and we read in the Hebrew,
" Saul said unto Ahijah, Bring hither the ark of God.
For the ark of God was there at that time with the
children of Israel " ;
but in the LXX.,
" Saul said to Achia, Bring the ephod ; for he wore
the ephod in that day before Israel," 2
Now the ark was at this time at Kiriath-jearim, in
the house of Abinadab, that was in the hill. But
Saul was at Gibeah, and it is most unlikely that
the priests could have ventured to carry a treasure
so sacred as the ark for some miles through a dis
turbed and half-conquered country. And further,
the ark would have been perfectly useless for Saul's
object, which was — though in his hot impatience he
did not stop to carry it out— to ascertain the will
of God, which he could do only by means of the
Urim and Thummim, a part of the ephod. Here
therefore the reading of the LXX., which has the
support of Josephus, is almost certainly right, as
well for the reason just given, as because the phrase
" Bring hither " is always used of the ephod, and
never of the ark.3
Another remarkable instance occurs in Psalm
cxlv. It is an acrostic psalm. But the Hebrew
omits one of the initial letters, which the LXX.
supplies. The missing letter is also found in the
Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions.
1 The Expositor, vol. i. pp. 108, 109. 2 1 Sam. vii. 1, 2.
3 The Hebrew words for ark and ephod might be so written
as to be easily mistaken the one for the other.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 27$
It is now generally admitted that in point of
accuracy the LXX. is decidedly inferior to the
Massoretic text. In that " noble Preface " to the
Authorized Version, the Epistle of " The Trans
lators to the Reader," which follows the Dedication
in all the principal editions, it is spoken of in these
words : —
" It is certain, that that translation was not so sound
and so perfect, but that it needed in many places cor
rection ; and who had been so sufficient for this work as
the Apostles or apostolic men ? Yet it seemed good to
the Holy Ghost and to them to take that which they
found" (the same being for the greatest part true and
sufficient), rather than by making a new, in that new
world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves
to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made
a translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bear
ing witness to themselves, their witness not to be re
garded. . . p The translation of the LXX. dissenteth
from the original in many places, neither doth it come
near to it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty. Yet which
of the Apostles did condemn it ? Condemn it ? Nay,
they used it ^ . . which" they would not have done, nor
by their example of using it so grace and commend it to
the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and
name of the Word of God."
As the words actually used by our Lord are
probably, with very few and comparatively un
important exceptions, known to us only through
the medium of a translation, it is impossible for us
to determine with certainty, in every case in which
He quotes the Old Testament, whether He used
the Hebrew or the Greek.
In one case S. Mark 1 writing for gentile con-
1 Mark xv. 34; cf. Ps. xxii. 1.

276 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
verts, has preserved to us the ipsissima verba in
which He quoted the twenty-second psalm as He
hung upon the cross. And the translation which
the evangelist has supplied of these words shews
that in this case He used the Hebrew text. Now
the fact that S. Mark, writing for men who did not
know the Old Testament in Hebrew, but who did
know it in Greek, interprets the words from the
Cross so as to make them agree with the Hebrew,
and not with the Greek, is evidence, as far as it
goes, to shew that the evangelists did not record
quotations made from the Hebrew as though they
had been made from the LXX., for the purpose of
enabling their readers (who knew the Scriptures
only in Greek) to identify them. I have no desire
to strain the point, or to infer from it more than I
have a right to infer. But it unquestionably fur
nishes ground for a presumption — however low, yet
still a presumption — that, whenever a quotation
was made from the Hebrew, it is reported as made
from the Hebrew.
What then do we find ? So far as we have any
means of knowing, it would seem that "out of
the thirty-seven quotations made by Jesus Himself
from the Old Testament, thirty-three agree almost
verbatim with the LXX., two agree with the Hebrew,
and differ from the LXX., one differs from both,
and one agrees partially with both. Only six
agree exactly with the Hebrew." x
Either it was our Lord's custom to quote the
LXX. more generally than the Hebrew, or it was
1 Grinfield, Apology, pp. 30, 31.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 277
the practice of the evangelists to disregard verbal
accuracy in reporting the citations which He made.
Whichever view we take, we do not find that the
practice of our Lord or His disciples lends any
sanction to the doctrine that the possibility of
human faultiness is shut out from the pages of the
Bible. But whatever uncertainty there may be as to
whether our Lord quoted the LXX., there is no
doubt that the biblical writers quoted it very
largely. Grinfield says : —
" There is a body of quotation from the LXX. in the
New Testament, amounting, as nearly as I can estimate,
to the bulk of St. Mark's Gospel." 1
He puts the number of direct quotations from the
Old Testament in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles
at about three hundred and fifty, of which not more
than fifty materially differ from the LXX. And
he thinks " there are not less than twenty-eight
distinct quotations from that version in Stephen's
speech before the Jewish Council."2 Indeed all
the quotations from the Old Testament in the
Acts of the Apostles, — and they are more than
fifty — come from the LXX.
Others, who believe that Grinfield claims too
much for the LXX., place the number of passages
quoted from the Jewish Scriptures by our Lord
and His apostles at somewhere about two hundred
and seventy-five. I have before" me a volume, in
which these two hundred and seventy-five quota
tions from the Old Testament in the New are
1 P. 90. 2 P. 32.

278 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
adduced, arranged, and critically discussed.1 The
results of the examination may be summarized as
follows : —
Number of passages in which the quotations in
the New Testament follow both the Hebrew
and the LXX. :—
Adopting the order of words in the LXX. 49
Not adopting that order  4
Total  —53
Number of passages in which the New Testa
ment follows the Hebrew, and not the LXX. 4
Number of passages in which it adopts the
Hebrew in part, though in part it follows the
LXX. verbally  6
Total  —10
Number of passages in which the New Testa
ment follows the LXX., and not the Hebrew,
In words ...  34
In clauses  3
Total  —iy
Total number of passages in which the New
Testament follows either the Hebrew, or the
LXX., or both   100
Number of passages in which the quotations in
the New Testament differ from both the
Hebrew and the LXX.
(When these agree with each other)
In words ...  ... 66
In clauses ...  7
In both words and clauses ... ... 3_
(When they disagree with each other)
In words  ... 77
In clauses ... ... ... ... ... 6
In both words and clauses ... ... 16
Total   175
1 Turpi E, The Old Testament in the New.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 279
These results are most instructive. We see
that while only one hundred citations out of two
hundred and seventy-five adopt either the Hebrew
text, or that of the LXX., not quite one in five of
all the passages quoted occur in the same form in
both the Hebrew and the LXX.
The two following tables shew still further to
what an extent the New Testament writers dis
regarded anything like verbal accuracy in quoting
the Old.
Out of one hundred and twenty-nine passages in
which the Hebrew and the LXX. agree,
The New Testament follows the order of the
words of the LXX. in  49
Adopts a slightly different order in ... 4
Differs from both Hebrew and LXX.
In words, in ... ... ... ... 66
In clauses, in  ... 7
In both words and clauses, in ... 3
129
Out of one hundred and forty-six passages in which ,
the Hebrew and the LXX. do not agree, the
New Testament adopts the Hebrew in part,
though in part it follows the LXX. verbally, in 6
Follows the Hebrew and not the LXX. in ... 4
Differs from the Hebrew and follows the LXX.
In words, in  34
In clauses, in  ... ... 3
Differs from both Hebrew and LXX.
In words,in... ...  ... 77
In clauses, in ... ... ... ... 6
In both words and clauses, in  16
146"
The differences between the Hebrew and the
LXX, are sometimes comparatively slight. They

280 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
are, however, on the other hand, sometimes im
portant. For instance, our Lord said to the Phari
sees and Scribes who had come from Jerusalem : —
" Ye have made void the word (or, law) of God be
cause of your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah
prophesy of you, saying,
This people honoureth Me with their lips ;
But their heart is far from Me.
But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men." 1
The passage is found in the Old Testament as
follows : —Hebrew. LXX.
"Forasmuch as this people "This people draw nigh
draweth nigh unto Me, and unto Me with their mouth,
with their mouth and with and they honour Me with
their lips do honour Me, but their lips, but their heart is
have removed their heart far far from Me ; but in vain do
from Me, and their fear of they worship Me, teaching
Me is a commandment of the commandments and doc-
mg n which hath been taught trines of men."
them (or, learned by rote)."
In the Epistle to the Hebrews the following
quotation occurs —
"Thou madest Him a little lower than the angels."2
When we turn to the Old Testament we find : — ¦
Hebrew. LXX.
"Thou madest Him but "Thou madest Him a little
little lower than God" (Heb. less than angels."
Elohim). 1 Matt. xv. 6—9; cf. Is. xxix. 13.
2 Heb. ii. 7 ; cf. Ps. viii. 5.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 28 1
The argument had force as addressed to men
who accepted the LXX. But to those who regard
the Hebrew as alone invested with authority it
would be without point.
Again S. Peter, manifestly quoting the Book of
Proverbs, uses these words : —
" If the righteous is scarcely saved, where shall the
ungodly and sinner appear?"1
The passage is found in the Old Testament as
follows : —
Hebrew. LXX.
'Behold the righteous shall " If the righteous scarcely
be recompensed in the be saved, where shall the
earth ; ungodly and the sinner ap-
Howmuch more the wicked pear?"
and the sinner ! "
To sum up : If we consider the phraseology and
manner of writing that find place in the Bible, we
sometimes meet with ambiguity ; if we compare
New Testament quotations from the Old Testament
with the original passages in the Old Testament
itself, or if, in both Testaments alike, we compare
parallel reports of divine utterances with each
other, we meet with inaccuracy ; and the ambiguity
and the inaccuracy are of such a character that
they must have their origin in the natural short
coming of the writer's human powers.
We find then nothing in the teaching of the
early Church which would require us to attribute
to the Bible, or even lead us to expect to find in
it, the technical formal accuracy with which theories
1 1 Peter iv. 18; cf. Prov. xi. 31.

282 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
of inspiration have made us so familiar. And an
examination of the verbal phenomena of the book
has shewn that no such accuracy exists.
We have now to enquire whether it is incon
sistent with God's ordinary dealings with men, and
therefore inconsistent with the divine origin which
we claim for it, that He should use a book in which
the technical faultindss of formal defect is traceable,
as a vehicle for the communication of His divine
will.
III. — The analogy of God's general dealings with, us
shews that He employs instruments which we
account imperfect.
The objection that the presence of human im
perfection proves the absence of divine authority
in the Bible is found to be without force, as soon
as we look to the ways of God outside the Bible.
For there we see that He employs, as instruments
of His will, many things which, in our eyes, are
by no means perfect.
His good gifts to us are not given in such a
way that all admixture of evil is impossible. Of
them all, none is more absolutely essential to the
bodily well-being of every one of us than the air
we breathe. If you take it away from us, we die
If, by adding to it, or taking from it, you change
its constituents even in a slight degree, you may
injuriously affect our health. Yet God gives it to
us under such conditions that no inhabitant of the
earth breathes it uncontaminated by any taint of
impurity.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 283
Christianity has taught us to regard civil govern
ment as a divine institution. "The powers that
be are ordained of God." They err continually.
But we do not on that account deny that civil
government stands on a divine basis. We believe
in God's sovereignty, and trace the presence of His
controlling hand in the affairs of men. We believe
that He makes use of the agency of men— of the
evil as well as of the good — for the accomplishment
of His own supreme will, without thereby making
Himself chargeable for their sins. It ought, then,
to present no difficulty to us, that He should have
caused Holy Scripture to be written by men for
our learning,1 that it may be , profitable, as only
His wisdom could make it profitable, for teaching,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is
in righteousness,2 and yet, that He has not thereby
made Himself chargeable for any human error that
may occur in it.
In the course of the administration of the world,
which we acknowledge to be divine, we meet with
much on the part of man that is false and evil.
Why then should the occurrence in the Bible of
human inaccuracy or of human misconception
prevent us from admitting the divine authority of
its moral and religious teaching? A difference
indeed there is between the two cases. It often
requires more penetrating insight to discover the
hand of God in the direction of human affairs, than
to see that the teaching of the Bible, taken as a
whole, is such as could not come from man. We
1 Rom. xv. 4. 2 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.

284 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
do not, because of our incapacity to fathom the
deep mystery of the permission of evil, deny God
in the world. Why then must we deny Him in
the Bible on account of the error in the Bible?
The presence of the evil which stares us in the face
in the world seems strange to us, and passes our
understanding. The presence of such error as
microscopic examination can discover in the Bible
is neither unnatural nor hard to account for. If
we can swallow the camel so easily, why should we
be so anxious to strain out the gnat ?
We must not deny the Holy Bible to be from
God because we cannot make it square in all
respects with our ignorant preconceptions of what
God's book ought to be.
IV. — Such faultiness as we meet with in the Bible is
in no way inconsistent with its divine authority.
And what after all does the human faultiness
to be found in the Bible amount to ? It is alto
gether inconsiderable, " a very little thing," " as a
drop of a bucket," "as the small dust of the
balance." It is enough indeed to demolish com
pletely vain theories of ideal perfection, as man
accounts perfection. Once admit the presence of
the most trifling corruption in the text, and the
visionary fabric vanishes. But that with which
we have to do is no hollow speculation, no empty
eidolon. Our question is a practical question, and
it is from the practical side that it must be weighed.
There is nothing that is contradictory in the con
ception of an object being perfect and complete for

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 285
the purpose for which it was made, and yet being
unable to satisfy the tests of searching scrutiny
seeking to discover defects that are in truth wholly
immaterial. There is nothing absurd in the sup
position that a wood-carver may be able to detect
some clumsy scissure in the embellishment on the
scroll of that Stradivarius which nevertheless musi
cians may agree to pronounce the best violin ever
made ; or that a spinner of linen yarn may be able
to point to some defect in certain threads of the
canvas on which Raphael has painted his master
piece. From what has been said I think it is clear, that
the right answer to the objection which we have
been considering is, not that which has been so
often made to it, — a denial of the presence of any
error in the Bible, — but rather a denial that the
presence of such error as may be found in it is in
any way inconsistent with its being from God.
Further consideration of the objections against
the divine origin of the Bible, on account of its
containing certain specific errors and shortcomings,
will shew that the very things to which exception
is taken, instead of being in any way prejudicial
to the claims which it makes to speak to us from
God, are just what its own teaching, as well as
God's general methods of dealing with us, should
lead us to expect as in the highest degree natural.

CHAPTER II
THE OBJECTION THAT THE BIBLE CANNOT BE
FROM GOD, BECAUSE ITS HISTORY IS UN
TRUSTWORTHY
THERE are cogent reasons, as we have seen, for
believing that, in much of what they wrote, the
biblical writers were left to depend upon the
powers with which as men they had been endowed
by God ; and as universal experience shews that
whatever is human is liable to err, we are not
surprised to find traces of error in what these
human writers have left us.
We have now to consider an objection aimed
against the divine origin of Scripture on account
of its alleged untrustworthiness as history.
Is it untrustworthy as history ? The • errors
from which we are asked to draw the conclusion
may be divided into two classes, — those which
are revealed by a comparison of different state
ments in the book itself, and those which have
been disclosed by the monuments of profane
history. 286

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 287
1. — It is said that the Bible history is inconsistent
with itself.
It is not to be denied that discrepancies are to
be found in the Bible. For instance, of Asa we
read : — •
" But the high places were "He took away out of all
not taken away." 1 Kings the cities of Judah the high
xv. 14. places." 2 Chron. xiv. 5.
" The high places were not
taken away out of Israel." 2
Chron. xv. 17.
Of Jehoshaphat : —
" Howbeit the high places " Furthermore he took
were not taken away." 1 away the high places." 2
Kings xxii. 43. Chron. xvii. 6.
" Howbeit the high places
were not taken away: neither
as yet had the people set
their hearts unto the God of
their fathers." 2 Chron. xx.
33-
I have before me a volume of four hundred and
seventy -=three pages devoted to an examination of
such discrepancies. I do not wish to exaggerate
either their number or their importance. But their
existence exhibits a laxity and an unconscious
indifference to a clear exactness which we cannot
but candidly recognise. And it is impossible to
form a correct judgment of what the Bible is,
without taking them fully into account.
Men's minds are differently constituted. In the
presence of acknowledged difficulties some men
take refuge in the adoption of theories, which to
others often seem to be both improbable and

288 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
unsatisfactory. For myself, I much prefer frankly
to admit the possibility of such errors as are
common to man, in the narration of those matters
which it is given to him to know by the unaided
exercise of his natural faculties.
II. — It is said that history, as taught by profane
writers and by monuments, contradicts certain
statements in the Bible.
The invasion of Judah by Sennacherib is, for
instance, according to Old Testament chronology,
placed in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, i. e.
eight years after the capture of Samaria ; whereas
the discoveries at Nineveh place it in the twenty-
ninth year of that king.
Of this the Speakers Commentary remarks —
"These dates are hopelessly at variance with the
Assyrian dates for the two events, which are there
twenty-one years apart. We have therefore to choose
between an entire rejection of the Assyrian chronology,
preserved to our times in the original contemporary
documents and confirmed in numerous points by the
Canon of Ptolemy, and an emendation of the present
passage." 1
The occasional occurrence of an error even
greater than this is not deemed sufficient to throw
discredit on the general trustworthiness of non-
biblical writers.
Plato is nearly one hundred years astray in the
date which he assigned to Epimenides.2 Muhammed
confounds Haman, the familiar of Ahasuerus and
1 On this chronological difficulty see Rawlinson, Bampton
Lectures, p. 153, note 84.
2 De Lesribus.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 289
Mordecai, with a more ancient Haman, vizier of
Pharaoh, and persecutor of Moses ; and he identi
fies Miriam, sister of Moses and Aaron, with a
more modern Miriam, the Virgin Mary, mother
of Jesus of Nazareth.1 Yet no one impugns the
general credit of Plato and Muhammed on account
of these blunders.
Let it be frankly admitted that cases may be
found in which statements in the Bible seem to
be irreconcilable with what we learn from the
monuments of history outside it. Yet it cannot
be denied that the sum-total of all such evidence
is quite inconsiderable when placed in the scale
against what profane history has brought to light
in corroboration of biblical history.
And it should not be forgotten that we have
no right to assume that in every case of contra
diction between biblical and profane history, the
profane history must necessarily be right and the
biblical wrong.
The way in which external evidences corroborate
the Bible story is very remarkable.
Speaking of the half-century that elapsed from
the time when the Hebrews hid themselves in
holes2 for fear of the Philistines, to the full
completion of the kingdom of David by his vic
tories over the Philistines, the Moabites, the Syrians,
the Ammonites, and the Amalekites, together with
the submission of the Idumseans, Rawlinson
says : — 1 Koran, cc. iii., xix., xxviii.
2 1 Sam. xiv. 11.

2CjO THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
" We could not expect to obtain for such a period any
great amount of profane illustration. Yet the Jewish
history of even this obscure time has been found to
present points of direct agreement with the Egyptian
records, scanty as they are for it, with the Phoenician
annals, with the traditions of the Syrians of Damascus,
and with those of the early inhabitants of Northern
Africa. It has also appeared that the Hebrew account
of the time is in complete harmony with all that we
otherwise know of Western Asia at the period in ques
tion, of its political position, its civilization, its arts and
sciences, its manners and customs, its inhabitants.
Illustrations of these points have been furnished by the
Assyrian inscriptions, the Assyrian and Persian palaces,
the Phoenician coins and histories, and the earliest
Greek poetry. Nor is it possible to produce from
authentic history any contradiction of this or any other
portion of the Hebrew records. When such a contra
diction has seemed to be found, it has invariably hap
pened that in the progress of historical inquiry, the
author from whom it proceeds has lost credit, and finally
come to be regarded as an utterly untrustworthy
authority." J
These were the views stated by Rawlinson in
his Bampton Lectures more than thirty years ago.
Since then archaeological investigation has advanced
by leaps and bounds. And the result is not to
discredit, but to confirm and enlarge his con
clusions. The present Professor of Assyriology
at Oxford, referring to his earlier work on The
Higher Criticism and the Verdict of tlie Monuments,
says : — "There I have written purely as an archaeologist, who
belongs to no theological school, and consequently
readers of the work must see in it merely the irreducible
1 Bampton Lectures, p. no.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 29 1
minimum of confidence in the historical trustworthiness
of the Old Testament, with which oriental archaeology
can be satisfied. But it is obvious that this irreducible
minimum is a good deal less than what a fair-minded
historian will admit. The archaeological facts support
the traditional rather than the so-called ' critical ' view
of the age and authority of the Pentateuch, and tend to
shew that we have in it not only a historical monument
whose statements can be trusted, but also what is
substantially a work of the great Hebrew legislator
himself. . . .
" Oriental archaeology is on the side of those who
see in the Hebrew patriarchs real men of flesh and
blood, and who hold that in the narratives of the Penta
teuch we have historical records, many of which
go back to the age of the events they describe.
Each fresh discovery made by the archaeologist yields
fresh testimony to the truth of the Old Testament
stories. . . .
" While criticism, so-called, has been busy in demolish
ing the records of the Pentateuch, archaeology, by the
spade of the excavator and the patient skill of the de
cipherer, has been equally busy in restoring their credit.
And the monuments of the past are a more solid argu
ment than the guesses and prepossessions of the modern
theorist. The clay tablet and inscribed stone are better
witnesses to the truth than literary tact or critical scepti
cism. That Moses and his contemporaries could neither
read nor write may have been proved to demonstration
by the critic ; yet nevertheless we now know, thanks to
archaeological discovery, that it would have been a
miracle if the critic were right. The Pentateuch is, after
all, what it professes to be, and the records it contains
are history and not romance." x
Renan too bears testimony to the marvellous
fidelity of the Gospel story as attested by the
geography of the Holy Land.
1 Patriarchal Palestine, pp. 15, 16.

292 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
" I have traversed in every direction the district where
the scenes of the Gospel are laid. I have visited Jeru
salem, Hebron, and Samaria. Almost no site named in
the story of Jesus has escaped me. All this narrative,
which at a distance seems to float in the clouds of an
unreal world, thus assumed a body, a substantial exist
ence, which astonished me. The striking coincidence of
texts and places, the wonderful harmony of the ideal of
the Gospels with the country which served as its frame,
was for me a revelation. I had before my eyes a fifth
Gospel, and thenceforth through the stories of Matthew
and Mark, instead of an abstract being who one might
say had never existed, I saw in life and movement a
human form that challenged admiration." 1
III. — There are no errors in the Bible inconsistent
with its being a trustworthy record.
But if errors are indeed found in the Bible, they
are only errors of fact in the field of human history.
And in that field the biblical historians claim no
supernatural authority for what they record.
Neither do they narrate events upon their own
authority. We have seen 2 how they constantly
refer to the sources from whence they have drawn
their information. Most of their errors were in all
probability copied into Scripture from previously
existing documents which they used. They im
ported these errors into what they wrote, with all
honesty and good faith, not knowing them to be
errors. And the fact that they did so, is clear
proof that in all such questions as those in which
these mistakes occur, they were left to themselves
to collect the materials of their history, by the
1 Life of Jesus, Introduction.
2 See above, p. 250.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 293
exercise of their natural powers, from such sources
as they found available.
When we remember this, the occurrence of mis
takes at once becomes natural.
They employed the materials of history which
were within their reach, interpreted the course of
events by the aid of the prophet's insight with
which they were endowed, and recorded facts in
their own natural language in such a way as to
bring out their religious significance. They were
men of like powers and of like nature with their
fellows, and it was only natural that the im
perfection which belonged to them as such, should
leave some traces of its operation on their work.
Their information concerning those things of which
the knowledge, being acquired by the exercise of
the human faculties, grows with the growth of ages,
was the information of their own times, and not
that of our times. We should not therefore be
surprised if we find them mingling with their divine
message some elements of human error, such as a
fuller human knowledge will reject.
The Koran * professes to narrate events of human
history on the authority of divine revelation. But
the Bible makes no such profession.
1 The twelfth chapter of the Koran, entitled '¦'¦Joseph :
revealed at Mecca" begins in these words : —
" In the name of the most merciful God. Ai.R. These
are the signs of the perspicuous book, which we have sent
down in the Arabic tongue, that peradventure ye might
understand. We relate unto thee a most excellent history
by revealing unto thee this Koran, whereas thou wast before
one ofthe negligent."
And then follows the story of Joseph.

294 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Of the four evangelists only two were of the
number of those whom Jesus had chosen to be with
Him. SS. Mark and Luke state nothing of the
circumstances under which the Gospels bearing
their names were written. S. John claims the
authorship of the fourth gospel, and declares him
self to have been a witness of the events which he
recorded.1 In making a treatise " concerning all
that Jesus began both to do and to teach," 2
S. Luke prefaces his work by telling us that many
had taken in hand to draw up a narrative concern
ing those matters which had been fulfilled, or fully
established, among the followers of Jesus ; and he
adds that his own object in writing is to supply to
his reader, by a systematic statement of events, the
means of knowing the certainty concerning the
things which he had already been taught by word
of mouth. Before drawing up his statement, he
"traced the course of all things accurately from
the first"; and he refers to the testimony of those
men who, having been eye-witnesses and ministers
of the Word from the beginning, had handed down
an account of fully established events.
When the sacred writers give us a history of
what passed in their own days, or in the old
time before them, they never claim to draw
their knowledge of the events which they record
from sources other than the ordinary sources of
history. If they write a genealogy, they give it to us as a
citation, and introduce it expressly as such, " These
1 John xx. 24. 2 Acts i. 1.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 295
are the generations." x If they narrate a memor
able event, " Is it not written ? " they say, in a book,
or in a chronicle, to which they refer.
When the question of the authorship of the Gos
pels was canvassed in the early Church, it was not
sought to shew that they had been written by men
who had received supernatural revelation of facts
otherwise unknown to them, but it was handed
down that their authors were either apostles of our
Lord, and therefore eye-witnesses, or men who had
been intimate companions of apostles.
From all this we are led to the belief that the
biblical writers, considered merely as recorders of
historical facts, are not distinguished from other
honest annalists. They had recourse to the same
sources of information, and in the use which they
made of them they exercised their intellectual
gifts. As a matter of course they made such mis
takes as are natural to men. And to their fallible
human nature, and to that alone, their mistakes are
to be attributed.
" There is utter absence in large portions of the
history, of our scrupulous modern regard to dates and
claims of authorship. The prophetic historian may
have several imperfect records before him, some more
and some less secular. Such records he quotes from
time to time, sometimes even enabling us to recognize
them without quotation from the fidelity with which he
copies, or from the carelessness with which he connects
them. He writes in good faith. He tries to give us —
yes, and as so many Assyrian and Egyptian inscriptions
testify, he succeeds in giving us — a substantially faithful
1 Gen. x. 1 ; xi. 10, 27.

296 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
record of the past. He claims the usual critical licence
of a secular historian, without thinking it necessary to
draw attention to the fact. When a secular historian
of modern days finds that contemporary laws, chroni
cles, and biographies disagree, he is obliged to call in
the aid of his critical faculty, and to give such an
account of the course and causes of events as seems to
him to be probably true. The Hebrew historian does
the same, only with less skill and less independence.
His very honesty in copying and combining apparently
contradictory accounts produces those startling discrep
ancies of which sceptical critics have made so much.
. . . All this is done with good faith. There is not, I
believe, a sign or suspicion of any wilful intention to
deceive." 1
The only kind of error that has ever been dis
covered in the pages of the Bible is such as is
characteristic of truthful evidence. The nature
of such evidence is stated with admirable clearness
by Paley in a well-known passage : —
" I know not a more rash or unphilosophical conduct
of the understanding, than to reject the substance of a
story, by reason of some diversity in the circumstances
with which it is related. The usual character of human
testimony is substantial truth under circumstantial
variety. This is what the daily experience of courts of
justice teaches." 2
I remember an incident which will serve to illus
trate this. Some years ago, in the market-place
of an Irish country town, in broad daylight, and
under the very eyes of a considerable number of
persons, I mounted an outside car. Before we had
gone fifty yards, a deaf man, who clearly did not
1 Bp. MOORHOUSE, pp. xix, xx.
2 Evidences, Part III. c. i.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 297
observe our approach, stepped from the footpath,
to cross the road in front of us. In spite of the
driver's efforts to stop the horse, he was knocked
down. He brought an action for damages against
the owner of the car. The case was simple in
the extreme. Any one taken at random from
among the crowd of onlookers could have proved
the facts sufficiently. But the defendant had taken
pains to produce the best witnesses he could find.
Two of them gave evidence. Their testimony on
all material points was good and true. And on
their testimony it was justly judged that the driver
was not to blame. I, though summoned from a
distance, was not examined. But if I had been
put into the witness-box, and asked how many
passengers there were on the car at the time of the
accident, I should have been obliged to contradict
those two honest and perfectly competent de
ponents ; for they had both sworn that there were
two passengers, when in fact there was no one but
myself. It was a mistake. But it was a mistake
which in nowise diminished the value of their
testimony, because it had reference to a point
which did not in the slightest degree affect the
question at issue.
What took place not long ago in our own law-
courts, in a case which attracted the attention of
all England, will bring out the force of my argu
ment still more fully. Circumstances had occurred
of such a kind as to excite very strongly the live
liest interest of all those who were concerned in
them. Some six or seven days after their occur-

298 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
rence, one who played a conspicuous part in the
business, a shrewd, clear-headed man of the world,
anxious to preserve a true record of what had
passed, committed to writing a careful summary of
what he knew about the matter in question. This
document, which was prepared with all care and
deliberation, ended with these words : —
" The above is an accurate statement of all the facts
of the case."
This written statement was submitted by the
writer of it to two other very capable men, who
along with himself had shared the responsibility of
much that had passed. Having read it they both
signed it as substantially correct. It was sealed
up, and put away in safe keeping.. The question
to which the paper referred came before the Lord
Chief Justice of England and a special jury. The
paper was put in as evidence for the defence.
Counsel for the plaintiff urged it upon the jury as
one of the cardinal points in the case, and dwelt
with much earnestness upon the immense import
ance of it. He maintained that five witnesses who
came for the defence swore that in the document
there were six definite and material mis-statements
of fact. And in a speech of very remarkable foren
sic skill, he urged upon the jury the necessity of
rejecting evidence which was so self-contradictory.
Yet this document was spoken of by the judge in
these words : —
" I think it very well drawn up . . . The errors are
not in themselves important, but as a matter of fact
there are several incorrect statements of fact in it.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 29$
There is no reason to doubt that it was written as per
fectly genuine ; and no reason to doubt the bona fides of
its author. . . It is, however, further to be borne in
mind, that the whole of the document is governed by
the phrase, ' To the effect of.' It purports to give the
effect of what occurred, and what was said. One of the
witnesses is said to have made a statement that a certain
person told him something on the evening of the 8th.
Now it is perfectly immaterial to the case, whether he
told him on the evening of the 8th, or the morning of
the 9th . . . Whether the thing was said on the 8th or
the 9th is a matter of perfect indifference. And it is a
mistake — if a mistake — of which the writer of the
document need not be ashamed."
Speaking of another point on which the two
accounts were not reconcileable, the judge said : —
" It seems to me to be profoundly indifferent, — only a
very small matter."
On another point, which had reference to the
evidence as to a third party being made aware of a
certain fact, he said : —
" At some time or other he became aware of it. We
do not know when, but at all events at some time or
other, and the whole thing is profoundly indifferent."
Having read another passage from the document
which was contradicted by the oral evidence, he
went on to say :-—
" We can see that this is a summary, that there is no
attempt on the part of the writer to give chapter and
verse. It is a general summary of what was said by all
the witnesses before the writer. Even supposing it to
be inconsistent with the facts of the case, it at least is
the best account that the writer could give a week or so
afterwards of the occurrences of the 8th and 9th, and I
own I am somewhat surprised at the amount of detail it
gives. Just judge for yourselves. Supposing you are

300 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
asked to give a connected narrative of something that
occurred ten days ago, you can see that there would be
differences in the account, however honestly you might
endeavour to state the truth, and that there would be
discrepancies. There would be no dishonest intention
on your part, and it would simply resolve itself into a
question of memory. That seems to me to be the
sensible view to take of this document."
The jury seem to have thought so too. At all
events the existence of variance, and even of clear
contradiction, in the evidence for the defence,
seeing that it did not affect the credit of the wit
nesses, and had reference to points which were
immaterial to the issue, did not prevent twelve
honest and intelligent men from believing it ; for
they brought in a verdict for the defendant in ten
minutes. " Substantial truth under circumstantial variety,"
is exactly what we find to characterize the biblical
writings taken as a whole.
In the Gospels we have a threefold account of
our Lord's Galilean ministry, and a fourfold account
of His crucifixion and of His resurrection. The
substantial agreement of these several accounts as
to the main facts is absolute. In the details there
is variety, exactly that kind of variety, which, if
the accounts are in fact what they profess to be,
is perfectly natural, but which on the supposition
of their being fabricated, remains, and must remain,
a fact to be explained.
All four evangelists mention the superscription
which Pilate placed upon the cross on which our
Lord was crucified. S. Matthew says : —

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 301
" And they set up over His head His accusation
written, this is Jesus the King of the Jews."1
In S. Mark we have :
" And the superscription of His accusation was written
over, the King of the Jews." 2
In S. Luke we read :
" And there was also a superscription over Him, THIS
is the King of the Jews." 3
While S. John's account of the matter is in these
words :
"And Pilate wrote a title also, and put it on the cross.
And there was written, Jesus OF NAZARETH, the King
of the Jews." 4
No candid person reading these different reports,
untrammelled by the requirements of some theory
of inspiration, would have any difficulty, I think,
in seeing in them the truthful witness of four
independent accounts, to the one fact, that, when
our Lord was crucified, a superscription was affixed
to His cross, which described Him as the King of
the Jews.
It is impossible to impugn the general trust
worthiness of Hebrew history, on the ground that
the materials from which such a history could be
made were lacking. We meet with the recorder,
or chronicler, among the public officers of state
from the days of David.5 The office seems to
have been one of the very foremost rank, corre
sponding more or less to that of Chancellor or
1 Matt, xxvii. 37. 2 Mark xv. 26.
3 Luke xxiii. 38. 4 John xix. 19.
6 2 Sam. xx. 24,

302 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
President of the Privy Council in modern times.
He was much more than a mere annalist. But
there is no doubt that he had his title from his
being charged with the superintendence of the
national records. These national records were
kept continuously throughout the whole period of
the Kings, and the history which has come down
to us presents a systematic and orderly account of
persons and events, with frequent reference to the
sources from which it comes.
It would be foolish to expect the historians to
be altogether free from the weaknesses of human
nature. But it is quite clear that they were not
men to suppress the truth, in the interest of either
royal house or priestly order.
The history of the Jewish people, as we have it
in the Bible, is a history that stands by itself,
altogether alone, among the annals of nations.
The histories of all other peoples are written in a
spirit of self-glorification. Read the account left us
by any two competing countries of some event in
which their interests have brought them into col
lision with each other, and you will find in them —
however impartial they may try to be — a patriotic
colouring, a national bias, which has for its aim
to make much of the fatherland. What national
history gives us an account of a decisive battle
without crediting the victory to the spirit of the
men, or the skill of their commander ; or of a great
battle lost, without attempting to account for the
disaster in such a way as may be least hurtful to the
sensibilities of the nation ? There is nothing of

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 303
this in the Bible. Although the history which it
gives us of the Jews is full of incidents which to
other writers would have supplied abundant matter
for boasting and ', self-glorification, the biblical
authors betray no tendency to take merit for the
triumphs of their nation, or to extenuate the dis
honour of its defeats. When it tramples nations
mightier than itself under-foot, their theme is
always " Not unto us, but unto God be the praise."
When it is defeated, they attribute its overthrow
to its own disloyalty to God. Indeed it is not too
much to say that we have in the pages of the
Bible a more unattractive, and in many respects a
more unpleasant, picture of the Jews as a people,
painted by themselves, than has been drawn else
where of any other nation even by its enemies.
And yet, painfully disagreeable as the likeness is
in many of its features, they continue to preserve
up to the present day the history in which it is
found, with a minuteness of careful attention which
is altogether without a parallel in the practice of
nations.1 The writers of the Bible speak
"As men divinely taught, and better teaching
The solid rules of civil government,
In their majestic, unaffected style,
Than all the oratory of Greece and Rome.
In them is plainest taught, and easiest learnt,
What makes a nation happy, and keeps it so,
What ruins kingdoms, and lays cities flat."
To borrow the words of an able and thoughtful
writer: " It is quite a truism to say that for general
accuracy, for judgment, for impartiality, and for
1 See Bp. Butler, Analogy, pp. 277, 278.

304 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
simplicity, the historical writers of the Bible are
quite unequalled. No such history has ever been
written as the history of the Hebrews and of
the rise of Christianity." 1
If we admit that all the difficulties and discrep
ancies which men have thought to discover in the
Gospels are real, and not merely apparent, if we
admit that they must remain difficulties unsolved,
discrepancies unexplained, the admission would
not affect the general credibility of the history. If
we admit that the writers were not infallible his
torians, whose every word must be accepted as
corresponding in minutest detail with immaterial
facts, yet still, to use the words of Rawlinson,
"They would remain historical authorities of the
first order — witnesses as fully to be trusted for the cir
cumstances of our Lord's life, as Xenophon for the say
ings and doings of Socrates, or Cavendish for those of
Cardinal Wolsey. The facts of the miracles, preaching,
sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension, would
therefore stand firm, together with those of the choice
of the Apostles, the commission given them, and the
communication to them of miraculous powers ; and
these are the facts which establish Christianity, and
form its historical basis — a basis which can be over
thrown by nothing short of a proof that the New
Testament is a forgery from beginning to end, or that
the first preachers of Christianity were a set of im
postors." 2
1 Rev. W. L. Paige Cox, The Authority of the Bible,
1890, p. 4.
2 Bampton Lectures, p. 214.

CHAPTER III
THE OBJECTION THAT THE BIBLE CANNOT BE
FROM GOD, BECAUSE THERE IS THAT IN IT
WHICH DOES NOT AGREE WITH PHYSICAL
SCIENCE
I. — The Bible does not profess to be a scientific
treatise.
It will clear the ground and help to remove
confusion if we bear well in mind that the Bible
nowhere professes to be a scientific treatise. It
cannot be repeated too often that God does not
make known to man by direct revelation what
man can discover for himself by the exercise of
the powers 'with which God has endowed him.
The Bible has nothing whatever to say to physical
science as such. It does not speak the language
of science, nor does it represent physical phenomena
from a scientific point of view. But it certainly
cannot fairly be said on this account, that it con
tradicts scientific dogmata. It is the aim of
scientific language to convey with the utmost
precision possible such knowledge of facts as we
are able to acquire. Our ordinary speech proceeds
3°5 x

306 the bible in the light of To-day
upon a totally different principle. We do not stop
to ask what things are in themselves. We are
content to describe them as they appear to us. If
Sir Robert Ball were to say to you that he was in
his observatory last night till sunrise, you would not
forthwith charge him with teaching a geocentric
theory of the universe. You have as little ground
for saying that the Bible contradicts physics,
because it describes physical facts in popular
language. When ancient historians refer to physi
cal phenomena in the technical language of the
physics of their day, it sometimes puzzles the
scientist of the present age to discover what they
mean by it.1 If Moses, being learned in all the
wisdom of the Egyptians, had left us a treatise on
physical science as taught by the builders of the
pyramids, the work no doubt would have pos
sessed immense interest for learned men, but it is
difficult to conceive how it could have materially
helped the purpose for which God caused the Holy
Scriptures to be written.
II. — It is a book for all.
But the Bible is a book for all, the unlearned as
1 Referring to the northern midnight sun, Tacitus is quite
clear so long as he describes the phenomenon in untechnical
language. But when he proceeds to explain it according to
the scientific notions of his day, we are quite at a loss to
discover what he meant. " Quod si nubes non obficiant,
adspici per noctem solis fulgorem, nee obcidere et exsurgere,
sed transire adfirmant : scilicet extrema et plana terrarum,
humili umbra, non erigunt tenebras, infraque ccelum et
sidcra nox cadit." — Asrricola, xii.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 307
well as the learned. Therefore it naturally speaks
a language which all can understand, — a language
popular, not technical.
And just as the language of the Bible is not
technical, so neither is the subject of its teaching
scientific. Its subject is religion.
III. — That Religion and Science are antagonistic to
each other is a very old assumption.
And that Religion and Science are necessarily
antagonistic to one another is a very old and very
persistent assumption. When Socrates resolved
thunderstorms into aerial concussion and whirl
winds, Aristophanes represents him as chasing
Jupiter out of the sky.1 Every one knows how
Galileo was treated, in the name of theology, for
his part in the introduction of truer conceptions of
the material universe. It is not so well known
how, when in his younger days Robespierre
attempted to introduce Franklin's lightning con
ductor into France, he was persecuted by those
whose lives he sought to protect, as one audaciously
striving to avert the designs of Providence. The
reception given in our own time by many ecclesi
astics to the work of Darwin is by no means the
only evidence that the assumption that there must
be antagonism between religion and science is very
far from being extinct ; and what passes around us
every day reminds us how little we have yet learned
from the experience of ages.
1 See The Clouds.

308 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
IV. — The foremost men on both sides have now
realized that they do not come into collision.
Happily, however, the foremost men on both sides,
theologians and scientists alike, are coming to see
that no antagonism exists. As long ago as 1870,
at a meeting of the British Association, Bishop
Fraser said : —
" I will never believe that true science is contrary to
true religion, or that true religion ought to be afraid of
any legitimate consequences of true science. ... I do
not care from whatever source it comes, I will welcome
every means which is calculated to settle the disputed
boundaries between religion and science, and shew that
both alike, in their legitimate province, minister to, and
help to build up the great temple of truth." 1
On the same occasion Professor Huxley, speak
ing in reply, said that there were " no cases of anta
gonism between science and religion," and added,
it is "an antagonism which does not really exist,
but which is the artifice and creation of men."
Professor Tyndall following him, referred to the
Bishop's declaration in characteristic terms : —
" I cannot refrain from expressing my sympathy with
every word of that speech. Such speeches tend to shew
that the difference between such men as he and the
members of the British Association, who have been
referred to, is at bottom but a difference of form and
not of substance.''
No one who knows anything of the men who
gave utterance to these words, can entertain the
smallest doubt that they were perfectly sincere on
both sides. 1 Speech, Brit. Assoc, Sep. 23, 1870.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 309
The great founder of the inductive philosophy
to which all modern science owes its being, saw
clearly that the spheres of theology and science
were independent of each other. " They," he said,
" who seek a material heaven and a material earth
in the word of God, absurdly seek for transitory
things among eternal. To look for theology in
philosophy, is looking for the living among the
dead, and to look for philosophy in theology is to
look for the dead among the living."1 But it is
only after the lapse of centuries that we are
beginning to realize this great truth. We do at
last acknowledge it ; and Bishop Fraser only gives
utterance to the thought of the day when, echoing
the words of Bacon, he says : — *
" Religion is not scientific (we do not go to the Bible
in proof of scientific principles), and, on the other hand,
it must be admitted that science is not moral, and we
cannot go to treatises on science to learn our duty to
God and man. The man of science may be moral or
immoral, but it is not his science which makes him
either the one or the other."2
The Bishop might have added, the man of piety
may be scientific or not scientific, but it is not his
piety that makes him either the one or the other.
It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of
the mutual understanding thus established between
theology and science. As soon as we see that
they move in different planes, it becomes clear
that collision between them is impossible.
1 BACON, Advancement of Learning, Bk. ix.
2 Sermon at Ashton-under-Lyne, Oct. 30, 1881.

3IO THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
V. — The teaching of the Bible is spiritual
teaching.
We are justified in believing, with Dr. Salmon,
that " God did not mean the Bible as a supernatural
revelation of the truths of astronomy or other
sciences, but left the attainment of knowledge of
this kind to stimulate and reward the exercise of
men's natural powers." We have no reason what
soever to suppose that it is God's will to impart to
us in the Bible any knowledge of scientific facts,
any further than men had been able to acquire that
knowledge by the use of the intellectual faculties
which He had given them.
As soon as we grasp this principle, all such
difficulties as those which have arisen in connection
with the opening of the Book of Genesis at once
vanish. The wonder is no longer that there should
be some discrepancy between the latest discoveries
of science, and what we read there, but rather
that there should be so little. Compared with all
other accounts of the creation which have come
down to us, the biblical story of creation is a
sketch which goes surprisingly near to what
scientific men tell us of the evolution of the material
universe. And the fact that it is so not only shews
us that human knowledge had advanced much
further in. primitive times than we are often dis
posed to think, but also proves the extreme
accuracy and good sense with which the biblical
writers, as compared with others, recorded what
was known in their day.
Romanes says : —

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 31 1
" It appears to me that these early biblical writers
have displayed a really wonderful degree of accuracy in
their observations of plants and animals— wonderful, I
mean, if contrasted with similar observations by men of
other races at a comparable level of culture. There 'is
no imagery of any kind mixed up with the facts ; the
classification is throughout dictated by the true spirit of
science ; and it cannot be said to have been subsequently
improved upon until the foundations of biology were laid
by the commanding genius of Aristotle."
There was a time when Scripture was supposed
to speak as with the infallible authority of divine
knowledge on every subject. Accordingly, when
astronomy declared that the earth was not the
centre of the universe, and again when geology
maintained that the work of creation was not done
in six days, i. e. while our planet revolved six times
upon its axis, both were condemned as contradict
ing what was supposed to be the teaching of God
contained in the Bible. But men came to learn
that they were mistaken in assuming that the
Bible contained any divine teaching of physical
science whatever, and to see that what it gives us
is spiritual teaching.
It claims to be a record of the progressive revela
tions of God to man. It declares that all nature
is the work of God. But it does not profess to
reveal to us the laws of nature. When the biblical
writers have occasion to refer to physical facts,
they do not pretend to record any revelation con
cerning them. They give no hint that as to them
they had any special teaching from God. On such
matters they spoke with the knowledge, and in

312 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
the language of their age.1 And to regard their
incidental references to the operations of nature
as divine pronouncements, is to misconceive their
mission altogether. He who gave her laws to
nature, gave to man an intellect with which to
discover them. And by a process of patient
observation he has discovered many of them, and
will no doubt go on discovering many more. As
he does discover them, theology thankfully accepts
them. VI. — Science as it grows modifies the views of
theologians as of others.
As Bishop Fraser said : —
" It is an absurd charge to bring against divines or
theologians that they never modify their own dogmas or
creeds. Why, within my own memory, there have been
half-a-dozen definitions of the first chapter of Genesis ;
and simply recognising the truth of the Great First
Cause, we are waiting what you scientific gentlemen
have to tell us as to how we may interpret the verses
that follow." 2
This view commended itself to a theologian of
such uncompromising orthodoxy as Dr. Pusey,
who quotes with approval the following words
from a German writer : —
1 Hares are in reality rodents, but they present the appear
ance of chewing the cud, and Linnaeus in fact supposed that
they do chew the cud. The law of Moses in speaking of
them adopts the unscientific classification in vogue when the
law was written, just as the law of England unscientifically
uses the common term " fish " to include whales and porpoises,
which are mammals.
2 Speech at the founding qf the new Victoria University, at
Manchester, July 14, 1880.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 313
" Between the first and second, and between the second
and third, verses of the Biblical history of the Creation,
revelation leaves two great white pages, on which human
science may write what it will, in order to fill up the
blanks of natural history, which revelation omitted it
self to supply, as not being its office.
" Of each of these ' cartes blanches,' revelation has only
given a superscription, a summary table of contents.
The first runs, ' In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth.' How this was, how long it lasted, what
followed thereon, what evolutions and revolutions took
place, down to that state of things which v. 2 describes,
it says nothing. Let human science fill up the void if
it can. " The second ' carte blanche ' has the summary inscrip
tion, ' The earth was void and waste, and the Spirit of
God was brooding on the face of the waters.' What
influences the Spirit of God, which brooded over the
waters, had on them, what operations and formations
it called forth in them, revelation says not.
" Revelation has, in the superscription of the two ' cartes
blanches,' laid an ever-firm and immovable foundation,
which leaves none for Atheism or Pantheism. Experi
ence, combination, and speculation, investigation, and
philosophy of nature or of religion, and theology may
try to build further on this foundation. But no other
foundation shall any one lay than that which is here
laid." 1
VII. — Contradiction has often been assumed when it
does not really exist.
When we read the account of the creation with
which the Bible begins, in the light which geology
has thrown upon the production of the earth, we
see that in the ignorance of their time theologians
1 Kurtz, Bibel und Astronomie, 1853, p. 433, quoted by
Dr. Pusey, Lectures on Daniel the Prophet, Preface, pp.
xxxi — xxxii, note.

314 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
had misinterpreted the sacred narrative, and had
read into it much that our fuller knowledge has
shewn it not to contain.
(a) " In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth." Here is an assertion that both
the heavens and the earth came originally from
the creative hand of God, — a fact of the utmost
importance for all our religious instruction. But
the words supply no hint as to when the beginning
was. The question, when it was, is one of great
speculative interest to the curiosity of man, but of
no practical importance for the guidance of his
spiritual life. And so it has not pleased God to
make it the subject of a direct revelation.
(b) Similarly as to the six " days " of creation,
and the seventh " day " of rest, theologians were
again mistaken in their interpretation of the
account given us. In the absence of anything to
guide them otherwise, it was natural enough for
them to understand the word " day" to be used in
its primary sense. But when geologists brought
to light facts which were inconsistent with the old
interpretation, they gave it up. They remembered
that when our Saviour speaks of Abraham as seeing
His " day," l when the Psalmist speaks of " the day
of Jerusalem,"2 when S. Paul says "The day is
at hand," 3 or when he speaks of the present dis
pensation as " the day of salvation," 4 they did not
interpret the term "day" as denoting the period
of time in which the earth revolves on its axis,
1 John viii. 56. 2 Ps. cxxxvii. 7.
3 Rom. xiii. 12. 4 2 Cor. vi. 3.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 3 1 5
and they felt no difficulty in giving to the word as
used in the exordium of the Book of Genesis a
meaning wide enough to embrace the facts of
geology. (c) Again: apprehension is sometimes expressed
that the account given in Genesis of the creation
of man is contradicted by geological evidence,1
which goes to shew that man must have existed
long before the days of Adam. But it has been
observed that there is nothing in the scriptural
account of Adam's creation which is irreconcilable
with the existence of pre-Adamite man. Assume
it to be incontestably proved beyond all question
of doubt, that the existence on the earth of a
being endowed with intelligence superior to that
of the brutes has been definitely established. It
cannot be pretended that we have any evidence to
shew the existence of man in God's image, which
is altogether a different thing. And the most
absolute demonstration that the inferior being
had occupied our globe, even for indefinite ages
before the appearance of the higher creature,
would not be in any way inconsistent with the
statement that as the crowning product of His
1 The antiquity of the higher forms of life is immense, and
their diversity amazing. Whether it is to be counted by
millions of years or tens of millions no one can say. It is
easier to form an estimate of the antiquity of man. But
here too the data which form the basis of calculation are of
such a character as to leave room for very different results.
One man observing the phenomena presented by the gorge
of Niagara concludes that 15,000 years is a period of time
sufficient to account for them, while another makes it 45,000.

316 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
creative energy God made man in His own image,
and after His own likeness.1
(d) Since the theory of evolution was pro
pounded, men have come to take a new view of
the birth and growth of the universe. This new
view does not present precisely the same picture
to all observers. What one man sees is not
exactly what presents itself to another. And no
one pretends to see such a complete and well-
defined delineation of the whole process as leaves
no room for question as to the meaning of many
details. But enough has been already observed to
satisfy the ablest men of our time, that the new
view shews us more than we saw before. The
new theory at first filled many with apprehension
and dismay. It seemed subversive of the old
ideas of theism, and even of morality. But, to
quote Bishop Fraser again: —
" Whatever may have been the conclusions of some of
his followers, Mr. Darwin's system was a theistic, and
not an atheistic one.2 In the last sentence of his Origin
of Species, Darwin uses these words : 'There is grandeur
in this view of life, with its several forms, having been
1 Gen. i. 26.
2 The most orthodox school of modern Judaism takes the
same view. " We may be able to discover numerous facts
in evidence of this theory, we may well conceive the idea of
a protoplasm developing into a whole system of worlds, and
yet our belief in the truth of the biblical account of the
Creation is not shaken in the least. The laws of Evolution
are the result of the creative act of the Almighty, and not
its causes; they include nothing that could disprove the
correctness of the theory of Crcatio ex nihilo." — Fried-
lander, p. 180.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 317
originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or
one ; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on,
according to the fixed law of gravity, from so small a
beginning, endless forms, most beautiful and most
wonderful, have been and are being evolved.' ... I am
quite sure, so far as I am acquainted with Darwin's
writings, that he has given no encouragement to that
hypothetical school which is passing off, in the name of
science, so many unproved conclusions, and is even
asking us to surrender our most cherished beliefs in
favour of unproved hypotheses." '
Although biologists' are not all of one mind as
to certain questions touching the origin and per
petuation of species, yet no doubt is any longer
entertained, not only by students of nature, but
also by many of our foremost divines, that the
theory of evolution is that which holds the field
to-day. At all events no one would now think of
maintaining that the heavens and the earth and
all the hosts of them were created and made in
six solar days. We believe that we have reason
to conclude — what the family of man in its infancy
was not able to suspect — that for the evolution of
the vast cosmos on which we look out, and of
which we form a part, an indefinite duration of
time was required. Science would seem to teach
to-day that the different species of plants and
animals owe their origin not to separate distinct
acts of creation, but to a process of evolution from
lower forms, and that they came into being in a
different order from that which the first chapter of
Genesis assigns to their creation. If this scientific
1 Address at Manchester, April 27, 1882.

318 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
view be well founded in fact, then clearly we must
not look to what is commonly called the Mosaic
cosmogony for a scientifically accurate account of
the natural history of the world.
Such an issue should occasion no dismay. It is
well to inquire how far the words of Holy Scripture
may be brought into harmony with the teaching
of science by natural and unstrained interpreta
tion. It may be that we shall find that which we
cannot harmonize. What then ?
" If it should appear upon examination, that the first
chapter of Genesis, or any other chapter, contains state
ments not in accordance with science, then, instead of
coming to the conclusion that the Scriptures are not
inspired, I should rather come to this, namely, that the
idea of inspiration does not involve that accuracy con
cerning physics, which many persons have imagined
that it does.' 1
There is no doubt that the position taken up by
the late Professor Clerk Maxwell is the true posi
tion. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol had
written to him asking whether as a scientific man
he was "able to accept the statement which is
often made on the theological side, viz. that the
creation of the sun posterior to light involves no
serious difficulty." Replying to this inquiry on
November 22, 1876, Clerk Maxwell wrote: "If
it were necessary to provide an interpretation of
the text in accordance with the science of 1876
(which may not agree with that of 1896), it would
be very tempting to say that the light of the first
day means the all-embracing ether, the vehicle of
1 Bp. Goodwin, Hulsean Lectures, 1855, P- io3-

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 319
radiation, and not actual light, whether from the
sun or from any other source. But I cannot
suppose that this was the very idea meant to be
conveyed by the original author of the book to
those for whom he was writing. He tells us of
previous darkness. Both light and darkness imply
a being who can see if there is light, but not if it is
dark, and the words are always understood so. . . .
But I should be very sorry if an interpretation
founded on a most conjectural scientific hypothesis
were to get fastened to the text in Genesis, even if
by so doing it got rid of the old statement of the
commentators which has long ceased to be in
telligible. The rate of change of scientific hypo
thesis is naturally much more rapid than that of
biblical interpretations, so that if an interpretation
is founded on such an hypothesis, it may help to
keep the hypothesis above ground long after it
ought to be buried and forgotten."1
It would be as great an error to make the value
of the divine lesson conveyed by the story of the
creation in any way dependent upon the physical
conceptions involved in the form of the story by
means of which it is conveyed, as it would be to
make the value of the Nichomachian Ethics de
pendent upon the scientific correctness of Aristotle's
physics. It was well remarked by a Cambridge
Professor of Divinity more than a hundred years
ago: "Aristotle understood many things relating
to man, as well as we do now ; I would not neglect
those things, because he could not account for the
1 Life of James Clerk Maxwell, London, 1882, p. 394.

320 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Phaenomena of the Rainbow ; if he talked about
the Rainbow like other knowing men of his time, he
talked well enough." 1
On the same subject an Oxford Professor says
to-day : —
" The object of the Creation story is to afford a view
true in conception, if not in detail, of the origin of the
earth as we know it, and to embody this not in an
abstract or confused form which may soon be forgotten,
but in a series of representative pictures which may im
press themselves upon- the imagination, and in each one
of which the truth is insisted on, that the stage which it
represents is no product of chance, or of mere mechanical
forces, but that it is an act of the divine will. It teaches,
in terms which all can understand, the same truth which
is the outcome of the wisest philosophy, that the world
in which we live, and have our being, cannot be com
prehended, cannot be an intelligible object of knowledge,
except as dependent on a supreme Mind. With this
view it divides artificially the periods of the earth's
formation. It groups the living creatures 'upon its sur
face under the great subdivisions which appeal to the
eye, and declares each to have been produced in accord
ance with the divine Will, each to owe its being to the
divine intention. It states the fact of their creation : it
is silent on the secondary causes through which, in par
ticular cases, or even more generally, they may have
been developed. Within the two great groups of veget
able and animal life it imposes no veto on the action of
natural causes in the production of species. Their pro
duction by the persistent accumulation of minute varia
tions may or may not be true scientifically — upon that
question I have no right to pronounce an opinion— but,
in so far as it is true, it involves no derogation from the
supremacy ofthe Creator, no denial of His ever-present
operation and providence. The doctrine of the gradual
1 Hey, Lectures, p. 116.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 32 1
formation of species will be but the exhibition in detail
of those processes which the writer of this chapter of
Genesis sums up into a single phrase, and apparently
compresses into a single moment, for the purpose of
declaring their dependence on the divine Will." 1
What the account of the creation contained in
the Book of Genesis is : whence it came ; whether
Moses is the original author of it ; or whether he
or another adopted it as it stands from an earlier
source ; or recast what had been handed down
from earlier ages, must remain a thing unknown
to us. But howsoever it came to be written, it is
the opening chord of a great harmonious theme
which throughout the ages has moved the hearts
of men, has filled them with high and noble
purpose, has supported their uncertain steps, and
as their understanding grew, has taught them with
growing power the true meaning of life,
VIII. — Our present knowledge is but of yesterday.
It is only yesterday that our knowledge of the
material universe has grown out of the childish
stage. The clock, that stands in Wolsey's old
clock-tower at Hampton Court Palace, faithfully
indicates the passage of time to this very day, by
making the more distant sun, no less than the
nearer moon, to revolve unwearied round the
central earth. It is difficult to realize that less
than three hundred years ago our men of science,
as well as the official teachers of Christianity, held
that we are bound to believe, on the authority of
1 Driver's Sermons, pp. 172, 173.

322 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
the Bible, that the earth was the centre of the
physical universe. Yet it is a fact that they
imagined the Bible to impose upon them this
astronomical theory with the same authority that
it taught them the things of God.
We have learned much since then. But our
knowledge, both of physics and of the Bible, is
still very imperfect. Yet we are impatient — at
times irreverently impatient — to be rid of every
difficulty. We are children still, and we shall do
well to listen to the counsels of the wise mother
who meets the restless inquisitiveness of her boy
by saying, " Learn, and you will know. You can
not learn everything all at once, but go on learning,
and by degrees you will be able to understand
better. You cannot now understand all that I
could tell you. But you will come to know more
than I do, although live as long as you may, you
will never know all."
" Let knowledge grow from more to more,
But more of reverence in her dwell;
That mind and soul according well,
May make one music as before."
IX. — Heligion and Science are mutually helpful to
one another.
The love of knowledge, and the spirit of rever
ence, — these are the two things which we need ;
and we may gain them both, if we will pursue
science reverently and theology scientifically.
This is not impossible, though both theologians
and men of science have too often acted as if it

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 323
were. They have too often forgotten that religion
and science are mutually helpful to one another.
To what extent theology is indebted to science
for the truer interpretation of Scripture we have
already seen. The obligation of science to theology
is no less. It was the hint of the theologian which
first started science upon her fruitful career.
I have shewn elsewhere1 that science is trebly
indebted for its success to the influence of the
Christian religion ; that it was our religion which
pointed out to human thought the new direction
which it took ; that it was our religion which sup
plied thought with the link necessary to give con
clusiveness to the inductive argument ; and that it
was our religion which taught the spirit in which
the process must be pursued.
And the indebtedness of science to theology
does not end here. Indeed, " if all progress consists
in the advancing further into light and the scatter
ing of mists which had obstructed it, the Bible
contains the promise of such Progress, a promise
which has been most fulfilled when it has been
most reverently listened to, when men have gone
to it with the greatest confidence and hope."2
If the view be a right view which has long pre
sented itself to some of our most enlightened
English theologians, as to the relation that subsists
between physical science and religion, then it is
clear that physical science does not disprove the
divine origin of the Bible.
1 Christianity Judged by its Fruits, p. 116.
2 F. D. Maurice, Theological Essays, pp. 353, 354.

CHAPTER IV
THE OBJECTION THAT THE BIBLE CANNOT BE
FROM GOD, BECAUSE THERE IS THAT IN IT
WHICH IS REPUGNANT TO THE MORAL SENSE
I. — Principles which ought to govern our judgment
on this question.
(i) The process of Education is subject to con
ditions. (a) Before a man can use the accumulated
stores of human thought, he must learn to read.
And before he can read, he must learn his alphabet.
In its earliest stages, learning is a slow process.
The mastery of the alphabet is a tedious task. But
if a man wants to possess the treasure that is
buried in the field of literature, he must learn it.
There is no short cut, no private entrance, by
which any man may enter in and enjoy the trea
sure. The most habile teacher that ever lived can
not enable his pupil to dispense with the inevitable
preliminary process of gradual advance from less
to more. It is conceivable that man might have
been endowed with faculties capable of comprehend
ing, as by one single flash of intuition, the whole
324

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 325
field of knowledge, which is now painfully acquired
by the long labour of a life-time. But man is not
endowed with such faculties. And the powers
which he does possess are of such a kind that, from
the very necessity of the case, his education must
proceed by " slow successive steps."
(b). Accordingly, in the education of our children,
we do not once for all, in one single lesson, try to
impart to them the sum of the instruction which we
wish them to have. Such a process would defeat
our object. The fundamental- idea of education is
the educing, the drawing out, the unfolding of
latent, rudimentary faculties. The experienced
teacher knows this. He begins at the beginning,
and leads his pupil slowly on from knowledge to
knowledge, drawing out his powers, and supplying
their growing strength with matter meet to exercise
them. The child is not yet the man. And it is
impossible to impart to the child what only the
matured powers ofthe man are capable of receiving.
It is the full realization of this fact which marks
the difference between successful and unsuccessful
teaching. The incapable teacher may be, and
sometimes is, both an able and learned man. But
he forgets that knowledge cannot come by leaps
and bounds. He forgets that it must grow. He for
gets how long, slow, tedious, and often difficult and
painful was the process by which he himself has
attained to his own store. He fails to see that the
powers of his pupil are not what his own powers
are to-day, but only what they were in years gone
by. So he gives the child a task beyond his

326 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
powers, a task which therefore he cannot learn.
The true teacher, on the contrary, is never forgetful
of the measure and the force of his pupil's grasp ;
and he is careful to adjust his task accordingly.
He provides a lesson which is fit and meet to exer
cise, and by exercising, to strengthen and to develop
the young intellect. But he does more. Dealing
with the child that is, he is mindful of the man
that is to be. And he endeavours to frame his
lessons, and to arrange his instructions so that the
knowledge imparted to the child from day to day
may implant within his mind germs that in time
will expand and grow, and bring forth fruit meet
to sustain his mature age.
The child's mind
"... Knows partly, but conceives beside,
Creeps ever on from fancies to the fact,
And in this striving, this converting air
Into a solid he may grasp and use,
Finds progress."
It is at first exclusively occupied by objects that
are present ; and it is only by the slow process of
experience, by the use of habits, which result from
oft-repeated acts of thinking, that it comes to take
a wider range, and expatiate in larger fields.
(c) We teach our children on this principle, be
cause it is the only principle on which they can be
taught. We all understand that the moral value
of actions depends upon the motives which prompt
them. But we do not on that account begin the
education of our children by inculcating this prin
ciple. It is important that they should learn the

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 327
principle. But we know that as children they can
not yet receive it. We begin at the beginning. We
start from what, though children, they can under
stand. We say to them, Do not do this ; it is
wrong. Do this ; it is right. We add sanctions
which the child can understand.
(d) And as the understanding of the child is
enlarged, we explain the principle that underlies
the rules which we have imposed.
Each period of life is marked by the grade of
capacity which is peculiar to it, and which demands
a corresponding treatment. The instruction pro
vided for the intellectual and spiritual nourishment
of the full-grown man, is just as different from that
which was provided for the same person when a
child, as the food provided for the sustenance of
his mature body is different from that which was
provided for it in infancy. The reason of the
difference is the same in both cases. There is a
change in the supply, because there is a change in
the requirements which it is to meet.
(2) It was under these conditions that the Jews
were taught cf God.
To Abraham, to his family after him, and to the
nation that grew out of that household, God
revealed His will in divers manners and in divers
portions ; in portions meet for their successive
needs, and in manners varying with the conditions
of their growth. The divine communications made
to them from time to time, and the ways in which
they were made, had relation to their circumstances
for the time being, such as their numbers, their

328 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
state of civilization, and their intellectual develop
ment. By dreams, by visions, by an angelic
messenger, He made known His will to individuals,
to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
And then when He had made the children of
Israel into a peculiar and distinct people by the
stamp of circumcision on their bodies, by the harsh
ness and severity which He allowed them to endure
as bondsmen in Egypt, He further made known
His will to that people by signs and wonders, and
the providential ordering of events by which they
could see the mighty hand and outstretched arm
of God ; by causing them to dwell alone, not
reckoned among the nations ; by a system of heaven
sent laws, until a new generation had arisen which
knew no God but Jehovah, and no minister of
religion but Jehovah's accredited ambassadors.
(a) The transient character of the old covenant
which served as " a parable for the time present,
and which had not the power to make the worship
pers perfect as touching the conscience," had not
been unknown to their prophets.1 Jeremiah saw
that, in substitution for the covenant which God had
made with the Israelites, in the day when He took
them by the hand to lead them out of the land of
Egypt — a covenant in which they had not continued
— He would make with them a new covenant, of a
new character. Under this new covenant men
should be provided no longer with such national
corporate instruction as was shadowed forth in the
carnal ordinances ofthe old, and was impressed upon
1 Heb. ix. 9.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 329
each individual by the common voice of every man
teaching his brother, "Know the Lord." But it
would be a covenant under which God would put
His laws into their mind, and write them on their
heart, — a covenant under which the knowledge of
God should be brought home to every man indi
vidually, for He would put His fear in their hearts,
and all should know Him, from the least to the
greatest of them.1
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
regards the " ordinances of divine service" under the
first covenant as "only . . . carnal ordinances, im
posed until a time of reformation." " The law made
nothing perfect." Therefore, the " foregoing- com
mandment " was disannulled, " because of its weak
ness and unprofitableness " ; and " a better hope "
was introduced, "through which we draw nigh unto
God." The relation of " the law " to " the good things to
come," as it appeared to the mind of this writer, is
set forth in the clearest and most unmistakable
language. He says plainly that the incomplete
and transitory system of Jewish ordinances is not
" the very image," the exact and perfect likeness,
but only " a shadow," a fleeting adumbration of
what God has spoken to us by His Son.2
(b) S. Paul, a Pharisee of the Pharisees, a zealot
of the law of the very strictest type, has left no
room for doubt as to the view which he took of
the Mosaic ordinances. They were "weak and
beggarly rudiments." The observances under them
1 Jer. xxxi. 31-4. 2 Heb. x. 1, 2 ; and i. 2.

330 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
were a bondage, from which the liberty of Christ
has set men free.1 Nay, the whole system, of
which these ordinances were a part, the very law
itself, was given, not as embodying the highest
revelation of God's absolute will, but was an accom
modation to the frailty and the error of man's
estate. " It was added because of transgressions." 2
Under it men were " kept in ward, shut up unto
the faith which should afterwards be revealed," 3
prepared by the discipline of carnal ordinances,
for the reception of the spiritual freedom to be
revealed in Christ. The law was not the teacher,
whose duty it was to draw out and to develop
men's spiritual powers, and to provide a supply
for all their spiritual needs. That teacher was
Christ. The office of the law to the Jews was
that of the tutor-slave, whose duty it was to take
the children of the house to school.4 It was the
part of the law to bring God's chosen people to
Christ, that they " might be justified by faith." 5
(e) We have the clear definite statement of our
Lord, that, in one particular at least, the moral
teaching of the law was permitted to fall short of
the standard of God's original appointment.
" He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of
heart suffered you to put away your wives : but from
the beginning it hath not been so." 6
In this instance, at least, the law was accom
modated to the imperfections of those to whom it
was addressed. If indeed, this instance stood by
1 Gal. iv. 9. 2 Gal. iii. 19. 3 Gal. v. 23.
4 Gal. v. 24. 6 Gal. v. 24. 6 Matt. xix. 8.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 33 1
itself, it might not be deemed sufficient to warrant
the conclusion that we are justified in assuming
the existence of a like accommodation in all cases
in which the moral teaching of the Old Testament
seems to fall below the level of the New. But
does it stand by itself ?
At an early stage in His public teaching, our
Lord took occasion to explain the relation in
which He, the Founder of the New, stood to the
Old Dispensation. " Think not," He said, " that I
came to destroy the law or the prophets : I came
not to destroy, but to fulfil," i. e. to fill out,- to
complete, to make perfect.1 And He proceeds to
shew what He meant by this His fulfilment of the
law. It had been said of old time, in the name of
the law, "Thou shalt not kill"; "Thou shalt not
commit adultery"; "Thou shalt not forswear
thyself" ; " An eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth " ; " Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and
hate thine enemy." All these laws He filled out,
completed, made perfect ; teaching us that the
will of God on all the questions to which they
severally referred was " exceeding broad," ex
tending far beyond the letter of the command, and
far beyond the spirit in which, in time past, men
had interpreted that letter. It is no mere external
act which it is God's will to prohibit. What He
forbids is an evil state of the heart, out of which
proceed the issues of life — a state of the heart
which harbours angry enmity, indulges the lustful
glance, sanctions the thoughtless oath, approves
1 Matt. v. 17.

332 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF T,0-DAY
the recompense of evil, and limits the field of
active benevolence. In all these matters, we are
not to rest content with any observance of the
letter of the Mosaic enactments. They were what
they were, by reason of the low moral condition of
those to whom they were addressed. Much less
are we to be satisfied with conduct which does not
rise above the still lower level to which the
addition of human gloss and comment had de
graded the conception of duty. The standard by
which we are to rule ourselves is the very highest
conceivable, the standard of divine perfection.
In Himself, God is the same yesterday, and to
day, and for ever. With Him is no variation,
neither shadow that is cast by turning.1 He
changes not.2 He remains the same.3 All His
works are known unto Him from the beginning of
the world.4 But man's knowledge of God, of His
will, and of His ways, is not a knowledge acquired
at once. It is a growing knowledge.5 This is the
necessary result of the very conditions of man's
being. Just as each of us is a child before he
1 James i. 17. 2 Mai. iii. 6.
3 Heb. i. 12. 4 Acts xv. 18, A.V.
6 When S. Jude speaks of " the faith once for all delivered
to the saints," he refers to an objective body of fact
intrinsically independent of man's perception of it. What
was in his mind, and in the mind of his readers, was certainly
not the New Testament, which, as we have seen, had no
corporate existence till long afterwards. It was what we
may call the Articles of the primitive Christian Creed. But
we have no right to understand him to imply that our per
ception of the facts embodied in those Articles is to remain
for ever fixed and stationary.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 333
becomes a man, so mankind must pass through
the stage of childhood before it can attain to the
manhood of its powers.
When S. Paul adapted his teaching to the
"Corinthians to their power of receiving it, feeding
them with milk, not with meat, because they were
not yet able to bear it,1 he only acted as the nature
of the case permitted him to act. In the same
way, our Lord's teaching to those who came unto
Him was -conditioned by their capacity to learn.
" With many parables spake He the word unto
them as they were able to hear it."2 And the
apostles themselves, whom He had chosen to be
with Him, were not able to bear, while He was yet
with them, many things which He had to say to
them.3 Even so in those early times while as yet
man's spiritual perceptions were undeveloped, it
was impossible for him to receive those treasures
of spiritual instruction which God in His love and
wisdom was reserving for us upon whom the ends
of the ages are come.4
It is then no arbitrary opinion, it is the legiti
mate deduction from the phenomena presented to
us by the contents of the Bible itself, — nay, it is
the conclusion which some of the sacred writers
themselves draw, — that, as we educate our children,
even so God educated His chosen people in the
days of their childhood. As we accommodate the
instruction which we give them to their un
developed capacity, even so God gave to His
1 1 Cor. iii. 2. 2 Mark iv. 33.
3 John xvi. 12. i 1 Cor- x. ii.

334 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
people such fragmentary and various revelations
of His will, as in the several stages of their growth
they were able to bear.
(3) As man's knowledge grows, his conception of
God changes.
By exercise and use man's powers have grown
in the long course of ages. And with the growing
capacity of the powers by which he is enabled to
perceive knowledge, his knowledge is increased.
His increased knowledge helps him evermore and
more to a juster interpretation of the facts which
meet him on all sides, and to a truer and fuller
understanding of the ways of God. His concep
tions of God grow, and he puts away that which
was characteristic of his earlier being. But the
process of putting away is no violent revolutionary
change. It is a gradual development, a natural
expansion of the same powers with which mankind
has been endowed from the beginning. It is a
progress, an advance, not a metamorphose.1
A little child, watching the stars through his
nursery window, exclaims : " Look at the pin-holes
in the sky letting the sunlight through." The
same child, when he has become a man, writes
with much learning of the elements that compose
the stars. The observer is the same. The objects
observed are the same. The stars on which the
child looked out are the same stars which the man
submits to analysis by the aid of his spectroscope.
Yet different indeed are the same stars to the
infant and to the astronomer. Nevertheless, the
1 " Profectus, non pcrmutatio." — S. Vincent of Lerins.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 335
picturesque language of ignorance described them
as they appeared to the child with perfect truth
fulness. The child naturally thought as a child,
and spake as a child. The man has put away
childish things.
As our general knowledge of God's methods of
operation has grown, a change has naturally come
over our way of thinking and speaking of them.
What aforetime was accounted a fitful withdrawal
of the veil from time to time, we now see to have
been a progressive disclosure of the truth, as men
were able to receive it. And the language in
which we describe this progressive disclosure varies,
as we regard it from different points of view. The
theologian calls it the gradual revelation of God,
while the philosophic historian describes it as the
slow evolution of thought.1
In a sense, indeed, revelation has come to an end.
The teaching of Christ on earth is for mankind
the final declaration of God's will to men. But in
fact God is revealing Himself to us every day. He
is revealing Hirrtself in the bursting in of light
upon the spirit of individual men. He is revealing
Himself in the clearer, larger view which He is
1 See Rev. Edwin HATCH,ContemporaryReview,]une 1889.
" There is nothing in the idea of revelation that excludes
progress, for whatever definition of revelation we may adopt,
it always represents a communication between the divine on
one side and the human on the other. Let us recognise
that the divine element in revelation is immutable, yet the
human element, the recipient, must always be liable to the
accidents and infirmities of human nature." — Max Muller,
Natural Religion, pp. 9, 10.

336 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
pleased to open up to us in the fuller knowledge
which He enables us to win of His ways with
mankind. The more we become acquainted with God's
works in nature, the more apparent on all sides
become the signs of His eternal forethought, the
marks of His universal knowledge and care, and
everlasting love for all that He has made.1
But we must not allow ourselves to think that
this unlimited prevision and provision on the part
of the great Father is in any way inconsistent with
His perpetual abiding consciousness of the way in
which His laws, that cannot be broken, affect His
minutest creatures. Creation is the expression of
the divine thought. And the more we are enabled
to trace that expression, the better are we able to
imagine the measureless scope of the divine
consciousness, and to understand how it is that
without Him not a sparrow falls on the ground,
and that the very hairs of our head are all
numbered. Much no doubt there is which we are loth to
ascribe to the direct fiat of the divine will. But
this is because our view of the great system of
things is so limited. It is not given us to see
clearly what reasons may be hidden in the depths
1 Acts xv. 1 8. On which Bishop Wordsworth com
ments : " God is the Maker of all ; and He, the common
Father of all, knows (i. e. not only foresees, but cares for and
loves, novit, dilcxit, Gen. xviii. 19; Exod. i. 10; ii. 25;
xxxiii. 12, 17 ; Hos. v. 4. and passim) from the beginning,
not only the Jews, but all men ; and not only men, but His
works generally, /. ¦.-. everything that He has made."

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 337
of infinite wisdom and love for much that we find
it hard to reconcile with our imperfect ideas of
fitness. But we see indelibly impressed on the.
great scheme of things, of which we ourselves —
with all our shortcomings — form a part, a stamp
which leaves no doubt that the Framer of that
scheme is wise and good. We know that however
manifold are God's works, in wisdom hath He
made them all.1 And He, Who is Himself the
Truth,2 in Whom are all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge hidden,3 teaches us that there are
good reasons for what we cannot understand ; that
in all that He does, God takes account of all ; that
He sees, as we do not see, the deep relations of
things to one another; that the life is more than
the food, and the body than the raiment ; and
that His children are of much more value than the
birds.4 (4) The several parts of the Old Testament teach
ing must be judged by their fitness for their own
time and work.
The imperfection and incompleteness of the in
struction of the Jewish people in the days of their
childhood does not imply any lack of wisdom or
goodness in the Author of it. As well might you
find fault with the instruction given in the village
school, because it falls short of the scheme adopted
at one of our Universities, as censure the teaching
of the Old Testament, on the ground that it does
not come up to the moral standard of the New.
1 Ps. civ. 24. 2 John xiv. 6.
3 Col. ii. 3. 4 Luke xii. 23, 24.
z

33§ THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
The Old Testament is the record of a progres
sive, ascending series of disclosures of the things
of God, given to men, line upon line, precept upon
precept, — a record embodying the successive
stages of the religious and social progress which
its teaching had helped to produce, and which it
ever tends to produce.
When regarded as a whole, it presents not the
homogeneousness of a single product, but the
combined variety and unity of a continuous
development, — in fact a growth, or life. Its unity
implies not uniformity, but correlation, subordina
tion of its several parts : and the parts, not dupli
cates of each other, but each adapted to its own
place in the series, must be severally judged by
their fitness for their own time and work, their
capacity to direct their own present, and to produce
their immediate and remoter future.1 Moreover, if
we would understand the history aright, we must
regard it as registering the several stages in the
progress from a contemporaneous, and not from a
retrospective point' of view. It is, as it were, a
mirror, in which the events may be seen reflected
as they pass ; or rather, an automatically regis
tered continuous photograph, which reproduces
a continually changing scene for the benefit of
future ages.
When in his mature age a man looks back upon
the teaching which he received as a child, he sees
that, however admirably it may have been adapted
to his childish needs, much of it has long since
1 See M'Ivor, Donnellan Lectures, V,

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 339
ceased to recommend itself to his fuller knowledge.
That this is so is no disparagement of his earliest
instructors. It is the necessary result of the con
ditions of the case. His young powers were in
many respects only rudimentary, and as yet unfit to
receive more than the elements of instruction. But
he has grown since then, and much that was a
necessary part of his early training has long since
become unneedful and obsolete. Even so, when
the cultured Christian of the nineteenth century
reads the Scriptures of the older dispensation, he
meets with much which jars upon him, until he
reflects that those to whom the Law was given, and
those to whom the Prophets spoke, were very dif
ferent men from himself; men who were ever
prompted from within to a gross sensualism, which
is repugnant and loathsome to all his own feelings,
and who passed their lives amid conditions which
it costs him no small effort even to imagine.
It is difficult for the cultured inhabitants of
peaceful England at the close of the nineteenth
century to realize the conditions under which the
Jews of old time passed their lives, or duly to
appreciate how wide is the gulf that separates their
little field of thought from the wide dominion to
which the mind of man has, in the long process of
centuries, at length won entrance by slow and
fitful steps.
It would be as reasonable to apply the code of
the senate to the regulation of the nursery, as to
judge the conduct of the ancient Israelites by the
moral principles which commend themselves to the

340 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
truest men and the foremost thinkers of to-day.
The wise and loving mother judges her young
child as a young child, with due reference to its
capacity and powers. The prudent father judges
his growing son according to his years and maturity.
And both feel that in judging on any other prin
ciple, they would be acting, not only with absurdity,
but with absolute wrong to their offspring.
Can it then be reasonable, can it be just, to
judge men who lived thousands of years ago,
without any reference to the conditions of their
age, and without regard to the ways of thinking,
and the method of acting which naturally grew
out of those conditions ?
What was the environment of these men ?
They lived at a time when man was ruled by
superstition, by ignorance, and by almost savage
barbarity, and when the idea of the brotherhood of
nations was little developed. Those who lived
around them were broken up into little kingdoms,
which were constantly in a state of chronic strife
with each other. Fenced cities were the centres
of their habitation. The only art that was culti
vated was the art of war, and every man was
brought up to war from his childhood. Patriotism
meant the destruction of enemies. Oftentimes
were the highways unoccupied, and the travellers
walked through by-ways.1 There was no peace to
him that went out, nor to him that came in, but
great vexations were upon all the inhabitants of the
countries. And nation was destroyed of nation,
1 Judges v. 6.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 341
and city of city.1 Internecine feud, with all that
belongs to it — the cherishing of hereditary hate,
that denies, to the foe the possession of a single
virtue ; the training that lends to the life of the
soldier all the fascination of the sport of the field ;
the daily familiarity with all the incidents of a
never-ending strife, the ambush, the struggle, the
violent death, — that death that brought no peace,
but only retaliation still more embittered, — this
was the character of the life of those nations by
whom the Israelites were surrounded. And when
we further remember not only that the Israelites
were constantly brought into violent contact with
these nations, but that upon the Israelites was
concentrated the general enmity of them all, as
upon a common foe, we must feel that they would
have been more than human, that they would
have been made of very different stuff from that of
which we ourselves are made, if in their dealings
with them they had shewn themselves to be wholly
superior to vengeful feeling and cruel conduct.
The real truth of the matter seems to be, that
that which strikes us as moral difficulty in the. Old
Testament, arises largely from our being unable
to detach- ourselves from the associations of our
modern European civilization, and of our Christian
faith. If we could transplant ourselves into that
far-off time, and look with Eastern eyes upon that
early training of an old-world people, we should
be better able to enter into the meaning of what
we read, and I believe we should find in it nothing
1 2 Chron. xv. 6. '

342 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
to shock our moral sense, nothing that needed
one word of explanation to bring it into harmony
with the ways of a good and righteous God.
There are critics who in examining the pictures
presented in the Bible, hold a magnifying-glass over
the dark shadows that hang around many painful
scenes of human frailty and of human sin. And
then, turning to the multitude, they declare with
an air of patronizing pity, that, whatever the
uncultivated mind may dream, the only thing
which scientific methods of investigation bring to
view is naught but one grotesque and unsightly
blot. What else, in the name of common-sense,
could it be ? It is as if a man who went to see
the Sistine Madonna, instead of taking his stand
opposite the picture in the angle near the window,
were to climb up a step-ladder, and with his face
against the canvas were to hold a powerful lens
over some half-inch of the painting that forms the
background. Such a man might tell you a great
deal that was both quite true and very interesting
about the varnish, or the character of the pigment,
or the way in which it was laid on. But if he
were to go on, and say to you : "All that you hear
men tell, all that you yourself think you see, of a
charm in that picture which words cannot express,
is non existent, is a mere delusion ; the painting is
in fact a commonplace old portrait of a woman
and a child which any one might produce, and not
a few could easily surpass;" you would regard
such criticism as utterly worthless.
There is such a thing as perspective in literary

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 343
portraiture. And the man who so takes up his
stand that it is impossible for him to perceive it,
will never, for all his minute and careful erudition,
catch anything that even remotely resembles the
true effect of the picture. The multitude will
laugh him to scorn, and tell him, that if he wants
to know what the work is really like, he must
take his stand at a point from which his eye can
see it. Once placed in the right position, he only
needs to open his eyes.
If there be anything in the earlier revelations
themselves, as distinguished from the record of
them — which seems not to harmonize with the
revelation of God which we have in Jesus Christ,
we may rest assured that the seeming discord is
due to our want of understanding, and not to any
essential contradiction between different disclosures
of the divine will.
II. — A crucial case — the extermination of the
Canaanites.
To what has been said it may be objected that
the real question is, not how the drama would have
appeared to us if we had seen it through the
mists of morning, but this rather— Now that we
see it in the full light of day, what are we to say
to its teaching ? If the training of the nursery
be good training, it ought to be able to justify
itself to the judgment of the full-grown man.
It is a fair challenge, and it should be frankly
met. Let us examine, then, that which is, by
common consent, the greatest moral difficulty
presented to us in the Old Testament.

344 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
(i) The moral quality of actions depends upon tlie
moral disposition from which they proceed}
Suppose some one to have taken a man's life,
our natural impulse is at once to condemn the
action as unjust and sinful. But we should be
very wrong to yield to that impulse until we knew
the motive to which the act was due. Suppose
the man who took the life to have acted deliberately
from hatred, or revenge, or jealousy, or avarice,
we pronounce him to be guilty of a very heinous
offence against God and man. We call him a
murderer. Suppose him not to have been prompted
by such evil intention to take life, we say he is
guilty of manslaughter. We condemn his conduct
as wrong. Our condemnation of it may be very
great, almost approaching in some cases that with
which we regard murder itself, or it may be very
slight indeed, amounting at times to little more
than a recognition of the fact that the dividing
line between right and wrong has been transgressed.
Again, no one would' think of charging wrong
doing against the public officers who, in execution
of a legal sentence, violently deprive a fellow-
creature of his life.
1 In what follows here, and in the early part of Chapter
vii., I am largely indebted to the Donnellan Lectures of my
friend Dean Byrne. Not only have I adopted many of his
arguments, but I have sometimes made very free use of the
striking and pointed words in which he sets them forth. It
has suited my purpose often to abridge, often to expand what
he has said. Therefore I have been unable to indicate what
I have taken from him by marks of quotation. But I wish
in the fullest manner to acknowledge my obligation to him.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 345
(a) Since, then, the moral character of an action
depends upon the voluntary disposition from which
it springs, it follows that so long as a man believes
in his conscience that it is his duty to obey God,
no action can be immoral which he does solely
in order to obey God's command ; and the only
way in which God could command an action which
would in the doer of it be immoral, would be by
ordering him to do it from some motive different
from the simple principle of allegiance to Him.
If, for example, He were to command any one
to take the life of his fellow, conveying the command
in such a way that there could be no real doubt
that it was indeed His command, then the act
done in simple obedience to that command would
not be an immoral act. It is a man's plain duty
to obey God ; which is only another way of say
ing that it is right for him to do whatever God
commands him to do.
(b) But suppose a man to receive a command
to give himself up to hatred and revenge and all
kinds of evil passions, then both the murderous
propensity, i.e. the voluntary disposition thereby
engendered, and the act of murder to which it
led, would be immoral. Such a command would
imply an immoral principle in its author, and this
in itself would involve the duty of disobeying it.
The command, being in its essence an evil com
mand, could not come from Him whose glory is
His goodness.1 No amount of evidence could prove
such a command to be of God, and if any such
1 Exod. xxxiii. 19.

346 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
command were to be recorded in the Bible as
coming from Him, it would be necessary to reject
it as a thing incredible, because essentially self-
contradictory. (2) Is the extermination of the Canaanites in
itself inconsistent with the goodness of God?
As we read the story of the destruction of the
Canaanites, there rises up before our minds a
picture which revolts us. " What ! " we feel our
selves prompted to exclaim, " can it be possible
that the God of love could ever have commanded
a cruelty so heartless that I myself — frail and evil
as I am — must turn from it with shrinking and
horror ? " Now it is quite true that in questions
of right and wrong our instinctive impulses are
often our best guides to duty. War is an evil.
To shed human blood is wrong. The passions
that ordinarily impel men to take life are sinful
passions. And if the question were, Could it be
right for me, acting, let us say, as a British officer,
to give way to those passions, and to slaughter
not only my prisoners of war, but their wives and
children as well, — if th:s were the question, our
feelings would supply, without a moment's hesi
tation, the only right answer to it. But this is
not the question. The question is a very different
one. It is this. Does the account of the settle
ment of Canaan which we have in the Bible present
us with a picture of the action of the Almighty
which refuses to harmonize with what we know
to be the general principles of His dealings with
men ?

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 347
There can be no doubt, I think, that the Israel
ites are represented in the Bible as having received
a divine commission to utterly exterminate the
Canaanites. If any immoral principle be involved
in this commission, it must be either in the ex
termination itself, or in procuring it through human
agency. The general instruction given by Moses to the
Israelites as to the treatment of conquered enemies,
was to put the males to the sword, but to take
for a prey to themselves " the women, and the
little ones, and the cattle, and all the spoil." They
were to deal, however, far otherwise with the
inhabitants of Canaan. The contrast is very
marked : —
"But of the cities of these peoples, which the Lord
thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save
alive nothing that breatheth : but thou shalt utterly
destroy (or devote) them ; the Hittite, and the Amorite,
the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the
Jebusite ; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee :
that they teach you not to do after their abominations,
which they have done unto their gods ; so should ye sin
against the Lord your God." 1
The purpose of God in giving this dread com
mission to the Israelites is represented as being
twofold. The object was at once (a) to punish
sin, and (b) to provide for the maintenance in the
world of the knowledge of Jehovah, the One, the
self-existent God.
(a) Before the people passed over Jordan to
go in to possess the nations greater and mightier
1 Deut. xx. 14, 16 — 18.

348 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
than themselves, Moses is represented as charging
them in these words —
" Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the Lord thy
God hath thrust them out from before thee, saying, For
my righteousness the Lord hath brought me in to possess
this land : whereas for the wickedness of these nations
the Lord doth drive them out from before thee." 1
In the Book of Leviticus we have a most revolt
ing picture of the abominable customs which pre
vailed in the land, and immediately following it
the commandment, " Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things : for
in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out from
before you : and the land is defiled : therefore I do visit
the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out
her inhabitants." 2
The hateful wickedness of the old inhabitants
of the land had gone on growing in enormity from
one generation to another, until at length God
issues His commands for their extinction by the
hand of His people Israel.
Now the mere extinction of these peoples, in
itself, does not strike us as being inconsistent with
the divine government of the world. It is no
strange thing to read of the sufferings of men who
become the victims of earthquakes, or flood, of
pestilence, or famine ; and, though there is much
in the occurrence of such calamities to perplex us,
we do not on account of them allow ourselves to
doubt that the laws by which they are brought
about are laws of God. But the destruction of
1 Deut. ix. 4. - Lev. xviii. 24, 25.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 349
these men is not represented as belonging to the
never-ending catalogue of unexplained misfortune.
Their fate was not like that of those who perished
beneath the ruins of the tower that fell in Siloam.1
It was a retributive fate. But neither is there any
thing in the idea of retribution at variance with
what we know of God's ordinary dealings with
men. Men sin every day, and are punished for
their sin by the laws of God in nature and in
providence.2 (b) It is the consistent teaching of the Bible
from the beginning that God separated the Israelites
from among the nations, in order that they might
preserve among men a knowledge of the One true
God. " Ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me from among
all peoples. ... Ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of
priests, and an holy nation."3
We do not sufficiently bear in mind what the
Israelites were when the Law of Moses was given
to them. They were just emerging from the
bondage of Egypt. They were a very stubborn,
froward, capricious generation of men, a nation of
slaves, degraded, debased, so hopelessly given to
idolatry, that they could not endure the short
absence of Moses on Mount Sinai without making
a molten calf to worship it.
1 Luke xiii. 4.
2 "I shall not, I trust," says Gibbon, "be accused of
superstition ; but I must remark that, even in this world, the
natural order of events will sometimes afford the strong
appearances of moral retribution." — Decline and Fall, chap.
lxii. 3 Exod. xix. 5.

350 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
How were men like these to be transformed into
zealous trustees and custodees of the doctrine of
the One true God ? In what way, more in accord
ance with this principle of God's dealings with
men, could He have provided that His chosen
people should fulfil the end for which He had
separated them from among all the peoples of the
earth ? x How could they have been taught a
more impressive lesson of the jealousy of God for
the honour that belongs to Him alone, than by
such a dread and signal visitation of divine venge
ance against the sin of idolatry, and all that that
sin involves ? How could they have been more
effectually armed against their own fatal proneness
to lapse into that sin, than by being made them
selves the instruments to execute the judgment of
God against it ?
I think no one, reading the whole story, can fail
to see in it the Jews passing through just the very
training that was best adapted to fit them to be
come the guardians and keepers of true religion in
the world.
" If we are inclined to think that God dealt
hardly with the people of Canaan in commanding
them to be so utterly destroyed, let us but think
what might have been our fate, and the fate of
every other nation under heaven at this hour, had
the sword of the Israelites done its work more
sparingly. Even as it was, the small portions of
the Canaanites who were left, and the nations
around them, so tempted the Israelites by their
1 I Kings viii. 53.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 35 I
idolatrous practices, that we read continually of the
whole people of God turning away from His serv
ice. But had the heathen lived in the land in
equal numbers, and still more, had they intermarried
largely with the Israelites, how was it possible,
humanly speaking, that any sparks of the light
of God's truth should have survived to the coming
of Christ ? Would not the Israelites have lost
all their peculiar character, and if they had
retained the name of Jehovah as of their national
God, would they not have formed as unworthy
notions of His attributes, and worshipped Him
with a worship as abominable as that which the
Moabites paid to Chemosh, or the Philistines to
Dagon ? So had Abraham been called from out
his native country in vain ; and Israel had in vain
been brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand,
and fed with the bread of heaven in the wilderness ;
the witness to God's truth would have perished ;
and the whole earth would have been sunk in dark
ness ; and if Messiah had come, He would not
have found one single ear prepared to listen to His
doctrine, nor one single heart that longed in secret
for the kingdom of God.
"But this was not to be, and therefore the
nations of Canaan were to be cut off utterly.
The Israelites' sword, in its bloodiest execu
tions, wrought a work of mercy for all the
countries of the earth to the very end of the
world." 1
1 Arnold's Sermons: On the Interpretation of Scripture
1845, pp. 33—35-

352 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
(3) Is the employment of human agents in the work
inconsistent with the goodness of God ?
We see, then, that in the destruction of the
Canaanites when the cup of their iniquity was full,
there is nothing in any way inconsistent with the
principles which seem to underlie the ordinary
action of God's providence. We have next to
inquire whether His bringing about the exter
mination of these nations through human agents
is inconsistent with His goodness.
If it be so, it must be either (a) because it
implies the existence of an immoral principle in
Him, or (b) because it tends to engender evil
principles in them.
(a) The story represents the innocent infants as
involved in the punishment of their guilty parents.
Can it be reconciled with the character of the Judge
of all the earth, Who doeth right, that He should
slay the innocent with the wicked ? This is not
the place to inquire by what theories men have
sought to vindicate the justice of God's government
of the world. I do not suggest that any theory
has been formed which suffices to remove all difficulty
from many thoughtful minds. But I wish to point
out that the difficulty is not peculiar to the destruc
tion of the Canaanites.
In God's world the innocent have suffered, and
do suffer every day, for the sins of the guilty.
What case, unhappily, is there more common than
that of the drunkard, bringing down upon his head
the terrible retribution that so often follows on his
sin, and involves his unoffending wife and children

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 353
in a ruin to which an early death by violence were
unspeakably preferable ? How can any one who
believes that the world, in which these things
occur, is governed by God's laws, logically refuse
to believe it possible that God could have sanc
tioned the solemn obliteration of a group of tribes,
involving the suffering of so many innocent
children along with their guilty parents ?
The case of the drunkard which I have cited, is
sufficiently parallel to shew the futility of the
objection. But if it be thought that we may not
argue from what God does, as matter of fact,
permit from day to day in His government of the
world, to what He may have commanded under
very special circumstances, we have at least one
lesson on this subject of which it is impossible to
mistake the teaching.1 Referring to the man who
had been born blind, and whose blindness the dis
ciples associated in their minds with some sin,
committed either by himself, or by his parents, our
Lord said : " Neither did this man sin, nor his
parents : but that the works of God should be
made manifest in him."2 The suffering of this man
was no penal suffering, yet he was doomed to suffer.
A reason indeed there was for his suffering, a
reason which man could not have discovered ; it
was " that the works of God should be made mani
fest in him." It was consistent with the righteous
government of God that this innocent man should
be made to suffer for this cause. Can we pronounce
1 See Jellett, Moral Difficulties, p. 49.
2 John ix. 3. A A

354 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
it inconsistent with His character, that He should
have doomed a sin-defiled people to be cut off from
the face of the earth ?
(b) We have next to inquire whether this com
mission given by God to the Jews tended to
engender or foster in them any of those evil prin
ciples which commonly urge men to war, and are
in turn intensified by war — rapacity, revenge, and
cruelty. In trying to find the answer to this question, we
must bear in mind the purposes for which it is
declared that the Canaanites were to be destroyed,
and the purposes which the employment of the
Israelites as the agents of destruction had a mani
fest tendency to accomplish. We must remember
that Jehovah, the Lord of heaven and earth, had
chosen the Jews out of all the families of the earth,
to be His peculiar people. He had chosen them
to be the depositories of true religion, that among
them He might evolve the revelation of His will,
and that from them might issue in due time the
promised Seed, fn Whom all- the nations of the
earth were to be blessed. Now I think it is clear
from the history, that the part which was given
them to play as the ministers of this divine judg
ment, served as a useful piece of discipline to fit
them for the performance of that grand and
wonderful role which God in His good providence
had assigned to them. It may seem indeed a
paradox that to be employed as the active instru
ments in the execution of a dreadful doom, should
have any tendency to make men meet to become

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 355
the channels of universal blessing. But what at
first sight appears paradoxical is often found on
close examination to be unquestionable truth.
If we would judge the matter justly, we must
put aside the suggestions of our feelings, and
inquire simply whether, having regard to its natu
ral action on human nature, there is anything in
the command, which, under all the circumstances
of the case, had such a tendency to foster these
evil passions as must force upon us the conviction
that it could not have come from God. We must
be very careful to distinguish between the natural
effects of the command, and any results which may
have conceivably followed in isolated cases from
human abuse and perversion of the command. In
the very constitution of our nature itself God has
imposed upon us many commands which clearly
point at once to the promotion of His glory, and
our own good, and which, nevertheless, we often
abuse and pervert, to His dishonour and our own
ruin. The principle of self-love serves well to
illustrate what I mean.
We have to ask ourselves, then, What is it, in the
command to destroy the nations, which had a
natural tendency to stir up in the Israelites mo
tives and feelings which God does not approve ? Is
it that such a command must have the effect of
cherishing the vice of cruelty ? No doubt the
execution of a criminal condemned by the law
must have a debasing effect upon those who are
charged with the duty of carrying it out. But it is
not on that account any the less right and

356 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
necessary that the guilty be punished. Though
this evil may attend the infliction of the punish
ment, greater evils would follow from its omission.
In the case of the Jews, however, it must be borne
in mind that they were as yet scarcely emerging
from the earliest and rudest periods of a nation's
history. And in the rude infancy of nations, war
is the cradle in which national energies, and the
stronger national virtues, are nursed. It is a phase
of civilization through which every nation must
pass. This is the uniform lesson of history.1 In
the normal progress of a nation's growth, we find
some neighbouring tribe, or tribes, marked out as
the object of hostility, and assailed with furious
and deadly hatred. But to the Jews it was not
the Canaanites, but their idolatry, which was the
object of hostility ; and the same vengeance was
denounced against any city or tribe among them
selves, in which idolatry was to be found.
" If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or
thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend,
which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying,
Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not
known, thou, nor thy fathers ; of the gods of the peoples
which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off
from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the
other end of the earth ; thou shalt not consent unto him,
nor hearken unto him ; neither shall thine eye pity him,
neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him :
but thou shalt surely kill him ; thine hand shall be first
1 When in the year A.D. 1191, King Richard I. butchered
2700 infidels in cold blood in the course of a religious war,
the inhuman deed aroused no feeling of horror in the breast
of either Christian or Muhammcdan.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 357
upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand
of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones,
that he die ; because he hath sought to draw thee away
from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the
land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And all
Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any
such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee." x
The passions of war, then, by being mingled
with the fear of God, and directed against idolatry,
were checked, and mitigated, and elevated, instead
of being fostered; and consequently it cannot be
maintained, that cruelty was either enjoined or
encouraged in the execution of the divine com
mission. Even the perversion of it in this way
was guarded against by the general principles of
humanity inculcated in their law, and by the
special offices of kindness which they were com
manded to exercise towards strangers and enemies.2
Again, it has been objected that revenge was
enjoined against those nations who had injured
them, and the example of Amalek is quoted, con
cerning whom the charge was given : —
" Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way
as ye came forth out of Egypt ; how he met thee by the
way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were feeble
behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary ; and he
feared not God."3
But I think that any candid reader of the whole
story, will perceive that it was not revenge which
was commanded, but a vindication of God's
authority against those who had resisted His will,
1 Deut. xiii. 6 — li. 2 Exod. xxii. 21 — 24.
3 Deut. xxv. 17, 18.

358 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
when manifested among them by signs of super
human interposition. That resistance was exhibited
in the injuries which they inflicted on the children
of Israel, but the quarrel on account of it was
God's ; for the Lord had sworn that the Lord
would have war with Amalek, from generation to
generation.1 It was not therefore private revenge
which the command addressed, but a loyal jealousy
for the sovereignty of Jehovah ; and how little danger
there was that private revenge should be indirectly
stimulated by it, appears from the faltering unwill
ingness with which it was carried into execution.2
As little can it be contended that rapacity was
enjoined or encouraged, when they were com
manded to take possession of the land. It was
not the property of others which they seized. All
title to it had been transferred to them, when the
Lord of the whole earth said to Moses, that He
had established His covenant with them, to give
them the land of Canaan, the land of their
sojournings, wherein they sojourned.3 Nor could
they have regarded it in any other light than as
that which belonged of right to themselves, without
treason against the supreme authority of God. To
have forborne from taking possession of it, would
have been the most flagrant insult to Him, for it
would have proclaimed their belief that in giving
it to them, He had pretended to a right which He
did not possess. While they believed that He had
that right, their desire to take what He had given
was no unlawful lust after the possession of others,
1 Exod. xvii. 16. 2 i Sam. xv. 3 Exod. vi. 4.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 359
but a resolution to enforce their own just rights,
and to uphold the authority of the Creator in
disposing of what He had called into existence.
These were the principles called into play in
their conquests ; and these, therefore, were the
motives which the execution of God's commands
tended to encourage and to strengthen. No doubt,
inferior principles were also addressed. They were
encouraged to obedience by the promise of material
prosperity as a reward, by the possession of great
and goodly cities which they builded not, and vine
yards and olive-trees which they planted not.
They were warned against disobedience by the
denunciation of temporal distress. And they were
incited to the execution of God's judgments by
being reminded of what the idolatrous nations had
done against themselves. But these inferior motives
were tempered by the ever-present, over-ruling
principle of the fear of God, and by it were kept
in due subordination, and guarded against perversion
and excess. That there is nothing immoral in
these principles, when thus kept in subordination,
as aids to virtue, must be admitted by all who
have observed the constitution of our nature.
Material wealth is the object of our natural desire.
Misery is the object of natural fear and aversion.
And unjust and unprovoked injury, the object of
natural resentment. If natural, these principles
must be capable of some legitimate exercise, and
it is evident that, viewed as parts of our constitu
tion, their legitimate function is to contribute to
the great end of our being, virtue, and obedience

3^0 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
to the will of God. The execution, therefore, of
the commission which God gave to the children
of Israel, did not tend to corrupt their nature, or
to develop in them any immoral motive. And, if
the command indicate no immoral principle in its
Author, or in its execution, it must be acquitted of
the charge of immorality altogether.
Our examination has then led to these results.
There is nothing in the destruction of the
Canaanites, whether regarded as an act of divine
retribution, or as ministering to the maintenance
of true religion, which seems at variance from the
normal principles on which God acts.
And the employment of the Israelites as an in
strument for the execution of the divine vengeance,
is quite in harmony with what we read elsewhere
in the Bible, of the methods of divine Providence
in other cases which do not shock our sensibilities
as this does. It tended to foster an extraordinary
reverence for the power of Jehovah, rather than a
delight in war for its own sake ; x and it was more
over in itself an expedient well adapted to lead,
in the natural course of human conduct, to the
shutting out of the chosen people from the over
mastering temptations to idolatry, involved in
associating with the old inhabitants of the land.
Thus we find that an analysis of the transaction
from a contemporary point of view, discloses nothing
which is inconsistent with the righteousness of God.
1 That the martial spirit was not fostered by the nation's
early training is proved by the essentially un warlike character
which is exhibited by the Jews to this day.

CHAPTER V
THE OBJECTION THAT THE BIBLE CANNOT BE
FROM GOD, BECAUSE CRITICISM HAS DE
MOLISHED THE TRADITIONAL ACCOUNT OF
THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF SOME OF
ITS BOOKS
I HAVE had some difficulty in finding a short title
for this chapter. Its object is to shew that there is
no ground for the fear which has taken possession
of many minds, that what is known as the " higher
criticism " has refuted once for all the claims of the
Old Testament to have any other than a human
origin, and has thus seriously shaken the very
foundations of the Christian faith.
In attempting to maintain this thesis, I have no
intention to deprecate criticism. Much less is it
any part of my purpose to challenge, in the char
acter of an expert, the conclusions of expert criti
cism. It has been the part of the Christian from
the beginning to " prove all things," that he may be
the better able to " hold fast that which is good." x
He does not therefore regard inquiry with suspicion.
I cordially adopt the words of Rawlinson : —
1 i Thess. v. 21.
.361

362 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
" Faith, I believe — real and true faith — greatly loses
by the establishment of a wall of partition between the
sacred and the profane, and the subtraction of the
former from the domain of scientific inquiry. As truth
of one kind cannot possibly be contradictory to truth of
another, Christianity has nothing to fear from scientific
investigations ; and any attempt to isolate its facts, and
preserve them from the scrutiny which profane history
receives, must, if successful, diminish the fulness of our
assent to them — the depth and reality of our belief in
their actual occurrence." '
No thoughtful student of the Bible will deny
that we are under large obligations to criticism.
" The views of the ancient world formerly entertained
have been in ten thousand points either modified or
reversed ; a new antiquity has been raised up out of the
old, while much that was unreal in the picture of past
times which men had formed to themselves has dis
appeared, consigned to that ' limbo large and broad '
into which ' all things transitory and vain ' are finally
received ; a fresh revelation has in many cases taken
the place of the old view, which has dissolved before
the wand of the critic ; and a firm and strong fabric has
arisen out of the shattered debris of the fallen systems." 2
Criticism being neither more nor less than the
judgment of those who are able to discern, has
itself improved, and must continue to improve, in
the same natural progression with other things.
I do not in the least share the too general mis
giving as to the result of all reverent inquiry, which
has for its aim the extension of our knowledge of
what the Bible really is. Butler says : —
'' As, it is owned, the whole scheme of Scripture is not
understood ; so, if it ever comes to be understood, before
1 Bampton Lectures, 1 860, pp. 7, 8. 2 Ibid. p. 6.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 363
the restitution of all things, and without miraculous
interpositions, it must be in the same way as natural
knowledge is come at — by the continuance and progress
of learning and of liberty ; and by particular persons
attending to, comparing, and pursuing intimations scat
tered up and down it, which are overlooked and dis
regarded by the generality of the world." 1
As in the past criticism has greatly furthered
the advance of human knowledge, so it will con
tinue to promote it in the future. To many minds
the very name of criticism is a bugbear. But no
one who realizes what it is, what it has done for us,
and what we may expect of it, can entertain any
feeling of jealousy towards it. To be jealous of
criticism is to be jealous of the exercise of the
power which God has given us. Such jealousy not
only betrays a mistrust of the Christian's position,
but its practical effect is opposed to the cause
of faith. For we must remember how easy it
is, as Froude says, " by identifying knowledge
with heresy, to make orthodoxy synonymous with
ignorance."
I. — Questions as to the date and authorship of the
several books belong to the domain of criticism.
The long prevalent belief as to the authorship of
the several books of the Old Testament rests upon
a shadowy Jewish tradition. There is nothing in
the nature of that tradition to exempt it from the
ordeal of critical examination. But it has been
held that the whole question of the authorship of
the Scriptures has been taken out of the field of
1 Analogy, Pt.. II. chap. iii. p. 198.

364 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
discussion by our Lord's citation of passages in the
Old Testament. I cannot take that view.
It is all-important to distinguish between the
question of the divine authority of the Old Testa
ment Scriptures, and the question of their date
and authorship. In an earlier chapter,1 we have
seen how our Lord's whole teaching assumed and
asserted most unmistakably that the Old Testa
ment bears divine witness to Himself. So that,
to the believer in His divinity, this question
is no longer open ; it has been decided once
for all.
The other question, however, as to the date and
authorship of the writings in the Old Testament,
occupies a very different position in relation to our
Lord. On this it can be reverently, and, as some of
our foremost divines think, reasonably contended,
that His taking upon Him our essentially limited
humanity, involves " a voluntary limitation, or sup
pression, within the bounds of human conscious
ness, of the higher attributes of His divine nature." 2
We are fully justified in inquiring in a reverent
spirit how far God has been pleased to make known
to us the conditions under which the Eternal Son
vouchsafed to take upon Him our flesh. He is at
once " perfect God " and "perfect man " ; no abstract
mixture of vague conceptions, but Himself the
very Being of living beings, in Whom is mirrored
to the eyes of men on earth, the glory — -"that is, the
1 See above, p. 124.
2 Bp. MOORHOUSE, The Teaching of Christ, p. 35.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 365
goodness1 — of the invisible and eternal Godhead.
He is full of grace and truth. He is the manifest
ation of the great Father's love, gathering to Him
His wandering children. As He walks among men
in the likeness of man, " perfect man in mind as in
body,"2 His life is a perfect example for men to
follow. But we must never forget that the whole
question of the mysterious union of the Godhead
and the Manhood in the unique personality of our
Lord, is so high that we cannot attain to the full
comprehension of it. And therefore we must not
pretend to dogmatize upon it.
But the record that has come to us tells us how
the divine Man "advanced in wisdom" ; and has
handed down the fact that, upon one subject, high
above the reach of mere human attainment, He
has told us plainly that His knowledge was
limited : —
" Of that day, or that hour, knoweth no one, not even
the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." 3
From this disclaimer it has been assumed, that
all else of knowledge, human or divine, was open
to His view. But is it not more fitting to infer,
that, if His innate deity did not involve His posses
sion of full knowledge of the secret things that
belong unto God, it was little likely to involve His
possession of any human knowledge that might be
unnecessary for the accomplishment of the work
that was given Him to do? If He did not know
1 Exod. xxxiii. 19.
2 S . Athanasius, Contra Arianos, iii. 42.
3 Mark xiii. 32.

366 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
everything by virtue of His divine nature, there is
no ground for the assumption that He did by
virtue of His human nature. Such knowledge as
was needful for His work He must have had. But
we are told that He added to His human know
ledge by the ordinary means, receiving instruction,
as did other Jewish boys, from the doctors — or
teachers — in the Temple.
The question of the limitation of our Lord's
knowledge has received much attention of late.1
But my argument does not call for its determin
ation. For even if we were to assume that, by
virtue of His inherent deity, our Lord's knowledge
was without any limit whatsoever, it does not
follow that it was therefore His will to correct all
the error with which He met. Indeed we know
that this was not His will. He repeatedly refers
to the operations of nature, but never to enlarge
our views of physical science. The rising and the
setting sun, the lilies of the field, the growing grain,
the biological action of yeast, — all these He em
ployed as channels of spiritual instruction. But in
no case did He correct any misconceptions which
existed in men's minds concerning them.
It is argued that our Lord's use of language
which implies that David was the author of the
hundred and tenth Psalm, proves the correctness
1 See Bp. Moorhouse, The Teaching of Christ, London,
1891 ; Canon GORE, Bampton Lectures, London, 1891 ; A
Paper by Dr. PLUMMER in the Expositor for July 1891 ;
and the Rev. W. Shuckburgh Swayne'S hiquiry into the
Nature of our Lord's Knowledge as Man, London, 1891.

ANSWFRS TO OBJECTIONS 367
of the Jewish belief that it was written by him.
To make the argument valid it is necessary to
assume that our Lord would not have used such
language if their belief had been mistaken. Have
we any sufficient reason for making such an
assumption ? If our Lord would not have spoken
words which fell in with a current error in a matter
of history, we should naturally expect that He
would not have spoken words which fell in with an
error in physical science. And yet we know that
He did speak such words ; for He said, our Father
in heaven " maketh His sun to rise." 1 We do not
any longer contend that because He spoke thus,
He therefore gave the sanction of divine omni
science to a geocentric theory of the universe. We
say that He adapted His words to views then in
vogue, which we now know to have been erroneous,
and that He used a popular form of expression, — a
form which is current to this day, although we
admit it to be unscientific. What right have we
then to contend that in using the popular language
of the time, which implies the Davidic authorship
of the psalm, He pronounced any judgment what
ever on the question of its literary history ? 2
1 Matt. v. 45.
2 This is no new theory framed to meet the objections
of modern criticism. In the last century Hey wrote as
follows : — " We have now reason to think that no text, or
scarcely any, was "ever cited or alluded to by our Saviour,
but according to the notions ofthe Jews then present." And
he goes on to say that, His becoming a Jew to Jews by
entering into their favourite mode of persuasion concerning
their Scriptures " gave no authority to any sense of a passage

368 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
In speaking of God's making the sun to rise, it
was not His object to teach astronomy. Why
should we assume that, in speaking of the psalm
as David's, He had any intention of teaching
history ? The object of His reference to the psalm
is to base an argument on its contents, not to give
instruction as to its. authorship. And the force of
the argument remains the same, whether the writer
of the psalm were David or another.
I conclude therefore that — in the words of
Bishop Reichel — we may not " either forbid or
bias investigation into the nature and texture of
the Old Testament by quoting an authority which
has no relevancy to such questions, and was never
meant to touch them." J

of Scripture, because it was not understood to do so."
Lectures, xvii. 19.
1 Quoted by Bp. MOORHOUSE in The Teaching of Christ,
p. 47. Bp. MOORHOUSE says : — " I repeat then, and I
repeat it emphatically, the question of the age or authorship
of any passage in the Old Testament was never either started
by our Lord Himself, or raised hy His opponents. He did
not come into the world to give instruction on such subjects.
He came to reveal the Father, and to deliver men from sin.
Had He therefore turned aside from the true object of His
mission to waste time and dissipate attention upon such
comparatively trivial questions as belong to natural science
or historical criticism — especially had He done so in an age
utterly unprepared to deal with such questions — modern
sceptics might well have urged that He was forgetting the
true vocation of the prophet ; that He was mistaking things
of temporal for things of eternal moment ; and was striving
ineffectually, and therefore unwisely, to rob the human
intellect of the natural and appointed occasions of its
exercise." — Ibid. pp. 42-3.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 369
II. — The conclusions of criticism ought to be
accepted with caution, because
(1) Critics are apt to exaggerate the importance of
their discoveries.
The number of Hebrew scholars sufficiently
familiar with the language to make them competent
judges of questions depending upon subtle lin
guistic distinctions is small, in England very small.
And lacking, as these scholars do, the wholesome,
sobering influence of sufficient rivalry, they would
be more than men if they did not sometimes yield
to the temptation to make more of their discoveries
than fuller knowledge will be found to warrant.
One of the soberest of our modern critics admits
this very frankly. He says : — " Jewish scholars are
often exceedingly clever and learned, but they are
somewhat apt to see things in a false perspec
tive, and to build upon superficial and accidental
appearances extravagant and far-reaching hypo
theses." x
This tendency supplies us with one reason why
we should exercise due caution before accepting
their conclusions. In the second place : —
(2) Negative arguments are easily produced, but
are often worthless.
The results of biblical criticism which can
claim the widest support are mainly negative re
sults.2 Negative arguments are easily produced,
1 Driver, Introd. p. 448, note.
2 I do not forget the positive results which many critics
claim to have established. But for these there is no such
concensus of opinion among them as there is in favour of
their negative conclusions. Few of the many who unite in
B B

370 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
but are often worthless, as Dr. Johnson has pithily
shewn. " It is always easy to be on the negative side.
If a man were now to deny that there is salt upon
the table, you could not reduce him to an absurdity.
Come, let us try this a little further. I deny that
Canada is taken, and I can support my denial by
pretty good arguments. The French are a much
more numerous people than we, and it is not likely
that they would allow us to take it. ' But the
Ministry have assured us, in all the formality of
the Gazette, that it is taken.' Very true. But
the Ministry has put us to an enormous expense
by the war in America, and it is their interest to
persuade us that we have got something for our
money. ' But the fact is confirmed by thousands
of men who were at the taking of it.' Ay, but
these men have still more interest in deceiving us.
They don't want that you should think the French
have beat them, but that they have beat the
French. Now, suppose you should go over and
find that it really is taken, that would only satisfy
yourself; for when you come home, we will not
believe you. We will say you have been bribed.
Yet, sir, notwithstanding all these plausible ob
jections, we have no doubt that Canada is really

resolving the Pentateuch into separate documents, agree
with one another as to the relative dates to be assigned to
these documents.
1 BOSWELL, Life of Johnson, 1763, p. 106. The futility of
such arguments has been admirably set forth in a celebrated
little tractate, entitled Historic Doubts respecting Napoleon

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 37 1
(3) Criticism from internal evidence alone is not
to be trusted.
In trying to resolve any admittedly composite
literary production into its original constituents, it
is impossible to place unquestioning confidence in
the evidence supplied by the document itself, unless
it is supported by further evidence from without.
If we have not some corroboration from outside,
we have no means of assuring ourselves that we
are not following a phantom of our own creation,
which will lead us to a conclusion altogether
contrary to fact.
Speaking of the earlier writings from which the
critics tell us the Pentateuch was composed, and
of the men who were said to have woven out of
them a combined narrative, Professor Green says : — •
" There is no evidence of the existence of these
documents and redactors, and no pretence of any,
apart from the critical tests which have determined
the analysis. All tradition and all historical testi
mony as to the origin pf the Pentateuch are against
them. The burden of proof lies wholly upon the
critics. And this proof should be clear and con
vincing in proportion to the gravity and the revolu
tionary character of the consequences which it is
proposed to base upon it." 1

Buonaparte, by Archbishop Whately. He shews that even
the history of a man on whom the eyes of the whole world
were fixed, almost in our own times, can be made to appear
full of inconsistencies and absurdities similar to those cited
from Scripture to prove it to be unhistoric.
1 Moses and his Recent Critics, pp. 104, 10J.

372 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Bishop Blomfield illustrates this argument as
follows —
" The Prayer-Book of the Church of England is
known to be a very composite work. In this case
we have ample materials for forming conclusions
which may be trusted as to the origin and date of
its various parts. We have ancient liturgies and
mediaeval service-books ; we have the first and the
second Books of Edward VI.; the revisions of 1604
and 1 661; changes introduced even in our own life
time. We have, besides, a mass of contemporary
and illustrative documents : Acts of Parliament,
proceedings of Convocations and Conferences, pri
vate letters or biographies. A few points may
still remain obscure ; but a careful writer, with less
labour than Dr. Driver has bestowed on the Old
Testament, may produce from the materials at his
disposal an account of the Prayer-Book which may
be proved to be historically true in almost every
detail. But imagine the Prayer-Book to stand, as
the Old Testament stands, bare and naked of every
thing outside itself which could account for its
origin, and indicate the different sources from
which it has been compiled. In such a case is it
probable, is it even conceivable, that critics, work
ing on ' internal evidence ' alone, analysing, dis
secting, comparing, and contrasting, conjecturing
the ' stand-point ' of the authors of particular por
tions, or the ' atmosphere ' by which they are sup
posed to have been surrounded, would come within
measurable distance of what we know to be the
actual facts ? Is it not morally certain that, as

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 373
regards dates, they would often be wrong by many
centuries, and, as regards authorship, would be able
to imagine nothing better than a long series of the
' Great Unknown ' ? What ' critical tact ' would
enable them to discover that, while the Ten Com
mandments are by far the most ancient portion of
Scripture embodied in the Liturgy, they are not to
be found as part of any form of the Communion
- Office earlier than the reign of Edward VI. ? Or
that, while the Collect for the Second Sunday after
Epiphany may be found entire in the Sacramentary
of Pope Gregory the Great, who died in the first
decade of the seventh century, that for the Sixth
Sunday is wholly a composition of our own revisers
in the second half of the seventeenth century ?
And is it not certain that any tradition as to the
origin of the Prayer-Book, not obviously absurd
and improbable, would be universally held sufficient
to outweigh all the cobwebs which the critics might
spin out of their own brains I"1
(4) Unless criticism adopts right methods, it must
fail to reach the truth.
Before we adopt the results of criticism we
must be satisfied that it conducts its research on
right methods. On this subject Bishop Lightfoot
has spoken with his usual force.
" There is (he says) at least a presumption
(though in individual cases it may prove false on
examination) that the historical sense of seventeen
or eighteen centuries is larger and truer than the
1 The Old Testament and the New Criticism, pp.
117— 119.

374 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
critical insight of one late halfrcentury. The idols
of our cave never present themselves in a more
alluring form than when they appear as 'the spirit
of the age.' It is comparatively easy to resist the
fallacies of past times, but it is most difficult to
escape the infection of the intellectual atmosphere
in which we live.
" I ask myself, for instance, whether one who lived
in the age of the Rabbis would have been altogether
right in resigning himself to the immediate current
of intellectual thought, because he saw, or seemed
to see, that it was setting strongly in one direction.
. . . The comparison is not without its use. Here
were men eminently learned, painstaking, minute,
eminently ingenious also, and in a certain sense
eminently critical. In accumulating and assorting
facts — such facts as lay within their reach — and in
the general thoroughness of their work, the Rabbis
of Jewish exegesis might well bear comparison with
the Rabbis of neologian criticism. They reigned
supreme in their own circles for a time ; their work
has not been without its fruits ; many useful sug
gestions have gone to swell the intellectual and
moral inheritance of later years ; but their charac
teristic teaching, which they themselves would have
regarded as their chief claim to immortality, has
long since been consigned to oblivion. It might
be minute and searching, but it was conceived
in a false vein ; it was essentially unhistorical,
and therefore it could not live. The modern
negative school of criticism seems to me equally
perverse and unreal, though in a different way ;

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 375
and therefore I anticipate for it the same
fate." 1
Scarcely two men probably could be found to
agree how far the critics have made good their
position. Some will minimize the results of their
labour, contending that they have established little
that has not been accepted by all who know what
students have said from the beginning ; others will
feel bound to accept the conclusions which are
most at variance with all that they have been
accustomed to hold ; while a third party will take
a middle view, feeling that the critics have shed
new light indeed upon the history of the Bible, but
that they sometimes deceive themselves as to what
that light reveals.
In the present state of the question the number of
opinions held as to what has been proved is almost
as many as the number of independent investigators.
This being so, it does not lie with me to try to
determine whether the first five books in the Bible
form one continuous history written in its present
form, by the hand of the great man whose name has
always been so intimately associated with them ;
or whether they were compiled long after his death
from records composed by intermediate writers at
different dates; or to what author, or authors, we
are indebted for the precious heritage of the Psalms ;
or whether the whole of the book which has come
down to us under the name of Isaiah is the work of
the great prophet of Hezekiah's reign.
1 Essays on the Work entitled Supernatural Religion,
pp. 23, 24.

376 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
These questions — and others like them — left, as
they are, undecided by history, criticism is now try
ing to clear up. But we must not be impatient.
Biblical criticism is still in its infancy. The
whole field of research in language and literature,
in archseology and history, must be indefatigably
cultivated. Treasures must be dug from many
mines hitherto unwrought. Scholars must devote
their lives to the most careful study of tongues
which are only now beginning to attract attention,
and to the assiduous examination of MSS. till now
neglected. More monuments of the past must be
brought to light. And when all this shall have
been done, the varied data resulting from this pro
tracted labour must be arranged and classified. It
is needless to say that this is a herculean task
which cannot be finished in a day.
It is the long work of laborious, unremitting
industry, and years, nay, generations must pass
before biblical criticism shall have said its last
word. Whatever that last word may be, it will be
accepted by general consent as resting, not upon
the testimony of an adversary, but upon the testi
mony of the Bible itself. It will be recognised as
the Bible's own teaching about itself. It will have
taught us not that the Bible is different from what
it claims to be', but that it is different from what
we in our error supposed it to be. We shall have
found out our error, and we shall be thankful for
the discovery.
Panic is a bad nurse for reason. And in his
alarm the simple-hearted Christian is apt to assume

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 377
that the teachings of criticism involve results which
by no means follow from them. If those teachings
be correct, then it follows indeed that something of
what we have believed about the Bible is not true.
But it does not at all follow that in what we have
believed there is nothing true.
The real question is, whether that part of
our belief about the Bible of which criticism
may rob us, is in truth a part of the Christian
faith. III. — The assumption, that the conclusions of sober
criticism must be accepted, does not involve our
disbelief in the divine authority of the Bible.
If we were to assume it to have been proved
that the Pentateuch did not come from the hand of
Moses in the form in which it stands in our Bibles ;
that it is a compilation from several lost documents
of various dates " pieced together, and modified
in the piecing, by a number of different editors " ;
these assumptions would not involve our disbelief
in the divine authority of the Bible.
(1) The Bible still remains a trustworthy record
of the main events of history.
The acceptance of these conclusions must of
necessity seriously affect the traditional view of
the Pentateuch, according to which we have in it
the direct witness of a contemporary writer. If
the Pentateuch be not an historical record at first
hand, as we have supposed it to be, it is no longer
an authority of the first order on particular minute
points of subsidiary importance. But it by no

378 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
means follows that it has ceased to be a trust
worthy record of the main events of history.
Now it is important to observe, that what is
primarily affected by these conclusions is the form
in which we possess the biblical narrative, and not
necessarily the credibility of its theme.
As a matter of fact we have, independently of
the Pentateuch, unchallenged testimony to shew
that from the beginning of its nationhood, the
Jewish people always regarded themselves as the
subjects of a theocratic system of government,
obedient to a law which they invariably traced
back to Moses, and familiar with the incidents of
history which the Pentateuch records.
All the national traditions of the Jews refer the
law to Moses as its author. It is true, however,
that when we come to examine those traditions,
we find it impossible to trace them, outside the
Bible itself, to any date which serves to throw
much light upon the subject of our inquiry; and,
moreover, we find further that they contain such
an inextricable admixture of what is plainly false,
that it is impossible to rely upon them. They
point indeed unmistakably to the existence of a
national belief that it was Moses who gave the
Law. Beyond this their testimony must be set
aside as altogether untrustworthy.
But we find scattered up and down in other
books of the Bible, whose historic character is not
impugned, an abundance of incidental allusion
which affords most important evidence to the
antiquity of the Law,

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 379
It is admitted by the most advanced criticism
that the Book of Amos was written not later than
the eighth century B.C. It furnishes abundantly
incidental evidence to shew that the popular mind
was then possessed by just such conceptions of
God, and just such a view of their own past
history, as we find set forth in the Pentateuch.
Jehovah was no mere tribal divinity; He was
the Creator of the Universe.
" Seek Him that maketh the Pleiades and Orion, and
turneth the shadow of death into the morriing, and
maketh the day dark with night : that calleth for the
waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face
of the earth : the Lord is His Name : that bringeth
sudden destruction upon the strong, so that destruction
cometh upon the fortress." '
" Lo, He That formeth the mountains, and createth
the wind, and declareth unto man what is His thought,
That maketh the morning darkness, and treadeth upon
the high places of the earth ; the Lord, the God of
Hosts, is His name."2
He made known His will to men.
"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He
revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets.
The lion hath roared, who will not fear? The Lord
God hath spoken, who can but prophesy ? " 3
The Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness
were historical facts to them.
" Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of
Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians
from Kir,?"4
1 Amos v. 8, 9. 3 Amos iv. 13.
3 Amos iii. 7, 8, 4 Amos ix. 7.

380 THF BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
" I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and led
you forty years in the wilderness, to possess the land of
the Amorite. And I raised up of your sons for prophets,
and of your young men for Nazarites. Is it not even
thus, O ye children of Israel? saith the Lord." 1
The overthrow of the cities of the plain was to
them a familiar incident.
" I have overthrown some among you, as when God
overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah." 2
They were a chosen people.
" You only have I known of all the families of the
earth." 3
They had been given the Law of the Lord, and
their fathers had walked after His statutes.
" They have rejected the Law of the Lord, and have
not kept His statutes .... after the which their fathers
did walk." 4
The " Former Prophets '' also take for granted
that the people are familiar, not only with legal
enactments, but also with historical events, which
we find recorded in the Pentateuch.
When " Samuel called the people together unto
the Lord to Mizpah," before Saul was made king,
he rehearsed to them, in considerable detail, all the
righteous acts of the Lord which He had done to
them and their fathers from the days of Jacob to
his own time.
"When Jacob was come into Egypt, and your fathers
cried unto the Lord, then the Lord sent Moses and
Aaron, which brought forth your fathers out of Egypt,
1 Amos ii. io, n. 2 Amos iv. ii.
3 Amos iii. 2. 4 Amos ii. 4.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 38 1
and made them dwell in this place. But they forgat the
Lord their God, and He sold them into the hand of
Sisera, captain ofthe host of Hazor, and into the hand
of the Philistines, and into the hand of the king of
Moab, and they fought against them." 1
The historian of Solomon's reign refers to the
king's multiplication of wives and concubines as a
transgression of such a divine commandment as
we have recorded in the Book of Exodus.2
In the Second Book of Kings 3 we read : —
" Unto this day they do after the former manners :
they fear not the Lord, neither do they after their
statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law, or
after the commandment which the Lord commanded
the children of Jacob, whom He named Israel ; with
whom the Lord had made a covenant, and charged
them, saying, Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow
yourselves to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to
them : but the Lord, Who brought you up out of the
land of Egypt with great power and with a stretched
out arm, Him shall ye fear, and unto Him shall ye bow
yourselves, and to Him shall ye sacrifice. And the
statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the com-
1 1 Sam. xii. 8, 9. This quotation comes from a portion
of the book which criticism assigns to the later of the two
independent narratives into which it divides the book. " The
later narrative," Driver says (Introd. p. 167), "has been usually
regarded as Deuteronomic ; but the Deuteronomic style is
by no means so pronounced as in the case of the framework
of Judges and Kings." He also says (p. 166) : " It is not, of
course, necessary to suppose that this narrative is destitute
of historical foundation." The passage quoted was, accord
ing to the same authority, " in all probability " earlier than
its latest passages, which, he says, "will hardly be later
than c. 700 B.C."
2 1 Kings xi. 2 ; cf. Exodus xxxiv. 16.
3 2 Kings xvii. 24, sq.

382 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
mandment, which He wrote for you, ye shall observe to
do for evermore."
Again, in the same book, we have an account
of the revolt of Edom from under the hand of
Judah in the days of Joram.1 This revolt took
place early in the ninth century B.C. The writer
of the account, whatsoever the date of his writing
it, wrote from the contemporary records which
were before him. He refers to them for further
particulars concerning the events of the reign in
which it took place. Now it is material to note,
that the writer adds to what he has drawn from
the public records the following statement of his
own — " So Edom revolted from under the hand of
Judah, unto this day." This clearly implies that
the kingdom of Judah was still standing when it
was written ; in other words, that it must have been
written before the Captivity.
Here we have indirect, incidental, undesigned
evidence, that there existed an unbroken tradition,
coming down from generation to generation, which
regarded the main facts recorded in the Pentateuch
as being real facts in the history of the nation.
And we have here also independent proof that
the Law itself was no invention of a late age.
Whether written in the form in which we have it,
or not so written, "the Law which Moses com
manded " was none the less " a heritage unto the
assemblies of Jacob." 2
It is, however, unnecessary to elaborate this argu
ment by further reference. For the most advanced
1 2 Kings viii. 20. 2 Ecclus. xxiv. 23.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 383
critics admit that the cherished law of the Jewish
nation goes back to Moses as its founder. Even
Wellhausen says : —
" If Moses did anything at all, he certainly founded
the Sanctuary of Kadesh, and the Torah there, which
the priests of the ark carried on after him." J
Of this Torah, Montefiore expressly acknowledges
the Mosaic origin.
¦" No other institution makes an impression of being
so purely Israelite as the priesthood and its Torah. It
is with good reason that they are referred back to Moses
as their founder." 2
(2) And an efficient channel of religious instruction.
Our acceptance of the teaching of the Bible as
coming to us on the authority of God, in no way
depends on our being able to say who the several
writers were who penned its different books, or in
what particular manner they received what they
have handed down to us.
Whether the subject-matter of their teaching was
communicated to them by direct revelation from
God, or was derived from oral tradition, or earlier
written documents, or contemporary testimony, or
1 History of Israel, p. 397. The Hebrew word Torah is
not strictly synonymous with the English word Law. '' It
originally meant ' instruction ' or ' direction.' It was synonym
ous with the Word of Jehovah (Isa. ii. 3), and included all
Divine revelations as the guide of life. It was only by
degrees that the word came to be narrowed and petrified,
so as to suggest the idea of restriction of liberty rather
than direction of conduct."— KlRKPATRlCK, The Divine
Library, p. 6.
2 Hibbert Lectures, p. 71.

384 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
personal observation ; under what special circum
stances, or at what particular date the several books
were written ; whether they were original com
positions, or narratives compiled from earlier re
cords ; whether the form in which they have come
down to us be that in which they were first pro
duced, or whether that which we have be only a
later edition ; 1 — none of these questions affect their
divine authority, if we have reason to believe — as
we have reason to believe — that the Bible, taken as
a whole, is such that it could not have been produced
by man.
" It is quite superfluous to inquire who the writers
of these books were, if we truly believe that the
Holy Spirit was their author. He Himself wrote
them, at Whose dictation they were written. . . .
If we were to take up the letter of some great man,
and as we read its words were to inquire by what
pen it was written, it would indeed be absurd,
knowing the author of the letter, and understanding
its meaning, to try to trace out what kind of pen
was used in writing it. When, then, we understand
the lesson, and hold the Holy Spirit to be the
1 Speaking of the Priest-scribe's work in making a " com
bination ofthe priestly Law with Deuteronomy and the older
sacred history of the Patriarchal and Mosaic ages," Monte-
fiore says : — " In this last redaction, the priestly code — itself
half-narrative, half-legal — was used as basis, so that but little
of it was probably lost. And although some of the older
narratives had to be shortened or omitted, inasmuch as the
same events could not as a rule be related twice, it is pro
bable that we still possess the larger portion of the earlier
documents." — Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures, p. 403.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 385
teacher of that lesson, if we inquire who the writer
was, what else are we doing but inquiring about the
pen as we read the letter ? " l
When, taking a retrospective view of the Old
Testament Scriptures, we try to present to our
selves the process by which they became what
they now are, we soon find ourselves wrapped in
the mists of speculation. Criticism does not pre
tend to produce anything more than hypotheses,
which it is honestly anxious should not be mistaken
for dogmata,2 and there is nothing in such con
clusions as we have assumed it to have established
to rob us of the old conception of the Bible as
"the Divine Library."
We have to do with the book as we find it.
Good reasons, — in the opinion of thoughtful men
who have taken the trouble to weigh them, con
clusive reasons, — have been adduced to shew that
the history of the composition of the book is not
what on the" faith of late Jewish tradition it has
been represented to be. But the Bible as it is —
being what it is — whether we are able to ascertain
the literary history of its production or not, conveys
to us a unique announcement of God's will, the
practical importance of which it is altogether
impossible to exaggerate.
Nothing that has been assumed as the result of
1 GREGORY, In Praf. Moral, in Job ii.
2 "Following M. Renan in the preface to his Histoire
cTIsrael, I would say, Be pleased to think that a legion of
'possiblys' and 'probablys' is scattered over the pages of
my book." — MONTEFIORE, Hibbert Lectures, Pra?f. ix.
c c

386 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
criticism invalidates the evidence on which the
argument for the divineness of the Bible is based.
Let us recall the principal heads of that evidence.
(a) The Church attests the divine authority of the
Bible. The witness of the Church does not hinge upon
any literary theory as to its production.
(b) Direct claims to divine authority are found in
the Bible itself.
These claims are not at all peculiar to those
portions of Scripture which, as we have them, are
pronounced by criticism to be the outcome of
repeated revision. The claims are no less
characteristic of those books whose authenticity is
not called in question.
(c) Examination of the subject-matter of the Bible
confirms its claims to be from God.
This subject-matter remains in itself unchanged,
however criticism may account for the form that
embodies it.
(d) The message announced by the Bible has its
witness in itself.
The message finds its focus in the teaching of
our Lord, which is not touched by any Jewish
misconceptions as to the history of the text of the
Old Testament.
(e) The teaching of the Bible has borne divine
fruits. Its power over men cannot be in any way traced
to their belief that in it we have a first-hand account
of the Mosaic institutions.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 387
In truth, it is to us a matter of very little practical
importance that we should be able to give a strictly
historical account from the childhood of the world
onwards, of the means employed in God's provi
dence for the continuous development of man's
knowledge of Him.
After we have grown up to manhood it is
interesting to look back on our childish days, and
to trace the various stages of personal history from
the first onwards. Looking back, we reach a point
beyond which the consciousness of memory will not
carry us. From other sources we may or we may
not be able to obtain information. Suppose that
we have none. How does this affect our present
or our future ? It is indeed essential to the right
development ofthe full-grown man that his training
should have begun while he was still in his mother's
arms. But after we have once come to years of
discretion, it is in no way necessary, either for our
present satisfaction or for our future good, that we
should be able to reproduce all the lessons of the
nursery in such a form as would make them
admissible in evidence before a court of justice.
May we not be justified in regarding the very
uncertainty itself, which necessarily attaches to the
history of the production of the Bible, as a
providential means of correcting our proneness to
become slaves of the letter ?
Ours is no fetich-worship. We worship God
Who is a Spirit. In spirit and in truth we humbly
worship Him, lifting up our hearts in gratitude and
praise that He hath shewn forth His mercy and

388 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
lovingkindness to all generations. We praise Him
further that we have in the Bible a record of
His dealings with mankind. Our hearts sing to
Him with the sons of Korah —
" We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have
told us,
What work Thou didst in their days, in the days of
old." 1
We love the holy book, indeed, which tells us what
God has done. But it is in the Lord God Omni
potent Himself, Who alone doeth wondrous things,
and not at all in the book that records them, that
we put our trust.
There is no doubt that one effect of criticism up
till now has been to correct, and that it will be still
further to correct, our view of what the Bible is.
Criticism will not — cannot — change the Bible, and
make the book in itself different in the future from
what it has been in the past. The change is not in
the book, but in our knowledge of the book. We
shall come to look at it from a new point of view.
What we shall see will, I believe, be much less
altered than many expect it to be. But however
this may be, I feel confident that the ultimate
practical effect of the change will be wholly for good.
Indeed, to think otherwise would be to give way to
the unworthy fear that what we have so long
treasured as divine might not bear to be examined
in the light of day.
Suppose the Pentateuch to have been wholly lost,
we should have lost along with it a detailed history
' Ps. xliv. i.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 389
of surpassing interest, telling us how God, in a
thousand ways, nursed and trained His people ; how
He that breaks not the bruised reed, nor quenches
the smoking flax, bore with them, and suffered their
manners. All this we should have lost, and in the
loss the world would have had torn from its great
religious lesson-book an elementary chapter of the
greatest practical value in the instruction of the
young and the ignorant — a great but not a fatal
loss. But the Pentateuch is not lost. For whether
we have it direct from the pen of Moses, or through
a series of editions by other holy men, whose very
names have been forgotten, is a matter of com
paratively little moment. It sufficed for the human
needs of the Man Christ Jesus. Shall it not suffice
for ours ? If He found its words meet to be used in
the hours of His great human temptation, and of
His great human agony, must we account its virtue
fled because our eyes have been opened to a delusion
under which in our ignorance we have been
labouring ?
God is the God of truth. And the religion which
binds us to Him is a religion of truth. No lie is of
the truth.1 Whatever the Christian Faith requires
us to hold must be true. And if any theory as to
the nature of the Bible which is not true be pro
pounded to us, it is quite certain that the Christian
Faith puts us under no obligation to accept it.
Belief in the divine authority of Holy Scripture
is no structure reared by the hands of men on
some foundation of shifting sand. It is a house
1 1 John ii. 21.

390 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
built upon a rock. The wind and rain and storm
of critical assault have beaten upon it, and will
continue to beat upon it. As a result, the spurious
accretions of ages will be swept away. But the
building itself will emerge from the deluge in
all the beauty of its divine proportions, standing
forth firm, secure, enduring. It cannot fail, for it
is founded on the solid rock of eternal truth.

CHAPTER VI
THE OBJECTION THAT THE BIBLE CANNOT BE
FROM GOD, BECAUSE THE ADMITTED PRE
SENCE OF ERROR IN IT IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE CLAIMS TO DIVINE AUTHORITY
WHICH ARE FOUND IN IT.
I. — Immunity from all possibility of error is not
claimed for the sacred writers.
The arguments in support of this objection are
founded mainly upon our Lord's sanction of the
Old Testament, and the application to it of the
terms " Word of God " and " Inspired of God."
(i) Our Lord's Sanction of the Old Testament
does not imply it.
The character of the sanction given by our Lord
and His apostles to the Old Testament Scriptures
has been very generally misunderstood. It has
been commonly assumed that, when they refer to
the Scriptures, they had in view the Massoretic
text, and that to that text they have set their seal,
authoritatively stamping it as a body of writing
which is absolutely free from all trace of human
imperfection. 39i

392 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
The facts of the case, however, by no means
establish such a conclusion. To the Palestinian
]ew of our Lord's time, the old Hebrew, in which
the Scriptures were written, was a dead language.
And it has been a subject of controversy among
the learned, whether he was even in the habit
of hearing them read in the synagogue in that
language. But, however it may have been in
Palestine itself, it is an unquestionable fact that the
Jews of the Dispersion knew the Scriptures only in
the LXX. version, which had been the means of
spreading abroad in all lands, such knowledge of
the predictions of the Old Testament as led to the
establishment of that general expectation of the
Messiah to which Tacitus and Suetonius bear
witness. Our Lord has clearly given the sanction of His
authority, as we have already seen,1 to the belief
that the whole body of the Old Testament is from
God. But we must not strain that sanction to
make it include what, if it were not for his bondage
to a theory, no man would ever dream of sup
posing it to include. And the fallacy of arguing
that our Lord's recognition of the Old Testament
Scriptures proves their freedom from aught of
faultiness or error, has long been apparent to
thoughtful men.
" Undoubtedly our Saviour assumes the divine
origin of the Mosaic institution. . . . Undoubt
edly, also, our Saviour recognises the prophetic
character of many of their ancient writers. So
1 Sec above, pp. 123-7.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 393
far, therefore, we are bound as Christians to go.
But to make Christianity answerable with its life
for the circumstantial truth of each separate passage
of the Old Testament, the genuineness of every
book, the information, fidelity, and judgment of
every writer on it, is to bring, I will not say great,
but unnecessary difficulties into the whole system.
These books were universally read and received by
the Jews of our Saviour's time. He and His
apostles, in common with all other Jews, referred
to them, alluded to them, used them. Yet, except
where He expressly ascribes a divine authority to
particular predictions, I do not know that we can
strictly draw any conclusion from the books being
so used and applied, beside the proof, which it
unquestionably is, of their notoriety and reception
at that time. ... I mean that a reference in the
New Testament to a passage in the Old, does not
so fix its authority as to exclude all inquiry into
its credibility, or into the separate reasons upon
which that credibility is founded ; and that it is
an unwarrantable, as well as unsafe rule, to lay
down concerning the Jewish history what was
never laid down concerning any other, that either
every particular of it must be true or the whole
false. . . . Some objections of this class (i. e. of
attacking Christianity through the sides of Juda
ism) are founded in misconstruction, some in
exaggeration ; but all proceed upon a supposi
tion which has not been made out by argu
ment, viz. that the attestation, which the Author
and first teachers of Christianity gave to the divine

394 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
mission of Moses and the Prophets, extends to
every point and portion of the Jewish history ; and
so extends as to make Christianity responsible
in its own credibility for the circumstantial truth
(I had almost said for the critical exactness) of
every narrative contained in the Old Testament." x
(2) Nor does the use of the term, " the Word of
God." But omitting all consideration of our Lord's
general sanction of the Old Testament as bearing
a divine message, men have adopted the term
" Word of God " as a synonym for the Bible, in a
sense which implies that, not merely its spiritual
teaching, but its very literary form, proceeds from
the mouth of God, and therefore that every jot and
tittle comes to us with divine authority as infal
lible. It is well to ask ourselves what ground we
have for calling the Bible the " Word of God " ?
It is clear that whatever meaning the Old Testa
ment writers attached to the expression, they did
not apply the term to their Scriptures as a body ;
for the Jewish Canon was not closed until a long
time after the last book of the Old Testament was
written. We cannot therefore look to the Old
Testament for any light upon the subject of our
inquiry. What is to be learned from the New
Testament writers ? When they wrote, if there
was still some lingering doubt as to the canonicity
of certain books, there was at least no question as
to the existence of a recognised body of Holy
Scripture. Do they apply the expression " the
1 Paley, Evidences, Part III. c'. iii.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 395
Word of God " to that body of Scripture in such a
way as to stamp upon it the character of fault-
lessness ?
If any one will, with the aid of Bruder's Concord
ance, look out the passages in which the expression
"Word of God" (Ao'yos ©eoC) occurs in the New
Testament, he will find that they number thirty-
nine in all ; that it is used twenty-six times to
signify the Gospel message ; six times of our Lord
Himself; four times in a sense which may be
interpreted either of the Message, or of our Lord ;
and three times only of the Old Testament Scrip
tures.1 Some of the passages may be so interpreted
as to vary these numbers slightly ; but few, I
believe, will think that the term " Word of God " is
used undoubtedly of the Jewish Scriptures more
than three times. It is never once applied to the
whole Bible, as is so often assumed ; for the New
Testament had as yet no collective existence.
Even the case in which the term " Word of
God " seems most clearly to have been applied by
our Lord to the Old Testament Scriptures, lends
no support to the objection under consideration.
Our Lord is answering the question of the Pharisees
and Scribes who had come from Jerusalem, " Why
walk not Thy disciples according to the tradition of
the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands ? "
In meeting this objection He contrasts " the com
mandment of God " with " the tradition of men."
1 Mark yii. 13 ; John x. 35 ; 1 Tim. iv. 5. The expression
prjpa Beov also occurs five times, viz. Luke iii. 2 ; Eph. vi. 17 ;
Heb. vi. 5 ; xi. 3.

396 . THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
" Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the
tradition of men. . . . Full well do ye reject the com
mandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition.
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother . . .
but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother,
That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me
is Corban, that is to say, given to God ; ye no longer
suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother ;
making void the word of God by your tradition, which
ye have delivered." J
Our Lord clearly identifies the " Word of God "
with the " commandment of God," which the Phari
sees and Scribes left and rejected, by delivering
traditions which furnished the selfish with a pretext
for neglecting the filial duty enjoined in the divine
commandment spoken by Moses. As elsewhere,
He most clearly teaches us to believe that the com
mandments of Moses conveyed to men a declara
tion of the will of God. But He does not insist on
the paramount value of the form in which the
declaration was made. He does not dwell on the
language in which it was conveyed. What He
censures is their nullification of the whole principle
which these commandments inculcated. From His
censure we may infer that the Jews had God's
commandment before them in some way which
was righteously binding upon them. But as to the
character of the Old Testament taken as a whole,
His words teach us nothing.
The use of the expression " Word of God " in
the New Testament, whether by our Lord, or by
writers of any of its books, lends no countenance
1 Mark vii. I — 13.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 397
to the theory that every statement which we find
written in the Old Testament is to be regarded as
being a statement of fact on divine authority.
If we regard the Bible as being a collection of
books, as a literature which gives us a record of the
successive revelations which God has made to man
kind — if we take this wider view, which sees, as
the docile student of Holy Scripture must ever see,
God's hand in all that passes, alike in the world
outside the writers, and in the world within them,
alike in the events which they narrate, and in the
movements of their own thoughts and feelings-
then we may naturally speak of the Bible as being
throughout, in every part of it, if not the only
" Word of God," yet certainly the most important
" Word of God " presented by any literature in the
world. But we must be careful to avoid the fallacy that
lies in first applying the title "Word of God" to
the Bible, in the sense in which it may be truly
applied to it, and then arguing from that title in a
sense in which it is not at all applicable.
(3) Nor the expression, " Inspired of God"
" As it is a fault of incredulity to doubt of those
things that are evident ; so to determine of such
things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the
judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no
less than presumption." x
It is sometimes contended that in applying to
the Scriptures the term " inspired of God," S. Paul
teaches that the Bible is faultless.
1 A.V. : Translators to the Reader.

398 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
The expression is used in a letter which S. Paul
wrote to S. Timothy, " the son of a Jewess which
believed ; but his father was a Greek." x Begin
ning his letter with a reference to his own service
of God from his forefathers in a pure conscience, he
proceeds with characteristic tact to make mention
of S. Timothy's parentage as well. Having been
reminded of the unfeigned faith that was in his
beloved child, he calls to mind the fact that Timothy
too had inherited his faith, for it had dwelt first in
his grandmother Lois, and his mother Eunice.
Then as the letter begins to draw to a close, he
reverts to the early religious instruction of his son
in the faith.
"Abide thou in the things which thou hast learned
and hast been assured of, knowing of whom (i. e. from
what persons) thou hast learned them ; and that from a
babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are
able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith
which is in Christ Jesus. Every scripture inspired of
God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for cor
rection, for instruction which is in righteousness ; that
the man of God may be complete, furnished completely
unto every good work." 2
Now bearing in mind who S. Paul was, and who
S. Timothy was, we can have no doubt as to what
the "sacred writings" were of which mention is
made. What was S. Paul ? We have in our hands
his remains — letters of unquestioned authenticity
— from which we know the man. He enjoyed a
wider acquaintance than the other contributors to
the sacred volume, with Greek men, Greek speech,
1 Acts xvi. i. 2 2 Tim. iii. 16.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 399
Greek literature and Greek philosophy. Yet he
habitually thinks, argues, reasons as a jew rather
than a Greek. His logic and dialectics are oriental
— Hellenistic, and not Hellenic. And his language
corresponds to his thought. " How can we account
for his writing, at one moment, passages of perfectly
grammatical Greek, and then suddenly introducing
violations of all ordinary Greek constructions, devia
tions from the customary modes of expression —
which seem to master his pen, as it were, in the
strangest way — but on the ground of his being
under the influence of some book which had filled
his memory with its peculiar phrases and terms,
and made it natural for him to copy and repeat
them when his subject-matter was religion ? " 1
We know well the writer of this letter. We
know the man. And unquestionably the man —
the whole man — is completely saturated with the
LXX.
When we turn from the writer of this letter to
him to whom it was written, what do we find ?
He had been taught the Scriptures from infancy
by Lois and Eunice. The names are both Greek.
His father was a Greek alike by birth and by
religion. They belonged to Derbe and Lystra,
cities of Asia Minor, where Greek was the common
tongue, and Hebrew was unknown. It is alto
gether improbable that these Greek ladies knew
Hebrew, and it is only natural to assume that they
must have instructed the child from the LXX- At
1 Guillemard, Hebraisms in the Greek Testament, pp.

400 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
all events, in the only two places where S. Paul
cites the Old Testament in his Epistles to Timothy,
he quotes them textually from the LXX.
It may be asked what is meant by "every
scripture"? The expression so translated may
mean "the whole body of the Scriptures," or
"every book."
It has also been a question for much debate
whether "inspired of God" is to be regarded as
standing in apposition to " every scripture, " or
whether it is a predicate. In the Authorized Ver
sion it is made a predicate, whereas the Revised
Version places it in apposition, and gives the
alternative translation in the margin.
A further question arises as to the meaning
which ought to be given to the term which is
translated " inspired of God." This is the only
place in the Bible in which the word occurs. But
there can be no doubt that it implies a singular
influence of God upon the writer. " The parallel
passage in the Second Epistle of S. Peter1 ex
presses the same in other words. " No prophecy
ever came by the will of man : but men spake
from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost."
This statement involves three things — the writ
ing ; the human writer by whose hand it was
written ; and God, Who inspired him. God is the
inspirer. The writer is directly and immediately
inspired by God, Who by His Spirit breathes into
him. The writing too is inspired, but only indi
rectly, and in a secondary sense, as being the out-
1 2 Pet. i. 21.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 401
come and result of the writer's direct inspiration.
Our first inquiry then is, as to the nature of the
inspiration given to the writer. For unless the
inspiration which he receives be such as to make
him perfect, we may expect to find in what he
writes traces of the faultiness which belongs to him
as a man.
Spirit and inspiration are terms of kindred
meaning. Their central idea is that of breath, or
breathing. But breath and breathing are material ;
and it must be borne in mind that, when we speak
of Spirit and of inspiration, we call in the aid of
the material to represent and figure to our minds
realities which are altogether supersensuous. And
the metaphorical expressions "divine inspiration"
and " inspired of God " may be applied, with pro
priety, to denote many different things.
(a) The first production of the human spirit in
the body is represented in the Bible as an inbreath
ing, or inspiration of God. God
" breathed into his nostrils the breath of life : and man
became a living soul." r
(b) In like manner, the same book attributes the
activities of the soul to the same source.
"There is a spirit in man : and the breath of the
Almighty giveth them understanding." 2
(c) It is quite in accordance with these repre
sentations to find the enlightenment of the human
mind described as an inspiration. We read that
1 Gen. ii. 7.
2 Job xxxii. 8. The A,V. has " inspiration."
d n

402 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
" the Lord filled Bezaleel with the spirit of God, in wisdom,
in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner
of workmanship ; and to devise cunning works, to work
in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in cutting of stones
for setting, and in carving of wood, to work in all manner
of cunning workmanship." 1
God is represented as telling Moses to employ
" all that are wise-hearted, whom I have filled with
the spirit of wisdom," to make the " holy garments "
for Aaron, which he was to make "for glory and
for beauty." 2 Elsewhere the husbandman's acqui
sition of knowledge is ascribed to God, Who doth
" instruct him aright, and doth teach him." 3 It all
" cometh forth from the LORD of Hosts, which is
wonderful in counsel, and excellent in wisdom."4
Of the four youths at Babylon, we are told that
" God gave them knowledge and skill in all learn
ing and wisdom. " 5 Daniel was known and
spoken of as a man " in whom is the spirit of
the holy gods " ; 6 and practical wisdom and dis
cretion, no less than the power of interpreting
dreams, mark the man in whom the Spirit of
God is.
(d) It falls in no less with the scriptural use of the
terms " inbreathing " and "inspiration," to speak of
" the spirit of a man '' as denoting our life, or that
which is the seat of life — that living, immaterial
part of us Which was breathed into us by the
Father of spirits. And since man was created by
God in His own image, it is equally in harmony
1 Exod. xxxv. 30—33. 2 Exod. xxviii. 2, 3.
' Isa. xxviii. 26. 4 Isa. xxviii. 29.
1 Dan. i. 17. « Dan. iv. 8.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 403
with this use, to transfer the word " spirit " to God,
and to say, " God is a Spirit."
There is a true sense then, in which it may be
said of every man, that he is inspired of God. For
it is in Him that we all " live, and move, and have
our being." l But He goeth by us, and we see
Him not. He passeth on also, but we perceive
Him not.2 Therefore our current speech does not
ascribe to Him the processes to which we are
indebted from day to day for the possession
of all our mental energy. When, indeed, as some
times happens, a thought flashes upon any of
us in an unusual way, we say we have had an
" inspiration." (e) Similarly we speak of men of rare intellectual
gifts as " inspired." The thought that from time to
time illumines the ordinary mind by a sudden intui
tional flash, and the intellectual creation that gives
undying fame to a Shakspere or a Newton, are in
deed to be attributed to the inspiration of God. But
it is not because they are of rare occurrence that
we are to refer them to divine inspiration. Their
exceptional character makes us inquire into their
origin. And the result of the inquiry is, that we
conclude that they come from God. We are right
in so concluding. But how do they come from
Him? They come in no other way than by the
exercise of the powers with which, in rich variety
and in different degrees, He endows His human
children. We are fully entitled to call them divine
inspirations, but only on the same ground on which
1 Acts xvii. 28. 2 Job ix. 11,

404 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
we are entitled to call the commonest thoughts of
our everyday life inspirations.
(/) Christians, again, are inspired of God in a yet
higher sense of the term. This inspiration of the
Holy Spirit is largely dwelt on in holy Scripture,
although the word inspiration itself is never used to
describe it. To this gracious operation we refer in
our Liturgy, when we pray that " by His holy in
spiration we may think those things that be good,"
that " He would cleanse the thoughts of our hearts
by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit," and that
He would " inspire continually the universal Church
with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord."
These are all, each after its kind, true inspirations
of the Spirit of God ; but in none of them, — neither
in the original inbreathing by which God gave to
man his life, nor in the continuous inspiration by
which He gives him understanding, nor in that
daily gift whereby He inspires our souls with
heavenly grace,1 — has God imparted anything to
man which makes it impossible for him to err.
There is nothing either in the scriptural use of the
term inspiration, or in the popular use of it, which
lends any support to the contention that whatever
is inspired must be faultless. If the Bible be fault
less, proof of the fact must be sought elsewhere.
For certainly the passage which we have been con
sidering supplies no proof whatever. It shews us
what S. Paul understood to be the nature and the
1 See the hymn, Veni. Creator Spiritus, translated in the
Prayer-Book of 1552, "Thy heavenly Grace inspire," and in
that of 1662, " Our souls inspire."

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 405
objects of those Scriptures which God inspired men
to write. As to their nature, he believed that in
them spiritual truth was revealed by God to man :
as to their objects, he believed that God had re
vealed His spiritual truth in them with the design
of bringing it to bear on men, for their moral dis
cipline, and instruction in righteousness, and for the
building them up and perfecting them in all good
works. The scope of the profitableness of the Holy
Scriptures is set forth with remarkable compre
hensiveness in this passage. They are profitable
" for teaching," that we may know what to believe
as true ; " for reproof," or refutation, that we may
know what to reject as false ; " for correction," or
setting right, that we may know what to avoid as
wrong ; " for instruction which is in righteousness,"
or training in the character of the just, that we may
know .what to pursue as right. S. Paul is speaking
of the Old Testament. And he thus claims for it,
that it is serviceable as a rule at once of faith and
of practice ; — serviceable, as regards faith, to the
extent of making the man of God complete, or per
fectly instructed ; and as regards practice, to the
extent of making him furnished completely unto
every good work.
The inspired writers were not mere passive" in
struments, responding unconsciously to the divine
impulse, — -as the lute to the touch of the player.
They were human beings to whom God presented
divine truth ; whom He quickened and enlightened
for the reception of that truth ; and in whom the

406 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
knowledge thus acquired became mingled and
blended, not only with what they knew from other
sources, but with all their thoughts and feelings.
Along with the commission to declare it to others,
God also gave them the sufficiency to declare it in
such a way that others should be able to recognise
it as coming to them under the sanction of divine
authority. Writing to the Corinthians of his posi
tion as a minister of Christ, S. Paul speaks of the
way in which God always led him in triumph in
Christ, and made manifest through him the savour
of divine knowledge in every place ; and, breaking
off, he exclaims, "Who is sufficient for these things?"
Then a few verses lower down he adds, " Not that
we are sufficient of ourselves to account anything as
from ourselves ; but our sufficiency is from God,
Who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new
covenant ; not of the letter, but of the spirit : for
the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." J
This statement of the apostle, that God made him
" sufficient as a minister," helps us, I think, to form
a somewhat clear idea of the way in which the in
spired writers themselves regarded their inspiration.
It was such an influence of the Spirit of God
upon them as sufficiently qualified them for the
discharge of the duty which God had imposed upon
them. Whatever amount of assistance was needed
for this purpose, that amount was given them.
The tasks assigned to them were very various.
" Sometimes it was to foretell the future judgments or
blessings which were, by God's appointment, to befall
1 2 Cor. iii. 5.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 407
the Jews, or the nations connected with them. Some
times it was to foreshadow things relating to Christ and
His Church. Sometimes it was to give lessons of moral
wisdom. Sometimes to expound the provisions of God's
law. Sometimes to give utterance to the praises of God,
and the devotional feelings stirred by a consideration of
His glory as revealed in nature, or of His providence as
revealed in His dealings with men in history. Some
times it was to give a history of the Jewish people, con
sidered as being under the government of God, and
subject to His providential dealings. Sometimes it was
to give an account of the words and works of our Lord
Jesus Christ. And sometimes it was to expound and
apply the great truths of the. Christian revelation. Now
for all these different tasks, the Spirit of God fully quali
fied the writers, giving them that measure of knowledge
and wisdom which was necessary to enable them to per
form their work aright."1
They were " sufficient as ministers " in the several
degrees of their ministry. Wherein does this suffi
ciency consist? S. Paul speaks of the announce
ment with which he was charged as " the word of
God." What does he mean by this ? Did he mean
to call the language in which he delivered it the
words of God, in the sense that every syllable
uttered by him was uttered in mechanical response
to the direct dictation of God ? This view has been
held, and the promise of our Lord to His followers
has been urged in support of it.
" When they deliver you up, be not anxious how or
what ye shall speak ; for it shall be given you in that
hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak,
but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." 2
1 See MacNeece, The Inspiration of the Scriptures, pub
lished with Sermons, Dublin, 1863, p. 356.
2 Matt. x. 19.

408 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
In these words there is a great and precious
truth, and one which all should cordially and thank
fully believe and receive. The direct influence of
the Spirit is a reality, and it affects not only the
thing uttered, but also the act of utterance. The
only question is as to the way in which the Spirit
acts. Does He act by suggesting the words? or,
does He act by enabling His servants to speak,
both as regards what they were to say, and how
they were to say it, in a manner worthy of God,
and worthy of their own character as His inspired
messengers ?
When summoned before kings and governors for
His name's sake, they might naturally be disquieted
beforehand, thinking how they should acquit them
selves under the trial. But their Lord tells them
not to be so disquieted ; for it would be given them
in that hour what they should speak. And so it
was. The Spirit gave them courage, and know
ledge, and zeal for their Master's honour, and
wisdom, and strength ; in a word, He gave them a
power to speak, which of themselves they had not ;
and therefore it was not they who spoke. They, of
themselves, were not sufficient to think or to speak
anything of themselves, but their sufficiency was
from God ; it was the Spirit of the Father speak
ing in them. Still the effect was produced by an
infusion of power, and not by mechanical sugges
tion. On this point there is no room for doubt ;
for we find S. Paul apologizing for his rudeness
of speech, — the last thing he would have done if
the ipsissima verba of his utterance had been

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 409
mechanically dictated to him- by the Spirit of
God.1 A distinction indeed has been made between the
written word and the preached word. To this dis
tinction, however, the apostles lend no countenance.
We know that much of what S. Paul urges in his
epistles he had previously urged by word of mouth.
Are we to think of the same gospel, coming through
the same apostle, as being inspired in one way when
he spoke, and as being inspired in another way
when he wrote? Was the inspiration of S. Paul
the preacher one thing, and the inspiration of S.
Paul the writer another thing?
I do not think this view will commend itself to
thoughtful minds.
We have come then to this : — that so far as we
have examined those passages of Holy Scripture
which have been most relied on as furnishing proof
of its immunity from verbal, nay literal error, we
find them to lend no countenance to such a' theory.
It is only by the slow process of patient induction
that we can ever learn what their inspiration means.
II. — The worthies of the Bible are presented to us
as men liable to err, yet sufficient as ministers.
The sacred writers have recorded much which
seems to leave no doubt that, in many respects,
their human fallibility clung to them still. Con
sider the worthies of the Bible one by one. They
were men endowed, we believe, in a large and
extraordinary manner with the gifts of the Spirit.
1 2 Cor. xi. 6.

4IO THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
When the son of Sirach writes their panegyric
he says —
" The Lord manifested in them great glory,
Even His mighty power from the beginning.
Such as did bear rule in their kingdoms,
And were men renowned for their power,
Giving counsel by their understanding ;
Such as have brought tidings in prophecies :
Leaders of the people by their counsels,
And by their understanding men of learning for the
people." x
He attributes all their worth and virtue to divine
influence, but he claims no faultlessness for them.
Indeed, the very records which tell us how they
were taught of God, tell us also that notwithstand
ing their endowment, they were frail, erring, sinful
men. Abraham was the friend of God, yet he in
structed his wife to tell a lie. Moses, also the friend
of God, speaking unadvisedly with his lips, was
guilty of sin. David, a man after God's own heart,
did grievous evil in His sight.
Neither was the inspiration of an apostle of such
a nature as to render him in everything consistently
perfect. It did not prevent a dissension — an alter
cation of no inconsiderable kind — arising between
SS. Paul and Barnabas.2 It did not prevent SS.
Peter and Barnabas from adopting a course of
action on account of which S. Paul resisted S. Peter
to the face, because he stood condemned.3 Nor
was this all. The error of the two apostles which
drew forth the public censure of S. Paul, was no
1 Ecclus. xliv. 2 — 4.
2 Acts xv. 2. 3 Gal. ii. 11.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 411
mere personal fault, unconnected with the matter of
their teaching. It was with the very matter of their
teaching itself that he found fault. Referring to the
inconsistency of their conduct, — by which they were
effectually teaching others, — he said expressly, "that
they walked not uprightly according to the truth of
the gospel."1
The question at issue was a question of practice,
— a question of much greater moment than many
of those which unhappily divide Christians at the
present day. Yet with reference to this question
there is no reason to suppose that any special revel
ation of the divine will was given to any of the
apostles concerned. S. Paul does not charge S.
Peter with disobedience to any divine command.
He reasons with him ; and S. Peter is convinced,
and acknowledges his error.
From all this, it would seem that the influence of
1 Gal. ii. 14. "Peter was wrong, but if was an error of
judgment ; an act contrary to his own feelings and wishes,
in deference to those whom he looked upon as representing
the mind of the Church ; that he was actuated by selfishness,
national pride, or any remains of superstition, is neither as
serted nor implied in the strong censure of S. Paul : nor,
much as we must admire the earnestness and wisdom of S.
Paul, whose clear and vigorous intellect was in this case
stimulated by anxiety for his own special charge, the Gentile
Church, should we overlook Peter's singular humility in sub
mitting to public reproof from one so much his junior, or his
magnanimity in adopting S. Paul's conclusions (as we must
infer that he did from the absence of all trace of continued
resistance), and in remaining on terms of brotherly com
munion (as is testified by his own written words) to the end
of his life (1 Pet. v. 10; 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16)."— Rev. F. C.
COOK,, in Smith's Dictionary of the' Bible : Article "Peter."

412 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
the Holy Spirit upon the most highly gifted of the
apostles was not of such a character as to prevent
them from falling into error, even when that error
affected their teaching. Yet in spite of their failure
to act consistently on this occasion, who shall say
that SS. Peter and Barnabas were not sufficient as
ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ ?
If the essence of religion consisted in the
performance or non-performance of certain acts
enjoined or prohibited ; if our life stood in the
observances of mere carnal ordinances, such as
meats, and drinks, and divers washings1 ; then,
indeed, nothing short of its absolute faultlessness
could assure us of the sufficiency of the ceremonial
code which we adopted. But if these things can
never make the worshipper perfect, as touching the
conscience,2 if God looks upon the heart, if the
clean heart and the right spirit are the things
of moment, if it is to the pure in heart that it is
given to see God, then all question of ideal fault
lessness in matters which in no way concern the
spiritual life is unworthy of regard as being outside
the issue.
To this view it is objected that, when S. Paul
spoke of the Old Testament Scriptures as being
" inspired of God," he could not have included in
his notion of inspiration the possibility of the least
error in the inspired writing ; because, when he
claims to be himself inspired, he expressly declares
that the words in which he spoke were themselves
" words which the Spirit teacheth."
1 Heb. ix. io. 2 Heb. ix. 9.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 413
The striking passage in which the expression
occurs deserves particular attention, as throwing
some light upon the process by which the inspired
person was qualified to give utterance to the deep
things of God.
" We speak ... a wisdom not of this world : . . . but
we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, . . . which none of
the rulers of this world knoweth. . . . But unto us God
revealed it through the Spirit : for the Spirit searcheth
all things, yea, the deep things of God. For who among
men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the
man which is in him ? Even so the things of God none
knoweth, save the Spirit of God. But we received! not
the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God ;
that we might know the things that are freely given to
us by God. Which things also we speak, not in words
which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit
teacheth ; interpreting spiritual things to spiritual men.
Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he
cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged."1
The operation of the Holy Spirit did not indeed
stop with the communication of the knowledge of
divine things to the inspired messenger, it extended,
in a true sense, even to the language in which the
messenger conveyed that knowledge to others.
That which was revealed by God was enunciated
by man " in words which the Spirit teacheth."
To understand this it is only necessary to re
member that speech is the natural expression of our
thoughts and feelings. Change a man's thoughts
and feelings and you change his words. An edu
cated man does not speak as an uneducated man.
1 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7, 8, 10 — 14. See margin,

414 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Good training strengthens the powers, enlarges the
range of view, forms the taste, and transforms the
whole man. The trained man is not what he was
before his training. And because he has himself
become different, his language has become dif
ferent. He used to speak the words which con
fusion, prejudice, and ignorance teach. He now
speaks the words' which an enlightened education
teacheth. The action of the same law may be traced in the
case of the sacred writers. They were taught —
specially taught — by the Holy Spirit. They were
no longer the same men they had been before, they
had received that special teaching. Their former
doubts and hesitation had been displaced by the
fullest confidence. Their ignorance had departed,
and they were now filled with a knowledge of the
truth. They spoke that knowledge, not in the
words which man's wisdom teacheth, for it was not
in the schools of the.sophists that they had acquired
it ; they spoke it in the way that was natural to
men taught of God, in the language appropriate to
it, in words which the Spirit teacheth.
How appropriate their speech is to express their
knowledge of the deep things of God appears very
forcibly from the contrast which *it presents to the
style of the Apocryphal Gospels, or even to the
style of the Apostolic Fathers. The best of these
extra-canonical writings are often marred by pre
tentious mannerisms, inflated puerilities, and force
less extravagances. The heathen philosophic
rhetorician, after he became a Christian, remained

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 415
a rhetorician still. The language of the Bible is
wholly free from artifice.
In intellectual ability, in culture, in social posi
tion, in all the characteristics that go to form what
we call individuality, the writers of the Holy Scrip
tures were as different from each other as possible.
And these points of difference make themselves
visible on every page they have left us. Yet for all
their diversity of style, one characteristic dominates
all their writing. Their language is uniformly sober,
simple, forcible, grave, dignified, worthy of the
divine truth which it expresses.
Tried by the standards of strict grammar and
formal logic, it has its shortcomings. But every
one knows that no imperfection or incorrectness of
that sort affects in the least the capacity of honest
speech to convey the truth which it is used to
express. It may be rude, faulty, unable to bear
criticism, but there is no mistaking its meaning.
Converse with the ploughman and his wife about
their first-born child, who is just beginning to
prattle : they will probably strike you as being
good people whose minds are dense, whose thoughts
are confused, and whose arguments are inconclu
sive. But you will find them capable of making
you realize in a marvellous way the feelings that
are stirring within them. Why? Because they
speak the words which parental love teacheth.
The polished Corinthian mocked S. Paul on ac
count of his rudeness of speech. Yet in portraying
the Christian grace of charity, the apostle has
Uttered words which, by the subtle touch of their

416 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
exquisite charm, can never fail, to the end of time,
to captivate all who hear them, — young or old,
lettered or unlettered. Whence comes it that this
man of uncouth tongue has surpassed all other elo
quence ? The answer is, He speaks words " which
the Spirit teacheth."
III.— There is no such error in the Bible as to render
it unfit to be a vehicle for divine teaching.
To set forth events in such a manner that the
recital shall give a true account of God's dealings
with His people — to interpret God's judgments
in such a way as to convey instruction in God's
truth — to demonstrate the sin and the folly of
idolatry and rebellion against God — to mingle with
the narrative prophetic warnings in order to deter
men from their evil ways — to present the story, in
fact, so as to be to those who hear it a strong and
active tonic to brace the wills of men to lead a
godly life ; this was the object of the biblical
writers.1 Now S. Mark tells us that Bartimaeus was healed
as our Lord was going out of Jericho, while S. Luke
makes the miracle to occur as He was going into
the town.2 Here, on the face of the narratives,
there stands out boldly an apparent contradiction
between the two evangelists.3 But what of that ?
1 See Bp. MOORHOUSE, pp. 20, 21.
2 Mark x. 46 ; Luke xviii. 35.
3 " Is it not better to suppose that the inspiration of the
evangelists did not extend to minutiae of this sort, and that
there is a mistake in the narrative, and that either S. Luke

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 417
The value of the miracle's lesson is not affected in
the least, whether it found place at the going into
or the coming out of the town.
In the same way, whether Jairus came to Jesus
while He was discoursing with the Pharisees and
the disciples of John, as He sat at meat in the
house of Matthew the publican, as we learn from
the Gospel of S. Matthew himself;1 or whether he
came to Jesus as He was by the sea, surrounded
by the welcoming multitude that had been waiting
for Him to cross over again in the boat from the
country of the Gergasenes, — as SS. Mark and
Luke tell the story,2 — is, after all, a matter which
does not either affect our faith in God as He
reveals Himself to us in the Bible, or our submis
sive acceptance of those principles of conduct
which the Bible, alone among books, propounds
for our obedience.
Again, the authorities which the A.V has
followed make the number of persons on board
when S. Paul was shipwrecked to have been " in
all two hundred three score and sixteen souls ; "
while other authorities place it at "about three
score and sixteen souls." Here again the error,
on whichever side it lies, is wholly unimportant.
The lesson of God's over-ruling providence is
altogether unaffected, and the story remains as full
of meaning whatever may be the correct account.
on the one side, or S. Matthew and S. Mark on the other,
were misinformed?" — Prebendary Sadler on Mark x. 46.
1 Matt. ix. 9—18.
2 Mark v. 21, 22 ; Luke viii. 40, 41. E E

41 8 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
" If the accuracy of the Scripture records be tested
by sound methods of historical criticism, we should shew
ourselves very faint-hearted believers if we trembled for
the result ; and if it should be shewn, beyond reasonable
doubt, that the Scripture- story is not free from those
historical errors which we discover in the most care
fully written of human productions, then the only
necessary conclusion is this, that inspiration does not
involve that quality, which we might have been led to
expect that it would." 1
The wonderful thing is, that among all the
thousands of various readings, corruptions of texts,
and discrepancies, nothing has been discovered
which in any way detracts from the practical
value of the book. After collating six hundred
MSS. Dr. Kennicott declared .that, among all the
variations which he had met, he had found nothing
which cast a doubt upon the practical teaching of
the Bible in regard to either faith or practice.
When we remember how the change of a single
letter may affect the sense of a document, and
give to it a meaning directly contradictory to that
which it had before the change, we must feel that
the wonder is, not that the errors are so many
and so serious, but that they have so little bearing
upon the religious teaching.
I have before me two books written by two
men who occupied with uninterrupted approval
two of the most prominent positions in our
Church. In one of these books the temptation of
our Lord is placed before, not after, His baptism.
In the other, S. Peter is made to outrun S. John
1 Bp. Goodwin, p. 104.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 419
as the two apostles hasted to the sepulchre in
which their Lord had lain. It is certainly a
surprise to meet such mistakes in the works of
two such men. But as weighing against the general
trustworthiness of the writers, they are only as the
small dust of the balance, and as impairing the
effect of the glad tidings which they proclaimed,
their force is altogether inappreciable.
God sends to us the light of His divine truth
through a human medium. The medium is im
perfect. But it fails not to transmit that light
sufficiently for all our needs.1
" What is needed by us all, what is sufficient for us
all to be convinced of, is this, that God speaks to our
hearts by the Bible ; that God therein speaks to us of
Himself; that He there reveals His attributes in their
fulness, harmony, and essential unity ; that love breathes.
through every part of His revelation ; that we are there
instructed as to what we are to do,' what we are to feel,
what we are to believe ; that we have in it the first,
most precious, and most necessary of the means of grace,
the source or channel of all regenerating and sanctifying
influences." *"
The value to each man of what it declares
depends in no way upon his being assured that the
book is absolutely free from human error, any
more than the value of the declarations of Magna
Charta to each individual Englishman depends
upon his being satisfied that in no single clause,
nor line, nor letter of that great instrument can any
trace of defective draughting or pen-craft be dis-
1 See Warington, Inspiration of Scripture, pp. 197, 198.
2 COOK, Sermons, p. 193.

420 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
covered. The benefits which it declares and
guarantees, depend not upon the professional skill
of the jurist or the law-writer, but on the fact that
it has the authority of the law of the land.
Just as little do the greater blessings declared
to us in the Bible depend upon the unerring
accuracy of the writers in what is immaterial.
They depend upon the unchangeable law of God's
eternal Love.
The result of our inquiry then is this, that we
have in the Bible a message from God. But that
message comes to us not through the medium of
passive instruments, but by the mouth of respon
sible messengers chosen by God, and qualified by
God for the efficient discharge of the duty which
He imposes upon them. He made them severally
what they were : one born in the bitterness of rigor
ous bondage, but brought up in a king's palace ;
one educated in the precincts of the temple ; one a
shepherd boy and a king ; a courtier ; a fisherman ;
a Roman portitor ; a Pharisee of the Pharisees.
He first endowed them with their natural powers.
He ordered their goings and shaped their courses,
in the circumstances of their birth, in the conditions
of their training, in everything that served to make
them each what he was. Thus chosen, thus pre
pared, thus equipped, with hearts thus fashioned,1
He sent them forth to perform their several tasks.
To each He gave the gifts which were necessary —
and in the measure necessary — for the due dis
charge of the task imposed upon him. Having
1 Ps. xxxiii. 15.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 42!
made them rational beings with limited powers, He
employed them as rational beings with limited
powers, He made use of the faculties which He had
bestowed upon them — their faculties of observation,
of reflection, of judgment, of memory. The men —
the human beings as they were, with all their gifts,
with all their defects, — He sanctified to His pur
pose, employing each to work out the task for
which He had prepared him by natural endow
ment, by training, by habit of thought, and cast of
feeling. To each He gave all that was needful for
him. To none did He add that which superseded
the use of all his previous gifts. On the contrary,
they were each responsible for the way in which
they exercised all their talents. They were stewards
of the mysteries of God, stewards in whose case it
was required that a man be found faithful.1
By the hand of these earthly messengers God
sends us heavenly blessings. Through the channel
of their finite understandings He conveys to us the
knowledge of infinite love. By the mouth of these
fallible men He speaks to us the truth that cannot
fail. 1 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2.

CHAPTER VII
THE OBJECTION THAT THE BIBLE CANNOT BE
THE GUIDE OF LIFE TO MEN, UNLESS IT
POSSESS THE NOTE OF INFALLIBILITY
THIS objection differs from those which we have
considered in the foregoing chapters. They con
tend that the Bible, bearing as it does marks of
human imperfection, is unworthy of God. This
would have us beljeve that, unless we hold it to
be infallible, it is unmeet for man.
I. — It is said that, if the Bible be fallible in aught,
its whole teaching must be uncertain.
It is argued that if you admit that there may be
in the Bible anything at all which is not absolutely
true, you hereby invest the whole with a character
of uncertainty which renders it useless as a guide
of life. If the trumpet give an uncertain voice,
who shall prepare himself for war ? 1 If the guide
see incorrectly in aught, he is a blind guide, and
no prudent man will allow himself to be led by
him. To limit the infallibility of the book to the
1 i Cor. xiv. 8.
422

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 423
religion which it teaches, is practically to give up
its claim to infallibility altogether.
(1) Are the spiritual and the non-spiritual so
combined in the Bible that it is impossible to
separate them from each other?
It has been seriously objected that the scientific
and historical, the critical and logical, are so con
nected with the spiritual in the Bible, that it is
practically impossible to separate them from each
other, and that therefore we are bound either to
maintain the absolute correctness of everything
that is found in the Bible, or else to surrender its
claim to carry a divine message to men.
The author of The Creed of Christendom speaks
in this sense : —
" A book cannot be said to carry with it the authority
of being God's word, if the same writer may give us in
one verse a revelation from the Most High, and in
another a blunder of his own. How can we be certain
that the very texts upon which we rest our doctrines
and our hopes, may not be the uninspired portion
of it?"1
And Francis Newman says : —
" In various attempts at compromise, such as con
ceding the scriptural fallibility in human science, but
maintaining its spiritual perfection, I always found the
division impracticable." 2
No doubt, if we expect to be able to take the
contents of the Bible to pieces, and to divide them
into portions, so as to be able to say, this portion is
purely scientific, and that portion purely historical,
1 P. 25. 2 Phases of Faith, p. 69.

424 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
and neither of these portions has any connection
with religious teaching, all our attempts to make
such a division will prove to be in vain. The
spiritual teaching of the Bible is not thus me
chanically distributed in verses and clauses. All
Scripture is profitable for instruction, whether it
be history, or interpretation, or reasoning; all and
each have a spiritual import, and are charged with
spiritual teaching.
In the Scriptures we have the record of certain
divine dispensations, miracles, or special acts of
God, in which the presence of His hand is more
directly brought to view ; and we have revelations,
or special communications from God, by which a
knowledge of His will is brought home to the
consciousness of men. Besides these we meet with
moral precepts, and with sketches of human ex
perience of God's dealing with men as seen in the
corporate life of nations, and in the individual life
of persons. Now it is clear that we must dis
tinguish between the divine dispensations them
selves, which are the more direct acts of God, and
the record of them, which is admittedly made
through the instrumentality of man. The Bible is
neither the miracles, nor the revelations, nor the
divine government. But it is the record of them
all. And the question to be kept in view is
this: Is the presence of human error in the record
consistent with the divine teaching conveyed
by it?
For what purpose has God given us the Bible ?
If the answer to this question were to be looked

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 425
for in the modern popular view, we should be led
to believe that it was to provide us with a treasury
of infallible texts, to be used indifferently in
support of our own favourite doctrines, and for the
discomfiture of those who differ from us.1 This
may seem an extravagant statement. But I
believe it represents a view which is— all uncon
sciously — held by many simple-minded, earnest,
and sincere Christians, who would thankfully em
brace the larger, truer view, if it were presented to
them. But this disastrous conception of the object of
the Bible is utterly baseless. Finite man must not
presume to determine the purposes of the Infinite
God. It is only so far as the Infinite has been
pleased to reveal His purpose to us that we can
know it. God has nowhere directly announced
what His design is in giving us our Christian Bible.
The passages, as we have seen, which come nearest
to a statement on the subject, tell us that the Old
Testament Scriptures testify to our Lord as the
Messiah, and were written for our instruction in
righteousness. The whole teaching of the New
Testament is, that Jesus Christ came into the
1 " If we come to the Bible as learners, it has more to
teach us yet than we can ask or think. If we believe that
we know all that is in it, and merely resort to it for sentences
and watchwords to confirm our own notions, and to condemn
our brethren, God will show us — He is showing us — how
great the punishment to us and to our children must be, for
abusing the unspeakably precious treasure with which He
has endowed us." — F. D. Maurice, Theological Essays,
PP- 353, 354-

426 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
world to save us from our sins ; x to raise us from
the death of sin to the life of righteousness. His
own words are : " I came that they may have life,
and may have it abundantly." 2 About the things
of this world, which so readily become a snare to
us, we are not to be anxious, saying, What shall
we eat ? or, what shall we drink ? or, wherewithal
shall we be clothed ? 3 We are to lay up for our
selves treasure, not on earth but in heaven.* The
first object of our search is to be the Kingdom of
our heavenly Father and His righteousness.5 And
nothing, however essential to our earthly well-
being, nor hand, nor foot, nor eye, may become a
hindrance to our pursuit of it.6
We must be right, then, in concluding that the
Bible has been given us, to teach us not of the
things of earth, but of the things of heaven.
The revelations themselves, which disclose
spiritual truth; the records Of them, which pre
serve and convey that truth without mixture of
spiritual error; and other parts of the book, each
in its own manner and degree, are instinct with
light and life to guide and animate man in walking
with God, and in treading the path which leads
unto life eternal. The history of the miracles is
an account of God's actions, and gives us most
striking manifestation of His character. In the
Gospel story, we see God manifest in the flesh,
scattering blessings wherever He vouchsafed His
presence ; cleansing the leper, giving health to the
1 Matt. i. 21. a John x. io. 3 Matt. vi. 31.
4 Matt. vi. 19, 20. 6 Matt. vi. 33. e Matt, xviii. 8, 9.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 427
sick, and sight to the blind, and speech to the
dumb, — nay, even spoiling death of his victims,
and binding up the broken heart, by giving it
back its dead.
Prophecy too has its spiritual lessons, It is full
of the glory of God's goodness, and the wonder of
His providence.
There is no need to dwell upon the spiritual
ipstructiveness of the Psalms, which from the day
of their composition till the present time, have
never ceased to be used as giving' utterance to the
feelings of the human heart lifted up in devotion
to God.
The moral precepts of the Bible are no Jess
deeply marked by the same spiritual character, In
setting forth the duty of man as God's creature,
they teach us how we may please, or offend Him
Who " is a righteous judge, yea, a God that hath
indignation every day." 1
Neither are the historical portions of the Bible
wanting in spiritual instructiveness, S. Paul tells
us for what purpose they were written, and in what
light we are to regard their contents. "These
things," he writes, alluding to the history of the
children of Israel in the wilderness, " happened
unto them by way of example (or by way of
figure), and they were written for our admonition
upon whom the ends of the ages are come." God's
dealings with them are to be regarded as a typical
revelation of those rules of His government which
are applicable to ourselves. 1 Ps. vii. 11.

428 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
" Now these things were our examples, to the intent
we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them, . .
Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them com
mitted, . . . Neither let us tempt the Lord, as some of
them tempted, . . . Neither murmur ye, as some of
them murmured."1
They sinned, and they were punished. Let us
not sin, lest we likewise receive the punishment
that belongs to the sin. The spiritual lesson is
plain to be learned. It is always easily distinguish
able from the historical narrative from which it is
to be learned, so that the objection has no found
ation in any assumed difficulty of discriminating
between them.
All that is written in the Bible has, I believe, its
spiritual use, though we may not always be able to
see exactly what it is. As it is in God's work in
nature, so it is in His work in the Bible. There is
one glory of the sun, and another glory of the
moon, and another glory of the stars.2 The teach
ing of Christ, the teaching of the apostles, the teach
ing of the prophets, the teaching of the psalmists,
have each their glory. And as one star differeth
from another star in glory, even so the declaration
that the Lord requires of man* to do justly, and
to love mercy, and to walk humbly with his God,3
is a declaration that shines with a clearer, purer
light to the eye of man than the direction not
to muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.4
Yet each has been written for our learning. If
1 i Cor. x. 6 — io. 2 i Cor. xv. 41.
3 Micah vi. 8. 4 1 Cor. ix. 9.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 429
the first inculcates directly in striking words some
of the duties that arise out of our relation to God,
the latter no less helps to teach some of the duties
that arise out of our relations to one another.
(2) Are the religious and the speculative so blended,
that, if the speculative be fallible, the religious must
be uncertain ?
But the objection may probably rest on a differ
ent foundation. Its true meaning may be that the
narrative itself, and the lesson with which it is
charged, are so intimately connected, — the religious
so dependent upon the. speculative, — that if the
speculative be fallible, the religious must be
uncertain. It is worth while, therefore, to consider
what the connection is which subsists between
them. (a) There is one case, indeed, in which the con
nection is of such a sort that the reality of the
historic facts is essentially involved in the truth
of the religious doctrine which is built upon them.
When God vouchsafed to take upon Him the
nature of man, and to manifest Himself in the
flesh, it may be said that the spiritual became in
some degree historical. The great facts of the
incarnation, and suffering, and resurrection of our
Lord are vitally integral parts of the Christian
faith. But the reality of these wonderful events is
in no way touched by any discrepancies that have
been imputed to the gospel narrative. Any dis
crepancies which can be discovered in it are of the
kind that belongs to true testimony. And nothing
short of the rejection of the whole story can get

430 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
rid of those facts which it represents as its very
foundation. (b) In the Bible, God Himself is sometimes pre
sented to us as the great Exemplar whose actions
are to be imitated by men. In such cases it is
evident that the spiritual instruction conveyed
is quite independent of the historical accuracy of
the story. , It is the moral character of the actions
which gives the lesson, under the form of an
appeal to our moral and religious sentiments, and
not the reality of the history as discovered by our
intellect. Sometimes, again, the spiritual element is pre
sented under the form of a principle exemplified
in one of its applications. An instance is narrated
of the action of some general law "of God's
government. In the record of the judgments in
flicted on the children of Israel S. Paul discerned
the spiritual precepts which have already been
quoted. In regard to such matters it is necessary
to distinguish clearly between the story and its
lessons. The story is one thing. The lessons are
quite another. The lessons to be learned from the
story known as that of the Prodigal Son in no way
depend upon the question whether the story is a
true narrative of actual facts. The lessons are the
same whether the man and his two sons be
regarded as historical personages, or as fictitious
impersonations. We know, as a matter of fact,
that stories, which were the creation of fancy,
were the vehicle which our Lord was accustomed
to use for the communication of spiritual teach-

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 43 1
ing. " Without a parable spake He not unto
them." x
Now, if much of the religious teaching of the Bible
is imparted in such a way that its lessons are in no
wise dependent upon the historic character of the
stories which serve as a channel to convey them, —
a fable answering the purpose as well as a narrative
of the strictest historical accuracy, — there seems to
be no reason why a story, which purports to give
an account of actual facts, should be unfit to con
vey a like lesson, because of its failure to record
occurrences with strict historical accuracy in every
particular. The human body is not a mere aggregate of its
several parts. It is a unity of living members.
There are members of the body " which seem to
be more feeble," and parts " which we think to be
less honourable."2 Yet our life animates the whole
body in all its parts. All the members, which go to
build up the one body, have not the same office.
The functions of the several parts are marvellously
various. And the fullest perfection of each is not
equally necessary to the well-being of the whole.
There is a vast difference between the brain and
the finger-nails. Even a slight injury to the brain
affects the whole system, whereas the amount of
damage entailed upon the body by the imper
fection, or even by the total excision of a nail, may
be wholly inappreciable. Even so it is with the
body of Holy Scripture. The inbreathed vitaliz
ing force dwells in the whole, and in every part of
1 Matt. iv. 34. 2 1 Cor. xii. 22, 23.

432 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
the whole. But the several parts must not be
regarded as all alike. There are parts which are
as vital as the brain, or the heart ; while others
may be more aptly represented by the nails or the
hair. To suppose that the Bible's function of convey
ing spiritual truth is destroyed because some
human error in a matter wholly immaterial is
found in its pages, is quite as absurd as it would
be to suppose that the presence of a minute hidden
mole on the body of a brave soldier would make
him useless in battle. Coleridge deals with the
doctrine very happily : —
" Let it be supposed for a moment that a few objections
remain hitherto unanswered, — nay, that to your judg
ment and feelings they appear unanswerable. What
follows ? That the Apostles' and Nicene Creed is not
credible, the Ten Commandments not to be obeyed,
the clauses of the Lord's Prayer not to be desired,
or the Sermon on the Mount not to be practised?
See how the logic would look. . . . Abijah is said to
have collected an army of 400,000 men, and Jeroboam
to have met him with an army of 800,000 men, each
army consisting of chosen men, and making together an
host of 1,200,000, and Abijah to have slain 500,000 out
of the 800,000 ; 1 therefore, the words which admonish
us that ' if God so loved us, we ought also to love one
another,' 2 even our enemies, yea, ' to bless them that
curse' us, and to ' do good to them that hate us,' 3 cannot
proceed from the Holy Spirit." 4
To argue that the spiritual instruction to be
found in the Bible cannot be from God unless the
narrative in which it is embodied be in all respects
1 2 Chron. xiii. 3. 2 1 John iv. 11.
3 Matt. v. 44. * Inquiring Spirit, p. 105.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 433
absolutely true,, is to confound its form, which is
human, with its substance, which is divine. That
human form has, in God's good providence, been
so ordered, that in and through it the divine word
speaks to man, and enters through all the avenues
of his soul. It comes with all the authority of
God, and at whatever part of our nature it knocks,
it demands instant admission.
It is no less divine when clothed in human his
tory, than when it comes in the undisguised dignity
of direct revelation. Clothed in human history it
speaks to our inductive faculties, and suits the wants
of those who learn best by example. But if we pre
sume to criticize it, because the story in which it is
embodied may appear to be open to stricture, we for
get that its truth depends not on human induction,
but on its being the teaching of God. We forget
that the history may be only the form in which it
is presented, and that its truth may be as inde
pendent ofthe accuracy of the history, as any lesson
conveyed in one of the parables of our Lord is
independent of the actual occurrence of the inci
dents of the parable. The spiritual teaching of
the Bible is quite independent of it- . ."-'orical
character. And even if much more serious
historical errors were discovered in Holy Scripture
than have yet been pointed out, they would in no
way affect the value of the religious instruction
which it conveys to men, or make it more difficult
to recognise that instruction.
(c) Thus we see that the spiritual element in
Holy Scripture pervades it throughout. But we
F F

434 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
have not yet considered the objection involved in
the question, How is it to be recognised, seeing
that it is found in such various combinations ?
Perhaps the force of the objection may be most
easily measured if we suppose it to be directed
against some object of study other than the Bible.
The phenomena, for instance, which the political
economist professes to study, come under his
observation mixed with others which are foreign to
his purpose. The phenomena of the production
and distribution of wealth occur in the lives of
men who are not merely merchants and artisans,
but also members of particular families, citizens of
certain states, subject to different codes of law,
educated both mentally and morally in different
degrees and in different ways. Now it is clear
that the facts which form the basis of economic
investigation will not present themselves in the
lives of such men, except in combination with
many other facts which are immaterial to the
inquiry. If you ask the political economist how
he distinguishes the phenomena of his science from
the multitude of other phenomena with which
they are so closely combined, he will tell you that
he finds no difficulty in recognising those which
are germane to the subject-matter of his study.
Whatever in the concrete facts that come under
his notice does not appreciably affect the produc
tion or distribution of wealth, he leaves out of
account, and whatever does affect them he regards
as a phenomenon of his science.
Even so it is with the student of the Bible who

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 435
seeks for the spiritual instruction which it conveys
in so many various combinations. Whatever
information is to be gathered from it as to the
relations in which he stands to God he treasures
up in his mind and in his heart as spiritual know
ledge^ and he finds that knowledge to be amply
verified by the experience of all who have put it
to the proof, by directing their lives in accordance
with it.
(d) It may be said : — The very illustration you
have used is itself enough to condemn your ar
gument. For the study of political economy
demands an unusual degree of highly-cultivated
intellectual discernment ; whereas the Bible pro
fesses to deliver its message to the unlettered and
the poor, and the faculty of selection of which
the illustration implies the need, is given to few
among the children of men. Perhaps a better
illustration of the principle under consideration
might easily be found. Certainly it is imperfect ;
and it must not be pressed too far. But I have
used it for the purpose of shewing that the fact
that divine instruction is presented to us in com
bination with human error, involves no necessary
hindrance to the reception of that instruction. Its
reception indeed demands the presence of the
requisite faculty of discernment. But to say that
that faculty is a rare gift with which only few
among the children of men are endowed, is to
make an assumption which is contradicted by all
experience. The teaching of the Bible is spiritual teaching.

43^ THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
And the discernment by which that teaching is
learned is not an intellectual, but a spiritual dis
cernment. The intellectual gifts of the trained
theologian have their use, and that a very import
ant use. But it is not by the exercise of them that
he is able to appropriate and to enjoy the divine
food with which God furnishes him in the Bible for
the sustenance of his spiritual life. The chemist's
knowledge of the processes of nature is most valu
able both to himself and to mankind. By it we
learn much concerning the air which we breathe, and
the food which we eat, that serves to promote enjoy
ment, and to lengthen our days upon earth. But it is
not by reason of his analysis of that air and of
that food, that his life is sustained by the breath
of heaven, and the fruits of the earth. Even so,
by the use of his intellectual powers the theologian
can teach us much which serves to help us to use
rightly the spiritual gifts of God. But it is not by
virtue of any intellectual powers, it is by the due
reception of the divine food, that our spiritual life
is sustained. And what is necessary for the recep
tion of that divine food is given to all. Whoever
knows mankind, knows well that the humble and
unlettered put to shame every day the noisy
wrangler about theological subtleties, by the sure
instinct by which they draw from the Scriptures
their spiritual instruction. He who reads the
Bible with a view to being edified by it, does, in
the very act, apply himself to the spiritual element
which it contains ; and it is in this spirit that it
ought always to be read, for to this end was it

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 437
given, that the man of God may be complete,
furnished completely unto every good work.1
II. — It is said, that if the infallibility of the Bible
be confined to its spiritual teaching, its spiritual
teaching itself loses its authority.
But it may be said : — If you confine the infalli
bility of the Bible to its spiritual teaching, you make
its spiritual teaching itself cease to be infallible ;
because the student of the Bible must separate
and extract it for himself, and he, being only a
fallible man, is liable to err in the process. If you
once admit the possibility of the minutest error in
anything in the Bible, you take from it all that
fits it to be a rule of life; you thereby leave it
open to every man to accept as from God, or to
reject as not from God, just what he himself
pleases ; you do away altogether with the divine
authority of the book, and practically sanction the
theory that every man is at liberty to do what is
right in his own eyes ; you turn the unbending
standard of God's word into a mere rod of lead,
which will readily adapt itself to the form and
fashion of human wishes, and may be easily twisted
at pleasure to meet the requirements of each man's
verifying faculty ; you mould the rigid laws of
truth into a mere nose of wax,2 which, in the
1 2 Tim. iii. 17.
2 " Sunt enim ilia? (scripturae), ut non minus vere quam
festive dixit quidam, velut nasus cereus, qui se horsum,
illorsum, et in quam volueris partem, trahi, retrahi, fingique
facile- permittit." — PlGHlUS, Hierarch. Eccles. Assertio, Lib.
III. a 3, ed. 1538.

438 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
heated atmosphere of feeling, may with very little
pressure be made to accommodate itself to all the
demands of each man's inner consciousness.
(i) Every theory about the Bible is open to a like
objection. This is one of those objections which sound so
formidable, but are discovered on examination to
have nothing in them. The reply to this is that
every theory about Holy Scripture is open to a
like objection. Assume every statement in the
Bible to be in itself absolutely true. Yet the fact
that all these true statements are written in a
book, is in itself of little use to men, unless they
learn what those truths are. What profit is there
in a Bible that is never read, and never applied to
the guidance of our lives? Man cannot direct his
life according to its guidance without studying
and interpreting it. And as he cannot pretend to
be infallible in his study or interpretation of it, he
is liable to err in the application of its truths.
Scripture does not carry with it any power of con
veying intuitively to every mind the fulness of its
teaching. It is clear that the prophets themselves
were not always able to understand the full effect
of what they prophesied,1 even though they searched
diligently what the Spirit of Christ which was in
them did point unto.2 Nay, even the men whom
our Lord chose to be with Him did not always
understand His words at their first utterance.3
From the days of the apostles down to the present
1 Dan. xii. 4 — 9. 2 1 Pet. i. 11.
3 Mark ix. 32 ; Luke ii. 50,

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 439
time there have always been " differences in the
interpretation of Scripture." And as then, so ever
since, unlearned and unstable men have often
wrested not only things hard to be understood in
the writings of S. Paul, but the other Scriptures
also, unto their own destruction.1
(2) No theory of infallibility can secure right faith,
or guarantee right conduct.
But let it be granted that the strictest theory of
verbal infallibility is true beyond all question.
What then ? Does this oblige all men to hold a
right faith ? No belief in the infallibility of
Scripture offers any security for the correctness of
their faith. Can it guarantee their conduct? Is
it not a fact that men are just as ready to wrest
the teaching of an infallible Bible for the purpose
of justifying the doubtful action, as to read into
it a sense which may support fhe opinion which
they champion ? No reverence for its infallibility
ever deterred any man from doing violence to
the plain meaning of Scripture, if his object
was, not to make his conduct square with the
Bible, but to make the Bible square with his
conduct. " The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
The possibility of misapplying Scripture is not con
fined to that only which is hard to be understood
in it. Pope Innocent IIL, who excommunicated
King John, supported his action by interpreting
the words of Genesis thus : —
1 2 Pet. iii. 16.

440 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
" God made two great lights, the sun and the moon :
that is, the pope to be above the emperor."
As it was in the Middle Ages, so it is still at
the very close of the nineteenth century. On
August 21, 1895, an "Elder" of the sect of
Peculiar People stated on oath, at the Southend
Police Court, that according to his creed '" a
Peculiar does not break his arm or leg, because
' He keepeth all his bones ; not one of them is
broken.' "
The man who closes his eyes to the consequences
of his action, and reads into the Bible that which
he wishes to find in it, will have no difficulty in
deceiving himself. But the fact that he can so
deceive himself lends no support to the assumption
that the Bible is useless as a spiritual guide unless
it be infallible. No theory about the character of
the Bible will get rid of this liability to error on
the part of man. Though every letter in the Bible
were infallible, a fallible man may err in its
application. (3) God teaches tis in the Bible on the same
principle on which He teaches us outside it.
Much the largest part of the conduct of our
lives proceeds upon the principle of our acting
under guidance which we know not to be infallible.
In some things we are obliged to act every day
under the direct guidance of our own judgment.
But it is our usual practice, especially in what
concerns our more serious interests, to follow the
guidance of others. Suppose a young man is

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 44I
called upon to decide what step he shall take in a
matter that may gravely affect his future career.
If he is wise, he follows the advice of friends whose
age and experience of life enable them to take a
more comprehensive and a juster view of the case
than he himself can take. And it is not only in
great crises that we act on this principle, If a
question arises as to what I am to do to preserve '
my health, I do not doctor myself. I go to the
best physician I can find. If some weighty matter
dealing with money or other property calls for
decision, I do not — unless I am very foolish indeed
— ^make investments, or draw settlements, or write
my will, without the guidance of good professional
skill. In other words, I do not obey my own
judgment directly ; but I obey it nevertheless, by
doing in each case what I am told to do by those
whom I judge to be best qualified to advise me.
In acting thus, I know very well that doctors
and lawyers are not infallible. But that does not
prevent me from doing as they tell me. The
principle then, on which the children of this world
manage all that concerns the most important
interests of their lives, involves the responsible
exercise of their own personal judgment, and that
judgment is generally exercised under fallible
guidance. There lurks in the human heart a cowardly
craving to get rid of personal responsibility. And
this- servile sentiment impels us to seek deliverance
from the irksome burden, by submitting our judg
ment to some infallible authority. But it is im-

442 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
possible to transfer the load. Even when I
place myself under the authoritative guidance of
an infallible Church, or of an infallible Bible, the
load of responsibility still clings to my own
shoulders ; I cannot extricate myself from the
necessity of acting upon my own judgment. If I
determine not to use my own judgment, it is by
using my own judgment that I come to the
determination. The surrender of my judgment
for the future cannot be made except by an act of
my judgment in the present.
It is not only our right to exercise our private
judgment. It is our duty to exercise it. We
cannot escape, if we would, from the responsibility
of using the reason which God has given us. It is
the very condition of our life that each of us must
judge for himself, and act upon his own judgment.
God never compels that judgment. He has placed
us here in a state of probation. In other words,
He has placed us so that it is possible for us to
err. We are free to walk in the right path, but we
are also free to wander from it. We crave for
certainty to hedge us in, and for light to shew us
everything that is around us. God in His wisdom
has given us neither. The translators of our
Authorized Version have well recognised this fact.
In their preface " To the Reader " they say:—
" Some peradventure would have no variety of
senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of
the Scriptures for deciding of controversies, by that
shew of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken.
But we hold their judgment not to be so sound

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 443
in this point. For though whatsoever things are
necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostom saith ;
and, as S. Augustine, in those things that are
plainly set down in the Scriptures all such matters
are found, that concern faith, hope, and charity :
' Yet for all that ... it hath pleased God in His
divine Providence here and there to scatter words
and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not
in doctrinal points that concern salvation (for in
such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are
plain), but in matters of less moment, that tearful
ness would better beseem us than confidence.' " 1
The considerations which determine our action
at every step do not rest on absolute certainty.
That which Bishop Butler has well called the
'' very guide " of our life is only probability.
Neither has God given us perfect light — perfect
knowledge of all that surrounds us. To be dis
satisfied with less than all-embracing certainty, is
to be ignorant of our condition as human beings.
The powers of knowing that belong to the
highest human intellect are much less than they
are generally assumed to be. Men severally
acknowledge to themselves that in fact they know
very little. But they take it for granted that the
knowledge of other men covers the wide field of
their own ignorance. The infant regards his
mother, and the school-boy his master, as the
depository of all knowledge. And the grown-up
man, disillusioned of these vain fancies, falls into
the no less idle error of supposing that all that
1 Preface to the A. V. : The Translators to the Reader.

444 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
lies outside the range of the knowledge of common
men comes within the ken of the student and the
sage. But how little do we know ! Ask those who
have sounded most deeply the depths of human
knowledge, and they will tell you that our know
ledge of the commonest object is as nothing in com
parison of all that remains to be known about it.
Indefinitely less than the knowledge of the sage
is the measure of it which most of us reach. Yet
such as it is, it suffices for our common needs. It
is a legal assumption that every member of the
community-knows what the law of the land is. Yet
no one knows it perfectly. Even the ablest judges
differ in their reading of it. Nevertheless, we are
all bound to obey it. And if through lack of
judgment we misinterpret it, and act upon our
own mistaken though honest view of its meaning,
we must suffer. But no one imagines that on this
account the law fails to answer its end.
It may be said : The laws of the land are human
ordinances, and we must not argue from the im
perfect work of man to the perfect work of God.
But the conditions of social life, involving as they
do our dependence upon, and our obligations, to
one another, are a divine ordinance. " The powers
that be are ordained of God." And God's dealing
with us, in the social relations in which He has
placed us to one another, is in harmony with His
dealing with us in other respects.
The relations of the physical world outside us to
our bodies illustrate the same principle. If we
take poison we die, whether we understand the

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 445
action of the venom that kills us, or not. Few of
us are expert toxicologists. Yet what we all know
is enough to teach us to choose wholesome food.
If we stand under a falling rock, it crushes us,
whether we know what Newton has taught of the
laws of gravitation, or not.
In all these cases the knowledge given to us,
imperfect though it be, suffices for our practical
needs. We do not despise the knowledge of the
street urchin which teaches him to run away from
a falling tile, because he does not know why it
falls. His knowledge of gravitation is enough to
keep him safe.
As in these instances the infinitesimal know
ledge, which common men possess of common
laws, is enough to guid,e them safely through life's
dangers, so the knowledge which God has given
us of spiritual things is sufficient for our needs.
To each of us He has given an inner eye, whereby
we may discern spiritual truth. And that the
guidance, which the teaching of the Bible presents
to that eye, is of God, none may doubt who truly
desire to do His will. "If any man willeth to do
His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it
be of God." 1
"... Will not God impart His light
To- them that ask it ? Freely ; — 'tis His joy,
His glory, and His nature to impart :
But to the proud, uncandid, insincere
Or negligent inquirer, not a spark."
The practical value of this gift of divine guidance
1 John vii. 17.

446 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
in Holy Scripture would not be increased, though
every mark of human defect were removed from
the page of the Bible, nor if the light which it gives
us were tenfold what it is. For the nourishment of
his spiritual life, the simple believer needs not to
possess all the knowledge that Holy Scripture is
capable of conveying, much less to know all the
mind of God. The street boy's observation teaches
him to get out of the way of the falling tile ; and
Newton's greater knowledge of the laws that govern
falling bodies, cannot help him to avoid the danger
more alertly than the boy does.
Neither is it necessary for the believer to give
himself to long, complicated, and difficult inquiries
as to the composition and preservation of the
several books included in the canon of Holy
Scripture. For it is neither by theories of in
spiration, nor by historical or textual criticism,
that we come to know the truth which the Bible
teaches. Theology — a branch of science, the highest
that man can learn — is indeed, for the general good
of mankind, a most important study. But this does
not imply that it is necessary for all men to give
themselves to the pursuit of theology, any more
than the general utility of astronomy and of medi
cine implies that every one should become an
astronomer or a physician.
It is God's will that each man's conscience should
have direct relation with the truth of God.1 The
1 " If we regard the authority of Scripture as anything
more than the authority of truth, wherever found, we almost
need to have some distinct understanding of what is meant

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 447
truth is presented to us in many ways ; but the
responsibility of accepting or rejecting it rests with
each one of us individually.1 God lays the evidence
before us. He gives us power to weigh it. And
from the sum of that evidence it is ours to collect
His truth.2
III. — It is said that to admit that the Bible may be
fallible in the slightest particular, is to deprive
us of our Bible, and with it, of all means of
knowing God's will.
(1) The admission does not take away from us
our Bible, but only our delusions about it.
Objections urged by argument may be met by
by inspiration. But if we receive the Scriptures because of
the power of conviction which the truth carries with itself, I
do not see that we need have any opinion as to the manner
in which the truth was moulded into the particular form found
in the Scriptures. It seems to me, indeed, that we have no
more need of such an opinion than we have of an opinion as
to how light reaches the earth, before we can trust our
selves to walk in the path which the light reveals." — J. B.
Mirrlees, Old Letters, pp. 130, 131.
1 " Scripture, tradition, councils, and fathers are the evi
dence in a question, but reason is the judge ; that is, we being
the persons that are to be persuaded, we must see that we be
persuaded reasonably." — Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Liberty of
Prophesying, x. 5.
2 " Our religion desires of men a candid and discreet ex
amination for its sake and their own . . . We ought especially,
every one of us, in that matter which chiefly concerns our life,
to confide in ourselves ; and rather, with our own judgment and
our proper senses, strive to find out and weigh the truth, than,
believing other men's errors, to be deceived as men void of
reason. God has given all men their share of wisdom, that
they might both inquire into what they hear, and weigh it."
Lactantius, Lib. II. c. vii.

448 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
argument. But much more practically mischievous
than an objection which formulates itself in words,
is one that creeps by stealth into the mind, without
assuming any tangible shape. As there is no
fighting with a phantom, so there is no reasoning
with a sentiment.
In many a man whose reason, reviewing the
whole case, is persuaded to adopt such conclusions
as we have arrived at, there will still linger an un
easy sense of personal loss. He is fain to say: —
" I have been taught from my earliest childhood to
reverence the sacred book as being the word of
the omniscient and true God, — the God who cannot
lie. If therefore I am brought to believe that there
is aught of error in it, then have I lost my Bible ;
and with it all means of knowing God's will."
It is impossible not to sympathize with the
reverence which lies at the root of this sentiment.
In maintaining the absolute infallibility of the
Bible, men fancy that they are upholding the
sacred character of the divine book. It is not
so. Their reverence is misplaced ; for they are
doing homage, not to the Bible, but to a base-born
theory about the Bible.
It is worth while to trace briefly the history of
the theory.
Even before the destruction of the Temple, in
which their patriotism centred, it was the great
boast of the Jews that theirs were the " oracles of
God." When this great symbol of their nationhood
was laid in ruins, they clung the more closely to
that which was left to them of their ancient glories ;

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 449
and their Scriptures, taking the place of what they
had lost, became more and more jealously prized,
as all that remained to link them with the past.
Whatever enhanced their value was welcome. Philo,
an Alexandrian Jew, was the first to frame a theory
of their inspiration. Borrowing from his master,
Plato, he transferred to the holy writings in an
exaggerated form the character ascribed to the
oracles of the heathen gods. He taught that the
inspired " prophet does not speak any words of his
own, he is only the instrument of God, Who inspires
and Who speaks through him."1
This late Jewish theory of the inspiration of
Scripture, was adopted in turn by some of the
Christian Fathers of the second century. But it
never was with them more than a speculative
hypothesis ; and it never took hold of the greatest
students of Scripture, such as Jerome and Chry
sostom. It was natural that the schoolmen, who
loved to indulge in puerile and fruitless specula
tions — such, for instance, as to how many angels
could stand on the point of a needle — should
further elaborate the theories which had come
down to them. But with them too the doctrine
remained a mere hypothesis ; and it was never
accepted as a dogma of the Church.
" The limits of the Bible never formed an article
of faith in the early Churches. Certain books, vary
ing to some extent, were set aside for public use,
but no definition of their character was imposed
upon clergy or laity. Canonicity, and not inspira-
1 De Specialibus Legibus, 8. G G

450 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
tion, was the point to which all the chief authori
tative decisions on the Bible pointed. It was not
till the era of the Reformation that a question,
which, in one aspect at least, is essentially a pro
blem of history, was made the subject of a dogma ;
and that with the express and admitted purpose of
silencing criticism." 1
The modern theory of the infallibility of the
Bible was, in the words of Auberlen, " invented in
the interest of the dogmatic theologians, that they
might have an infallible authority of a kind similar
to the infallibility of the [Roman] Church." It
was not held as a dogma by the first great Re
formers, to whom Western Europe is indebted for
the open Bible which it has possessed ever since.
Hear the testimony of a Swiss writer : —
" The Reformers honoured the Scriptures, and were
very jealous for their divine authority ; and yet they
made undisguised use of very free expressions concern
ing their defects, obscurities, and difficulties : they
acknowledged that there were instances here and there
of contradictions and inaccuracies, and never forgot that,
with the divine working, there was human co-operation
in the composition of the Scriptures. So Luther, Calvin,
Melanchthon, and Beza. It was in the century which
followed the Reformation that there arose an exaggerated
solicitude that the Bible should be acknowledged per
fectly free from fault and omission, even on the human
side of it. It was not taken as God had given it. A
system was set above it, which was not in harmony with
the real conditions on which it is given. Men were
obstinately blind to the imperfections which God had
allowed to remain in His word." 2
1 The Bible in the Church, WESTCOTT, p. 295.
2 AUBERI.EN, The Divine Revelation, p. 425.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 451
They wished to oppose to the doctrine of papal
infallibility, which they had just renounced, the
doctrine of biblical infallibility. Therefore they
invested the Bible with attributes which the early
Christians never claimed for it," until at last it was
made into a sort of pope in print. It was held
that the sacred writers had no share in the com
position of the writings that was not purely
mechanical. They held, indeed, the material pen ;
but they wrote under divine compulsion nothing
but the direct revelations of God.
The history of post-Reformation opinion upon
the inspiration of the Scriptures is very interesting,
and very humiliating. Theories have been built
up on the foundation of false principles of inquiry.
The argument is something like this : " If the
Bible contains a revelation from God, it must be a
perfect revelation. But the revelation cannot be
perfect, unless the book which contains it be so
inspired that every statement in it is in every re
spect absolutely and infallibly exact and correct."
And starting from this conclusion, we have, by an
illogical system of interpretation, strained the
meaning of Holy Writ so as to make it fit in with
our theories. In this case, as in so many others,
the theory was first adopted, and then it was sup
ported by the best arguments that could be found.
In the search for such arguments violence has been
done to reason, and the utmost unfairness has been
employed in the interpretation of Holy Scripture
itself. Every proposition, or word, or allusion,
which seemed capable of being pressed into the

452 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
service, has been made to lend what colour it could
to the truth of the assumed proposition ; while all
else in the Scriptures that seemed unfavourable to
the adopted view has been ingeniously explained
away from its natural meaning, and interpreted
(with what irrelevance to the circumstances of the
case it mattered not) in such a way as to make it
appear to fall in with the thesis to be maintained.
We inherited the theory, and it grew into our
belief. The popular mind learned the lesson only
too well. And it is not surprising to find the pre
valence of a common belief that the Bible, being
inspired, is infallible,— infallible not only as a guide
in godliness, but infallible in everything, — so as to
shut out the possibility of the occurrence of the
least mistake in any point material or immaterial,
until at last men came to regard the word " bibli
cal " as being synonymous with " infallible." If
the Bible makes a statement which seems to bear
on astronomy, or geology, or chronology, then,
according to the popular view, the astronomer, the
geologist, and the historian must correct their
learning by the Bible standard.
This theory, derived from the Jews, developed
by the schoolmen, and propagated since for a
partisan purpose, held the field until a com
paratively recent date. Even quite lately there
were not wanting serious theologians who were
ready to maintain it in its most rigid form without
the smallest compromise. This is what Dean
Burgon said : " The Bible is none other than the
voice of Him That sitteth on the throne. Every

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 453
book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it,
every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter
of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High.
The Bible is none other than the word of God ;
not some part of it more, some part of it less, but
all alike the utterance of Him Who sitteth upon
the throne, supreme, absolute, faultless, unerring." J
Even the author of what must still be regarded as
the most learned book in our language on the
inspiration of the Bible, could not free himself
from the fetters of this cramping theory.2
While as yet science had done but little to reveal
the mysteries of nature, and men were still un
learned in the art of reading history, this doctrine
presented little difficulty even to many otherwise
thoughtful students of the Bible. The great dis
coveries of astronomy dispelled the illusion in some
measure for a time. As soon as it came to be
accepted as an unquestionable fact that the earth
was not the centre of the universe, men began to
see that the laws of the heavenly bodies were not
1 Inspiration and Interpretation, pp. 89, 93, 94.
2 "We there (in the Bible) read the lives of Patriarchs
and Apostles, the annals of the Jewish people, together with
sundry transactions connected with the rise and fall of their
nationality; chronological and geographical details, as well
as matters suggesting questions relating to physical science,
are repeatedly introduced; and the narrative touches, though
rarely, on the general history of the world. . . . The problem
to be solved by the upholder of the authority of the Bible
is to show that these different particulars, in each and every
Book, have been stated with infallible accuracy." — The
Inspiration of the Holy Scripture, by William Lee, D.D.,
Pref. to the Third Edition, p. xiv.

454 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
revealed to us in the Scriptures, and to say, that,
when the Bible spoke of the sun's rising and
setting, it spoke only of its apparent motion, as
any other unscientific book would speak, and as
men — even astronomers — speak to-day in common
conversation. It would have been quite natural
to infer from this that, inasmuch as the Bible did
not disclose to us scientific truths in one case, it
was not impossible it had as little to say to them
in others. But a habit of thought which has once
become intimately associated in men's minds with
their devotional feelings, is not so easily broken
down. And so, although in respect of astronomy
they had changed their view of the Bible's teaching,
they still continued to regard its words as pro
nouncing an infallible judgment on all other
questions of which it happened to treat. By degrees,
however, it has dawned upon us in the light of
growing knowledge, that no violence of interpreta
tion would make all the facts fit in with the
assumed theory. And so, we have come to ask
ourselves at last, whether the whole process where
by our theories of inspiration have been built up,
was not wrong from the beginning.
The truth is, that it is only when we argue about
the Bible that we are votaries of a theory of its
inspiration. Our practice is better than all our
theories. If we lived up to them, the value of our
Bible would depend upon its accuracy, and we
should esteem the worth of our version of the
Scriptures in proportion as it presented to us, with
more or less faithful precision, what Prophets and

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 455
Apostles wrote, and what our Lord said. But this
is not the standard by which we do estimate it.
At the present day the English-speaking world
still clings to its Authorized Version, although it
acknowledges that the Revised Version is superior
to it in accuracy. The force of habit has been too
strong for the majority. They assert indeed in
theory that the whole value of the Bible must
vanish if it be granted that it partakes of human
imperfection. But in practice they elect to use as
their guide of life that version of it which in point
of accuracy is admittedly inferior.
In theory accuracy is everything. But other
considerations outweigh it in practice.
I am not now inquiring whether this ought to
be so. I merely refer to the fact that it is so, as
a striking illustration to shew that men depart in
practice from the speculative doctrine to which in
theory they are most inveterately attached.
It may be that they are right, that other merits
ought to outweigh the merit of accuracy. But no
one who holds this can consistently contend that
the value of the teaching of the Bible depends — I
will not say altogether, but even chiefly — upon the
accuracy of its words.
(2) It is a faithless faith that- rests in the Bible
as its object.
It is hard to rid ourselves of misconceptions which
are intertwined with what, from childhood upwards,
we have learnt to hold most dear. It is a common
thing to hear good men lamenting, in their be
wilderment, " What have we left us ?• Salmon has

456 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
laughed us out of our belief in the infallibility of
the Church, and Gore would persuade us that there
is no infallibility in the Bible either. They have
taken away from us the authority of the Church,
and now they are taking away the authority of
the Bible also."
Such piteous and pathetic laments are very
human. He is no man who has no sympathy with
Jacob when he exclaims, "Joseph is not, and
Simeon is not, and ye will take Benjamin away :
all these things are against me." 1 But the de
pressed and famine-stricken patriarch was mistaken.
For, at the very time when he was giving up his
sons for lost, God was providing for his needs a
rich and abundant supply, — richer, more abundant
far, than in his own most sanguine thoughts and
hopes he had ever dreamed to see.
May it not be so with us to-day ? What have
we left? Assuredly we have everything left that
we had before, except our own delusion.
The lament is a faithless lament. Is it not
founded on a very serious error — the error of
claiming for the creature what belongs to the
Creator only ? There is such a thing as a faith
less reverence, as well as a faithless scorn, for the
Bible. There is such a thing as an unbelieving
belief in the Bible, in the same way that there is
such a thing as an unbelieving belief in the Church,
and in the Sacraments. A sort of belief we may
call it, because it esteems these things as sacred.
But we must pronounce it unbelieving, inasmuch
1 Gen. xiii. 36.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 457
as it dethrones God from His supremacy, by
assigning to them intrinsically a worth which
belongs to them only by virtue of His appointment.
The constant proneness of man to provide him
self with substitutes for God, is the cardinal fact
in the history of religion. What is that history
but the record of the manifold ways in which man
has fashioned for himself idols which he sets up
in God's seat ? It were folly to suppose that,
since the days of the apostles, or since the days
of the reformers, we have succeeded in setting
ourselves wholly free from this universal bent of
our nature. It is ever with us, as it has ever been
with all men. We are, thank God, no longer
exposed to danger Trom its grosser forms. We
can no longer make to ourselves gods of graven
or molten images. But, in subtler guise, it still
lurks in every human heart, tempting us to turn
even those things which we rightly account sacred
into an occasion of profaneness, by inducing us
to give them the honour that is due to God alone.
In early days the whole of Christendom cherished
a strong belief in "One Catholic and Apostolick
Church." To do so was to live the Creed, not
to corrupt or pervert it. But a time came when,
instead of regarding the Church as a divinely-
appointed means for bringing them to God, men
began to allow their thoughts to centre in the
Church herself, to make their whole worship consist
in doing honour to her, and in obeying her, in
order that they might be relieved from the necessity
of honouring and obeying God. When this time

458 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
came, men might still be said to believe in " One
Catholic and Apostolick Church." But such a
belief is practically an unbelief in God.
It is impossible to use the Sacraments which
Christ Himself ordained in His Church with too
strong a faith. They are outward and visible
signs "of an inward and spiritual grace given
unto us." In them we are verily and indeed
partakers of spiritual benefits which it is impossible
to exaggerate—" a death unto sin, and a new
birth unto righteousness," and "the strengthening
and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood
of Christ." But we must take good heed that we
seek in those Sacraments nothing less than Christ
Himself, of Whom we were each made " a member"
in baptism, and whose " Body and Blood " " are
verily and indeed taken and received by the
faithful in the Lord's Supper." It is His promises
that we must hear ; His " manifold and great
mercies" alone that we must trust. If in the
Sacraments we seek aught else than Christ Himself;
if we come to the Font as to a charm ; if we draw
nigh to the Table of the Lord, without drawing
nigh to the Lord whose Table it is ; if, in a word,
we seek in the Sacraments only healing, and not
the divine Healer, then is our reverence for the
Sacraments an unbelieving reverence, because it
is a virtual denial and dishonouring of Him, Who
there, as everywhere, is all in all.
In the same way it is possible to give to the
Scriptures an unbelieving honour which hides God
from view. Such is the honour paid to the Bible

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 459
unopened, unread, misunderstood. It does not
spring from any desire to obey what is written.
Its object is the mere letter.
" . . . . The book of life is made
A superstitious instrument."
Such bibliolatry centres in the book itself. It
does not seek to find the living power that dwells
in it. If its views of what the book ought to be
are interfered with, then all is lost. It is so jealous
for the divine inspiration of the book, that it forgets
the divine Inspirer, Whom the book reveals.
But it is not so that our Church has taught us
to honour the Scriptures. We are to honour the
Bible indeed, but not as an end in itself, only as
one of the divinely-appointed means for bringing
us to God.
(3) The Bible is not the only means which God
has provided for the preservation and propagation of
His truth.
For the preservation and propagation of His
truth among men, God has provided the two
complementary means, the Church and the Bible.
The Bible, as a written record of revelations of
God's will, supplies a guarantee against corruptions
of the divine message. It is the function of the
Church as a living body, actuated by the Holy
Spirit dwelling in it, to prevent our falling into
bondage to the deadening letter, by calling on us
to yield to the quickening spirit.
If, however, we so exalt the record as to make
it take the place of the truth which it discloses,
we become slaves to the deadening letter.

460 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
We learn from Scripture itself that the visible
Church of Christ is a society, like to others in
whatever differences a society from a mere number
of individuals ; but unlike to all others, particularly
in that it has been founded by God to carry out a
divine object ; in that it is not confined within
the bounds of any land, or of any age ; and in
that it is guided and supported by God's special
presence. In its origin the Church was not planted by a
single hand ; it is the aggregate of independent
societies, founded by different men, according to
the grace of God which was given unto them for
that purpose. So too in its origin the Bible was
not written by a single pen ; it is the collection of
independent writings of different men, teaching as
they were severally taught of God. Thus it is the
function of each alike to bear manifold testimony
to the truth.
But the parallel does not end here. In propor
tion as any Church departs from the ordinances
and customs which were handed down from the
apostles, it ceases to be valuable as bearing testi
mony to what they appointed. And in proportion
as any version of the Bible varies from the original
Scriptures which it purports to represent, it ceases
to be valuable as containing their teaching. In
tegrity is alike necessary to the text of Scripture,
and to the framework of the Church, to render
them efficient witnesses of the truth committed to
them. And this integrity is secured to them both
in the same way. Branches of the Church were

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 461
multiplied ; copies and versions of the Scriptures
were multiplied ; — the multiplication tending to
furnish in each case a similar guarantee for the
maintenance of an unmutilated standard.
Time was, when the policy of the Church buried
the Holy Scripture's in an unknown tongue, lest
a knowledge of their teaching might prove a
hindrance to the overweening pretensions of Church
authority. The pendulum has now swung well
nigh as far as it may in the opposite direction :
and we, blindly worshipping we know not what,
are so filled with bibliolatrous enthusiasm, as
almost to forget that the divine book which God has
caused to be written for our learning, is not the
truth itself, but only one of the two great means
which His love and wisdom have appointed to
bring home the truth to the hearts and under
standings of men. It is, however, of the utmost
importance to remember, that before the comple
tion of the Canon of Scripture, and before several
of the books which are now included in the Canon
were even written, Christ had planted His Church,
to make known and to hand down the truth which
He Himself came to reveal.
Indeed our belief in the Scriptures, as contain
ing an authoritative declaration of the divine
will, rests, as we have seen, upon the testimony of
the Church. And it was, without exception, by
appealing1 to the continuous and harmonious testi
mony of the Church — i.e. to catholic tradition —
1 See IRENAEUS, Contra Hareses, Lib. I. c. ii. iii. pp. 22, 23.
Parisiis, 1575.

462 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
that the champions of Christianity defended the
faith in the first ages.
Thus the existence of divine truth in the world
is not left to depend upon the passionate and fitful
advocacy of wrathful man, which worketh not the
righteousness of God.1 It is committed, as a sacred
deposit, to the guardianship of the One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic Church — the Church of
the living God,2 whose office it is to attest and to
preserve the record of divine revelations which is
written in the Bible.
Actuated by excess of zeal, not according to
knowledge, men have claimed for the Bible what
the Bible neither claims for itself, nor does in fact
possess, and in doing so they have most mis
chievously impeded its influence. In maintaining
the paramount claims of its divine teaching, they
have too often come to persuade themselves that
the Bible is their religion. It is well to bear it
clearly in mind that this is not so. Our religion is
not the Bible, it is Christianity. Our faith is faith
in God, as revealed to us in His Son. We do not
say in the Creed, I believe in the Bible, but, I
believe in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost. Has it never occurred to us to reflect
that the revelation of God in Christ was known
to men, and obeyed by men ; that men were
baptized into the name of the Blessed Trinity ;
that they celebrated the Communion of the Body
and Blood of Christ 3 ; that they prayed to our
Father in heaven the words which Christ had
1 James i. 20. 2 1 Tim. iii. 15. 3 1 Cor. x. 16.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 463
taught them ; that, in fact, Christians were counted
by millions long before the Scriptures of the
New Covenant were collected into the Canon ?
Have we asked ourselves who, and what manner
of men these were that did not possess the book
which we seem to think essential to a Christian
faith and life ? Were they, in all that binds the
pilgrim of earth to his home in heaven, inferior
to the many generations of their successors who
have had the Bible in their hands ? What has the
ineffable blessing of an open Bible made of us,
that we should decry the conditions of faith which
gave to the world that noble army of martyrs ?
After all, the Bible is not an end in itself. It is
only a means — a divinely-appointed and a very
blessed means — to bring us to God. So were
sacrifices, and other institutions and ordinances,
divinely-appointed means for bringing men to
God. But when their nature and their use were
forgotten by the Israelites, the prophets rudely
called them to a sense of their true place in the
divine order of things.
" Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings
and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD ?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken
than the fat of rams."1
" To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices
unto Me ? saith the LORD. I delight not in the blood
of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come
to appear before Me, who hath required this at your
hand, to trample My courts? Bring no "more vain
oblations ; incense is an abomination unto Me ; new
1 1 Sam. xv. 22.

464 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies, — I cannot
away with iniquity and the solemn meeting. Your new
moons and your appointed feasts My soul hateth : they
are a trouble unto Me ; I am weary to bear them." 1
The great thing is, not to make a fetich of the
Bible, but to find God.
There can be no question which is the true and
right faith, the faith which rests in the Church, the
Sacraments, or the Bible — i. e. in the means which
God employs for the accomplishment of His will —
or that which has for its object nothing less than
God Himself. Something in itself intrinsically
trivial has often furnished the test whereby the
presence or the absence of the true faith has been
determined. But it has never entered into the
mind of any thoughtful Christian to doubt that
any faith which rests satisfied with aught short of
God is at best a distorted, illusory faith ; and that
the only faith which can in any sense be said to
save the sinner, and to be well-pleasing in God's
sight, is faith in Christ. It is the express teaching
of our Saviour, that it is possible to search the
Scriptures, with the belief that in them is eternal
life, and yet not to find it there.
It is not in the Scriptures, whether of the Old
or New Testament, that the life resides, but in Him
of Whom they bear witness.2 That God has
1 Isa. i. 11 — 14.
2 " It seems to me that all, absolutely all, of our religious
affections and veneration should go to Christ Himself, and
that Protestantism, Catholicism, and every other name which
expresses Christianity, and some differentia and proprium
besides, is so far an evil, and, when made an object of

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS 465
Spoken to us by His Son, each believer knows for
himself in the same direct way that he knows the
sun to shine from heaven. And his knowledge
is in no way affected by anything that may be said
on either side about theories of biblical inspiration.
As Pascal says :—
" The learned theologian may find himself in great
straits. Not so the Christian believer : the theologian
may well be distressed when he sees the support which
he would build up for religion shaken to the base, and
the flying buttresses with which he would have borne
it up fallen to the earth ; but the Christian recks not
of this man's hypotheses, and explanations, and proofs.
In spite of all, Christianity is a fact — that Christianity
which he feels to be true, and which makes him so
happy. When the paralysed man experiences the benefit
of the electric current, he is little concerned to know
whether Nollet or Franklin be right, or whether haply
they may both be wrong."
All attempts to explain the operation of the
Spirit of God upon the spirit of man, by means of
theories of inspiration, very soon carry us out of
our depth, and leave us helplessly afloat in a sea
of doubt. But if we are content to inquire what
God has done to make known His will to' men,
without pretending to understand how it has all
attachment, leads to superstition and error." — Arnold's Life,
p. 292.
" Christ is greater than all theories, and he who believes
in Him will not be confounded. The true support of the
human soul, which realizes the horror of being without God
in the world, is not to believe that God has spoken by a book
precisely in this manner, or precisely in that, but to believe
that God, Who has spoken to mankind at various times and
in divers manners, has spoken unto us by His Son." — Bishop
Goodwin, Hulsean Lectures, 1855, p. 92.
HH

466 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
been done, we shall have no difficulty in coming
to the conviction that God is not unrighteous to
require of us obedience to His will, without supply
ing us with ample means to learn what His will
is, but that He has beyond all doubt provided us
with a sufficient rule of faith and practice.
The mind of the present generation has indeed
been alarmed by a succession of convulsions which
have laid in ruins imposing theories built up by
human ignorance. But these convulsions have
utterly failed to shake the temple of eternal truth,
which stands fast for ever, fixed firm on the rock
of divine wisdom.
Half-a-century ago, a Bampton Lecturer, treating
of the supremacy of Holy Scripture,1 used these
words : —
" Our object is to prove the Bible to be, practically,
the only divine record we possess, and the one standard
of truth and error, to which all must appeal, and by
which all may be guided into truth."
Since these words were written the Bible has
been subjected to the most searching examination.
And thoughtful men have come not only to see
much in it which they had not seen before, but
also to discover the absence from it of much which
it had been supposed to contain. Nevertheless, in
the broad character of God's word written, it remains,
as seen in the light of to-day, what it has been from
the first. And so far as it was possible to maintain
Bishop Shirley's thesis fifty years ago, it is, I believe,
no less possible to maintain it still.
1 Bishop Shirlev, Bampton Lectures, p. 25.

CHAPTER VIII
CONCLUSION
" What is left for us, save, in growth
Of soul, to rise up, . . .
From the gift looking to the Giver,
And from the cistern to the River,
And from the finite to Infinity,
And from man's dust to God's Divinity ? "
It remains only to recall the sum of what has been
said. We have seen that the Bible is a collection of
writings which give us an account of God's dealings
with man from the earliest times down to the days
of the apostles. The two Testaments into which
it is divided are vouched for as being in a peculiar
sense from God, by two distinct and absolutely
independent bodies of witnesses ; the Jews, on whose
authority we receive the Old Testament, being the
most hostile opponents of the men on whose
authority we receive the New Testament. There
is positively no room for the suggestion of collusion
between the two bodies of witnesses.
An examination of the contents of the books
abundantly confirms the testimony of those through
467

468 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
whom they have come down to us. We find that
the writings extend over a long period of time,
being the work of many men and" of many ages.
As was to be expected, they exhibit great
diversity of form and great variety of colouring.
Yet we cannot peruse the two literatures contained
in these two Testaments, even in the most cursory
manner, without being struck by the fact, that
the one looks forward in the most ardent hope,
while the other looks back in the firmest faith, to
an historical Personage. We say — and we feel
that we have a right to say — that the historical
Personage in each case is one and the same, a
unique Personage in the history of the human race.
" The coherence of the two Testaments consists
in their being the progressive revelation of Jesus
Christ ; and they are therefore one, because Christ
is One, eternally and unchangeably the same." J
They unfold a consistent series of progressive re
velations or disclosures of the things of God, the
New Testament being, as S. Augustine phrases it,
"latent" in the Old, and the Old Testament
" patent " in the New.
Unity of purpose is not found to run more un
mistakably throughout the books of Virgil's
JEneid than it does through the Bible from begin
ning to end. From the first book of the Old,
to the last book of the New Testament, we can
trace the fulfilment of one great purpose, — a
purpose. which is manifestly divine, — the transform
ation of man into the likeness of God.
1 Bp. Perowne, The Essential Coherence, p. 175.

CONCLUSION 469
Furthermore, the divineness of the Bible shines
out by its own light. True indeed, all are not
equally prompt to see it. As one man sees in a
picture at a glance more than all that another will
be able to discover in it after long and laborious
effort, while to a third, the canvas, which at first
was a flat surface of coarse pigment, suddenly
bursts into life after a little sustained attention,
so it is with the Bible.
It is what S. Paul calls carnal-mindedness which,
beyond all other things, hides from man the view
of God in the Bible. But when his heart turns to
the Lord, Who is the Spirit,1 the veil is taken
away. When the Holy Spirit creates a clean
heart, and renews a right spirit within us,2 He
removes that which shuts out the beatific vision,
and in making us pure in heart, He enables us to
see God.3 The more we come to know that
Saviour Christ of Whom the whole Bible testifies,
the more we learn to discern His blessed Spirit ;
and the more we truly strive to have in us the
mind that was in Him, so much the more shall we
be assured that the Bible is not of man, but is
indeed from God. If any man willeth to do the
Father's will, he shall know t>f the teaching,
whether it be of God.4
Moreover, the teaching of the book, culminating
as it does in the utterances of God incarnate, has
always had power beyond the words of man to
stir men's hearts. Whether spoken to the multi-
1 2 Cor. iii. 16, 17. 2 Ps. li. 10.
3 Matt. v. 8. 4 John vii. 17.

470 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
tudes that thronged around Him on the mountain,
or read in the calm quietude of the inner chamber
after centuries have passed, His teaching, as He
discloses the truths of the Kingdom of God, always
bears upon it the unmistakable mark of divine-
ness. His word has gone forth into all lands, and
it has not returned void.1 The lowest barbarisms,
and the highest civilizations, submitting to its
sway, have been invariably lifted to a higher level.
And wherever it has gone, it, and it alone, has
taught to men " a religion not naturally weakened •
by civilization." 2
It claims to set forth the teaching which our
Father in heaven has provided for His children on
earth as they were able to receive it. Admit this
claim, and the Bible at once not only makes us to
lift up our hearts in gratitude for the inestimable
gift, but also commends itself to our highest reason
as being consistent with all that we know of God's
ways upon earth, in fullest harmony with the other
gifts which His loving bounty has provided for the
manifold needs of His children. Refuse to admit
the claim, regard the Bible as a chance medley, a
farrago of mere human speculations about a God
Who has no existence, and what is your position ?
You must account for a phenomenon which, ex
hypothesi, is a purely human phenomenon, but
which nevertheless cannot be compared with any
thing in the history of mankind..
Attempts have been made to explain away the
divine in the Bible. As well might you hope to
1 Isa. Iv. ii. 2 Lecky, Hist. Rat. I. p. 335.

CONCLUSION 471
explain away the human in the plays of Shakspere.
To shew that there is nothing human in the page
of Shakspere, you must account for the fact that
so many thousand letters of the alphabet have
been formed ; that they have been arranged in
such order as to spell words which are spoken
by the tongue of man ; that those words are dis
posed into sentences such as man employs ; that
those sentences are arrayed according to the use
of the human mind ; and that the general result
of the whole is to form such a picture of human
action, that, with one voice, all men declare it to
be a faithful likeness of man.1 When you shall
have succeeded in satisfying mankind that those
plays originated independently of all human will
and human thought, then — but not till then — may
you begin to contemplate the task of satisfactorily
accounting for the existence of the Bible without
the action of the Supreme Spirit that inhabiteth
eternity. To the question in what way God spake to the
holy men of old whose words it records, we find no
direct answer in the Bible itself. Where nothing is
clearly made known to us we have no right to
dogmatize. It was characteristic of the religious
thought of the Hebrew to overleap all intermediary
activities and agencies, in order to come to the
source and spring of all action in the divine will
itself. In the march of human affairs he heard the
very voice of God. Many of us at the present day
have seen, at certain crises of our own lives, the
1 See Salmon, Non- Miraculous Christianity.

472 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
hand of Providence directing us unmistakably to
a particular course of action. We have been fully
satisfied that certain unforeseen and unexpected
combinations of events have definitely declared to
us God's will, and that it was ours to rise up and
do it. We have no right to say that it was only
thus — indeed it is quite clear that it was not only
thus — that God spake to the Prophets of Israel.
But whether thus, or by more immediately direct
personal communication, God did. speak to them.
And they spoke from God to their own generation,
and to all generations after them, " being moved by
the Holy Ghost." 1
Having revealed His truth to man, God made
provision for its maintenance and propagation.
The means employed embraced the combined
service of an organized society, and of a written
book — the co-ordinate agency of the Church and
of the Bible. In both Church and Bible we meet
with the union of the divine and the human. The
analogy of the Church may serve to throw some
light upon the function of the Bible. The Church
is a living organism, whose life is a divine life, and
whose head is Christ, exalted to the throne of
heaven, though its members are the children of
men. The Bible is quick with a divine life, and
powerful with a divine energy, though the language
which it speaks is the language of men of like
feelings and of like passions with ourselves.
Alike in Church, and in Bible, I confess that
I am unable to draw a line of demarcation, on
1 2 Pet. i. 21.

conclusion 473
one side of which is found the divine, and on the
other side of which is found only the human. If
we imagine that we have compassed the Infinite
with our finite powers, and that the way of all His
doings lies clearly open to our view, we deceive
ourselves in our ignorance.
" How can the less the greater comprehend ?
Or finite reason reach Infinity ?
For what could fathom God were more than He.''
It is, therefore, no paradox, but a simple, plain,
straightforward truth, that so far as our knowledge
of God's ways is a true knowledge, it must be
indistinct and imperfect. He has given us powers
whereby we can judge, with the most infallible
certainty, of His love and goodness to us. He
has not given us the capacity to understand the
ansearchable treasures of His wisdom. His ways
pass all our understanding.
An examination of some of the objections urged
against the divineness of the Bible has not only
shewn that the objections are without force, but
that the very things objected against are altogether
in harmony with what we know of divine action.
No human defects to be found in the Bible shew
it to be either unlike other agencies which God
employs, or unmeet to be a guide of life to men.
A few passages find place in our Authorized
Version of the Holy Bible, as to which there is no
doubt that they ought not to be there. But this
circumstance does not appreciably affect that ver
sion for the worse. The omission of these passages

474 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
does not involve the surrender of one iota of the
divine teaching which the book conveys. And
the detection of the fact that such a small number
of unauthorized passages have gained admission
to the text of a few MSS., is in itself a circum
stance which strongly tends to shew how marvel
lously the purity of the sacred text has been
preserved. If the result of a scrutiny, which is
altogether unparalleled in the history of textual
criticism, is to reject so little, and that little of
such a character that its removal leaves all that
remains unaffected by its displacement, must we
not feel that the net result of inquiry is to add
enormously to our confidence ?
By the aid of a glass you may detect the
presence of a larger or smaller number of dark
spots on the sun's disc. But even when at a
maximum, they do not appreciably intercept the
beams that issue from the great central light ; nor
do they make it in the slightest measure harder for
you to walk in the brightness of the day. Even
so, the defects which microscopic scrutiny has been
able to discover in the Bible do not hide from us
the way of truth, the "right way" wherein it
teaches us to walk. They do not mar the practical
effect of the Book. It gives us still the same laws,
the same narrative of events, the same teaching.
Its material substance, so far as it affects our
knowledge of God, and our relation to Him, is
wholly unchanged. It is a divine book, imparting
to us a knowledge of God's will, and of God's love,
which without it we could not have, and supplying

conclusion 475
us with a divine standard whereby to rule our lives.
It is at the same time a human book, written by
the hands of men, and giving expression, in the
language of men, to the knowledge, the experience,
the feelings, with which, through the operation of
the divine Spirit, the minds and hearts of men
were filled. It presents us with heavenly treasure.
But the heavenly treasure is in earthen vessels. It
is, however, none the less, but all the more valuable
to us, because we have it in such a way as is most
available for practical use. It is an inexhaustible
purse of gold, ever at hand to meet our daily needs ;
not a deposit in the bank, on which we cannot draw.
To say that there is nothing in the Bible but
what originates in man is, as we have seen, to
claim for man powers which he has never shewn
himself to possess. And to say, on the other
hand, that there is nothing in it but what comes
directly from God, is to say what the Bible does
not itself say, and gratuitously to make God
responsible for the shortcomings of man. The
agents employed by God are marked by all the
frailties which belong to humanity. Their state
ments are sometimes inconsistent ; their views of
nature are sometimes false views ; their concep
tions of right and wrong are often the conceptions
of the world's childhood. Yet they have produced
a work which, after provoking a whole literature of
attacks made against it from every quarter, with
the utmost persistence, skill, and ingenuity, has
always emerged with new lustre, and. fresh evidence
that it must be more than the work of man.

476 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
" It is the word of God, for it tells us of the work
of God, and does the work of God even now. It is
the enduring form in which God has been pleased
to cast the Gospel which existed before it. It is,
together with Christendom, the great document of
Christianity. The Church is the work of God ;
the Bible is the word of God. In it He, through
human instruments, has written, in His way, His
will. In it we, reading what He has written,
decipher His will toward us. The human instru
ment was necessary to write, just as the human eye
and mind are necessary to read ; but it is the word
of God and not of man." x
" Holy Scripture has been compared of old to a
musical instrument. If we follow out the hint
supplied by the Greek word, we may perhaps
compare it to an organ. One in its purpose, it is
yet -most complex in its structure. Its different
portions, fashioned by divers hands, working for the
most part independently, combine to a common
purpose, because the operation of each and all is
directed by one presiding mind. All the parts may
not appear in themselves equally essential or
elaborate, yet we dare not declare any of them
imperfect, because they have been placed where they
are by Him who has designed the whole. Some
notes seem by comparison thin and feeble, but they
have doubtless their place in the divine harmony
Much of the vocal machine is often silent ; as we
listen, a single note streams forth in the simplicity of
1 C. P. Chretien, The Letter and the Spirit, pp. 12,
'3-

conclusion 477
clearness ; or a gentle breath of sound is heard in
front of a deep and muttering harmony ; or a whole
flood of music bursts forth in triumphant joy. We
hearken in wonder and in awe, for no common will
moves in the mighty Instrument. He Who fashioned
the world and our souls, has made it by the hand of
His creatures ; He, the Lord of spirits, has poured
His Spirit within it. Through it He speaks, in the
condescension of Infinite Power, to our spirits. He
has placed it where it stands, to fill with its mighty
music a temple older than itself, the Church of the
living God."1
Our view of the divine inspiration of Holy
Scripture varies with our conception of God,
Divine inspiration, as we have been in the habit of
seeing it, seems to be to divine inspiration as we
ought to see it, pretty much what a child's view of
a Dutch flower-garden is to the conception of
nature, which is suggested to the mind of a cul
tured man by the wide expanse of some noble
landscape. The blaze of colour, the regular trim
concinnity of the whole, together with a certain
sense of exclusive possession, fills the child with a
rapture of delight, until the little space enclosed by
his garden fence contains for him the whole
paradise of earth. But when the same child's
mind has been enlarged by years of experience,
his attention is no longer centred in one little spot.
In that little spot, indeed, he can see myriad
wonders, which were hidden from him before. But
1 C P. Chretien, The Letter and the Spirit, pp. 25,
26.

478 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
now as he ranges over the broadest outlook, melt
ing on all sides into the unseen, the farther his eye
can reach, the more it finds to dwell on.
Fuller knowledge of the origin of the books, and
a more careful and scientific examination of their
contents, have made it impossible to maintain
theories of inspiration which are the outcome of
a zeal not according to knowledge. But if a fuller
view of the facts dispels the illusion of such a
divine authorship of the Bible as we fondly
imagined, it enables us to see more clearly the
presence of God's hand from first to last. It is
given to us to see what our fathers did not per
ceive, that God revealed Himself to holy men, not
in the storm of ecstatic transport only, but no less
in the still small voice that spoke to their con
sciousness as never man spoke. It was thus that
they were taught of God, and it is from knowledge
thus acquired that they declare to us what is in
truth the word of God.
This view of the Bible in no way lowers our
conception of it as the work of God. To shew
that the power of a monarch's sway reaches even
to countless unobserved trifles, and is exercised in
them, no less than in his most official pronounce
ments, is surely not to narrow, but to extend, the
field of his dominion. And to note the presence
of God's hand where it has been hitherto too little
observed, is surely not to deny its presence where
that presence is most obvious.
It is the condition of our state, — therefore it
is God's will, — that we cannot set limits to the

conclusion 479
divine action. Yet we appear to do so, when we
distinguish between the inherent powers with which
God has endowed our nature, and the additional
special gifts with which He vouchsafed to ennoble
a chosen few. We have grown into the habit of
calling the inherent powers human, and the addi
tional gifts divine. But, whether we recognise it
or not, the great fact remains unalterable, that
human nature, with all its many limitations, is it
self the work of God, is itself an instrument to
fulfil the will of God.
" The two distinct streams of divine wisdom, or
inspiration, and of human agency we can indeed
discern in the Scriptures ; but the point of their
common source, and the mode of their mixture
together at the fountain-head, lie buried, perhaps
impenetrably, out of our sight." 1
The main design of revelation is to make known
to man that knowledge of God which is life eternal.
And this design includes, as an integral part of it,
the progressive improvement of man, his growth in
goodness, his going on from strength to strength,
that he may be made meet to partake of his
heavenly inheritance. God, Who knows what is in
man, has accordingly taught mankind the know
ledge of Himself by " slow successive steps." The
first lessons which He gave to the childhood of
mankind were elementary lessons, imperfect, and
therefore transitory, addressed to the senses, and
enforced by sensible sanctions, by material rewards
and material punishments. Yet not one jot or
1 Bp. Hervey, Inspiration, pp. 84, 85.

480 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
tittle of that elementary teaching failed, or could
fail, in the conception of Him Who judged it not
failure in ordinance or enactment, if it fulfilled its
proper end ;— if it served its own generation before
it fell on sleep, to rise in spirit among the next ;
if it so guided those who required its guidance, as
to set them forth on a progress, which led them to
a higher level, whence they could see, inviting
them ever onwards and upwards, still greater
heights, unseen before ; or if, (to use the illustra
tion of S. Paul), it so nurtured infancy, that
childhood grew ; and so invigorated youth, that
manhood came ; albeit each, in succession, should
claim to rise above its past, and should call
into being thoughts and language congenial
with its present, and needful for its succeeding
stage. When, by means of these elementary lessons,
man had been sufficiently prepared for the re
ception of fuller instruction in the knowledge of
God, — then, but not till then, in the fulness of
time God sent forth His Son. Thenceforward the
Father reveals Himself to us objectively in the
life of the Son on earth, and subjectively by the
promptings of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us.
But this is a distinction of conception in our minds,
rather than a difference of divine action in fact ;
for " No man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the
Holy Spirit";1 inotherwords.it is only by the
influence of the divine Spirit upon our spirit, that
we are enabled to accept His kingdom of the truth,
1 l Cor. xii. 3.

CONCLUSION 481
and love, and peace, as exhibiting the highest life
of man on earth.
The Bible is, then, the record of a progressive
ascending series of divine communications to man
kind, beginning from the very dawn of history, and
sweeping onward down the ages, > piercing and
slowly rending here and there the clqud of human
darkness, kindling in the hearts of sensual man
the pure glow of religious emotion, and making
ready the way for the great manifestation of God
in the Man Christ Jesus, the Redeemer and
.victorious Head of the race.
Every book of the Bible adds some touch to
-this great picture, now disclosing some glimpse of
the character of God, now declaring some frag
ments of His will, now exhibiting the practical
effects ofthe divine communications in the hearts
and in the lives of men. Thus the ever-growing
revelation at once generates and conditions the
Bible. The breath of God is animating the writers
in countless ways, stirring their thoughts, quicken
ing their emotions, enabling them amidst all their
ignorance, and all their narrowness, to utter and to
record something that brings God nearer to man,
and that nourishes a divine life in human hearts.
Regarded in this light, the Old Testament ap
pears at once to be much more than a store and
depository of mechanical utterances; and as we
read the Law and the Prophets, we feel the presence
of something divine infused into the wayward
hearts of men, gradually preparing them for the
1 1

482 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
reception of God's highest revelation in the person
of His Son.
The efficacy of the Bible as a means of grace
depends not upon our attributing a special char
acter to it, but on our own personal desire to seek
its spiritual guidance. The Jews of our Lord's day
did not regard the Old Testament as a merely
human book, they did not read it merely as an
interesting collection of pious thoughts that had
come down from by-gone ages. They thought,
correctly enough, that they had in their Scriptures
eternal life, but they failed to find it, because they
would not come to Him of Whom they bore wit
ness. Our finding eternal life in our Bible depends,
not upon our holding any special view of its inspira
tion, but upon our bringing to the study of it those
ears and eyes wherewith Christ is heard and seen.1
If S. Paul could recommend the Scriptures of
the Old Covenant to the first Bishop of Ephesus as
able to make him wise unto salvation, we need
have no apprehension as to the sufficiency of our
Bible, which adds to the light shining in the dark
place of the Old Covenant the illumination which
the great Light of the world has poured upon the
New.

It may appear to some, that the view which is
set forth in these pages cannot be tolerated, because
it departs from what has been held about the Bible
in times past. 1 John v. 40.

CONCLUSION 483
It has already been shewn, that, while it is indeed
a departure from much that has been taught about
the Bible in modern times, it is in a great measure
only a reversion to what was generally believed by
the early Christians. It involves, no doubt, some
considerable modification of conceptions which
had arisen, and such a re-statement of our belief
as will bring it into harmony with the fuller know
ledge of to-day. But there is nothing new in this,
and nothing to cause alarm. It is part of the con
tinuous growth of human knowledge.
There was a time— and it is not so very long
ago — when this earth of ours, which we know to be
a small planet amid the countless hosts of those
wondrous bodies that find their home in space, was
believed to be the very centre and pivot of the
universe. The false conception faded out before
the growing light of human knowledge. Its dis
appearance was the occasion of much distress to
many pious minds. " We must denounce this new
teaching," it was said, " which contradicts the word
of God proclaimed in the Bible." But by degrees
men came to see that the new teaching was true
teaching, and in no way repugnant to any declara
tion of God in the Bible. The view which men
had learned to take of the material universe, and of
the relation in which its several parts stood to one
another, was no longer what it had been before
the discoveries of astronomy. But the material
universe in itself, and in its relation to its divine
Creator and Sustainer, was in no way affected by
the fact that men had put away their ignorant

484 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
conceptions of it. Neither was men's faith in God,
as the Creator of all things visible and invisible, in
any degree shaken. . It stood thenceforth on a
broader, firmer basis. Even so, no change in our
view of what the Bible is, makes the Bible to
be in itself one whit different from what it was
before. And so far as our new view is truer than
the old, it will only reveal to us more fully the
wonderful works of God.
" Let us have the courage to say, once and for
all, The Bible is what God has made it for us, and
not what we think He ought to have made it for
us. The Bible is what it is, just as truly as the
world we live in is what it is ; and if all the
discoveries of men of science concerning the world,
its nature, history, construction, can never banish
from the heart of the Church the belief that it
had a divine Creator; why should all the dis
coveries of men of science concerning the human
elements of the Bible shake for one moment the
faith which lies deep in the heart of the Church,
that as truly as the world had a divine Creator, so
truly has the Bible had a divine Author ? " 1
Arnold said more than fifty years ago : —
" If it should happen, as in all probability it will, that
we shall be called upon to correct in some respects our
notions as to the Scriptures, and so far to hold views
different from those of our fathers, we should consider
that our fathers did not, and could not, stand in our
circumstances ; that the knowledge which may call upon
us to relinquish some of their opinions, was a knowledge

1 Archbishop Magee, Sermons, p. 322.

CONCLUSION 485
which they had not. Till this knowledge comes to us,
let us hold our fathers' opinions as they held them ; but
when it does come, it will come by God's will, and to do
His work : and that work will, assuredly, not be our
separation from our fathers' faith; but if we follow
God's guidance humbly and cheerfully, clinging to God
the while in personal devotion and obedience, we may
be made aware of what to them would have been an
inexplicable difficulty, and which was, therefore, hidden
from their knowledge ; and yet, 'through the grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ,' we believe that we shall be saved
even as they." 1
As we interrogate nature in the laboratory — as
we investigate the facts of history — as we study
the course of human consciousness and human
thought, we see, as our fathers could not see, much
which enables us to spell out a grand design deep
graven on all that meets our ken —
" From seeming evil still educing good,
And better thence again, and better still,
In infinite progression."
Under the good guidance of divine Providence,
our own Church has nowhere committed us to any
definition of divine inspiration whatever. Many
of our divines indeed have defined the doctrine,
and some of them, as we have seen, in very
exaggerated terms. We are now paying the heavy
penalty for their unwisdom. We have been look
ing at the biblical page so long through the dis
torting spectacles of theories which are certainly
not divine, that it is little wonder if we have
received a false impression of what the page con
tains. And so habituated has our eye become to
1 Sermons, vol. iv. pp. 485 — 492.

486 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
the false medium, that when we remove these
spectacles, the experience is at first unpleasant.
We meet every day good, earnest men who
lament that they can no longer hold the Christian
faith. And when we ask them why, they tell us it
is because they have learned to see in the pages of
the Bible the trace of human handiwork. Let us
assure such men, distinctly, emphatically, that it is
not the Christian faith of which they have lost hold.
It is only faith in a fetich, in a false doctrine of
man's devising, a false conception of what the
Bible is. Their growing knowledge has shewn
them that it is impossible to hold what they have
been taught to hold. They have yet to learn that
what they surrender is no part of the Christian
faith. Let them grope on in humble, prayerful
hope, and instead of deploring a loss of faith in
Christ, they will come to rejoice in their deliver
ance from a doctrine of men, which has denied to
them the knowledge of the glorious liberty of the
sons of God.
In puttingiaway childish things, the child, grown
into a man, puts away with regret some of the con
ceits with which he has been brought up. They
were beautiful, they were dear to him ; from some
of them he cannot part without a pang. But hav
ing once looked upon the larger, fuller, freer life
of men, he would not return to the cramping ignor
ance he has left behind. Even so, to the fond
ignorance of days gone by, the thought was very
dear that its narrow view of God disclosed the
whole field of His operations. The vanishing of

CONCLUSION 487
that narrow view need cause him no dismay. Only
he must be careful not to -lose along with it the
prompt docility that marked his opening life.
" We too often, in putting away childish things,
part with the wrong elements ; losing the heavenly
insight, keeping the earthly darkness. We put
away the guileless mind, the pure vision, the simple
truth, the tender conscience, and reserve the petty
scale of thought, the hasty will, the love of toils
and strife. Paul put away only the ignorance and
littleness of childhood, bearing with him its fresh
ness, its truth, its God, into the grand work of his
full age. And hence, while our religion lies some
where near our cradle, and is a kind of sacred
memory, his lived on, to speak for itself instead of
being talked about." x
There are those who cannot allow themselves to
believe that any view of the Bible can be a true
view, which presents it to them in a different light
from that in which they have been accustomed to
regard it. Ask them to join you in making a more
deliberate and careful inspection of their holy city,
the city of praise, the city of their joy,2 the perfec
tion of beauty, the joy of the whole earth. Invite
them with the psalmist, to
Walk about Zion, and go round about her ;
To tell the towers thereof ;
To mark well her bulwarks ;
To traverse her palaces.3
If, in making your invitation, you betray your
1 Martineau's Study of S. Paul.
2 Jer. xlix. 25. 3 Ps. xlviii. 12, 13.

488 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
inability to pronounce " Shibboleth " as they pro
nounce it, you are at once suspect. They have
a preconceived idea of what the Bible must be ;
and whatever refuses to fall in with that idea, is
on that account at once condemned as false and
dangerous. Their creed is cast in an unalterable
mould, and whatever departs from its pattern in
the least particular they cannot away with. All
inquiry is cut off; they are wedded to their rigid
system even though that system be rigid with the
rigidity of death. But
" Our little systems have their day.
They have their day, and cease to be ;
They are but broken lights from Thee :
And Thou, O Lord, art more than they."
No writer can expect to carry every one with
him. I cannot hope to have converted those who
have allowed themselves to become slaves of any
particular theory of inspiration ; nor am I so fond
as to expect that words of mine could make any
useful impression on those who have made up
their minds beforehand that the Bible cannot be
regarded in any true sense as having a divine
origin. But there is, I believe, a growing readiness
on the part of all serious men to prove all things,
and to hold fast that which is good.
And speaking for myself, I can say without
reserve, that as I have gone on from step to step,
trying to catch the meaning of the scattered hints
from which our knowledge of the true character of
the Bible is to be gathered, I have been altogether
free from that uncomfortable feeling which comes

CONCLUSION 489
over men when they know themselves to be in
danger. On the contrary, I have becbirte more
and more conscious of a growing disembarrass
ment ; and I have felt the joy of living and moving
in the presence of a larger, fuller, diviner truth. I
am not singular in this experience. It was de
scribed in sympathetic terms more than fifty years
ago:— " For some, there probably will be few periods of their
life more exciting and more rememberable, than wheri
the eyes which have been from earliest youth invariably
fixed on the divine side of Scripture, are first presented
with that side of it which is largely human. ... If the
student be one whose firm belief, that God's ways are
higher than his, will keep him steady in faith and humble
in heart, willing to learn and living to know . . ., then,
after some while he will find that his first step was to
him a shock, only because it led him suddenly from a>
standing place which was almost a prison, into a freer
air and a wider region, where his soul was required
quickly to expand to larger aspirations, and his eye to
accustom itself to a broader light. He then, too, will
soon find that he can breathe as freely and see as
clearly in this region as he could in the former, and that
it is altogether one more invigorating and more noble." l
When once we come to view the Bible in the
light in which I have tried to represent it, it is
found to be full of life ; and, as Coleridge says,
much that seemed before to be no better than a
dry and withered branch, will be found, like Aaron's
rod, to put forth buds, and bloom blossoms, and
bear ripe almonds.
1 Myers, Catholic Thoughts on the Bible and Theology,
p. 121.

490 THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY
Whatever the final results of patient research-
whatever the application of criticism may teach us
at last as to the literary history of the Bible, the
Bible will ever maintain, as it has maintained till
now, a position which is altogether unique. ' The
Divine Library ' is one and entire, with a unity, an
integrity, which no literary discovery can affect.
It is not the mechanical unity of the lifeless
machine, in which the giving way of one single
bolt may involve the break-down of the whole
structure. It is rather the unity of the living body,
which in spite of defect, or even of serious mutilation,
may remain, by virtue of the life that animates it,
still fit for the effective discharge of all its functions.
We have not, I believe, any just reason to be
afraid. The God, Who reigns supreme, is the God
of truth. Truth is immutably and eternally at
unity with itself, though we, seeing in part and
knowing in part, oftentimes fail to descry the
harmony of its operation.
The most sharp-sighted wayfarer, walking in the
valley at the grey dawn of morning, cannot be
said to see the country through which he passes.
The feeble light is enough to enable him to keep
the path, shewing him step by step the road that
lies before him ; but the thick shroud of mist
covers from his view even the most general features
of the landscape, that will break upon him as soon
as the sun shall have risen in its glory.
We cannot describe, because we cannot see,
anything like the whole of God's work in giving
us the Bible. But "the 'kindly light,' which is

CONCLUSION 491
sufficient to save us from pitfalls, leads us on step
by step, not always into realms of fuller knowledge,
— for those we are content to wait awhile, — but into
the sure ways of love and dutifulness. And yet
obedience is knowledge ; and the light seems to
grow clearer as we advance, and at moments we
yearn for no more than we have ; our strength
seems sufficient for our day." x
But however obscure our path, however gloomy
at times the outlook, we are not alone. As we
examine the Bible, and consider the countless
respects in which it differs from the work of man,
we seem to see the present hand of Him
" Who sitteth in the heavens over all from the begin
ning ; "
and while we look, and wonder,
" Lo, He doth send out His voice, yea, and that a
mighty voice."2
And as we read the holy book with meekness, and
receive its teaching with pure affection, we are
conscious of something more blessed still. Our
hearts burn within us, and we know the presence
of One Who is fairer than the children of men, and
Who, speaking as never man spake, manifests Him
self to them that love Him as a Guide that cannot
err, nay, as Himself the Way, the Truth, and the
Life.3 1 Bishop Fraser, Second Charge.
2 Ps. lxviii. 33. 3 John xiv. 6, 21.

INDEX

"Acknowledged " writings, 25
Ambiguities, 257
Anthropomorphic language, 205,
212
Antiquity of man, 315 n.
Apocryphal Gospels, 65
Apostles, threefold commission of
the, 94
Archaeology, testimony of, 290
Arnold, Dr., quoted, 351, 464 n. ,
483
Athanasius, S., quoted, 365
Auberlen, quoted, 450
Augustine, quoted, 102, 201 n.
Authority, Divine,' 200
Authorized Version, the, 3 ; trans
lators of, quoted, 4, 275, 397, 443;
practical value of, not diminished
by the occurrence of a few
spurious passages, 473
Bacon, Lord, quoted, 309
Barrow, Dr. Isaac, quoted, 187
Bartimseus, 416
Baur, quoted, ix n.
Bernard, Dr. J. H. , quoted, 66
Bible, meaning of the term, 11 ;
the Jews ascribed divine author
ity to the, 98 ; witness of the
Church to the, 98 ; argument
from the contents of, 129 sq. ;
unlike all other books, 146 ; ap
peals to more than reason, 158 ;
the message of the, carries its
own credentials, 160 ; instinct
with divinity, 169 ; the teaching
of the, followed -by moral ad
vancement, 177 ; and by material
progress, 179 ; the influence of
the, not that of a fetich, 188 ;

the new view of the, a reversion
to the early view, 24s, 482 ; ver
bal phenomena of the, 256 ; the,
not the only means for the pre
servation and propagation of tbe
truth, 259 ; the, pretends to no
revelation of physical facts, 305,
310; the teaching ofthe, spiritual,
310 ; the, a record of progressive
revelations, 311 ; the teaching of
the, progressive, 327 ; the teach
ing of tbe, about itself, discovered
by criticism, 376 ; the authority of
the, not impaired by the results
of criticism, 377 ; the language
of the, not dictated, 408 ; infalli
bility of the, no security for right
faith, 439 ; unbelieving belief in
the, 455 ; the, a means not an
end, 463 ; the unity of the, not
mechanical, but living, 489. See
Scripture
Biblical history, sources of, 250,
293, 294
Biblical writers, testimony of the,
admissible, 109 ; claim to speak
from God, 118 ; derived inform- ¦
ation from ordinary sources, 250,
294, 382 ; language of the, 212,
414 ; human agents, 405 ; suffi
cient as ministers, 407
Bibliolatry, 459, 461
Bingham, quoted, 65 n., 67 n.,
106 n.
Birks, quoted, 157 n.
Blomfield, Bp., quoted, 372
Boswell, quoted, 370
Bow, the Song of the, 12
Buhl, quoted, 20
Bunsen, quoted, 224

493

494

INDEX

Burgon, Dean, quoted, 452
Butler, Bp., quoted, 194, 236, 237,
362
Byrne, Dean, cited, 344 ».
Canaanites, extermination ofthe,
343 ; wickedness of the, 348
"Canon," meaning of the term,
J3, 23
Carthage, Fourth Council of, 103
Celsus, quoted, 57
Chemist, illustration from the know
ledge of the, 436
Chretien, C. P., quoted, 476
Christ, the cardinal point of the
Bible's teaching, 136 ; effects of
the teaching of, 178-180 ; words
of, not to be strained, 392 ; mani
fests Himself to them that love
Him, 491
Christianity, rapid spread of, 183
Christians, before the Canon, 462
Chrysostom, quoted, 59 n., 102
Church, the, a divinely-constituted
society, 93; character of the testi
mony of, 104 ; the witness and
keeper of the divine books, 108 ;
a means, not an end, 457 ; the
witness and guardian ofthe truth,
462 ; existed before the Bible,
462
Church, Dean, cited, 136 sq.
Clement of Alexandria, 34 ; quoted,
184
Clement of Rome, quoted, 100
Clerk-Maxwell, quoted, 318
Codex Alexandrinus, 6
 Babylonicus, 5
 Bezse, 6
 Ephraemi, 6
 Sinaiticus, 6
 Vaticanus, 6
Coleridge, quoted, 159, 432
Collusion between Old and New
Testament writers impossible, 467
Complutensian Bible, 8
Consciousness of God, 220
"Controverted" writings, 25
Cook, Canon, quoted, 411 n. , 419
Cowie, Dean, quoted, 202 n.
Cox, W. L. Paige, quoted, 303
Creation, "Days" of, 314
Creed of Christendom, quoted, 423
Criticism not to be deprecated, 361 ;
theology indebted to, 362 ; from
internal evidence alone not to be

trusted, 371 ; only in its infancy,
376 ; discloses the Bible's teach
ing about itself, 376 ; does not
affect spiritual truth, 383 ; can
not alter facts, 388
Cross, superscription on the, 301
Cyprian, quoted, 101
Cyril, quoted, 101
Darwin, quoted, 316
" Days " of Creation, 314
" Defile the hands," 16
Dillmann, quoted, 89
Discrepancies, 273, 287, 418 ; in
dicative of truthfulness, 296
Distorting spectacles, 484
Divine authority, what, 200
Divine commission of the Apostles,
94
Divine truth unaffected by the
medium through which it passes,
419
Divine utterances, quotation of, 259
Dreams, 215
Driver, Professor, quoted, 320, 369,
381 n.
Dutch flower garden, 476
Education, subject to conditions,
324
Elihu, 217
Ellicott, Bp. , quoted, 273 n.
Epistles, the, earlier than the Gos
pels, 31
Error, proper to man, 286
Errors, chronological, 273, 288 ;
immaterial, characteristic of true
evidence, 296
Eusebius, quoted, 25, 26, 34, 35,
4L 43. S3. 54
Evidence, of opponents, 54 ; char
acteristics of truthful, 296
Evidences, force of the, cumulative,
236
Evolution, 316 and n.
Experience, test of, may be applied,
171
Faith, early confession of, 103
" Faith, the, once delivered," 332 n.
Fathers, witness of the, 33 ; the,
recognised both divine and human
elements in Scripture, 24s
Figurative language, 212
' ' Flavit et dissipati sunt, " 298
Forgeries, 66

INDEX

495

Fraser, Bp., quoted, 308, 309, 312,
316, 489
Friedlander, quoted, 212, 316 n.
Froude, 363
Galen, cited, 178
Gibbon, quoted, 349 n.
Gifts of God, 209, 210, 232, 421
Gladstone, quoted, 185, 190
God, Jewish and Gentile conception
of, 139, 228 ; reveals Himself in
nature, 195 ; in history, 196 ; in
conscience, 197 ; planted a gar
den, 203 ; sent Joseph to Egypt,
203 ; sent David away, 204 ;
raised up Hadad, 204; brought
about the disruption, 205 ; " the
work of," 207; scattered tbe
Armada, 208 ; the gift of, what?
209 ; hears prayer, 214 ; speak-
eth,2i4; speaks by dreams, 215 ;
in providence, 217, 233 ; con
sciousness of, 219, 225 ; gives
spiritual instruction, 226; the
teaching of, progressive, 327, 333;
man's conception of, advances,
334 ; all good gifts from, 420 ;
man's knowledge of, must be
indistinct, 473
Goethe, quoted, 190
Goodwin, Bp., quoted, 318, 418,
465 n.
Gospel-message, carries its own
credentials, 158, 160, 469
Gospel, the, a source of comfort to
the depressed, 172
Gospels, the, four canonical, 32 ;
copies of the, common, 58 n. ;
probable origin of the, 62-64 ;
the spurious, 65
Green, Professor, quoted, 371
Gregory, quoted, 384
Grinfield, quoted, 276, 277
Guillemard, Dr. W. H., quoted,
399
Hagiographa, the, 15
Hammond, quoted, 7
Hares, 312 n.
Heathen, imperfect revelations to
the, 197, 228
Hebrew codices, destroyed, s
Hebrew history, character of, 302 ;
object of, 416
Hebrew prophets, 221
Hebrew scholarship, experts in, few,
3^9

Hebrew text, bird's-eye view of, 70
Hebrew thought, characteristic of,
202, 207, 471
Hervey, Bp., quoted, 478
Hexapla, the, 73
Hey, Professor, quoted, 319, 367 n.
Hooker, quoted, 96 n.
Hort, Dr., quoted, 90
Huxley, Professor, quoted, 308
Ignatius, S., cited, 100
Impiety charged against physical
discovery, 307
Infallibility, useless, does not secure
right faitb, 439 ; craving for, 441 ;
non-essential, 445 ; theories of
biblical, 448 ; history of, 451 ; not
claimed by the biblical writers,
462
Innocent III., Pope, cited, 439
Inspiration, 400; view of the
Fathers concerning, 246 ; mean
ing of, 401 ; does not involve im
munity from error, 404 ; not
defined by our Church, 484
"Inspired of God," 397
Irenseus, 40 ; quoted, 41, 42, 43,
100
Israelites, condition of early, 349
Jairus, 417
iamnia, synod at, 20
ashar, the book of, 12, 250
Jeremiah's " Lamentations for
Josiah," 13 ; mission, 222
Jerome, quoted, 78 n., 80
Josephus, quoted, 18, 19, 29, 30, 99
Justin Martyr, 47 ; quoted, 48, 49
Kenyon, F. G., quoted, 5, 80, 83,
90
Kirkpatrick, Professor, quoted,
383 «•
Knowledge, the acquisition of, the
development of a germ, 226 ;
human, progressive, 332 ; our
present, very limited, 443 ; suffi
cient for our need, 445
Koran, quoted, 293 «.
Kurtz, quoted, 313
Laban and Bethuel, 217
Lactantius, quoted, 447 «.
Law, accommodated to human im
perfection, 330 ; existence of, pre
supposed by the Prophets, 379

496

INDEX

Lecky, quoted, 470
Lee, Archdeacon, quoted, 453 n.
Lightfoot, Bp., quoted, 373
Lois and Eunice, 398
Lord Chancellors, 189
' MacNeece, Dr., quoted, 406
Magee, Abp. , quoted, 483
Magna Charta, illustration from,
419
Manuscripts, Hebrew, 4 ; Greek, 6
Marcion's collection of books, 23
Martineau, quoted, 486
Massacre of infidels, 356 n.
Massorah, the, 89
Maurice, F. D., quoted, 323, 425 ».
Max Miiller, quoted, 228, 335 n. ;
cited, 229
Maxwell, Professor Clerk, quoted,
318
Megilloth, the, 17
" Memoirs called Gospels," 48
Memory, slips of, 246
Miller, Rev. J., quoted, 152
Mirrlees, J. B. , quoted, 446 n.
Mistakes, two surprising, 418
Mombert, J. J., quoted, 8
Montefiore, C. G, quoted, 221 n. ,
383. 384 »-. 385 »•
Moorhouse, Bp., quoted, 295, 364,
368 n.
Moral retribution, 349 n.
Mosaic ordinances, "a shadow,"
329
Moses, the founder of the Law,
383
Muhammed, chronological error
of, 288
Muratorian Fragment, the, 46
Myers, Rev. F., quoted, 488
Negative arguments, 369
Newman, Francis, quoted, 423
New Testament Canon, does not
include all the writings of the
Apostolic age, 24, 25
New Testament, contents of the,
22
Nicene Creed, 103
Norton, A., quoted, 58 n.
Old Testament Canon, formed by
selection, 21
Old Testament, witness of Jews to,
98 ; Christ and His Apostles ap
peal to the, 124 ; quotations

from, in the New, 260 ; teaching
of, incomplete, 333
Origen, quoted, 55, 101 ; writes
the Hexapla, 75
Paley, quoted, 296, 392
Papias, 52 ; cited, 53
Pascal, quoted, 158, 465
Patriarchs, the, 138
Paul, S. , 112 ; commission of,
in ; claims to speak from God,
112
Peabody, A. P., quoted, 66
Peculiar People, doctrine of the,
440
Perowne, Bp., quoted, 135, 223,
468
Personal responsibility, 441
Perspective, literary, 131
Peter, S., falls into error, 410, 411
and n.
Pharisees, traditions of the, re
buked, 123 ; the, lacked spiritual
discernment, 167
Philo, quoted, 449
Physics, knowledge of, not re
vealed, 305, 310
Pighius. quoted, 437 n.
Plato, chronological error of, 288
Political economy, illustration from,
434
Prayer Book, the authority of the,
200 ; the, a composite work, 372
Pre-Adamite man, 315
Private judgment, 442
Prophets, the Former, 17 ; the
Latter, 17 ; the, 141, 221 ; pre
suppose the existence of the Law,
379
Providence, divine action recog
nised in, 210 ; secondary agents
employed by, 211 ; God speaks
in, 217, 233 ; action of human
will modified by, 231
Pusey, Dr., quotes Kurtz, 312
Rawlinson, Canon, quoted, 61
n., 290, 362
Recorder, office of, 301
Reichel, Bp., quoted, 368
Religion and Science, not anta
gonistic, 307-309 ; mutually help
ful, 322
Renan. quoted, ix 11, , 292
Revelation, meaning of, 198 ; rea
sonable, 219; needed by man, 228

INDEX

497

Robespierre, persecuted, 307
Romanes, Professor, quoted, 311
Ryle, Professor, quoted, 22
Sacraments, the, a means, not an
end, 438
Sacrifices, a means, not an end,
463
Sadducees' view ofthe Scriptures, 29
Sadler, Preb. , quoted, 416
Samaritan Pentateuch, the, 71
Sayce, Professor, quoted, 290, 291
Science not taught in the Bible,
303, 310 ; indebted to theology,
323
Scripture, human element in the,
recognised by the Fathers, 246 ;
every, profitable, 428. See Bible
Scrivener, quoted, 85
Seers, 220, 221 n.
Septuagint, the, 72 ; does not al
ways agree with the Massoretic
text, 265 ; quoted in the New
Testament, 276 ; the only Bible
of the Jews of the Dispersion,
392
Servulus, 107 n.
Sheikh Nubie, 206
Shibboleth, 487
Shipwrecked crew, number of,
4i7
Shirley, Bp., quoted, 466
Sirach, Ben, quoted, 410
Sistine Madonna, 342
Socrates considered impious, 307
Speaker's Commentary, the, quoted,
288
Spiritual discernment, 217, 436
Spurious Gospels, the, 65-68
Stanley, Dean, quoted, 150
State Records, 302
Strauss, quoted, ix n.
"Sufficient as ministers," 407

" Supernatural Religion," referred
to, 32
Table, lineage of Textus Recep-
tus, 9 ; bird's-eye view of the
Hebrew text, 70/
Tacitus, quoted, 306 n.
Tatian, 47 '
Taylor, Bp. Jeremy, quoted, 186,
191, 447' n.
Tertullian, 36 ; quoted, 37, 38, 39 ;
cited, 100
Testament, meaning of the term,
12
Tetrapla, 75
Textus Receptus, 8
Theology, indebted to science, 312 ;
and to criticism, 362
Theophilus, quoted, 46
" Translators to the Reader, The,"
quoted, 4, 275, 397, 443
Turpie, cited, 278, 279
Tyndall, Professor, quoted, 308
Variant Readings, sources of, 83,
88, 248, 418
Verbal inaccuracies, 256 sq.
Versions, early, 72 sq.
Vincent of Lerins, quoted, 334 n.
Warington, quoted, 153, 259
Wellhausen, quoted, 383
Westcott, Bp., quoted, 11,12,27,
49-5 !. 449
Wildeboer, quoted, 19 n.
Williams, Sir Monier, quoted, 149
Winer, cited, 30 n.
" Word of God," 394
"Words which the Spirit teacheth,"
412
Wordsworth, Bp. C, quoted,366«.
Wordsworth, Bp. J., quoted, 151,
I52

THE END

Richard Clay & Sons, Limited,
London Sc Bungay.

PUBLICATIONS

torietg for Iromotmg flJjjrtetian ttwfole&fle.

THE DAWN OF CIVILIZATION (EGYPT AND
CHALD2EA). New and Revised Edition. By
Professor Maspero. Edited by the Rev. Professor
Sayce. Translated by M. L. McClure. With
Map and over 470 Illustrations, including three
Coloured Plates. Demy 4to. (approximately).
Cloth, bevelled boards, 24s.
THE STRUGGLE OF THE NATIONS. EGYPT,
SYRIA, AND ASSYRIA., By Professor Maspero.
Edited by the Rev. Professor Sayce. Translated
by M. L. McClure. With Map, three Coloured
Plates, and .over 400 Illustrations. Demy 4to.
(approximately). Cloth, bevelled boards, 25^.
PATRIARCHAL PALESTINE. By the Rev. A. H.
Sayce, Professor of Assyriology, Oxford. Crown
8vo. With Map. Buckram boards, 4^.
THE " HIGHER CRITICISM," AND THE VERDICT
OF THE MONUMENTS. By the Rev. A. H. Sayce,
Professor of Assyriology, Oxford. Fifth Edition.
Demy 8vo., buckram, bevelled boards, js. 6d.
HARMONY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. Arranged
in the form of an English Harmony. From the
Text of the Authorized Version. With Analytical
Table of Contents and four Maps. By the late
Rev. J. M. Fuller, M.A. is.
HELP TO READING OF THE BIBLE. By the late
Rev. B. E. Nicholls. A New Edition, completely
revised and corrected, by the Rev. H. Housman,
B.D. Maps. Post 8vo., 2s. 6d.
MORAL DIFFICULTIES CONNECTED WITH THE
BIBLE. By the late Ven. Archdeacon Hessey,
D.C.L. Being the Boyle Lectures for 1871, 1872,
and 1873. Post 8vo., cloth boards, 6s.

Publications of the S.P. C. K.

BIBLE PLACES ; OR, THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE
HOLY LAND. By the Rev. Canon Tristram.
A succinct Account of all the Places, Rivers, and
Mountains of the Land of Israel mentioned in the
Bible, so far as they have been identified, together
with their Modern Names and Historical References.
A New and Revised Edition. Crown 8vo. With
Map, cloth boards, 4s.
THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE BIBLE : being
a Review of the Physical Geography, Geology, and
Meteorology of the Holy Land, with a description
of every Animal and Plant mentioned in Holy
Scripture. By the Rev. Canon Tristram. Crown
8vo., with numerous Illustrations, cloth boards, 55.
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THE BIBLE TO BE THE
WORD OF GOD? An Argument to prove the
Divine Authority and Inspiration of Holy Scrip
ture. By the late Rev. J. Bateman, M.A. i2mo.,
cloth boards, is.
COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE. Crown 8vo.
With Maps and Plans. Price each volume : cloth,
4J-. ; half cloth, 55. ; half calf, gilt edges, ios. ;
whole calf, marbled, 12s.
The Old Testament. Volume I. containing the Penta
teuch, Genesis to Deuteronomy. Volume II.
containing the Historical Books, Joshua to
Esther. Volume III. containing the Poetical
Books, Job to Song of Solomon. Volume IV.
containing the Prophetical Books, Isaiah to
Malachi. Volume V. The Apocrypha, contain
ing the Books Esdras to Maccabees.
The New Testament. Volume I. containing the
Four Gospels. Volume II. containing the Acts,
Epistles, and Revelation.

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE,
LONDON : NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE, W.C.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 2729