{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38092/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38092","id":"gutenberg_38092","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38092","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Farrar, F. W. (Frederic William), 1831-1903. New apology"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE BOOK OF GOD\n\nIN THE LIGHT OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM\n\nWITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO DEAN FARRAR'S NEW APOLOGY\n\nBy G. W. Foote\n\nLondon: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.\n\n\n\n\nTHE BOOK OF GOD.\n\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION.\n\nDuring the fierce controversy between the divines of the Protestant\nReformation and those of the Roman Catholic Church, the latter asserted\nthat the former treated the Bible--and treated it quite naturally--as a\nwax nose, which could be twisted into any shape and direction. Those\nwho championed the living voice of God in the Church, against the\ndead letter of the written Bible, were always prone to deride the\nconsequences of private judgment when applied to such a large and\nheterogeneous volume as the Christian Scriptures. They contended that\nthe Bible is a misleading book when read by itself in the mere light\nof human reason; that any doctrine may be proved from it by a\njudicious selection of texts; and that Christianity would break up into\ninnumerable sects unless the Church acted as the inspired interpreter of\nthe inspired revelation. They argued, further, that the Bible was really\nnot what the Protestants supposed it to be; and what they said on this\npoint was a curious anticipation of a good deal of the so-called Higher\nCriticism.\n\nBoth sides were right, and both sides were wrong, in this dispute. The\nProtestants were right against the Church; the Catholics were right\nagainst the Bible. It was reserved for Rationalism to accept\nand harmonise the double truth, and to wage war against both\ninfallibilities.\n\nThe Bible is said to be inspired, but the man who reads it is not. The\nconsequence is that he deduces from it a creed in harmony with his own\ntaste, temper, fancy, and intelligence. He lays emphasis on what fits in\nwith this creed, and slurs over all that is opposed to it. Every one of\nthe various and conflicting Protestant sects is founded upon one and\nthe same infallible book. \"The Bible teaches this,\" says one; \"The Bible\nteaches that,\" says another. And they are both right. The Bible does\nteach the doctrines of all the sects. But do they not contradict each\nother? They do. What is the explanation, then? Why this--the Bible\ncontradicts itself.\n\nThe self-contradictions of the Bible have occasioned the writing of many\n\"Harmonies,\" in which it is sought to be proved that all the apparent\ndiscrepancies are most admirable agreements when they are properly\nunderstood. All that is requisite is to add a word here, and subtract a\nword there; to regard one and the same word as having several different\nmeanings, and several different words as having one and the same\nmeaning; and, above all things, to apply this method with a strong and\nearnest desire to find harmony everywhere, and a pious intention of\ngiving the Bible the benefit of the doubt in every case of perplexity.\n\nThis sort of jugglery, which would be derided and despised in the case\nof any other book, is now falling into discredit. Most of the clergy are\nashamed of it. They frankly own, since it can no longer be denied,\nthat a more honest art of criticism is necessary to save the Bible from\ngeneral contempt.\n\nBut the \"Harmony\" game is not the only one that is played out. All the\n\"Reconciliations\" of the Bible with science, history, morality, and\ncommon sense, are sharing the same fate. The higher clergy leave\nsuch exhibitions of perverted ingenuity to laymen like the late Mr.\nGladstone. Divines like Canon Driver see that this mental tight-rope\ndancing may cause astonishment, but will never produce conviction. They\ntherefore recognise the difficulties, and seek for a more subtle and\nplausible method of removing them. They admit that Moses and Darwin are\nat variance with each other; that a great deal of Bible \"history\" is\nlegendary, and some of it distinctly false; that such stories as those\nof Lot's wife and Jonah's whale are decidedly incredible; that some\npassages of Scripture are vulgar and brutal, and others detestably\ninhuman; and that it is positively useless to disguise the fact. Yet\nthey are naturally anxious to keep the Bible on its old pedestal;\nand this can only be done by means of a new theory of inspiration.\nAccordingly, these gentlemen tell us that the Bible is not the Word of\nGod, but it contains the Word of God. Its writers were inspired, but\ntheir own natural faculties were not entirely suppressed by the\ndivine spirit. Sometimes the writer's spirit was predominant in the\ncombination, and the composition was mainly that of an unregenerate\nson of Adam. At other times the divine spirit was predominant, and the\nresult was lofty religion and pure ethics. Moreover, the sacred writers\nwere only inspired in one direction. God gave them a lift, as it were,\nin spiritual matters; but in science and sociology he let them blunder\nalong as they could.\n\nThe old wax nose is now receiving a decided new twist, and a\nconsiderable number of accomplished and clever divines are engaged in\nmanipulating it. One of them is Dean Farrar, who has recently published\na bulky volume on _The Bible: its Meaning and Supremacy_, which we shall\nsubject to a very careful criticism.\n\nDean Farrar's book contains nothing that is new to fairly well-read\nsceptics. It presents the commonplaces of modern Biblical criticism,\nwith a due regard to the interests of \"the grand old book\" and of \"true\"\nand \"fundamental\" Christianity, which is probably no more than the\nparticular form of Christianity that is likely to weather the present\nstorm of controversy. But although this book contains no startling\nnovelties, it is of importance as the work of a dignitary of the Church\nof England. It is also of value, inasmuch as it will be read by many\npersons who would shrink from Strauss and Thomas Paine. It is well that\nsomeone should tell Christians the truth, if not the _whole_ truth,\nabout the Bible, and tell it them from within the fold of faith. His\nmotive in doing so may be less a regard for truth itself than for the\nimmediate interests of his own Church; but the main thing is that he\ndoes it, and Freethinkers may be glad even if they are not grateful.\n\nDr. Farrar's book has an Introduction, and we propose to examine it\nfirst. He opens by telling the clergy that they ought not to pursue an\n\"ostrich policy\" in regard to religious difficulties; that they\nshould not indulge in \"vituperative phrases,\" nor assume a \"disdainful\ninfallibility\"; that they do wrong in denouncing as \"wicked,\"\n\"blasphemous,\" or \"dangerous\" every conviction which differs from their\nown form of orthodoxy; and that they must not expect all that they\nchoose to assert to be \"accepted with humble acquiescence.\" No doubt\nthis advice is quite necessary; and the fact that it is so shows\nthe value of Christianity, after eighteen centuries of trial, as a\ntraining-school in the virtues of modesty and humility, to say nothing\nof justice and temperance.\n\nThe clergy are also invited by Dr. Farrar to recognise the general\ndiffusion of scepticism:--\n\n\"In recent years much has been written under the assumption that\nChristianity no longer deserves the dignity of a refutation; or that,\nat any rate, the bases on which it rests have been seriously undermined.\nThe writings of freethinkers are widely disseminated among the working\nclasses. The Church of Christ has lost its hold on multitudes of men\nin our great cities. Those of the clergy who are working in the crowded\ncentres of English life can hardly be unaware of the extent to which\nscepticism exists among our artizans. Many of them have been persuaded\nto believe that the Church is a hostile and organised hypocrisy.\"\n\nThis is a sad state of things, and how is it to be met?\n\nNot by denouncing reason as a wild beast, nor yet by relying on emotion\nand ceremonial, for \"no religious system will be permanent which is\nnot based on the convictions of the intellect.\" Dr. Farrar recommends a\ndifferent policy. He has \"frequently observed that the objections urged\nagainst Christianity are aimed at dogmas which are no part of Christian\nfaith, or are in no wise essential to its integrity.\" Even men of\nscience have been led astray by objections \"based on travesties of its\nreal tenets.\" One of these false opinions is that \"which maintains\nthe supposed inerrancy and supernatural infallibility of every book,\nsentence, and word of the Holy Bible.\" This is the principal point to be\ndealt with; it is here that we must make an adjustment. Nine-tenths of\nthe case of sceptics \"is made up of attacks on the Bible,\" and the only\nway to answer them is to show that they misunderstand it, and that what\nthey demolish is not Christianity, but \"a mummy elaborately painted in\nits semblance,\" or \"a scarecrow set up in its guise.\"\n\n\"It is no part of the Christian faith,\" Dr. Farrar says, \"to maintain\nthat every word of the Bible was dictated supernaturally, or is equally\nvaluable, or free from all error, or on the loftiest levels of morality,\nas finally revealed.\" Such a view of the Bible has been popularly\nexpressed by divines, but they really did not mean it, and it \"never\nformed any part of the Catholic creed of Christendom.\" The doctrine of\neverlasting punishment is another of these delusions. There is such\na thing as future punishment, but it is not everlasting--it is only\neternal. In the same way, the Bible is the Word of God, but it is not\ninfallible--it is only inspired. And what _that_ means we shall see as\nwe proceed.\n\n\n\n\nII. THE BIBLE CANON\n\nThe first chapter of Dean Farrar's book deals with the Bible Canon.\nAfter another slap at the poor benighted Christians who still hold\nthat every word of Scripture is \"supernaturally dictated and infallibly\ntrue,\" Dr. Farrar remarks that the Bible is \"not a single nor even a\nhomogeneous book.\" Strictly speaking, it is not a book, but a library;\nand, as is pointed out later on, it is the remains of a much larger\ncollection which has mostly perished. The Canon of the Old Testament was\n\"arrived at by slow and uncertain degrees.\" The common assertion, that\nit was fixed by Ezra and the so-called Great Synagogue in the fifth\ncentury before Christ, is in direct opposition to the facts. It was not\nreally _settled_ until seventy years after the birth of Christ, when the\nRabbis met at Jamnia, and decided in favor of our present thirty-nine\nbooks. According to Dr. Farrar, there was no special influence from\nheaven in the determination of the Canon. It was a work which God left\nto \"the _ordinary_ influences of the Holy Ghost.\" Let us see then how\nthese influences operated on the last and most critical occasion. \"The\ngathering at Jamnia,\" says Dr. Farrar, \"was a tumultuous assemblage, and\nin the faction fights of the Rabbinic parties blood was shed by their\nscholars. Hence the decision was regarded as irrevocable and sealed\nby blood.\" Such are the _ordinary_ influences of the Holy Ghost. Its\n_extraordinary_ influences may be easily imagined. Their history is\nwritten in blood and fire in every country in Christendom.\n\nDr. Farrar allows that the Canon of the New Testament was formed \"in the\nsame gradual and tentative way.\" Many Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypses\nwere \"current\" in the \"first two centuries.\" Some of them were \"quoted\nas sacred books\" and read aloud in Christian churches. Seven, at least,\nof the books which are now canonical were then \"disputed\"--namely, the\nSecond Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of St. John,\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, and\nthe Book of Revelation. The Canon was \"formally and officially settled\"\nby the Council of Laodicea (a.d. 363), and the two Councils of Carthage\n(a.d. 397 and 419), the decrees of which were sanctioned by the Trullian\nCouncil (a.d. 692), nearly seven hundred years after Christ. Dr. Farrar\nholds, however, that these Councils merely registered the general\nagreement of the Christian Church. The real test of canonicity is not\nthe decision of Councils, which may and do err, but \"the verifying\nfaculty of the Christian consciousness.\" Dr. Farrar's argument, if it\nmeans anything at all, implies that while Councils may err, consisting\nas they do of fallible men, this \"Christian consciousness\" is really\ninfallible. But as this Christian consciousness only exists, after\nall, in individual Christians, however numerous they may be, or through\nhowever many centuries they may be continued, it is difficult to see how\nthe greatest multitude of fallibilities can make up one infallibility.\nAnd unless it can, it is also difficult to see how Dr. Farrar can have\nan infallible Canon. He disclaims the authority of the Church, on which\nCatholics rely; indeed, he says it can hardly be said that the \"whole\nChurch\" has pronounced any opinion on the Canon at all. What really\nhappened is perhaps unconsciously admitted by Dr. Farrar in a rather\nsimple footnote. \"Books were judged,\" he says, \"by the congruity of\ntheir contents with the general Christian conviction.\" Precisely so; the\nbooks did not decide the doctrine, but the doctrine decided the fate of\nthe books. And how was the doctrine decided? By fierce controversy, by\nforgery and sophistication, by partisan struggles, and finally, after\nthe adhesion of Constantine, by faction fights that involved the loss of\nmyriads (some say millions) of lives.\n\nNot the slightest attempt is made by Dr. Farrar to meet the difficulty\nof his position; indeed, he seems unaware that the difficulty exists.\nAll he sees is the difficulty of the positions taken up by the Catholics\nand the early Protestants. It never occurs to him that he has only\nshifted from one difficulty to another. The Catholics rely upon the\nliving voice of God in the Church. That covers everything, like the\nsky; and is perfectly satisfactory, if you can only accept it. The\nearly Protestants repudiated the authority of the Church, at least\nas represented by the Pope and Councils; but they acknowledged the\nauthority of the _primitive_ Church. They were shrewd enough to see\nthat what cannot possibly rest on mere reason must rest somewhere on\nauthority; so they admitted as much as was sufficient to cover the\nScriptures and the Creeds, and refused to go a step farther. Dr. Farrar\nbreaks away from both parties, and what is the result? He talks\nabout the Canon of the New Testament being formed \"by the exercise of\nenlightened reason,\" but he lays down no criterion by which reason can\ndecide whether a book is inspired or not, or so specially inspired as\nto require a place in the Canon. The \"verifying faculty of the Christian\nconsciousness\" is one of those comfortable phrases, like the blessed\nword Mesopotamia, which are designed to save the pains of accuracy and\nthe trouble of definite thought. What light does it really shed upon\nthe following questions? Why is the Protestant Canon different from\nthe Catholic Canon? Is it owing to some inexplicable difference in the\n\"verifying faculty of the Christian consciousness\" in the two cases; and\nby what test shall we decide when the Christian consciousness delivers\ntwo contradictory verdicts? Why is the book of Ecclesiastes in the\nCanon, while the book of Ecclesiasticus is (by the Protestants)\nrelegated to the Apocrypha? Why is the book of Esther in the Canon, and\nthe book of Judith in the Apocrypha? Why is the book of Jonah in the\nCanon, and the book of Tobit in the Apocrypha? Why is the book of\nProverbs in the Canon, and the book of the Wisdom of Solomon in the\nApocrypha? These are questions which the early Protestants answered in\ntheir way, but we defy Dr. Farrar to answer them at all.\n\nLet us follow Dr. Farrar into his second chapter. He states, truly\nenough, that both the Old and the New Testaments represent \"the selected\nand fragmentary remains of an extensive literature.\" Many books referred\nto in the Old Testament are lost. Some of the canonical books are\nanonymous; we do not know who wrote them. Others bear the names of men\n\"by whom they could not have been composed.\" The Pentateuch is \"a work\nof composite structure,\" which has been \"edited and re-edited several\ntimes.\" The Psalms are a collection of sacred poems in \"five separate\nbooks of very various antiquity.\" The Proverbs consist of \"four or\nfive different collections.\" The New Testament is a selection from the\nvoluminous Christian literature of the earliest centuries. Many Gospels\nwere already in existence when St. Luke prepared his own. \"It is all but\ncertain,\" Dr. Farrar says, \"that St. Paul, and probable that the other\nApostles, must have written many letters which are no longer preserved.\"\nThat is to say, some letters actually written by St. Paul were allowed\nto perish, while others not written by him were allowed to bear his\nname, and were placed as his in the New Testament Canon! There are\npassages in the Gospels that are known to be interpolations; for\ninstance, the story of the Woman taken in Adultery. This story is\n\"exquisite and supremely valuable,\" but it is bracketed in the Revised\nVersion as of \"doubtful genuineness.\" Such passages are eliminated\nbecause they do not \"meet the standard of modern critical requirements.\"\n_O sancta simplicitas!_ Is there any reason, in the natural sense of\nthat word, for believing that John the Apostle wrote the rest of the\nFourth Gospel, any more than he wrote this rejected story? Dr. Farrar\nstrains at gnats and swallows camels, and prides himself on his\ndiscrimination.\n\nHis references to Justin Martyr and Papias seem less than ingenuous.\nIt is not true that Justin Martyr \"freely uses the Gospels.\" Dr. Farrar\nadmits that he \"does not name them.\" Saying that he \"used\" them is\nquietly assuming that they existed. All that Justin Martyr does, as a\nmatter of fact, is to cite sayings ascribed to Jesus, but not in one\nsingle case does he cite a saying of Jesus in exactly the form in which\nit appears in the Four Gospels. Supposing that he wrote freely, and\nhad ever so bad a memory, and never took the trouble to refer to the\noriginals, it is simply inconceivable that he should never be right. Now\nand then he must have deviated into accuracy. And the fact that he never\ndoes is plain proof that he had not our Gospels before him. Nor does\nPapias mention \"the Gospels.\" He mentions only two, Matthew and Mark,\nand he says that Matthew was written in _Hebrew_, Now, the earliest date\nat which Papias can be fixed is a.d. 140. This is chosen by Dr. Farrar,\nand we will let it pass unchallenged. And what follows? Why this, that\nno Christian writer before a.d. 140 betrays that he has so much as heard\nof _any_ Gospel, and even then but _two_ are known instead of _four_,\nand one of these is most certainly _not_ the Gospel which opens the New\nTestament.\n\nAll this was proved a quarter of a century ago by the author of\n_Supernatural Religion_--a work which is systematically ignored by\nthe so-called Higher Critics because its author was a pronounced\nRationalist. An excellent summary of this writer's demonstrations\nappears in the late Matthew Arnold's _God and the Bible_:--\n\n\"He seems to have looked out and brought together, to the best of his\npowers, every extant _passage_ in which, between the year 70 and the\nyear 170 of our era, a writer might be supposed to be quoting one of our\nFour Gospels.\n\n\"And it turns out that there is constantly the same sort of variation\nfrom our Gospels, a variation inexplicable in men quoting from a real\nCanon, and quite unlike what is found in men quoting from our Four\nGospels later on. It may be said that the Old Testament, too, is often\nquoted loosely. True; but it is also quoted exactly; and long passages\nof it are thus quoted. It would be nothing that our canonical Gospels\nwere often quoted loosely, if long passages from them, or if passages,\nsay, of even two or three verses, were sometimes quoted exactly. But\nfrom writers before Irenaeus not one such passage can be produced so\nquoted. And the author of _Supernatural Religion_ by bringing all the\nalleged quotations forward, has proved it.\"*\n\nNow what is the exact value of these demonstrations? We will give it in\nMr. Arnold's words: \"There is no evidence of the establishment of our\nFour Gospels as a Gospel-Canon, or even of their existence as they now\nfinally stand at all, before the last quarter of the second century.\"\nNot only is there no evidence of the orthodox theory, but, as Mr. Arnold\nsays, the \"great weight of evidence is against it.\"\n\nDr. Giles--another ignored writer, although a clergyman of the Church\nof England--had said and proved the very same thing in his _Christian\nRecords_; and had appended the following significant declaration:--\n\n\"There is positive proof, in the writings of the first ages of\nChristianity, that the same question as to the age and authorship of the\nbooks of the New Testament was even then agitated, and if it was then\nset at rest, this was done, not by a deliberate sentence of the judge,\nbut by burning all the evidence on which one side of the controversy was\nsupported,\"**\n\n     * Arnold, God and the Bible, pp. 222-3.\n\n     ** Dr. Giles, Christian Records, p. 10.\n\nIt is probable that Dr. Farrar is well aware that our Four Gospels\ncannot be traced beyond the second half of the second century--that is,\nconsiderably more than a century after the alleged date of the death of\nChrist. But he shrinks from a frank admission of the fact, and leaves\nthe reader to find it out for himself.\n\nInstead of making this important and, as some think, damning admission,\nDr. Farrar continues his remarks on the Bible Canon. That thirty-six\nbooks are accepted \"on the authority of the Church\" simply means,\nhe tells us, that they are accepted \"by the general consensus of\nChristians.\" The whole Church, as such, has hardly pronounced an\nopinion on the subject. The Churchmen who voted at Laodicea and Carthage\n\"exercised no independent judgment,\" and their critical knowledge was\n\"elementary.\" Nor was the decision of the Council of Trent any real\nimprovement. Dr. Farrar approves the reply of the Reformed Churches,\nthat \"any man may reject books claiming to be Holy Scripture if he do\nnot feel the evidence of their contents.\" But this is to make every man\na judge, not only of what the Bible means, but also of what it should\ncontain. Each unfettered Christian may therefore make up a Bible for\nhimself; which is simply chaos come again. What then is the way of\nescape from this grotesque confusion? Dr. Farrar indicates it with a\ncrooked finger:--\n\n\"The decision as to what books are or are not to be regarded as true\nScripture, though we believe it to be wise and right, depends on no\ninfallible decision. It must satisfy the scientific and critical as well\nas the spiritual requirements of each age.\"\n\nThis reduces the Bible Canon to a perpetual transformation scene. It is\na tacit confession that the Protestant Bible is an arbitrary collection\nof questionable documents; that it has nothing to plead for itself but\ncommon usage; that its very contents, as well as their interpretation,\nare liable to change; in short, that if the Catholic stands upon the\nrock of implicit faith, and defies all dangers by closing his eyes and\nclutching the reassuring hand of his Holy Mother Church, the Protestant\nflounders about with the poor little dark-lantern of private judgment\nin a frightful mud-ocean--his old rock of faith in an infallible Bible\nhaving been reduced to dust by the engines of criticism, and finally to\nslush by a downflow from the lofty reservoir of pure reason.*\n\n     * It would be a pity to omit an amusing instance of the\n     contemptuous dogmatism of Christian divines when they had\n     the field to themselves. Dr. William Whitaker, a famous\n     learned writer on the side of the Reformation in England, in\n     his Disputation with two of the foremost Jesuits, Bellarmine\n     and Stapleton, wrote as follows:--\"Jerome, in the Proem of\n     his Commentaries on Daniel, relates that Porphyry the\n     philosopher wrote a volume against the book of our prophet\n     Daniel, and affirmed that what is now extant under the name\n     of Daniel was not published by the ancient prophet, but by\n     some later Daniel, who lived in the times of Antiochus\n     Epiphanes. But we need not regard what the impious Porphyry\n     may have written, who mocked at all the scriptures and\n     religion itself.\" Well, this opinion of the blasphemous\n     Porphyry, whose writings were burnt by the Christian Church,\n     is now accepted by the Higher Critics. Canon Driver, for\n     instance, admits that the Book of Daniel is not the work of\n     Daniel, that it could not have been written earlier than 300\n     B.C., and that \"it is at least _probable_ that it was\n     composed under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C.\n     168 or 167\" (Introduction to the Literature of the Old\n     Testament, p. 467). This involves that the fulfilled\n     prophecies of Daniel were written after the events.\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE\n\nHaving examined Dean Farrar's observations on the Bible Canon, and seen\nthat it is a more or less arbitrary selection from Hebrew and early\nChristian literature, many of the books being anonymous, while others\nbear the names of authors who did not write them, and most of them being\nmuch later compositions than orthodoxy supposes; we now take a leap\nforward to his twelfth chapter to see what he has to say on the subject\nof the Bible and Science. His first object is to drive home to his\nco-religionists the mischief of adhering to the old doctrine of Bible\ninfallibility. Consequently he does not mince matters in dealing with\nthe difficulties of the literal theory of inspiration. Writers like\nGaussen contend that the Bible is a perfect authority in matters of\nscience. Mr. Gladstone argues that Moses supernaturally anticipated\nthe teachings of modern evolution, and that the inspired fishermen of\nGalilee, notably St. Peter, no less supernaturally anticipated all that\nmodern astronomy teaches as to the final destiny of our planet. Dr.\nFarrar declines to follow them in this perilous path. He does not walk\nin the opposite direction, for that would lead him among the \"infidels.\"\nHe strikes off at right angles, and takes the line that the Bible was\nnever intended to teach science, or anything else but religion.\nHe quotes with approval the saying of Archbishop Sumner, that \"the\nScriptures have never revealed a scientific truth.\" He maintains that\nthe writers of Scripture had only a natural knowledge of exact science;\nand that was precious little, and was indeed rather ignorance than\nknowledge, as they belonged to \"the most unscientific of all nations in\nthe most unscientific of all ages.\" \"It is now understood by competent\ninquirers,\" he says, \"that geology is God's revelation to us of one set\nof truths, and Genesis of quite another.\" \"Nature,\" he says, \"is a book\nwhich contains a revelation of God in one sphere, and Scripture a book\nwhich contains a revelation of him in another. Both books have often\nbeen misread, but no _truth_ revealed in the one can be irreconcilable\nwith any truth revealed in the other.\" This, however, is a mere truism;\nfor one truth cannot be irreconcilable with another truth. Dr. Farrar's\nstatement sounds imposing and consolatory, but when you look into its\nmeaning you see it is only a pulpit platitude.\n\nBut before we proceed to criticise Dr. Farrar's position, let us glance\nat his attack upon the literalists. He charges them with having opposed\nand persecuted every modern science, and with having manufactured the\nmost absurd scientific theories from the text of the Bible; the said\ntheories being not only ludicrous, but irreconcilably opposed to each\nother. Lactantius, with the Bible in his hand, ridiculed the rotundity\nof the earth. Roger Bacon and Galileo were imprisoned and tortured for\nteaching true science instead of the false science of the Church.\nJohn Wesley declared the Copernican astronomy to be in opposition to\nScripture. Thomas Burnet's \"Sacred Theory of the Earth,\" founded upon\nthe Bible, was assailed by William Whiston, who based a different\n\"Sacred Theory\" upon the very same book. Buffon, the great French\nscientist, was compelled by the Sorbonne to recant, and to abandon\neverything in his writings that was \"contrary to the narrative of\nMoses.\" Even when God (that is to say Dr. Simpson) gave to the world the\npriceless boon of anaesthetics, there were many Biblicists who declared\nthat the use of chloroform in cases of painful confinement was flying\nin the face of God's curse upon the daughters of Eve. Catholic and\nProtestant have alike pitted the Bible against Science, and both have\nbeen ignominiously beaten.\n\nBut this is not all. The theologians have been disgraced as well as\ndefeated. With respect to the Buffon case, for instance, Dr. Farrar\nwrites as follows:--\n\n\"The line now taken by apologists is very different from that of\nprevious centuries, and less honest. It declares that Genesis and\ngeology are in exact accord. It no longer refuses to believe the facts\nof nature, but instead of this it boldly sophisticates the facts of\nScripture.\"\n\nJohn Stuart Mill said that every new truth passes through three phases\nof reception. At first, it is declared to be false and dangerous;\nsecondly, it is discovered that there is something to be said for it;\nlastly, its opponents turn round and declare \"we said so all along.\"\nDr. Farrar dots all the \"i's\" in Mill's statement. He asserts that\n\"religious teachers\" first say of every scientific discovery, \"It is\nblasphemous and contrary to Scripture.\" Next they say, \"There is nothing\nin Scripture which absolutely contradicts it.\" Finally they say, \"It is\ndistinctly revealed in Scripture itself.\"\n\nDr. Farrar puts the historic case against \"orthodoxy\"--which, of course,\nis not Christianity!--in the following fashion:--\n\n\"The history of most modern sciences has been as follows. Its\ndiscoverers have been proscribed, anathematised, and, in every possible\ninstance, silenced or persecuted; yet before a generation has passed\nthe champions of a spurious orthodoxy have had to confess that their\ninterpretations were erroneous; and--for the most part without an\napology and without a blush--have complacently invented some new line\nof exposition by which the phrases of Scripture can be squared into\nsemblable accordance with the now acknowledged facts.\"\n\nEven in the comparatively recent case of Darwin this was perfectly true.\nDr. Farrar, who preached Darwin's funeral sermon in Westminster Abbey,\nsays that he \"endured the fury of pulpits and Church Congresses.\" He\ndid so with quiet dignity; not an angry word escaped him. Yet before\nDarwin's death not only was the scientific world converted, but leading\ntheologians said that, if Darwinism were proved to be true, there was\n\"nothing in it contrary to the creeds of the Catholic faith.\"\n\nDarwin never answered the clergy. He had better work to do. All he did\nwas to smile at them. In one of his letters he said that when the men\nof science are agreed about anything all the clergy have to do is to say\nditto. He understood that when science is victorious it will always have\nclerical patronage. Had he been able to do it, he would have smiled, in\nthat beautiful benevolent way of his, at Dr. Farrar's funeral sermon.\nThe worthy Dean thought they had got Darwin at last; and the grand old\nphilosopher might have said, \"Why yes, my _corpse!_\"\n\nSo much for Dr. Farrar's impeachment of \"orthodoxy\" and its doctrine\nof plenary inspiration. Let us now examine his own position, and see\nwhether it is logical as well as convenient.\n\nTake the first chapter of Genesis. It is not a scientific revelation,\nthough it seems to be. Whoever wrote it had only the science of his\ntime. Nevertheless, it is of \"transcendent value,\" according to Dr.\nFarrar. \"Its true and deep object,\" he says, \"was to set right an erring\nworld in the supremely important knowledge that there was one God and\nFather of us all, the Creator of heaven and earth, a God who saw all\nthings which he has made, and pronounced them to be very good.\"\n\nThis is very pretty in its way; but how absurd it is in the light of the\nfact that the Hebrew creation story is all _borrowed!_ While the\nJews were desert nomads, long before the concoction of their sacred\nscriptures the doctrine of a Creator of heaven and earth was known in\nIndia and in Egypt, not to recite a list of other nations. If this is\nall the first chapter of Genesis teaches, we may well exclaim, \"Thank\nyou for nothing!\" It is a curious \"revelation\" which only discloses\nwhat is familiar. Had the Bible never been written, had the Jews never\nexisted, the \"true and deep object\" of the first chapter of Genesis\nwould have been quite as well subserved. Wherever the Christian\nmissionaries have gone they have found the creation story in front of\nthem. Wherever they took it they were carrying coals to Newcastle.\n\nWe venture to suggest that if Dr. Farrar thinks that all things God has\nmade are very good, there are many persons who do not share his opinion.\nIt would be idle to read that text to a sailor pursued by a shark. We\ncould multiply this instance a thousandfold; but why give a list of\nall the predatory and parasitical creatures on this planet, from human\ntyrants and despoilers down to cholera microbes? Dr. Farrar may reply\nthat everything ends in mystery, that we must have faith, that it is our\ninterest as well as our duty to believe. But that is exactly what the\nCatholic Church says, and Dr. Farrar laughs it to scorn. The truth is,\nthat all theology is ultimately a matter of faith; and the quarrel about\nmore or less is a domestic difference. The greater difference is between\nFaith and Reason. This was clearly seen by Cardinal Newman, who pointed\nout that every mystery of the Roman Catholic faith is matched by a\nmystery in Protestant theology.\n\nFinally, we have to remark that Dr. Farrar overlooks a very important\npoint in this controversy. Having argued that the Bible was not intended\nto teach science, and has not in fact helped the world to a single\nscientific discovery; having also admitted that the Bible has all along\nbeen used to hinder the progress of natural knowledge, and to justify\nthe persecution of honest investigators; he seems to imagine that there\nis no more to be said. But there is _much_ more to be said. We forbear\nto press the objection that Omniscience was very curiously employed in\nentangling a religious revelation with scientific blunders, which would\nnecessarily retard the progress of scientific truth, and therefore of\nhuman civilisation. What we wish to emphasise is less open to the retort\nthat Omniscience is beyond our finite judgment. We desire to urge that\nthe Bible is not simply non-scientific. It is anti-scientific. Let us\ntake, for instance, the story of the creation and fall of man. Even\nif it be not taken literally, but allegorically, it is thoroughly\nantagonistic to the teachings of Evolution. At the very least it implies\nthat man is something special and unique, whereas he is included in the\ngeneral scheme of biology, and is but \"the paragon of animals.\" Get rid\nof the actual garden and the actual tree of knowledge, as Dr. Farrar\ndoes, and there still remains the fact that the fall of man is a\nfalsehood, and the ascent of man a verity. The allegory does not\ncorrespond to the essential truth of man's history; and in spite of all\nthe flattering rhetoric with which Dr. Farrar invests it--a rhetoric\nso inharmonious with its own consummate simplicity--there is something\ninexpressibly childish to the modern mind in the awful heinousness which\nis attributed to the mere eating of forbidden fruit. An act is really\nnot vicious because it is prohibited, or virtuous because it conforms to\nthe dictates of authority. When man attains to intellectual maturity\nhe smiles at the ethical trick which was played upon his youthful\nignorance. It is not sufficient to tell him that he must do this, and\nmust not do that. He requires a reason. His intelligence must go hand in\nhand with his emotions. It is this union, indeed, which constitutes what\nwe call conscience.\n\nThe truth is that the Bible is steeped in superstition and\nsupernaturalism. Its cosmogony, its conception of man's origin and\nposition in the universe, its infantile legends, its miracles and magic,\nits theory of madness and disease, its doctrine of the external efficacy\nof prayer, its idea that man's words and wishes avail to change the\nsweep of universal forces and the operation of their immutable laws: all\nthis is in direct opposition to the letter and spirit of Science. The\nspecial pleading of clergymen like Dr. Farrar may afford a temporary\nrelief to trembling Christians, and keep them for a further term in\nthe fold of faith; but it will never make the slightest impression upon\nsceptics, unless it fills them with contemptuous pity for a number of\nclever men who are obliged, for personal reasons, to practise the lowest\narts of sophistry.\n\n\n\n\nIV. MIRACLES AND WITCHCRAFT\n\nDr. Farrar, as we have seen, holds that the Bible is not a revelation\nin science. The inspired writers were, in such matters, left to their\nnatural knowledge. The Holy Spirit taught them that God made the world\nand all which it inhabits; but _how_ it was made they only conjectured.\nThe truth, in _this_ respect, was left to the discovery of later ages.\n\nThis is a pretty and convenient theory, but it does not provide for\nevery difficulty in the relationship between science and the Bible.\nThere still remain the questions of miracles and witchcraft.\n\nDr. Farrar does not discuss these questions thoroughly. He only ventures\na few observations. In his opinion, the two miracles of the Creation and\nthe Incarnation \"include the credibility of _all_ other miracles.\"\nWe agree with him. Admit creation out of nothing, and you need not be\nastonished at the transformation of water into wine. Admit the birth\nof a boy from a virgin mother, and you need not raise physiological\nobjections to the story of a man being safely entertained for three\ndays in a whale's intestines. It is absurd to strain at gnats after\nswallowing camels. For this reason we are unable to understand Dr.\nFarrar's fastidiousness. He is ready to believe that some miracles are\nmistaken metaphors, that some were due to the action of unnoticed\nor ill-understood natural causes, and that others were providential\noccurrences instead of supernatural events. All this, however, is but a\nconcession to the sceptical spirit. It is throwing out the children to\nthe wolves. It may stop their pursuit for a little while, but they will\ncome on again, and flesh their jaws upon the parents.\n\nA mixed criterion of true miracles is laid down by Dr. Farrar. They must\nbe (1) adequately attested, and (2) wrought for adequate ends, and (3)\nin accordance with the revealed laws of God's immediate dealings with\nman. The second and third conditions are too fanciful for discussion.\nThey are, in fact, entirely subjective. The first condition is the only\none which can be applied with decisive accuracy. The miracles must be\n_adequately attested_. But was it not David Hume who declared that \"in\nall history\" there is not a single miracle attested in this manner? And\ndid not Professor Huxley say that Hume's assertion was \"least likely\"\nto be challenged by those who are used to weighing evidence and giving\ntheir decision with a due sense of moral responsibility?\n\nIt is easy enough to sneer at Hume. It is just as easy to answer what he\nnever said. What the apologists of Christianity have to do is to take\na single miracle of their faith and show that it rests upon adequate\nevidence. Anything short of this is intellectual thimble-rigging.\n\nDr. Farrar does not face this dreadful task. He treats us, instead, to\nsome personal observations on the Fall, the Tower of Babel, Balaam's\nass, Joshua's arrest of the sun and moon, and Jonah's submarine\nexcursion. Let us examine these observations.\n\nNo Christian, says Dr. Farrar, is called upon to believe in an actual\nGarden of Eden and an actual talking serpent. Christians have believed\nin these things by the million. But that was before the clergy invented\n\"the Higher Criticism\" to disarm \"infidelity.\" They know better now.\nThe story of the Fall is false as a narrative. It is true as a \"vivid\npictorial representation of the origin and growth of sin in the human\nheart.\" All the literature of the world has failed to set forth anything\n\"comparable to it in insight.\" Therefore it is \"inspired.\"\n\nHow hollow this sounds when we recollect that the Hebrew story of the\nFall was borrowed from the Persian mythology! How much hollower when we\nconsider it as it stands, stripped of the veil of fancy and divested of\nthe glamor of association! The \"insight\" of the inspired writer could\nonly represent God as the landlord of an orchard, and man as a being\nwith a taste for forbidden apples. The \"philosopheme,\" as Dr. Farrar\ngrandiosely styles it, is so absurd in its native nakedness that Rabbis\nand other divines have suspected a carnal mystery behind the apples, in\norder to give the \"sin\" of Adam and Eve a darker vein of sensuality.*\n\n     * We cannot elaborate this point in a publication which is\n     intended for general reading. Suffice it to say that one\n     famous commentator suggests that Eve was seduced by an ape.\n\nNor is this all. The very idea of a Fall is inconsistent with Evolution.\nThe true Garden of Eden lies not behind us, but before us. The true\nParadise is not the earth as God made it for man, but the earth as\nman is making it for himself. The Bible teaches the _descent_ of man.\nScience teaches the _ascent_ of man. And the two theories are the\nantipodes of each other, not only in physical history, but in every\nmoral and spiritual implication.\n\nWith regard to the story of the tower of Babel, we must not regard it\nas an inspired account of the origin of the diversity of human language.\nThat is what it appears to be upon the face of it. But philology has\nexploded this childish legend, and a new meaning must be read into it.\nAccording to Dr. Farrar, it is a \"symbolic way of expressing the\ntruth that God breaks up into separate nationalities the tyrannous\norganisation of cruel despotisms.\" Now we venture to say that there is\nnot a suggestion of this in the text. And the \"truth\" which Dr.\nFarrar reads into it so arbitrarily is a phenomenon of modern times.\nNationality is a great force at present, but in ancient days the only\npower that could bind tribes together in one polity was a military\ndespotism. From the point of view of evolution, both conquest and\nslavery were inevitable steps in the progress of civilisation. It is\nreally nothing against the ancient Jews, for instance, that they fought\nlike devils and made slaves of their enemies. It was the fashion of the\ntime. The mischief comes in when we are told that their proceedings were\nunder the sanction and control of God.\n\nDr. Farrar next tackles the story of Balaam, which is \"another theme for\nignorant ridicule.\" It is astonishing how sublime these Bible wonders\nbecome in the light of the Higher Criticism. A talking ass sounds like\nan echo of the Arabian Nights. But the author himself never intended\nyou to believe it. Dr. Farrar is quite sure of that. You must forget the\nass, and fix your attention on Balaam. Then you perceive that the story\nis \"rich in almost unrivalled elements of moral edification.\" That is to\nsay, you perceive it if you borrow Dr. Farrar's spectacles. But if you\nlook with your own naked eyes you see that ass in the foreground of\nthe picture, with outstretched neck and open jaws, holding forth to an\nastonished universe.\n\nWith regard to Joshua's supreme miracle, Dr. Farrar avows his unbelief.\nA battle ode got mistaken for actual history. \"He who chooses,\" says Dr.\nFarrar, \"may believe that the most fundamental laws of the universe were\narrested to enable Joshua to slaughter a few more hundred fugitives; and\nhe who chooses may believe that nothing of the kind ever entered into\nthe mind of the narrator.\" You pay your money and take your choice.\nShape the old wax nose as you please. Believe what you like, and\ndisbelieve what you like--and swear the author disbelieved it too.\n\nNor must the story of Jonah be taken literally. Regard the moral, and\nforget its fishy setting. Jesus Christ, indeed, referred to Jonah's\nsojourn in the \"whale's belly\" as typical of his own sojourn in the\nheart of the earth. But referring to a story is no proof of any belief\nin its truth. Not in the Bible. Jesus Christ also said, \"Remember Lot's\nwife.\" But of course he did not believe the story literally. He used\nit for his own purpose. For the rest, he did not wish to unsettle men's\nminds by throwing doubt on such a time-honored narrative; besides, the\ntime had not arrived to explain the chemical composition of rock-salt.\n\nWitchcraft is a more serious matter. The Bible plainly says, \"Thou shalt\nnot suffer a witch to live.\" This text sealed the doom of millions of\nold women. It is the bloodiest text in all literature. The Jews believed\nin witchcraft, and the law against witches found its way into their\nsacred Scriptures. Sir Matthew Hale, a great English judge and a good\nman, sentenced witches to be burnt in 1665, and said that he made no\ndoubt at all that there were witches, for \"the Scriptures had affirmed\nso much.\" Wesley, a century later, said that to give up witchcraft was\nto give up the Bible. Dr. Farrar sets down these facts honestly. He is\nalso eloquent in reprobation of the cruelty inflicted on millions\nof \"witches\" in the Middle Ages. But he denies that the Bible is\nresponsible for those infamies. \"Witches\" in the Bible may not mean\nwitches, but \"nefarious impostors.\" Good old wax nose again! Moreover,\nthat ancient Jewish law was not binding upon Christians, and to make\nit so was \"a gross misuse of the Bible.\" But how on earth could the\nChristians use it in any other way? The time came when men outgrew the\nsuperstition of witchcraft. Before that time they killed witches on\nBible authority. Dr. Farrar himself, had he lived then, would have\ndone the same. Living in a more enlightened age, he says that former\nChristians acted wrongly, and in fact diabolically. But what of the book\nwhich misled them? What of the book which, if it did not mislead them\nby design, harmonised so completely with their ignorant prejudices, and\ngave such a pious color to their unspeakable brutalities? Nor is this\nby any means the last word upon the subject. The witchcraft of the Old\nTestament has its counterpart in the demoniacal possession of the New\nTestament. Both are aspects of one and the same superstition.\n\nThe Bible _is_ responsible for the cruel slaughter of millions of\nalleged witches. It is also responsible for the prolonged treatment\nof lunatics as possessed. The methods of science are now adopted in\ncivilised countries. Hysterical women are no longer tortured as witches.\nLunatics are no longer chained and beaten as persons inhabited by\ndevils. Kindness and common sense have taken the place of cruelty and\nsuperstition. This change was brought about, not through the Bible, but\nin spite of it.\n\nSir Matthew Hale and John Wesley were at least honest. They were too\nsincere to deny the plain teaching of the Bible. Dr. Farrar represents\na more enlightened, but a more hypocritical, form of Christianity. He\nsneers at \"reconcilers\" like Mr. Gladstone, who try to bolster up the\nCreation story as a scientific revelation. But is he not a \"reconciler\"\nhimself in regard to miracles? And does he not play fast and loose\nwith truth and honesty in his attempt to clear the Bible of its guilty\nresponsibility in connection with that witch mania which is one of the\ndarkest episodes in Christian history?\n\n\n\n\nV. THE BIBLE AND FREETHOUGHT\n\nThe Bible may well be called the persecutor's text-book. It is\ndifficult, if not impossible, to find in all its pages a single text\nin favor of real freedom of thought. Dr. Farrar champions what he\ncalls \"true Christianity,\" to which he declares that all persecution is\nentirely \"alien.\" This \"true Christianity\" appears to depend upon \"the\nspirit\" of Christ, and seems to have little or no relation to the letter\nof Scripture. But what is the actual fact, when we view it in the light\nof history? In one of his lucid intervals of mere common sense, Dr.\nFarrar makes an important admission with regard to the worse than\nArmenian atrocities of the Jewish policy of extermination in Palestine.\nThose atrocities of cruelty and lust are said to have been ordered by\nGod, but Dr. Farrar says that on this point the Jews were mistaken. They\nthought they were doing God a service, but they thought so ignorantly.\nAnd how was their ignorance corrected? Not by a special monition from\nheaven, but by the ordinary progress and elevation of the human mind.\n\"It required,\" Dr. Farrar says, \"but the softening influence of time\nand civilisation to obliterate in the best minds those fierce\nmisconceptions.\" Precisely so. And is it anything but the softening\ninfluence of time and civilisation that makes Christians like Dr. Farrar\nashamed of the bloody deeds of their co-religionists; which bloody\ndeeds, by the way, have always been justified by appeals to the\nteachings of the Bible? Let there be no mistake on this point. Dr.\nFarrar himself does not scruple to write of the \"deep damnation of deeds\nof deceit and sanguinary ferocity committed in the name of Holy Writ.\"\n\"In some of their deadliest sins against the human race,\" he further\nsays, \"corrupted and cruel Churches have ever been most lavish in their\nappeals to Scripture.\" He admits that \"the days are not far distant\nwhen it was regarded as a positive duty to put men to death for their\nreligious opinions,\" and that this was defended by Old Testament\nexamples, and also by some texts from the New Testament. And it was\n\"by virtue of texts like these\" that enemies of the human race were\n\"enabled\" to combine the \"garb and language of priests with the temper\nand trade of executioners.\"\n\nNow, what has Dr. Farrar to urge _per contra?_ Simply this: that the\n\"early Christians\" pleaded for toleration. \"Force,\" they said, \"is\nhateful to God.\" \"It is no part of religion,\" said Tertullian, \"to\n_compel_ religion.\" But suppose all this be admitted--and there is much\nto be said by way of qualification--what does it amount to? The \"early\nChristians\" were in a minority. They did not yet command the sword of\nthe magistrate. They could not persecute except by holding no fellowship\nwith unbelievers, by shaking off the dust of their feet against those\nwho rejected their Gospel, and by other harmless though detestable\nexhibitions of bigotry. They had to plead for their own existence, and\nin doing so they were obliged to appeal to the principle of general\ntoleration. But the moment they triumphed, under Constantine, they began\nto flout the very principle to which they had formerly appealed. The\nhumility of their weakness was more than equalled by the pride of their\npower. And what was the result? \"From Augustine's days down to those\nof Luther,\" Dr. Farrar says, \"scarcely one voice was raised in favor,\nI will not say of _tolerance_, but even of abstaining from fire and\nbloodshed in support of enforced uniformity.\" Dr. Farrar denounces in\ncreditable language the frightful butcheries of Alva in the Netherlands,\nfor which the Pope presented him with a jewelled sword bearing a\npious inscription. He is properly horrified at the massacre of St.\nBartholomew, in honor of which Pope Gregory XIII. struck a triumphant\nmedal, and went in procession to sing a Te Deum to God, while the cannon\nthundered from the Castle of St. Angelo and bonfires blazed in the\nstreets of Rome. He is bitter against the Church of Rome for its\nvast shedding of innocent blood. He reminds us that the infamous Holy\nInquisition is still toasted by Catholic professors at Madrid; and that\nintolerance, having lost its power, has not lost its virulence, nor\n\"ceased to justify its burning hatred by Scripture quotations.\" And\nhe cites Manning's successor at Westminster, the truculent Cardinal\nVaughan, as declaring with perfect approval that \"the Catholic Church\nhas never spared the knife, when necessary, to cut off rebels against\nher faith and authority.\"\n\nBut let it not be imagined that all the guilt of persecution rested upon\nthe Church of Rome. Protestantism persecuted as freely as the Papacy.\nThat heretics should be put down, and if necessary killed, was a\nprinciple common to both Churches. The question in dispute was, Which\n_were_ the heretics? This is so incontestable that we need not fortify\nit with Protestant quotations and Protestant examples. It is not true,\nas Dr. Farrar alleges, that Luther \"boldly proclaimed that thoughts are\ntoll-free,\" if it is meant that he condemned persecution. Thoughts were\ntoll-free against Romish exactions; that was what Luther meant. He held\nas strongly as any Papist that those who denied one essential doctrine\nof Christianity should be punished by the magistrates. He declared that\nreason always led to unbelief. He besought the Protestant princes to\nuphold \"the faith\" by every means in their power. And when the serfs\nrebelled, thinking that the \"freedom\" the Reformers talked about was\nto become a reality, it was Luther who wrote against them with\nunsurpassable ferocity, and advised that they should be \"slaughtered\nlike mad dogs.\"\n\nDr. Farrar rather judiciously refrains from mentioning Calvin in this\nconnection, but in another part of the volume he refers to the great\nGenevian \"reformer\" in a somewhat gingerly manner. When the sins of\nCatholics have to be condemned he is quite dithyrambic; but when he\nhas to censure the sins of Protestants he displays a most touching\ntenderness. Nothing could well be worse than the mixture of religious\nbigotry, personal spleen, and low duplicity, with which Calvin hunted\nServetus to his fiery doom. Dr. Farrar sympathetically describes this\nvile act as an \"error.\" He tries to satisfy his conscience, afterwards,\nby confessing that the Calvinists in general \"were for the most part as\nsevere to all who differed from them as they imagined God to be severe\nto the greater part of the human race.\"\n\nDr. Farrar's treatment of this subject is superficial. It is not a Bible\ntext here or there which is the real basis of persecution. We advise him\nto read George Eliot's review of Lecky's _History of Rationalism_. He\nwill then see that persecution is founded upon the fatal doctrine of\nsalvation by faith. This doctrine makes the heretic more noxious than a\nserpent. A serpent poisons the body, a heretic poisons the soul. If it\nbe true that his teaching may draw souls to hell, human welfare demands\nhis extermination. Dr. Farrar does not disclaim this doctrine, and if he\nfails to act upon it he only betrays an amiable inconsistency. His heart\nis better than his head.\n\nDr. Farrar, like other Protestants, talks about the right of private\njudgment. But this is only fine and futile verbiage, unless he admits\nthe sinlessness of intellectual error. If judgment depends on the will,\nit is through the will amenable to motives; consequently, the way\nto pro-mote correct opinions is to promise rewards and threaten\npunishments. But if judgment does not depend on the will; if it is\nnecessarily determined by the laws of reason and evidence; then it is\nan absurdity to bribe and intimidate. Now there is no third alternative.\nOne of these two theories must be right, and the other must be wrong.\nDr. Farrar is logically bound to take his choice. If he believes that\njudgment depends on the will, he has no right to denounce persecution.\nIf he believes that judgment does not depend on the will, he has no\nright to censure the most absolute freethought.\n\nThere are but two camps--the camp of Faith and the camp of Reason.\nDr. Farrar belongs to the former. But he does not find his position\ncomfortable. He casts a longing eye on the other camp. He wants to be\nin both. He therefore tries to form an alliance between them, if not to\namalgamate them under one banner.\n\nReason, said Bishop Butler, is the only faculty wherewith we can judge\nof anything, even of revelation itself. Dr. Farrar quotes this statement\nwith approval. He quotes similar sentences from other Protestant\nwriters. Then he turns upon the Roman Church for keeping the Bible\nout of the hands of the people, and denounces it for this with\nultra-Protestant vigor. He imagines that this is a vindication of\nProtestantism, at any rate relatively, as a champion of reason in\nopposition to blind faith and absolute authority. But _private_ judgment\nand _free_ judgment are not identical. When the Protestant puts an open\nBible into your hands, and tells you to read it and judge of it for\nyourself, he is acting like a Freethinker; but when he proceeds to say\nthat if you do not find it to be a divine book, and believe all its\nteaching about God, and Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and heaven\nand hell, you will infallibly be damned, he is acting like a Papist.\nHis right of private judgment, at the finish, always means the right to\ndiffer from him on trivial points, and the duty of agreeing with him on\nevery point which he chooses to regard as essential. If this is denied\nby Dr. Farrar, let him honestly answer this question--Is a Freethinker\nwho has examined the Bible, and rejected it as a divine revelation,\nliable to any sort of penalty for his disbelief? The answer to this\nquestion will decide whether Dr. Farrar is really maintaining the rights\nof reason, or is merely maintaining the Protestant theory of faith\nagainst that of the Catholics, and standing up for the authority of the\nBook instead of the authority of the Church.\n\nMeanwhile we venture to suggest that the Bible texts referred to by Dr.\nFarrar, as requiring us to exercise the right of private judgment, are\nvery little to the point. \"The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord\"\nis a pretty text, but it does not seem to have much bearing on the\nissue. \"Try the spirits\" is all right in its way; but what if you find\nthat _all_ the spirits are illusions? \"Prove all things\" is good, but it\nmust be taken with the context. Jesus indeed is reported to have said,\n\"Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?\" But he is also\nreported to have said, \"He that believeth and is baptised shall be\nsaved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.\"\n\nBy a judicious selection of texts you can prove anything from the Bible,\nand disprove anything--as Catholics have often reminded Protestants. To\npick out passages that to some extent are favorable to a certain view,\nand to ignore much stronger passages that are clearly opposed to it, may\nbe an exercise of private judgment, and may satisfy the conscience\nof neo-Protestants of the school of Dr. Farrar; but it invites a\ncontemptuous smile from Freethinkers who believe that Reason ought not\nto suffer such a prostitution.\n\nWe have to point out, finally, that Protestantism, with its open Bible,\nhas everywhere maintained laws against blasphemy and heresy. The laws\nagainst heresy have fallen into desuetude in England, but while they\nlasted they were simply ferocious. We heard the late Lord Coleridge say\nfrom his seat in the Court of Queen's Bench, as Lord Chief Justice, that\nthe Protestant laws against Roman Catholics, particularly in Ireland,\nwhere they were executed with remorseless ferocity, are without a\nparallel in the history of the world. Catholicism, however, is no longer\nunder a ban. Even the Jews have been admitted to equal rights with their\nfellow citizens. But laws still remain in existence, and are\noccasionally put into operation, against \"blasphemers.\" According to the\nlanguage of common law indictments, it is a crime to bring the Holy\nScripture or the Christian Religion into disbelief and contempt. It is\ntrue that many Christians are ready to profess a certain aversion to\nsuch laws, but they make no effort to repeal them. Many others contend\nthat \"blasphemy\" is a question of manner, that the feelings of\nChristians should be protected, and that while men should not be\npunished for being Freethinkers, they should be punished for wounding\northodox susceptibilities. It is not proposed, however, that any\nlimitations of taste or temper should be imposed upon Christian\ncontroversialists; and this contention may therefore be regarded as a\nsubterfuge of bigotry. On the whole, it may be said that Catholics\nwithout the Bible, and Protestants with the Bible, persecute unbelief to\nthe full extent of their opportunities; and it is only as toleration\ngrows from other roots, and is nourished by other causes, that the\nBibliolaters find out subtle interpretations of simple texts in favor of\nthe prevailing tendency.\n\n\n\n\nVI. MORALS AND MANNERS\n\nDr. Farrar takes the position that \"the Bible is not homogeneous in its\nmorality.\" There is a higher and a lower; and, to adopt the fine but\nparadoxical metaphor of Milton, within the lowest deep a lower deep\nstill opens its dreadful abyss of crime and brutality. The same\nadmission is made by Professor Bruce,* of the Free Church of Scotland;\nbut this gentleman is more subtle than Dr. Farrar, and tries to save\nthe reputation of the Bible by a notable piece of cauistical\nspecial-pleading. He does not allow, though he does not expressly\ndeny, that the Bible contains any immorality. What he does is to draw\na distinction between high morality and low morality. Immorality is\nsinning against your conscience. High morality is acting right up to its\nnoblest dictates. Low morality is conduct in honest conformity to the\nlow standard of a conscience but half-enlightened. When the prophetess\nDeborah sings triumphantly over the infamous exploit of Jael, who\ninvited the fugitive Sisera into her tent, and assassinated him while he\nslept in the confidence of her hospitality, we must not say that either\nof these precious females was guilty of immorality. They were simply\ncarrying out a low morality. And the same applies to Deborah's\nexclamation: \"To every man a damsel or two\"--meaning that the Jewish\nsoldiers slew their male enemies and dragged home a brace of maidens\neach for themselves. Such conduct would be highly improper now, but it\nwas all right then; at least it was as right as they knew; and we must\nnot judge the actors by later ethical standards. So says Professor\nBruce, and it would be true enough if the Bible were not put forward as\na divine book, or if it ever reprehended the infamies of God's chosen\npeople. But it does nothing of the kind; it mentions Jael and Deborah in\nterms of absolute approval.\n\n     * Christian Apologetics, p. 309.\n\nDr. Farrar severely denounces the Jewish wars of extermination in\nPalestine, regardless of the fact--which is as true as any other\nreligious fact in the Bible--that these atrocities were expressly\ncommanded by Jehovah. Divines have defended the massacre of the\nMidianites, for instance, and the appropriation of their unmarried\nwomen; but Dr. Farrar calls their arguments \"miserable pleas,\" and adds\nthat if such \"guilty and horrible\" doings were \"recorded without\nblame,\" it only shows that \"the moral views of the desert tribes on such\nsubjects were in this respect very rudimentary.\" These desert tribes\nwere the chosen people of God; their prophets spoke under divine\ninspiration; yet even Jeremiah, in denouncing Moab, cries: \"Cursed be he\nthat keepeth back his sword from blood.\" According to Dr. Farrar, this\nproves how \"slow\" was the \"development of the religious consciousness of\nmankind.\" But how did it happen that the Jews, with all the advantage\nof special inspiration, were just as slow in this respect as any other\nnation in the world's history? What is the use of \"inspiration\" if\nit does not appreciably quicken the natural development of the human\nconscience?\n\nMany of the Bible heroes are fit for a distinguished place in the\nNewgate Calendar. Dr. Farrar himself cannot stomach \"some details\" in\nthe lives of Abraham, Jacob, Jephthah, and David. Still, he urges\nthat \"the use made of them in the sceptical propaganda is often\nillegitimate.\" These worthies were not \"faultless.\" It is their \"general\nfaithfulness\" which is \"rightly held up to admiration as our example.\"\nFaithfulness to what? Simply to their own greed and ambition, first of\nall, and secondly to the dominance of their tribal god Jehovah, who by\nsuch instruments triumphed over his rival dieties, and became at last\nthe sole Lord God of Israel.\n\nDr. Farrar allows no palliating plea for the cursing Psalms. He cites\na few of the very worst passages, black with hatred and red with blood,\nand asks: \"Can the casuistry be anything but gross which would palm off\nsuch passages as the very utterance of God?\" Moses was \"a great lawgiver\nand a great prophet,\" but Dr. Farrar will not \"defend the divinity of\npassages so morally indefensible\" as that, for instance, which gives the\nslave-owner impunity in killing his slave, provided he does not slay\nhim on the spot, but beats him so that he dies \"in a day or two.\" Nor\nis there \"divinity\" in the order to the Jews to refrain from eating bad\nmeat, but to sell it to the Gentiles. Neither is there \"divinity\" in\nthe order (Deut. xxi. 10-14) to take a wife for a month on trial. These\nthings are parts of an ostensibly divine code, but lawgivers and people\nwere alike mistaken. Inspiration did not guide them aright, but somehow\nor other it enables Dr. Farrar to correct their blunders three thousand\nyears afterwards; which is merely saying, after all, that inspiration\ndoes not pioneer but follow the march of human progress.\n\nDuring the reign of David a dreadful incident occurred. There had been\na three years' famine, and David \"inquired of the Lord.\" The answer was,\n\"Blood upon Saul and upon his house!\" Seven of Saul's sons were hung\nup \"unto the Lord,\" and the famine was stopped. Dr. Farrar tells of an\nintelligent artisan who got up at a meeting and asked \"whether it was\nnot meant to imply that God was pacified by the blood of innocent human\nvictims?\" But he does not give the answer; and it either means this or\nit means nothing at all. In the same way, the story of Jephthah, who\noffered his daughter as a burnt-offering to the Lord, takes such an\nimmolation for granted as a religious act of perfect propriety. Jephthah\nis mentioned as a hero of faith in the New Testament, and no hint is\ngiven that he acted wrongly in sacrificing his daughter on the altar of\nJehovah.\n\nWe have said enough on this subject to give the reader a fair idea\nof Dr. Farrar's position. Let us now pass from Bible morals to Bible\nmanners.\n\n\"The Bible,\" says Dr. Farrar, \"is assailed on the ground that it\ncontains coarse and unedifying stories.\" Take the story of Lot and his\ndaughters, to say nothing of the bestial attempt on the angels in Sodom.\nCould anything be more repulsive? Is there any excuse for putting such\nabominable feculence into the hands of children? After a lot of talk\nabout it, and about, Dr. Farrar offers us the following most sapient\nobservation: \"The story of Lot wears a very different complexion if we\nregard it as an exhibition of unknown traditions about the connection\nbetween the Israelites and the tribes of Moab and Ammon.\" But what does\nthis mean? The Moabites and Ammonites, according to the Bible, were\nhereditary enemies of the Jews, and it was impossible to exterminate\nthem. They were evidently near of kin to the chosen people. Now, if\nthese two facts are put together, it is easy to see the purpose of this\nstory of Lot and his daughters. The Jews traced their own descent, in a\nperfectly honorable way, from Abraham and his legitimate wife Sarah, who\nare doubtless legendary characters. On the other hand, they traced\nthe descent of the Moabites and Ammonites, their cousins and enemies,\nthrough the no less legendary Lot and his two daughters, thus throwing\nthe aspersion of incest upon the cradle of both those races. This is the\nadequate and satisfactory explanation of the story. It is an exhibition\nof dirty and unscrupulous hatred; and, as such, it is a curious fragment\nof \"the Word of God.\"\n\nTake next what Dr. Farrar calls \"the pathetic story of Hosea,\" the\nprophet who was ordered by God to marry a prostitute--not to use the\nmore downright language of the English Bible. Dr. Farrar suggests that\nthere is some doubt as to the meaning of the original. Hosea's wife\nmay have turned out a baggage after the nuptials, instead of being one\nbefore. \"It was the anguish caused by her infidelity,\" he says, \"that\nfirst woke Hosea to the sense of Israel's infidelity to Jehovah.\" And\nread in the light of this \"modern criticism\" the story of Hosea is \"in\nthe highest degree pure and noble.\" How pretty! All that remains for Dr.\nFarrar to do is to explain away as equally \"pure and noble\" the imagery\nof Ezekiel in reference to Aholah and Aholibah. There is no reason why\n\"modern criticism\" in the hands of gentlemen like Dr. Farrar should not\ntransform Priapus into a Sunday-school teacher.\n\nNot only are there very gross stories in the Bible, many of which\nare too beastly to dwell upon, but its language is often gratuitously\ndisgusting. And every scholar knows that the Hebrew text is sometimes\nfar more \"purple\" than our English version. Dr. Farrar admits that if\nthe \"exact meaning\" of certain passages were understood, they \"could not\nbe read without a blush.\" \"Happily,\" he says, they are \"disguised by the\neuphemisms of translations.\" That is to say, the inspired Bible writers,\nor penmen of the Holy Ghost, as old divines called them, were often\nindecent and sometimes positively obscene. Dr. Farrar's explanation is,\nthat \"ancient and Eastern readers\" were not easily shocked, and that our\nmodern \"sensibility\" is of \"recent growth.\" But this proves again\nthat \"inspiration\" is in no sense the cause of progress, and does not\nanticipate it in the slightest degree.\n\n\n\n\nVII. POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROGRESS\n\n\"The Bible,\" Dr. Farrar says, \"is inextricably mingled with all that is\ngreatest in human history.\" This is a fair specimen of his roystering\nstyle. We presume he has contracted it through long years of preaching\nfrom the coward's castle of the pulpit, where a man can exaggerate as\nmuch as he pleases without the slightest fear of contradiction. Dr.\nFarrar does not say that the Bible is mixed up with _much_ of the\ngreatest in human history; no, it must be mixed up with _all_ the\ngreatest--which is a transparent falsehood and a no less transparent\nabsurdity. What did Greece and Rome owe to the Bible? Absolutely\nnothing. There is no evidence that they were acquainted with any part\nof the Old Testament, and Greece had become a mere name before a line of\nthe New Testament was written. Some of the greatest things in the world\nwere done and said by the \"heathen.\" Greek philosophy, Greek literature,\nGreek art, are imperishable. Roman jurisprudence and Roman government\nare the basis of every civilised polity. Plutarch's heroes are all\nPagans, and let Dr. Farrar match them if he can in the history of\nChristendom.\n\nDr. Farrar calls the Bible \"the statesman's manual,\" but he judiciously\nrefrains from showing that statesmen ever act upon its teaching; indeed,\nhe spends a great deal of time in showing that they ought _not_ to act\nupon its teaching, unless they carefully avoid the obvious \"letter,\"\nand allow themselves to be influenced by the recondite \"spirit.\" For\ninstance, it is perfectly clear that the Bible does not contain a single\nword against slavery; it is also perfectly clear to all who possess\na tincture of scholarship that many of its references to slavery are\nfraudulently translated. \"Servants obey your masters\" really means\n\"Slaves obey your owners.\" Moreover, the Bible contains precise\nregulations of slavery. God did not tell the Jews that holding slaves\nwas infamous, that man could never have honest property in human flesh\nand blood. He allowed them to buy and sell Gentiles at their pleasure.\nHe permitted them to enslave their own countrymen for a period of seven\nyears, and in certain cases \"for ever.\" Even in the New Testament we\nfind St Paul sending back a runaway slave to his master. True, he sent\nwith the slave a touching letter to the slave-owner, but sending him\nback at all was giving a sanction to the institution. Dr. Farrar admits\nthat American pulpits \"rang with incessant Scriptural defences of\nslavery.\" He quotes from a Southern bishop, who described slavery as \"a\ncurse and a blight,\" yet declared it to be \"recognised by the Bible,\"\nso that \"every man has a right to his own slaves, provided they are not\ntreated with unnecessary cruelty.\" Dr. Farrar asks whether there was\never \"a stranger utterance on the lips of a Christian bishop.\" He calls\nthis \"distorting the Bible.\" But he does not prove the distortion. He\ncalmly assumes it. He cannot deny the existence of all those slavery\ntexts in the Bible. All he can do is to say that what was \"relatively\nexcusable\" among the Jews is at present \"execrable,\" and is now\n\"absolutely and for ever wrong.\" Very good; but how was that discovered?\nNot by reading the Bible. The Jews read the Bible, the early Christians\nread the Bible, just as well as Dr. Farrar, but they did not find that\nit condemned slavery. Dr. Farrar lives in a later age, in the light of\na higher civilisation. He therefore _reads into_ the Bible whatever it\n_ought to_ contain as the word of God. He does not scruple to override\nexplicit texts by more or less arbitrary deductions from vague maxims\nand ejaculations. He pretends that the \"spirit\" of the Bible in some\nway wrought the abolition of slavery. But every well-informed student is\naware that the abolition of slavery depended upon economical conditions.\nWe _outgrow_ slavery by advancing beyond it in the process of\nindustrial development, and when we _have_ outgrown it we regard it with\nabhorrence. When the institution is in the way of being supplanted by\na higher form of productive labor, the moral revolt against it begins,\ngrowing in strength and intensity as the economical change approaches\nits climax. It was natural that the anti-slavery movement in America\nshould take place in the Northern States, where the conditions\nfavourable to slavery did not exist as they did in the Southern States.\nWe may be pardoned for supposing that if Dr. Farrar's lot had been\ncast in a Southern State he would have defended slavery as a Bible\ninstitution. He is preaching now after its abolition, when denunciation\nof it is cheap and easy, and is no particular credit to the preacher's\nreligion. While slavery existed in America, it was at first justified\nby the Bible in all parts of the Union. Northern abolitionists at last\nfound that the Bible did not teach slavery after all; but this did not\nalter the view of the Southern slaveholders and the Southern Churches.\nHere again we see the force of the Catholic taunt that Protestants can\nprove anything, and disprove anything, by appealing to texts in such a\ncomposite book as the Bible. Here again we also see that the Bible never\n_instigates_ any step in the march of human improvement.\n\nDr. Farrar waxes eloquent, after his special fashion, over the glories\nof England in the age of Elizabeth. He attributes them all to the \"open\nBible,\" which was then placed in the hands of the people. Of course they\nhad nothing to do with the new astronomy, the discovery of America, and\nthe invention of printing! Such paltry causes as these cannot enter\ninto competition with the might and majesty of the Bible! Still, we may\nventure to remind Dr. Farrar that these Englishmen of the Elizabethan\nage, with the \"open Bible\" in their hands, went and started the African\nslave trade. Evidently they did not read in it then, as Dr. Farrar does\nnow, any condemnation of that horrible business. They worked it for all\nit was worth. England, with the \"open Bible\" in its hand, continued to\ndo so for another two hundred years. One of the chief centres of\nthe slave trade was the pious city of Bristol. It grew rich on the\nabominable traffic. Slavery has been abolished, but the old odor of\npiety still clings to the city of Bristol. Its merchants fattened on the\nslave trade with the \"open Bible\" in their hands. They now subscribe to\nmissionary societies to convert the blacks, and they still stick to the\n\"open Bible.\" It was good for upholding black slavery, and it is still\ngood for upholding white slavery.\n\nAll that we have said about slavery applies in its degree to polygamy.\nBoth institutions are sanctioned by the Bible, and the pleas of the\n\"Higher Criticism\" in relation to the one are just as hollow as they are\nin relation to the other. We may go farther and say that the Bible is\nvery far from being woman's best friend, as it is often represented. It\nstarts by making her the Devil's first customer, and the introducer of\nsin and death; it continues to hold her as inferior and subject to man,\nlumping her in the tenth commandment with the house, the ox, and the\nass, as the man's property; and, finally, in the New Testament, it\nexpressly tells her that her duty is to be silent and submissive, for\nthe husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church.\n\nWe need not follow Dr. Farrar in his rhapsodical references to the\nvarious achievements of the Bible. We may remark, however, that his\nreference to Japan is singularly unhappy. That country _has_ accepted\nthe leading ideas of Western civilisation, but it has _not_ accepted\nChristianity. Nor is Dr. Farrar well advised in laying so much stress on\nthe Pilgrim Fathers. He says that they had a preference for the \"pure,\nunadulterated lessons of the Bible.\" Perhaps they had. But what were\nthose lessons as illustrated by their actions? Certainly intolerance was\none of them. They had no conception of religious liberty. \"The Pilgrim\nFathers,\" as Sir Walter Besant remarks in his little book on _The Rise\nof the Empire_, \"believed that everybody should think as they themselves\nthought. Had they achieved their own way, they would have sent Laud\nhimself, and all who thought like him, across the ocean with the\ngreatest alacrity.\" They also believed in witchcraft, probably because\nDr. Farrar was not at hand to explain that the Bible did not mean what\nit said; and they tortured and burnt witches with remarkable gusto.\n\nIt would also be a waste of time to correct all Dr. Farrar's statements\nabout the influence of the Bible in other directions. We will take a\nsingle illustration of his fantastical method. He tells us that the\nBible \"inspired the pictures of Fra Angelico and Raphael, the music of\nHandel and Mendelssohn.\" Perhaps he will tell us whether it inspired\nRaphael's picture of the Fornarina, and why it did not inspire the music\nof Beethoven and Wagner. Both those great composers, as a matter of\nfact, were \"infidels.\"\n\nNothing could be more absurd than orthodox talk about the Bible\n\"inspiring\" great poets, artists, and musicians. Men of genius are\ninspired by nature. Their inspiration is born with them. It cannot be\nmade; it can only be utilised. All that religions have done is to employ\nthe genius they could not create. Every religion has done this in turn.\nThe genius was there always as a natural endowment. It existed before\nall the world's religions, and it will outlive them.\n\n\n\n\nVIII. INSPIRATION\n\nThe Higher Criticism, as expounded by Dr. Farrar, admits nearly all\nthe Bible difficulties that have been advanced by \"infidels.\" Let us\nrecapitulate the most important. The Bible is hopelessly at variance\nwith science. It sometimes contradicts well-established history. Many of\nits stories, taken literally, are obviously absurd. Some of the actions\nit records with apparent approval are wicked or disgusting. A good deal\nof its language sins against common decency. Several books were not\nwritten by the authors whose names they bear. Others are, and must for\never remain, anonymous. The dates of composition of the various\nbooks are not what has been generally supposed. Occasionally the true\nchronology differs from the received chronology by many centuries. To\nthe great majority of readers the Bible has never been known, and never\ncan be known, except in translations. No translation can possibly be\nperfect. Every translation of the Bible is known to contain grave and\nnumerous errors. Even in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts there\nare thousands of various readings. In some cases the text is uncertain,\nin some cases interpolated, and in others irrecoverably impaired. The\nvowel points by which Hebrew is now read are demonstrably a modern\ninvention. Even the discourses of Jesus Christ, in the New Testament,\nare not reported with accuracy. The New Testament writers seldom quote\nfrom the Old Testament exactly, but generally rely upon the Greek\ntranslation called the Septuagint.\n\nSometimes they quote passages which are not in Scripture at all. \"Out of\n288 passages quoted from the Old Testament in the New,\" says Dr. Farrar,\n\"there are but 53 which agree accurately with the original Hebrew. In 76\nthe New Testament differs both from the Greek and the Hebrew; and in 99\nthe New Testament, the Greek, and the Hebrew are all variant.\"\n\nOn the face of it, then, the Bible is doomed. A book of which all these\nthings can be said, without the slightest fear of contradiction, must\nsooner or later be dropped as the Word of God. It will be recognised as\na human composition.\n\nMeanwhile, those who live by the Bible, and are professionally\ninterested in its \"supremacy,\" as Dr. Farrar calls it, cast about a\nfor means of giving it a fresh reputation. The old conception of it is\nfatally discredited; a new one may give it a fresh lease of life.\n\nEvidently there is only one direction open to the theological trimmers.\nThey must start another theory of inspiration--one that will conserve\nthe \"sacred\" character of the Bible in spite of every difficulty that\nhas been, or can be discovered.\n\nThe Bible is no longer to be called _the_ Word of God. Ruskin says, and\nDr. Farrar seems to quote it approvingly, that \"it is a grave heresy (or\nwilful source of division) to call any book, or collection of books, the\nWord of God.\" Ten pages later, however, we are told that the Bible, as a\nwhole, _may_ be spoken of as the Word of God, because it \"contains words\nand messages of God to the human soul.\" This word \"contains\" is the\nmagical spell by which Dr. Farrar seeks to dissipate all difficulties.\nHe finds the expression in the Church Articles, in the Book of Homilies,\nand in the Shorter Catechism. But in order to see how illegitimate is\nDr. Farrar's use of these authorities, let us take his extract from the\nlast of them: \"The Word of God which is _contained_ in the Scriptures of\nthe Old and New Testament is the only rule to direct us how we may enjoy\nand glorify Him.\" Is it not clear that the word \"_contained_\" is used\nhere in its primary meaning? Did not the writers mean that the Word of\nGod is included or comprehended in the Old and New Testament only, and\nis not to be found elsewhere? Would they not have been shocked to hear a\nclergyman of the Church of England say that some parts of the Bible were\n_not_ the Word of God? If so, their use of the word \"contain\" lends no\ncountenance to the use made of it by Dr. Farrar. And is it not a shallow\ntrick upon our intelligence to argue that different persons, using\nthe same word, necessarily mean the same thing? Words are the money of\nfools, as Hobbes said, but only the counters of wise men. We must get at\nthe actual value of the thing which is symbolised. And the moment we do\nthis, we see that Dr. Farrar's theory of the Word of God is _not_ the\nsame as that of the gentlemen who drew up the Shorter Catechism. They\nwould indeed have laughed at his \"contains,\" and excommunicated and\nimprisoned him, and perhaps burnt him at the stake. It is not by\ntorturing one poor word ten thousand ways that such wide differences can\nbe reconciled.\n\nPassing by this ridiculous legerdemain, let us take Dr. Farrar's theory\nfor what it is worth. The Bible _contains_ the Word of God. But how are\nwe to find it? What is the criterion by which we are to separate God's\nword from man's word? Dr. Farrar bids us use \"the ordinary means of\ncriticism and spiritual discernment.\" But such a vague generality is\nnothing but verbiage. What we want is the _criterion_. Now the nearest\napproach to it in all Dr. Farrar's pages is the following:--\n\n\"Is it not a plain and simple rule that anything in the Bible which\nteaches, or is misinterpreted to teach, anything which is not in\naccordance with the love, the gentleness, the truthfulness of Christ's\nGospel, is _not_ God's word to us, however clearly it stands on the page\nof Scripture?\"\n\nThis is at best a _negative_ criterion; and, on close examination, it\nturns out to be no criterion at all. The criterion, to be valid, must be\n_external_ to the book itself. Dr. Farrar's criterion is _internal_.\nHe picks out one part of the Bible as the standard for judging all\nthe rest. This is entirely arbitrary. Moreover, it would soon be found\nimpossible in practice. Dr. Farrar's criterion may be \"plain,\" but it\nis not so \"simple,\" except in the uncomplimentary sense of the word.\nFor \"Christ's Gospel,\" by which the rest of the Bible is to be tried,\nis itself a very composite and self-contradictory thing. Further, if\nall that agrees with Christ's Gospel is the Word of God, is it not\nsuperfluous as being a mere repetition? Dr. Farrar would therefore bring\nthe actual, valid Word of God within the compass of the Four Gospels;\ndismissing all the rest, like the Arabian Caliph who commanded a whole\nlibrary to be burnt on the ground that if the books differed from\nthe Koran they were pernicious, and if they agreed with it they were\nuseless. Nor is this all. Dr. Farrar admits that the discourses of\nJesus Christ are not reported with accuracy. Therefore, having made the\nGospels the criterion of the Word of God in the rest of the Bible, he\nwould be obliged to select some special passages as the criterion of the\nWord of God in the rest of the Gospels. This is what Shakespeare would\ncall a world-without-end process.\n\nCandidly, it seems to us that if the Bible _is_ not the Word of God, but\nonly _contains_ the Word of God--that is to say, if it is partly God's\nword and partly man's word--the clergy of all denominations should unite\nin publishing a Bible with the divine and human parts clearly specified\nby being printed in different types. And surely, if the Bible is in\nany sense inspired, it should be possible, by a new and final act of\ninspiration, to settle this distinction for ever.\n\nAllowing the clergy to meditate this holy enterprise, we proceed to\nconsider Dr. Farrar's theory of inspiration. Of course he discards\nthe old theory of verbal dictation; indeed, he calls it \"irreverent,\"\nbecause it attributes to God what modern men of intelligence and good\nmanners would be ashamed to own. He even quarrels with the very term\ninspiration as \"vague,\" and says it would be \"a boon if some less\nambiguous word could be adopted.\" Four theories, he says, have been\nentertained in the Christian Church. The first is the _mechanical_\ntheory, which implies that the Holy Ghost dictated, and the inspired\npenmen were merely his amanuenses. The second is the _dynamic_, which\nrecognises \"the indefeasible guidance of the Holy Spirit.\" The third is\nthat of _illumination_, which confines the divine guidance to matters of\nfaith and doctrine. The fourth is that of _general_ inspiration, which\nregards the Holy Spirit as influencing the writers in the same way as it\ninfluences \"other noble and holy souls.\" This fourth theory is the one\nwhich Dr. Farrar himself affects. Every pure and sweet influence upon\nthe human soul, he says, is a heavenly inspiration. We owe to it \"all\nthat is best and greatest in philosophy, eloquence, and song.\" Haydn\nsaid of his grandest chorus in the \"Creation\": \"Not from me but from\nabove it all has come!\" \"There is inspiration,\" says Dr. Farrar,\n\"whenever the spirit of God makes itself heard in the heart of man.\"\nApparently--for we can never be quite sure of Dr. Farrar--the only\nsuperiority of the Bible lies in the fact that \"the voice of God\" speaks\nto us \"far more intensely\" out of it than out of \"any [other?] form of\nhuman speech.\"\n\nSuch a theory of inspiration is too vague and universal. Sooner than\ngive up inspiration altogether Dr. Farrar is prepared to share it all\nround. But is not proving too much as bad as proving too little? If the\nBible is only inspired--where it _is_ inspired--in the same sense as\nother books are inspired; if the difference is not one of kind, but\nsimply of degree; then it is really idle to talk about its inspiration\nany longer. The word _inspiration_ loses all its original meaning. It\nbecomes a poetical expression, implying nothing supernatural, but merely\nthe exaltation of natural powers and faculties. God is then behind the\nBible only as God is behind everything; and Christianity, ceasing to be\na special revelation, becomes only a certain form of Theism.\n\nThis loose theory of _general_ inspiration will doubtless serve the\npresent turn of the clergy, who have to face a general and growing\ndissatisfaction with the Bible. But it cannot live very long in a\nscientific age. It will be found out in time, like all the Bible\ntheories that preceded it. The first Protestant dogma was the\ninfallibility of Scripture. That was exploded by modern science and\ntextual criticism. Then came the dogma of plenary inspiration, which had\na comparatively short-lived existence, as it was only the old dogma of\ninfallibility in disguise. Next came the dogma of illumination, which\nmay be said to have begun with Coleridge and ended with Maurice.\nFinally, we have the dogma of general inspiration, which began nowhere\nand ends nowhere, which means anything or nothing, and which is a sort\nof \"heads we win, tails you lose\" theory in the hands of the clever\nexpounders of the Higher Criticism.\n\nBehind the last, as well as the first, of all these theories\nof inspiration stands the fatal objection of Thomas Paine, that\ninspiration, to be real, must be personal. A man may be sure that God\nspeaks to him, but how can he be sure that God has spoken to another\nman? He may think it possible or probable, but he can never be certain.\nWhat is revelation at first-hand, said Paine, is only hearsay at\nsecond-hand. Real inspiration, therefore, eventuates in mysticism.\nThe inner light shines, the inner voice speaks; God holds personal\ncommunication with the individual soul. Each believer carries what the\nauthor of _Hudibras_ calls \"the dark lanthorn of the spirit,\" which\n\"none see by but those who bear it.\" And the very multiplicity and\ndiversity of the oracle's deliverances are a proof that in all of them\nman is speaking to himself. He questions his gods, and hears only the\necho of his own voice.\n\n\n\n\nIX. THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS\n\nSome of the teaching of the Higher Criticism as to the authorship and\ncredibility of the Old Testament is, on the face of it, contrary to\nthe plain language of Jesus Christ himself in the Gospels. Moses, for\ninstance, is no longer considered as the author of the Pentateuch. Canon\nDriver, who is perhaps the chief scholar of this movement in the Church\nof England, as Dean Farrar is perhaps its chief rhetorician, locates the\ncomposition of the book of Deuteronomy in the period between Isaiah and\nJeremiah. Throughout the book, he observes, the writer introduces Moses\nin the third person, and puts speeches in his mouth which of course\nhe never uttered. But in \"framing discourses appropriate to Moses'\nsituation!\" he was not guilty of \"forgery,\" for he was \"doing nothing\ninconsistent with the literary usages of his age and people.\" That is\nto say, everybody did it, and this writer was no worse than his\ncontemporaries--which is probably true. But passing by the question of\ncasuistry here involved, we repeat that the Mosaic authorship of the\nPentateuch is entirely abandoned. Dr. Farrar is quite as emphatic as\nDr. Driver on this point. He denies that there is \"any proof of the\nexistence of a _collected_ Pentateuch earlier than the days of Ezra\n(b.c. 444 )\"--a thousand years after the time of Moses. He points out\nthat the salient features of the so-called Mosaic Law, such as the\nPassover, the Sabbatical year, and the Day of Atonement, are not to be\ntraced in the old historical books or in the earlier prophets. Nor\ndoes he scruple to assert that the Pentateuch is \"a work of composite\nstructure,\" which has been \"edited and re-edited several times,\" and\n\"contains successive strata of legislation.\" In the New Testament,\nhowever, Moses is repeatedly spoken of as the author of the Pentateuch.*\nNot to multiply texts, for in such a case one is as good as a thousand,\nwe will take a decisive passage in the fourth Gospel:--\n\n     * Matthew xix. 7, 8; Mark x. 3, 4; xii. 26; Luke xvi. 29-31;\n     Luke xx. 37; John v. 45, 46; vii. 19, 22, 23.\n\n\"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that\naccuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses,\nye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his\nwritings, how shall ye believe my words?\" (John v. 45-47).\n\nThe speaker in this instance is Christ himself. It is he, and not the\nevangelist, who speaks of the writings of Moses, and declares that Moses\n\"wrote of me.\"\n\nNow let us turn to the book of Psalms, which has been well called the\nHymn Book of the Second Temple. According to Dr. Farrar, they are\n\"a collection of sacred poems in five separate books of very various\nantiquity.\" Canon Driver points out that they are mostly posterior to\nthe prophetical writings. \"When the Psalms,\" he says, \"are compared\nwith the prophets, the latter seem to show, on the whole, the greater\noriginality; the psalmists, in other words, _follow_ the prophets,\nappropriating and applying the truths which the prophets proclaimed.\"\nVery few of the Psalms are earlier than the seventh century before\nChrist. Dr. Driver affirms this with \"tolerable confidence.\" Dr. Farrar\nsays that \"some may mount to an epoch earlier than David's,\" but this\nis mere conjecture. The more cautious Dr. Driver will not commit himself\nfurther than \"a verdict of _non liquet_\"; that is to say, there is no\nproof that David did not write one or two of the Psalms, and no evidence\nthat he did. His name was associated with the collection, in the\nsame way as the name of Solomon was associated with the Proverbs.\nNevertheless it is David who is referred to by Jesus as the author of\nthe hundred-and-tenth Psalm.* But this Psalm is one of those which are\nallowed to belong to a much later period. Jesus quoted it as David's,\nbut Professor Sanday says \"it seems difficult to believe it really came\nfrom him\"**--which is as strong an expression as a Christian divine\ncould be expected to permit himself in a case of such delicacy.\n\n     * Matthew xxii. 43-45; Mark xii. 36, 37; Luke xx. 42-44.\n\n     ** Professor W. Sanday, Bampton Lectures on Inspiration, p.\n     409. Canon Gore, with this utterance of Jesus right before\n     him, still more emphatically denies that this Psalm was, or\n     could have been, composed by David. See his Bampton Lectures\n     on The Incarnation of the Son of God, p. 197.\n\nWe have already seen that the book of Daniel was not written by the\nprophet Daniel, but by some unknown author hundreds of years later,\nprobably in the second century before Christ. Upon this subject\nProfessor Sanday takes precisely the same view as Canon Driver. He says\nthat this is \"the critical view\" and has \"won the day.\" All the facts\nsupport the \"supposition that the book was written in the second century\nb.c.,\" and not \"in the sixth.\" \"The real author,\" he says, \"is unknown,\"\nand \"the name of Daniel is only assumed.\" He was writing, not a history,\nbut a homily, to encourage his brethren at the time of the Maccabean\nstruggle. \"To this purpose of his,\" Professor Sanday says, \"there were\nfeatures in the traditional story of Daniel which appeared to lend\nthemselves; and so he took that story and worked it up in the way which\nseemed to him most effective.\" Jesus Christ, however, held the orthodox\nview of his own time, and spoke of Daniel as the actual author of this\nbook (Matthew xxiv. 15). \"But this,\" Professor Sanday observes, \"it is\nright to say, is only in one Gospel, where the mention of Daniel may be\nan insertion of the Evangelist's.\" Such conjectural shifts are Christian\ncritics reduced to in their effort to minimise difficulties; as though\n_reducing_ the mistakes of Jesus in any way saved his _infallibility_.\n\nWe will now turn to some portions of the Old Testament narrative which\nthe Higher Criticism regards as legendary, but which Jesus regarded as\nstrictly historical. One of these is the story of the Flood. No one of\nany standing is now prepared to defend this story, at least as we find\nit in the book of Genesis. A few orthodox scientists, like Sir James\nW. Dawson, pour out copious talk about tremendous floods in former\ngeological ages; but what has this to do with the Bible narrative of a\nuniversal deluge which occurred some four thousand five hundred years\nago? The Higher Critics have the impatience of Freethinkers with such\nintellectual charlatanry. They regard the story of the Flood as a Jewish\nlegend, which was not even original, but borrowed from the superstitions\nof Babylon. Yet the opinion of Jesus Christ seems to have been very\ndifferent. Here are his own words:--\n\n\"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man\nbe. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating\nand drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe\nentered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them\nall away, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be\" (Matthew xxiv.\n37-39).\n\nJesus Christ appears to have believed, like the disciples he was\naddressing, like all the rest of his countrymen, and like nearly\nall Christians until very recently, that the Flood was an historical\noccurrence, that Noah and his family were saved in the ark, and that all\nthe other inhabitants of the world were drowned.\n\nAnother story which the Higher Criticism dismisses as legendary is that\nof Jonah. The book in which it is related was, of course, not written by\nJonah, the son of Amittai, of whom we read in 2 Kings xiv. 25, and who\nlived in the reign of Jeroboam II. \"It cannot,\" as Dr. Driver says,\n\"have been written until long after the lifetime of Jonah himself.\" Its\nprobable date is the fifth century before Christ. Dr. Driver says it is\n\"not strictly historical \"--that is to say, the events recorded in it\nnever happened. Jonah was not really entertained for three days in a\nwhale's belly, nor did his preaching convert the whole city of Nineveh.\nThe writer's purpose was didactic; he wished to rebuke the exclusiveness\nof his own people, and to teach them that God's care extended, at least\noccasionally, to other nations as well as the Jews. Some critics, such\nas Cheyne and Wright, regard the story as allegorical; Jonah standing\nfor Israel, the whale for Babylon, and the vomiting up of the prophet\nfor the return of the Jews from exile. Dr. Farrar draws attention to the\n\"remarkable\" fact that in the book of Kings \"no allusion is made to any\nmission or adventure of the historic Jonah.\" He adds that there is not\n\"the faintest trace of his mission or its results amid the masses of\nAssyrian inscriptions.\" Even the writer of the book of Jonah, according\nto Dr. Farrar, attached \"no importance\" to its \"supernatural incidents,\"\nwhich \"only belong to the allegorical form of the story.\" So much for\nthe Higher Critics; and now let us hear Jesus Christ:--\n\n\"An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall\nno sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas\nwas three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son\nof man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The\nmen of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall\ncondemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and behold\na greater than Jonas is here\" (Matthew xii. 39-41).\n\nThis utterance of Jesus is also reported in Luke (xi. 29-32), but with\nan important variation, the reference to Jonah in the whale's belly\nbeing entirely omitted. This variation is seized upon by Dr. Farrar.\nThe fishy reference, he says, occurs in Matthew _alone_, and it may\n\"represent a comment or marginal note by the Evangelist, or of some\nother Christian teacher.\" This, however, is an arbitrary supposition,\nwhich everyone is free to repudiate; and Dr. Farrar feels obliged to add\nthat \"even if our Lord did allude to the whale\" it does not follow that\nwe should regard it as \"literal history.\" But this is not the question\nat issue. The real question is, did Jesus Christ believe the story of\nJonah and the whale? If he did not, it must be admitted that he had a\nmost unfortunate way of expressing himself.\n\nNo educated Christian in the present age believes the story of Lot's\nwife being changed into a pillar of rock salt, although Josephus\npretended that he had seen it, and many travellers and pilgrims have\nsearched for it as a sacred relic. Jesus Christ, however, gave great\nprominence to this salted lady. \"Remember Lot's wife\" is a verse by\nitself in the Protestant Bible (Luke xvii. 32). Jesus also refers to the\nrain of fire and brimstone by which Sodom was destroyed.\n\nHere then, upon the face of it, we have Jesus Christ's testimony to\nthree documents as having been written by men who did not write them,\nand to the historical character of three incidents which are purely\nfabulous. Now the Higher Criticism must be wrong, or else Jesus Christ\nwas mistaken; in other words, he was not infallible, and therefore not\nGod. But the Higher Critics declare that they are not wrong; they also\ndeclare that Jesus Christ was not mistaken. Let us see how they try to\nsave their own accuracy and his infallibility.\n\nWe must remark, in passing, that some of these critics hint, without\nexactly asserting, that Jesus _may_ have been mistaken. Dr. Farrar bids\nus remember that \"by the very fact of taking our nature upon him Christ\nvoluntarily submitted himself to human limitations.\" There were some\nthings which, as a man, he did not know. Yes, but he was also God; and\nthe conjunction of \"knowledge\" and \"ignorance\" in one person, and with\nrespect to a single subject, would dissolve the unity of the God-man,\nwhich is a dogma of Christian theology. Moreover, as Canon Liddon\nargued, it is not so much a question of Christ's omniscience as a\nquestion of his infallibility. Supposing there were some matters, such\nas the date of the day of judgment, of which he was ignorant; he might\nconfess his ignorance or remain silent, and no harm would accrue to\nanyone; but if he spoke upon any matter, and was mistaken through want\nof knowledge, he would become a propagator of error; and this would not\nonly destroy the doctrine of his deity, but very seriously impair his\nauthority as a teacher, and cause everything he said to be open to\nthe gravest suspicion. No less dangerous is it to fall back upon the\nexplanation that \"the discourses of Christ are not reproduced by the\nEvangelists with verbal identity\"--to use Dr. Farrar's own language. Dr.\nSanday seems a little attracted by this explanation. He reminds us that,\nwhatever views Jesus himself entertained as to the Scriptures of the Old\nTestament, his views have come down to us through the medium of persons\nwho shared the erroneous ideas that were then current on the subject. We\nmust be prepared, he says, for the possibility that Christ's sayings in\nregard to it \"have not been reported with absolute accuracy.\" But\nafter all \"not much allowance\" should be made for this; which means, we\nsuspect, that the worthy Professor saw the dreadful peril of pursuing\nthis vein of observation, and desisted from it before he had said enough\nto cause serious mischief.\n\nThe more astute Higher Critics avoid such dangers. They resort to a\ntheory that combines mystery and plausibility, by which they hope to\nsatisfy believers on both sides of their natures. Dr. Farrar tells us\nthat Christ, to become a man, emptied himself of his glory; and that\nthis \"examination\" involved the necessity of speaking as a man to men.\nThis position is perhaps best expressed by Canon Gore:--\n\n\"It is contrary to his whole method to reveal his Godhead by any\nanticipations of natural knowledge. The Incarnation was a self-emptying\nof God to reveal himself under conditions of human nature, and from the\nhuman point of view. We are able to draw a distinction between what he\nrevealed and what he used......Now when he speaks of the 'sun rising' he\nis using ordinary human knowledge. Thus he does not reveal his eternity\nby statements as to what had happened in the past, or was to happen in\nthe future, outside the ken of existing history. He made his Godhead\ngradually manifest by his attitude towards men and things about him, by\nhis moral and spiritual claims, by his expressed relation to his father,\nnot by any miraculous exemptions of himself from the conditions of\nnatural knowledge in its own proper province. Thus the utterances of\nChrist about the Old Testament do not seem to be nearly definite or\nclear enough to allow of our supposing that in this case he is departing\nfrom the general method of the Incarnation, by bringing to bear the\nunveiled omniscience of the Godhead, to anticipate or foreclose a\ndevelopment of natural knowledge.\"*\n\nThis would perhaps be sublime if it were only intelligible. We are not\nsurprised at Dr. Driver's turning away from the metaphysics of this\ntheory. His mind is cast in a more sober and practical mould. It is\nenough for him that the aim of Christ's teaching was a religious one;\nthat he naturally accepted, as the basis of his teaching, the opinions\nrespecting the Old Testament that were current around him; that he did\nnot raise \"issues for which the time was not yet ripe, and which, had\nthey been raised, would have interfered seriously with the paramount\npurpose of his life.\"**\n\n     * Rev. Charles Gore, Lux Mundi (seventh edition), pp. 360,\n     361.\n\n     ** Introduction, Preface, xix.\n\n\nThis is excellently said. It is just what Paley might have written in\npresent-day circumstances. But it contains no note of the supernatural.\nIt deals with Jesus as a mere man, who did not disclose all the\ninformation he possessed, but sometimes veiled his knowledge for\ntemporary reasons. It leaves his Godhead in the background. It does not\nrecognise how easy it was for Omnipotence to act differently. And when\nthe Higher Criticism points out that the human mind could, in the course\nof time, free itself from errors as to the authorship and credibility\nof the Old Testament, it forgets that Jesus Christ, by accommodating\nhimself to those errors, _perpetuated_ them. His authority was appealed\nto for centuries--it is appealed to now--in favor of falsehood. Nor is\nthis falsehood trivial and innocuous. It has been extremely harmful. It\nhas fostered a wrong view of the Bible, it has prolonged the reign of\nsuperstition, and thus hindered the growth of true civilisation. This is\nan impeachment of the moral character of Jesus. It is a confession that\nhe served a temporary object at the expense of the permanent interests\nof humanity. We feel constrained, therefore, to admit the force of the\nwords of Canon Liddon:--\n\n\"We have lived to hear men proclaim the legendary and immoral character\nof considerable portions of those Old Testament scriptures, upon which\nour Lord has set the seal of his infallible authority. And yet, side\nby side with this rejection of Scriptures so deliberately sanctioned\nby Christ, there is an unwillingness which, illogical as it is, we must\nsincerely welcome, to profess any explicit rejection of the Church's\nbelief in Christ's divinity. Hence arises the endeavour to intercept\na conclusion, which might otherwise have seemed so plain as to make\narguments in its favor an intellectual impertinence. Hence a series of\nsingular refinements, by which Christ is presented to the modern world\nas really Divine, yet as subject to fatal error; as Founder of the true\nreligion, yet as the credulous patron of a volume replete with worthless\nlegends; as the highest Teacher and Leader of humanity, yet withal as\nthe ignorant victim of the prejudices and follies of an unenlightened\nage.\"*\n\n     * Canon H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Christ (fourteenth\n     edition), p. 462.\n\nCanon Gore devotes several pages of his Bampton Lectures to this\nsubject, but he does not fairly answer the straightforward objections\nraised by Canon Liddon. Dealing with the references of Jesus to\nthe Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and to Jonah's three days'\nentombment in the whale's belly, and with the argument that this\nendorsement by Jesus \"binds us to receive these narratives as simple\nhistory,\" he blandly declares, \"To this argument I do not think that we\nneed yield.\" Of course not. There is no need to yield to anything you do\nnot like; for this is a free country, at least to Christians. But what\nis the logical conclusion? That is the point to be decided. Canon\nGore does not face it; he merely expresses a personal disinclination.\nSubsequently he pleads that \"a heavy burden\" should not be laid on\n\"sensitive consciences,\" and that men should not be asked \"to accept as\nmatter of revelation what seems to them an improbable literary theory.\"\nBut this again is a personal appeal. These men must be left to attend\nto their own consciences. They have no right to demand a suppression of\ntruth, or a perversion of logic, for their particular advantage.\n\nWhen a candid reader has finished all that the Higher Criticism has to\nsay on this matter, we believe he will be filled with a sense of its\ninsincerity. It never strikes a note of triumph, or even a note of\nconviction. It is timid, furtive, and apologetic; and shelters\nitself against reason by plunging into mystery. In place of all\nthe difficulties it removes it sets up a colossal one of its own\nmanufacture; the difficulty, to wit, of conceiving that God himself lent\na sanction to grave and far-reaching error as to his own Word; or what\nwould inevitably be regarded as a sanction, and would necessarily delay\nfor many hundreds of years the discovery and reception of the truth.\nThe Higher Criticism, in short, has supplied a new argument against the\ndeity of Jesus Christ.\n\n\n\n\nX. THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND\n\nDr. Farrar's book has naturally given offence to the more orthodox\nChristians. Clergymen like \"Father\" Ignatius stigmatise him, and indeed\nall clerical exponents of the Higher Criticism, as wolves in sheeps'\nclothing, who eat the Church's meat and do the work of \"infidelity.\"\nWe are not surprised, therefore, that some reassurance has been\ndeemed necessary; nor astonished that it took the form of a popular\nannouncement in the newspapers. Some months ago--to be accurate, it was\nin September--the following paragraph went the round of the press:--\n\n\"Dean Farrar and the Scriptures.--A correspondent called the attention\nof Dean Farrar to the fact that Atheistic lecturers are in the habit of\naffirming that he does not believe in the Bible (referring to his works\nas a confirmation of the statement), and observed that, if such a grave\nassertion were allowed to be propagated without contradiction, the young\nand the ignorant might be deceived by it. The Dean, who is at present\nstaying in Yorkshire, replied as follows: 'The statement to which you\nrefer is ignorant nonsense. The doctrine of the Church of England about\nHoly Scripture is stated in her Sixth and Seventh. Articles, and that\ndoctrine I most heartily accept.\"\n\nThis strikes us as a rather paltry evasion. The Sixth and Seventh\nArticles of the Church of England do not state the full Christian belief\nas to the Bible, but only the Protestant belief as against that of the\nChurch of Rome. They emphasise two points, and two points only: first,\nthat the Scriptures contain all that is necessary to salvation, so\nthat no man is at the Pope's mercy for a seat in heaven; second, that\nfourteen books of the Roman Catholic Bible are apocryphal, and cannot be\nused to establish any doctrine. The general Christian view of the Bible,\ncommon to Catholics and Protestants, is taken for granted, as it had\nnot then been brought into controversy. There is one word in the Sixth\nArticle, however, which may be commended to Dr. Farrar's attention.\nThe last clause explains what is meant by \"Holy Scripture,\" and runs\nas follows:--\"In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those\nCanonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was\nnever any doubt in the Church.\" Now, unless Dr. Farrar means to juggle\nwith the word \"authority\"--and we do not doubt his capacity for doing\nso--it is idle for him to say that he believes in the Bible according to\nthese terms. He does _not_ believe, for instance, in the \"authority\" of\nthe book of Jonah; on the contrary, he believes that Jonah did not write\nit, and that it is not history, but romance, from beginning to end. If\n_this_ is believing in the Bible, then Atheistic lecturers believe in it\nas well as Dr. Farrar. He does not believe that Jonah spent three\ndays in a whale's belly--nor do they; he does not believe that\nJonah's deep-sea adventure was a prefigurement of the burial of Jesus\nChrist--nor do they; he does not believe that the Jonah story is any\nthe truer because Jesus Christ really or apparently believed it--nor do\nthey; he simply believes that the story's moral is a good one, as far as\nit represents people who are not Jews as entitled to consideration--and\nso do they. Substantially there is not the smallest difference between\nthem. The only discernible difference is a hypothetical one. Dr. Farrar\nclaims that the book of Jonah is inspired. But he also claims that\neverything good and true--that is, everything worth reading--is\ninspired. \"Very well then,\" the Atheist may reply, \"I agree with you\nstill, in substance. The only point in dispute between us is whether\nthere is a God who interferes with the natural course of things, either\nin the external world or in the human mind. But on your definition of\nthe word _inspired_, this makes no particular difference to any one book\nor collection of books. And unless you alter (and narrow) your theory of\ninspiration, our difference begins outside, not inside, the library--and\nis, in brief, not practical, but metaphysical.\"\n\nBut let us return to Dr. Farrar's method of proving his sufficient\northodoxy; and let us tell him that if he will only pursue it far\nenough, he may get rid of the Bible altogether.\n\nSuppose we take Pearson's classic _Exposition of the Creed_, and open\nit at his address \"to the Reader.\" In the second paragraph he writes as\nfollows:--\"The Creed, without controversy, is a brief comprehension of\nthe objects of our Christian faith, and is generally taken to contain\nall things necessary to be believed.\" Now this Creed does not mention\nthe Bible at all. A heathen might read it, and never infer from it that\nthere was such a thing as the Scriptures in existence. What then is to\nprevent Dr. Farrar, or some more audacious clergyman, from saying\nthat he does not believe in the Bible, as it is nowhere laid down\nas necessary to be believed; but that his orthodoxy is nevertheless\nunimpeachable, because he \"most heartily accepts\" the Catholic and\nApostolic Creed which is \"without controversy\" an accurate compendium of\nthe Christian faith, and which, being prescribed in the Prayer Book,\nis of course binding--and is _alone_ binding--on every loyal son of the\nChurch of England?\n\nDr. Farrar claims, as a clergyman, what he calls a \"Christian liberty\"\nin dealing with the Bible; although, if God has indeed spoken in the\nBible, it is difficult to see what liberty a Christian can have but that\nof absolute belief and obedience. In a lengthy footnote of his volume\nwhich we have been criticising, he refers to the famous \"Essays and\nReviews Case,\" and the decisions of the judges in the Court of Arches\nand in the Privy Council. Dr. Lushington laid it down that: \"Provided\nthe Articles and Formularies are not contravened, the law lays down no\nlimits of construction, no rule of interpretation, of the Scriptures.\"\nLord Westbury declared that the Sixth Article of the Church of England\nwas based upon \"the revelations of the Holy Spirit,\" and therefore the\nBible might be denominated \"holy\" and be said to be \"the Word of\nGod\"; but this was not \"distinctly predicated of every statement and\nrepresentation contained in every part of the Old and New Testaments.\"\n\"The framers of the Articles,\" Lord Westbury added, \"have not used the\nword 'inspiration' as applied to the Holy Scriptures, nor have they laid\ndown anything as to the nature, extent, or limits of that operation of\nthe Holy Spirit.\"\n\nAccording to this sapient judgment, which perhaps is very good law, and\ncovers all possible developments of the Higher Criticism, every member\nof the Church of England is bound to regard the Bible as containing \"the\nrevelations of the Holy Spirit,\" but is not bound to regard it as a work\nof \"inspiration.\" A judge, with his legal spectacles on, is notoriously\nable to discriminate subtleties where laymen see only what is plain;\nand clergymen may take advantage of his preternatural sagacity, without\nbeing able in the long run to impose upon the common sense of the\npeople, who will always look upon \"revelation\" and \"inspiration\" as\ninterchangeable terms.\n\nIt is quite natural that Dr. Farrar should wish to get rid of this word\n\"inspiration,\" since it can no longer be defined without danger. But we\nmust remind him that, if it does not occur in the Church Articles, it\ncertainly does occur in the Bible. \"All scripture,\" Paul said, \"is given\nby inspiration of God.\"*\n\n     * Timothy iii. 16.\n\n\nAnd as the New Testament was not then in existence, Paul of course\nreferred to the Old Testament. This was the \"holy scriptures\" which\nTimothy had \"known from a child.\" And Peter is, if possible, more\ndefinite than Paul. He speaks of the \"more sure word of prophecy,\"\nsurer than the very voice heard by the three disciples on the mount\nof transfiguration. This \"prophecy of the scripture\" he declares to be\nnever of \"any private interpretation\"--which means, according to the\ncommentators, that it did not spring from any knowledge or personal\nconjecture in the prophet. Finally, he clinches his exposition by\naffirming that \"holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy\nGhost.\"*\n\n     * 2 Peter i. 19-21. We quote this epistle as Peter's,\n     because it passes as his in the New Testament, not because\n     it was really his writing.\n\nAccording to the Sixth Article of the Church of England, both these\nepistles, bearing the names of Paul and Peter, are among the books\n\"of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.\" Dr. Farrar is\ntherefore bound by them in logic and honor. He is not free to cast aside\nthe Biblical term of _inspiration_ nor free to minimise as he pleases\nthe \"moving\" influence of the Holy Ghost in either the New or the\nOld Testament. As a clergyman of the Church of England, he assumes an\nunwarrantable freedom; a freedom which is no more sanctioned by her\nArticles than it is by the letter or spirit of the Scriptures. He\ndeparts entirely from the primitive and real position of Protestantism;\nnamely, that the Bible is the absolute standard of faith and practice,\nand that, wherever it is dark or dubious, it must be interpreted by\nitself. He treads the _via media_ of compromise and irrationality;\nneither going over to Rome, which claims to be inspired, like the Bible,\nand to be the vehicle of the living voice of God for the infallible\ninterpretation of the written revelation--nor going over to Rationalism,\nwhich regards the Catholic Church as but a human institution, and the\nBible as but a human composition. Believe that God has spoken, according\nto the words of Paul and Peter, and the Catholic theory is the only\nsatisfactory one; disbelieve it, and there is no logical alternative but\nthe most thoroughgoing Rationalism.\n\n\n\n\nXI. AN ORIENTAL BOOK\n\nDr. Farrar stumbles, on one occasion, against the true theory of the\nBible. Having to furnish an excuse, if not a justification, for the\noutrageous crudity of a good deal of its language, he reminds us that\ndecorum changes with time and place. \"The rigid external modesty and\npropriety of modern and English literature,\" he observes, \"is disgusted\nand offended by statements which gave no such shock to ancient and\nEastern readers.\" And he adds that \"The plain-spokenness of Orientals\ninvolved no necessary offence against abstract morality.\" This is\ntrue enough, but the argument should be developed. What is urged in\nextenuation of the grossness of the Scripture is really applicable all\nround--to its mythology, its legends, its religion, its philosophy,\nits ethics, and its poetry. The Bible is an oriental book. And this\none statement, when properly understood, gives us the true key to\nits interpretation, the real criterion of its character, and the just\nmeasure of its value.\n\nIt has been well remarked that the ordinary Christian in this part of\nthe world appears to imagine that the Bible dropped down from heaven--in\nEnglish. Even the expounders of the Higher Criticism, in our own\ncountry, read it first in their mother tongue; and although they\nafterwards read it in the original Greek, and sometimes in the original\nHebrew, they are under the witchery of early impressions, and their\napologetics are almost entirely founded upon the vernacular Bible.\nThus they lose sight, and their readers never catch a glimpse, of the\npredominant element, the governing factor, of the problem.\n\nAll the Bibles in the world, like all the religions in the world, came\nfrom the East. \"Not one of them,\" as Max Mueller remarks, \"has been\nconceived, composed, or written down in Europe.\"*\n\n     * Max Mueller, Natural Religion, p. 538.\n\nHe classes the _Pilgrim's Progress_ among the \"many books which have\nexercised a far greater influence on religious faith and moral conduct\nthan the Bibles of the world\"; but Bunyan's originality was artistic and\nnot religious; he absorbed the Puritanism of his age, and reproduced it\nin the form of a magnificent allegory. Religious originality does not\nbelong to the Western mind, which is too scientific and practical. Every\none of the fashionable crazes that spring up from time to time, and have\ntheir day and give place to a successor, is merely a garment from the\nold wardrobe of superstition. This is true of Theosophy, for instance;\nall its doctrines, ideas, and jargon being borrowed from India.\n\"There are five countries only,\" Max Mueller says, \"which have been\nthe birthplace of Sacred Books: (1) India, (2) Persia, (3) China, (4)\nPalestine, (5) Arabia.\" All come from the East, and all have a generic\nand historic resemblance. Not one of them was written by the founder of\nits religion. Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Christ did not write\na line of the New Testament, Mohammed did not write the Koran, Zoroaster\ndid not write the Avesta, the Buddhist Scriptures were not written by\nBuddha, and the Vedic hymns are far more ancient than writing in India.\nAll these Sacred Books embody the accepted beliefs of whole peoples; all\nof them are canonical and authoritative; all contain very much the same\nethical groundwork, in the form of elementary moral prohibitions; all\nof them are held to be of divine character; all of them become a kind of\nfetish, which is worshipped and obeyed at the expense of the free spirit\nof man, who is told not to be wise above what is written. Ecclesiastical\nor kingly authority has generally given these books their final form and\ncharacter. Their establishment takes place in open daylight, but their\norigin is more or less shrouded in mystery. \"It is curious,\" Max Mueller\nsays, \"that wherever we have sacred books, they represent to us the\noldest language of the country. It is so in India, it is the same\nin Persia, in China, in Palestine, and very nearly so in Arabia.\"*\nAccording to Max Mueller, the Veda was referred to in India fifteen\nhundred years before Christ. Consequently it precedes by many centuries\neven the earliest parts of the Bible:--\n\n\"The Vedic hymns come to us as a collection of sacred poetry, belonging\nto certain ancient families, and afterwards united in one collection,\ncalled the Rig-veda-sa_m_hita. The names of the poets, handed down by\ntradition, are in most cases purely imaginary names. What is really\nimportant is that in the hymns themselves the poets speak of their\nthoughts and words as _God-given_--this we can understand--while at a\nlater time the theory came in that not the thoughts and words only, but\nevery syllable, every letter, every accent, had been communicated to\nhalf-divine and half-human prophets by Brahma, so that the slightest\nmistake in pronunciation, even to the pronunciation of an accent, would\ndestroy the charm and efficacy of these ancient prayers.\"**\n\n     * Natural Religion, p. 295.\n\n     ** Max Mueller, ibid, p. 558.\n\nWith a slight variation of language, to suit the special circumstances,\nnearly all this would apply to the Bible.\n\nChristianity, like Brahmanism, like Buddhism, like Mohammedanism, is a\nbook religion. It is \"God-given,\" or revealed, and its Bible has been\nelevated to a position of infallibility, above the reach of human\nreason, precisely like the Bibles of other oriental faiths. This\nsanctification of every thought and word and letter is declared by\nMax Mueller to have been \"the death-blow given to the Vedic religion,\"\ndestroying its power of growth and change. A similar observation is made\nby Sir William Muir respecting the petrified gospel of the Koran:--\n\n\"From the stiff and rigid shroud in which it is thus swathed, the\nreligion of Mohammed cannot emerge. It has no plastic power beyond\nthat exercised in its earliest days. Hardened now and inelastic, it can\nneither adapt itself nor yet shape its votaries, nor even suffer them\nto shape themselves, to the varying circumstances, the wants and\ndevelopments of mankind.\"*\n\nHow curious it is, after reading this strong passage, to come across a\ndiametrically opposite one in the work of another eminent writer on\nthe same subject. Professor Arnold closes his important book on the\npropagation of the Muslim faith with a reference to \"the power of this\nreligion to adapt itself to the peculiar characteristics and the stage\nof development of the people whose allegiance it seeks to win.\"**\nHistorically, it is perfectly certain that Mohammedanism _has_ been\nfound compatible with a high degree of civilisation. Many instances\nmight be given, but a single one is sufficient. The Mohammedan\ncivilisation in Spain was far superior to the Christian civilisation\nwhich, after terrible bloodshed and enormous destruction, was\nestablished upon its ruins. The truth is, that religions always change\nwhen they must change, and never otherwise. When the necessity\narises, learned divines will always be found to make the requisite\naccommodations. This, indeed, is the explanation of the labors of Dr.\nFarrar and other exponents of the Higher Criticism. They are simply\naccommodating Christianity, and the Bible with it, to the serious\nchanges that have taken place in educated opinion and sentiment, in\nconsequence of the development of physical science, the progress of\nhistorical criticism, and the growth of moral culture. All the truth in\nSir William Muir's impeachment of Mohammedanism is no less applicable\nto Christianity. The Bible, like the Koran, and like every other\nrevelation, stereotyped old ideas, and gave them a factitious longevity.\nDr. Farrar himself not only admits, but contends, that the Bible has\nbeen invoked against every advance in science, politics, and sociology.\nWhat more could be said of the Koran or any other sacred book?\n\n     * Sir William Muir, Rise and Decline of Islam, pp. 40, 41.\n\n     ** T. W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam.\n\nBring any oriental religion into Europe, and it must change or perish.\nChristianity is not true, as Mr. Gladstone and so many orthodox\napologists have argued, because the Christian nations are at the top\nof civilisation. The Caucasian mind led the world before the advent of\nChristianity, and it is doing the same now. Christians are apt to forget\nthat Greece and Italy are in Europe, and that Athens and Rome--two\nimperishable names in the world's history--were far-shining cities\nbefore a good deal of the Old Testament was written.\n\nKeep any oriental religion in the East, however, and there is no\nsaying how long it will last unaltered. Do not travellers talk of\nthe unchanging East? The civilisation of China is almost what it was\nthousands of years ago. Syrian life to-day is like a picture from the\nBible. And the old Orient, as Flaubert said, is the land of religions;\nand where Asia looks upon Europe, and the communication between them\nbegan of yore, you may sample all the faiths of antiquity. Flaubert\nremarked that the assemblage of all the old religions in Syria was\nsomething incredible; it was enough to study for centuries.*\n\n     * Flaubert, Correspondence, vol. i., p. 344.\n\nAsia spawned forth all the great religions, and produced all the great\nrevelations. Arabia is in Africa, but the Arabs are not Africans; they\nbelong to the Semitic race, like the Jews, and the Koran embodies Jewish\nand other Semitic traditions.\n\nThe Bible, then, is an oriental book, an Asiatic book, in spite of the\nGreek elements which are incorporated in the New Testament, notably in\nthe fourth Gospel. It has never been in harmony with the real life of\nthe West. When it has dominated the life of a particular locality, for a\ncertain period, the result has been something typically non-European; as\nin the case of Scotland under the despotism of the Kirk, whose spiritual\nslaves prompted Heine's epigram that the Presbyterian Scotchman was a\nJew, born in the north, who ate pork. Modern civilisation is mainly a\nreturn to the spirit of secular progress which inspired the immortal\nachievements of Greece and Rome.\n\n\"The revival of learning and the Renaissance are memorable as the first\nsturdy breasting by humanity of the hither slope of the great hollow\nwhich lies between us and the ancient world. The modern man, reformed\nand regenerated by knowledge, looks across it, and recognises on the\nopposite ridge, in the far-shining cities and stately porticoes, in the\nart, politics, and science of antiquity, many more ties of kinship and\nsympathy than in the mighty concave between, wherein dwell his Christian\nancestry, in the dim light of scholasticism and theology.\"*\n\n     * James Cotter Morison, The Service of Man, p. 178.\n\nWell, if we once fully recognise the Bible as an oriental book, we are\non the road to its complete comprehension. Its grossness of speech, its\ngratuitous reference to animal functions, its designation of males\nby their sexual attributes even on the most serious occasions, its\nreligious observances in connection with pregnancy and birth, its\nvery rite of circumcision; all this, and much more, becomes perfectly\nintelligible. It is in keeping with all we know of the ideas, practices,\nand language of the East. Moreover, we perceive why it is that\nsimilarities to the theology, the poetry, and the ethics of the Bible\nhave been so liberally disclosed by the progress of oriental studies.\nThe Bible, being brought from the East, has to be carried back there to\nbe properly understood. It is true that Christian divines have offered\ntheir own explanation of these similarities. At first they declared them\nto be Satanic anticipations, devilish pre-mockeries, of God's own truth.\nThen they declared them to be confused echoes of the oracles of Jehovah.\nFinally, they declare them to be evidences of the fact that, although\nGod chose the Jewish race as the medium of his special revelation, he\nalso revealed himself partially to other nations. But these explanations\nare alike fantastic. They rest upon no ground of history or evolution.\nThe real explanation is that the Bible is one of the many sacred books\nof the East. Its differences from the rest are not of kind, but of\ndegree; and any superiority that may be claimed for it must henceforth\nbe argued upon this basis.\n\nThis oriental Bible is at utter variance with the vital beliefs, the\npolitical and social tendencies, and the ethical aspirations, of the\npresent age. Science has destroyed its naive supernaturalism; reason\nhas placed its personal God--the magnified, non-natural man--in his own\nniche in the world's Pantheon; philosophy has carried us far beyond its\nprimitive conceptions of human society; our morality has outgrown its\nhardness and insularity, however we may still appreciate its finer\nejaculations; even the most pious Christians, with the exception of a\nfew \"peculiar\" people, only pay a hypocritical homage to its clearest\ninjunctions; and the higher development of decency and propriety makes\nus turn from its crude expressions with a growing sense of disgust,\nwhile the progress of humanity fills us more and more with a loathing\nof its frightful wars and ruthless massacres, its tales of barbaric\ncruelty, and its crowning infamy of an everlasting hell.\n\n\n\n\nXII. FICTITIOUS SUPREMACY\n\nThere are two remarkable characteristics of present-day apologies for\nChristianity: one is extravagant laudation of Jesus as man and\nteacher, the other is extravagant laudation of the Bible as ethics and\nliterature. Both these characteristics are really signs of the decadence\nof positive faith. Anyone who sincerely believed in the deity of Jesus\nwould shrink from praising his human virtues. To such a person it would\nsavor strongly of impertinence. Nor would anyone who really believed the\nBible to be the Word of God make it the subject of meaner panegyrics.\nIt seems ridiculous to argue that God wrote with unusual power and\nsublimity, and is actually the very first of known authors. But this\nis what Dr. Farrar does, essentially, in the last six chapters of\nhis volume. No wonder, therefore, that all the vices of his style are\ndisplayed in the accomplishment of this extraordinary task. He has to\nmake several quotations from great or distinguished writers, but he\ncatches no literary infection from them. One of these quotations is from\nbrave old George Fox. \"I saw,\" the great Quaker wrote, \"that there was\nan ocean of darkness and death; but an infinite ocean of Light and Love\nflowed over the ocean of Darkness; and in that I saw the infinite\nlove of God.\" This is magnificent writing. It has vision, force, and\nsimplicity. In its way it could hardly be beaten. And how poor in\ncomparison is the turgid pulpit rhetoric of Dr. Farrar!\n\nWe are told by this wordy defender of the faith that the Christian\nScriptures are \"the Supreme Bible of Humanity\"--as though, if it be the\nWord of God, it could be anything less. Our attention is called to\nits \"unique transcendence\"--which is a penny-a-lining pleonasm. We\nare informed that it has \"triumphed with ease over the assaults of its\nenemies\"--which is a remarkably modest assertion, especially in view\nof the fact that the \"enemies\" of the Bible were, for fifteen hundred\nyears, generally subdued by persecution, imprisonment, torture,\nassassination, and the burning of their writings. We are further\ninformed that the Bible commands the reverence, guides the thoughts,\neducates the souls, and kindles the moral aspirations of men \"through\nall the world\"--which is an extremely sober statement in view of the\nfact that all the _nominal_ Christians, not to be too precise about\nthe _real_ ones, do not amount to more than a fourth of the world's\ninhabitants. So wonderful a book is the Bible that \"the Lord Jesus\nChrist himself did not disdain to quote from the Old Testament\"--which\nwas his own word, in the sense that it was (professedly) written under\ndivine inspiration. This is absurd enough, but it is nothing to the\nrapturous eulogy of the Bible which follows it. \"All the best and\nbrightest English verse [not _some_, mark, but _all!_], from the poems of\nChaucer to the plays of Shakespeare in their noblest parts, are echoes\nof its lessons; and from Cowper to Wordsworth,\" Dr. Farrar says, \"from\nColeridge to Tennyson, the greatest of our poets have drawn from its\npages their loftiest wisdom.\" Really, one is tempted to ask whether such\nstuff as this is possible in any other country than England, or perhaps\nAmerica; and whether, even in England or America, it is possible outside\nchurches, chapels, and Sunday-schools. Sixty pages later--Dr. Farrar\ncould not sober down in that long interval--he declares that \"It was the\nBible which created the prose literature of England.\" Now if this were\ntrue it would not serve Dr. Farrar's ostensible purpose. It would not\nprove that the Bible is a divine revelation. It would only prove the\nhistorical--that is to say, the largely accidental--importance of\nthe Authorised Version of the Bible in the development of English\nliterature. But this declaration of Dr. Farrar's is _not_ true. The\nAuthorised Version did not initiate, it rather closed, a period of our\nliterary history. The English of the translators in their Preface is\nvastly different from the English of their translation. Indeed, they\nwere rather collators than translators. They took the older versions\nas the basis of their work, they altered as little as possible, and the\nalterations they did make were strictly in harmony with the time-honored\nstyle of those older versions, a style which was even then very archaic.\nDr. Marsh, himself a devout Christian, contends that \"the dialect of\nthis translation was not, at the time of the revision, or, indeed, at\nany other period, the actual current book-language nor the colloquial\nspeech of the English people.\" He maintains that it was \"a consecrated\ndiction\" which had been \"gradually built up\" from the time of Wycliffe.*\nIts language was not the language of Chaucer's prose, nor even of\nWycliffe's own prose, any more than it was the language of Bacon's\nor Shakespeare's, or even that of divines like Hooker. The Authorised\nVersion is indeed a monument of English, but of special English. It has\nalways stood aside from the main development of English prose. Of course\nit has exercised a considerable influence, but that influence has been\nchiefly indirect. From the young naive prose of Malory to the mature and\ncalculated prose of Swift--not to come farther--there is a clear stream\nof development, to which the language and style of the English Bible\nhave contributed infinitely less than is generally assumed. With the\nsingle exception of Bunyan's masterpiece, which stands apart and alone,\nit is difficult to name a first-class prose competition that was greatly\nindebted to our Authorised Version. Even the divines disregarded it as\na literary model, and perhaps most conspicuously so in the seventeenth\ncentury, immediately after its publication.\n\n     * George P. Marsh, Lectures on the English Language\n     (Murray), pp. 441, 445.\n\nDr. Farrar is entirely wrong in declaring that the Bible created the\nprose literature of England. Even if he only means that English prose\nwas vastly profited by the religious literature which followed upon the\nheels of the Reformation, it is easy to reply that this literature was\nmainly controversial and never remarkable for the higher graces and\ndexterities. For those virtues, prior to the time of Taylor and South,\nwe must turn to secular and even to \"profane\" compositions; a fact which\nis well known to every real student of English literature.\n\nThe next device of Dr. Farrar's advocacy would be astounding if one\ndid not know the muddle-headed public for whom he writes. He devotes a\nmonstrous number of pages to the citing of a \"cloud of witnesses to the\nglory and supremacy of the Holy Scriptures,\" beginning with the\ngreat John Henry Newman and winding up with the notorious Hall Caine.\nSandwiched between these dissimilar \"witnesses\" are Heine, Goethe,\nRousseau, Wesley, Emerson, Carlyle, Huxley, Arnold, Ruskin, and a host\nof others. Most of them were Christians, and afford a partisan testimony\nwhich is not very valuable. In any case, there is no real argument in\na list of names. When a man is being tried on a definite charge, it is\nidle to recite a catalogue of his distinguished friends. Witnesses to\ncharacter are only heard in mitigation of sentence after the jury has\nreturned a verdict of Guilty. Perhaps this fact had its influence on Dr.\nFarrar's mind; at any rate, he calls his \"cloud of witnesses\" when he\nhas ended all he had to say in the form of argument.\n\nThese witnesses, moreover, are jumbled together without the slightest\ndiscrimination. Let us take a few illustrations to show the futility of\nDr. Farrar's method.\n\nJohn Wesley cried \"Give me the book of God! Here is knowledge enough\nfor me. Let me be a man of one book.\" Yes, and John Wesley believed in\nwitchcraft, and honestly declared that to throw over witchcraft was to\nthrow over the Bible. He had, also, his own way of proving \"the divine\ninspiration of the Holy Scriptures.\" He wrote a \"Clear and Concise\nDemonstration,\" from which we take the following extract:--\n\n\"I beg leave to propose a short, clear, and strong argument to prove the\ndivine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.\n\n\"The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men\nor devils, or of God.\n\n\"(1) It could not be the invention of good men or angels; for they\nneither would nor could make a book, and tell lies all the time they\nwere writing it, saying, 'Thus saith the Lord,' when it was their own\ninvention.\n\n\"(2) It could not be the invention of bad men or devils; for they would\nnot make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns\ntheir souls to hell to all eternity.\n\n\"(3) Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible must be given by\ndivine inspiration.\"*\n\n     * John Wesley's Works (1865), vol. xi., pp. 464-465.\n\nCould anything be more childish than this ridiculous play upon the word\n\"invention,\" and this absurd supposition that \"good men\" and \"bad men\"\nare two sharp divisions of the human species? We know that all men\nare mixtures, and that honest men may be mistaken, and tell falsehoods\nwithout lying. We are therefore able to measure the value of John\nWesley's \"demonstration\" that the Bible is inspired.\n\nJohn Ruskin thanks his mother for daily reading the Bible with him in\nhis childhood, and daily making him learn a part of it by heart. This is\nseized upon by Dr. Farrar, who places it in his list of testimonies. But\nit might have been wise--it would certainly have been honest--to tell\nthe reader how Ruskin views the Bible. This great writer has formulated\nfour theories of the Bible, the third of which he has declared to be\n\"for the last half-century the theory of the soundest scholars and\nthinkers in Europe.\" And what is this theory? Here it is in Ruskin's own\nwords:--\n\n\"That the mass of religious Scripture contains merely the best efforts\nwhich we hitherto know to have been made by any of the races of men\ntowards the discovery of some relations with the spiritual world; that\nthey are only trustworthy as expressions of the enthusiastic visions or\nbeliefs of earnest men oppressed by the world's darkness, and have no\nmore authoritative claim on our faith than the religious speculations\nand histories of the Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, and Indians; but are,\nin common with all these, to be reverently studied, as containing\na portion, divinely appointed, of the best wisdom which the human\nintellect, earnestly seeking for help from God, has hitherto been able\nto gather between birth and death.\"*\n\n     * Time and Tide, pp. 48, 49. It should be noted that the\n     Letters in this pregnant little volume were written by\n     Ruskin as far back as 1867.\n\nSurely this is a very different view of the Bible from the one which is\npresented by Dr. Farrar. Setting aside a little religious phraseology,\na Freethinker might endorse Ruskin's theory of the Bible. Everything is\nsubstantially granted to the Freethinker when it is admitted that the\nBible has \"no authoritative claim on our faith.\" Whatever truth and\nbeauty it contains may then be thankfully accepted.\n\nProfessor Huxley's famous eulogy of the Bible, as a book to be read in\nBoard Schools, is made the most of by Dr. Farrar. He must have winced,\nhowever, at Huxley's reference to what a sensible teacher would\n\"eliminate\" as \"not desirable for children to occupy themselves with.\"\nHe was not sensitive enough to wince at the statement that \"even the\nnoble Stoic, Marcus Antoninus, is too high and refined for an ordinary\nchild\"--which is virtually a testimonial in his favor for grown-up\nmen and women. Dr. Farrar crows lustily over what he calls \"Professor\nHuxley's testimony to the unique glory of the Scriptures.\" It is\nperhaps well for him that Huxley is incapable of resenting this\nmisrepresentation. Still, it must be admitted that on this occasion, as\non one or two others, Huxley did gratuitously play into the hands of\nthe enemy. He might have known the kind of use they would make of his\n\"graceful concessions.\"\n\nDr. Farrar had not the honesty to tell his readers that Huxley had\nthe most sovereign contempt for _his_ theory of the Bible. The great\nAgnostic held, for instance, that \"belief in a demonic world\" is\ninculcated throughout the New Testament, and that this belief is\n\"totally devoid of foundation.\" He declared that Inspiration, in the\nschool of the Higher Criticism, is \"deprived of its old intelligible\nsense,\" and is \"watered down into a mystification.\" He laughed at\nthe miracles of the Gospels, and made great fun of the story of the\nbedevilled Gadarean swine. He held that religion and morality\nhave really no necessary connection, and sneered at the\n\"supernaturalists\"--gentlemen like Dr. Farrar--who took to patronising\nmorality when they saw its importance, and \"have ever since tried to\npersuade mankind that the existence of ethics is bound up with that of\nsupernaturalism.\"*\n\nTo accept a testimonial from such a writer is abject on the part of a\nclergyman defending the inspiration of the Bible; and to parade it is\nsimply contemptible. More than fifty years ago, when this petty trick of\nChristian apologetics was coming into vogue, it was rebuked by Newman,\nwho disdained as \"unworthy\" the practice of \"boasting of the admissions\nof infidels concerning the beauty or utility of the Christian system, as\nthough,\" he added with fine sarcasm, \"it were a great thing for a divine\ngift to obtain praise for human excellence.\"**\n\n     * Huxley, Science and Christian Tradition, pp. xv., 25, 54,\n     etc.\n\n     ** John Henry Newman, University Sermons, p. 71.\n\nDr. Farrar's citation of Matthew Arnold is open to the same kind of\ncriticism. \"He retained but little faith in the miraculous,\" we are\ntold, and \"his creed was anything but orthodox.\" But is it fair to\nsuggest that Arnold had any creed at all? He rejected the idea of a\npersonal God, he regarded Jesus as a merely human teacher, and it is\nevident from his books and his published correspondence that he had no\nbelief in personal immortality. As for his \"faith in the miraculous,\" it\nwas not \"little,\" with or without the \"but\"; it was a minus quantity.\nHe positively disbelieved in the miraculous. It was a part of his plain\nmessage to the Churches that the reign of the Bible miracles was doomed,\nthat they were all fairy tales, and that, if the fate of the Bible was\nbound up with theirs, the Bible was doomed too. Arnold said all this\nwhen he was living, and it is useless for Dr. Farrar to disguise\nthe fact, or to minimise it by artful phrases. We commend to his\nattention--would that we could commend it to the attention of his\nreaders!--the following passage from a letter of Arnold's to Sir\nMountstuart Grant Duff, dated July 22, 1882:--\n\n\"The central fact of the situation always remains to me this: that\nwhereas the basis of things amidst all chance and change has even in\nEurope generally been for ever so long supernatural Christianity, and\nfar more so in England than in Europe generally, this basis is certainly\ngoing--going amidst the full consciousness of the continentals that it\nis going, and amidst the provincial unconsciousness of the English that\nit is going.\"*\n\n     * Matthew Arnold, Letters, vol. ii., p. 201.\n\nConsidering what Arnold's views really were, is it of any use to make\nthe statement of rather doubtful accuracy that the Bible was his \"chief\nand constant study\"? Is it not misleading to talk of his \"intense\nreverence and admiration for the Sacred Books\"? He did not regard them\nas _sacred_. He studied and valued the Bible as literature, not as\nrevelation; and it is monstrous to cite him as a witness in favor of the\nBible as it is represented in the school of Dr. Farrar.\n\nWe need not waste time over Dr. Farrar's _banal_ remark that\nLivingstone, Stanley, and the Bible together have caused \"the extension\nof the British protectorate over 170,000 square miles\" in a certain\npart of Africa. We may treat with the same indifference his boast of the\nmillions of copies of the \"Sacred Books\" distributed by the British\nand American Bible Societies. Such \"evidences\" are only fit for the\nstreet-corner. Only a low-minded, commercial-sodden Christian could\nimagine that the multiplication of copies of a book is any sort of\ntestimony to its intrinsic truth and value; and in this particular case\nthe demand is a forced one, depending on the incessant stimulus of the\nsupply.\n\nAnother argument of Dr. Farrar's for the \"supremacy\" of the Bible\nis based upon the history of Christian martyrdoms. He gives several\ninstances of Christians, old and young, rich and poor, high-placed and\nhumble, who have died for their faith, and entered \"the dark river and\nits still waters with a smile upon their faces.\" He attributes their\nfortitude to trust in the promises of the Bible. But he does not tell us\nhow it proves the truth of the Bible either as history or as revelation.\nMillions of Jews have died at the hands of Christian bigots, and their\nheroism amidst torture and massacre has never been exceeded in human\nannals. Does this prove that the New Testament is not a revelation, and\nthat Jesus Christ was not God? Men of other faiths have faced death\nwith sublime courage. Does this prove that their beliefs were accurate?\nMohammedans are notoriously ready to die for their religion; the\nMohammedan dervishes in the Soudan never quailed before the most\nmurderous storm of shell and bullets; they fell in thousands at\nOmdurman, and the Khalifa's standard-bearer, when all around him were\nslain, stood upright under the holy flag, with a smile of defiance on\nhis face, which never left it until he sank shot-riddled upon the heap\nof his dead comrades. Does this prove that the Koran is the Word of God?\n\nThe orthodox argument seems to be this: if a Christian dies for the\nBible, that proves it to be a divine book; if a devotee of any other\nfaith dies for his Sacred Scripture. That proves nothing--unless it be\nthe obstinacy of wrong opinions.\n\nThere is something intensely comical in the seriousness with which Dr.\nFarrar relates the martyrdom of Christians who were put to death by\nother Christians. He does not see that all he gains on one side is lost\non the other, that Christian persecution balances Christian fortitude,\nand that nothing is left to the credit of his account. He devotes a\nwhole page to the murder of Margaret Lachlan and Margaret Wilson by\n\"brutal and tyrannous bigots\" at Wigton in 1677. These two women\nwere Covenanting Christians, and their murderers were Episcopalian\nChristians. They died singing psalms which their murderers believed\nto be the word of God. It is difficult to see what advantage the Bible\nderives from this incident.\n\nOne may be interested by the reminder that Oliver Cromwell quoted two\nverses from the hundred and seventeenth Psalm after his victory at\nDunbar; but one may remember on one's own account that David Leslie, the\ndefeated Scots general, was as devout a Christian and Bible-reader as\nOliver Cromwell, and that his piety was stimulated by the presence in\nhis camp of a whole congregation of Presbyterian ministers. Altogether\nit is a pity that Dr. Farrar picks his illustrations in this one-eyed\nfashion. He forgets that other people may have two eyes, and see on both\nsides of them. He almost invites the sarcasm that the one-eyed man is\nonly a leader amongst the blind.\n\nThe real secret of whatever supremacy belongs to the Bible is to be\nsought in a different direction. It was long ago remarked by a French\nFreethinker, in a work attributed to Boulanger, but really written by\nD'Holbach, that education and authority were the two great pillars of\nthe Christian revelation.\n\n\"If a body of men in possession of power, and able to like advantage of\nthe credulity of mankind, were to find their interest concerned in doing\nso, they would make men believe at the end of a few centuries that the\nadventures of Don Quixote are perfectly true, and that the prophecies\nof Nostrodamus have been inspired by God himself. By dint of glosses,\nof commentaries, and of allegories, it is easy to discover and to prove\nwhat one pleases; however glaring an imposture may be, it can be made at\nlast, by the aid of time, cunning, and power, to pass for truth which\nno one must doubt. Deceivers who are obstinate, and who are supported\nby public authority, can make ignorant people, who are always credulous,\nbelieve anything, especially if they can persuade them that there is\nmerit in not noticing inconsistencies, contradictions, and palpable\nabsurdities, and that there is danger in making use of their reason.\"*\n\n     * Examen Critique de St. Paul, c. 3.\n\nAbolish all the Churches that exist for the purpose of preaching up the\nBible as a divine revelation; destroy all the clerical corporations\nthat live and operate upon this basis; take away, at least, the\npublic revenues and special privileges they enjoy; deprive them of\nthe patronage of the legislature and the government; remove their Holy\nScriptures from the public schools, where they are retained in defiance\nof the principles of civil and religious liberty; let little children\nno longer be suborned in favor of the supernatural claims of this book\nbefore they are able to judge for themselves; let the Bible take its own\nchance with the rest of the world's literature; and then, and not till\nthen, can its natural supremacy be established. But the clergy know that\nsuch an experiment would be absolutely fatal to their pretensions. They\ndare not accept a fair field and no favor. They know in their heart\nof hearts that they are serving a lie. Their dishonesty is apparent at\nevery turn. Dr. Farrar calls upon England to \"cling to her open Bible.\"\nWell, the Peculiar People do so. They read the open Bible, they follow\nits teaching as closely as possible, they obey the commandments of Jesus\nChrist. And what is the result? They are cast into prison like felons.\nOne of them is suffering that pain and indignity at the present moment.\n\nA good husband, a good father, a good neighbor, a good citizen, he has\ncommitted the crime of practically believing what Dr. Farrar and the\nrest of the clergy facetiously preach--namely, that the Bible is the\nBook of God, and the divine rule of faith and conduct. For this crime he\nis imprisoned under the verdict of a Christian jury and the sentence of\na Christian judge; and not a single Christian minister raises his voice\nagainst this infamous spectacle. Christianity is now only an organised\nhypocrisy. It subsists upon an inherited fund of power, wealth, and\nreputation. Even the clergy have no vital belief in the inspiration\nof the Bible. It is merely the charter under which they trade. It is a\nsource of oracular texts for their ambiguous sermons. It is lauded\nand adored, and neglected and defied. To bring it into disbelief and\ncontempt by argument and ridicule is a misdemeanor; to bring it into\ndisbelief and contempt by acting upon it is a felony. The only safe\ncourse is that adopted by the clergy, who neither believe it nor\ndisbelieve it, but use it as it serves their occasions; and as long as\nit answers their ends it will remain the Book of God.\n\nLet us not be misunderstood. We are far from desiring to engage in a\ncrusade against the Bible as a collection of ancient literature. We are\nneither called upon nor disposed to deny its real merits, however they\nare exaggerated in religious circles. It undoubtedly contains some fine\npoetry, occasional pathos, and more frequent sublimity. Its style has\nnearly always the charm of simplicity. All this may be allowed without\nplaying into the hands of the super-naturalists. Further than this we\nneed not go. In our opinion, it is absurd to place the Bible at the\ntop of human compositions. More than sixty writers are alleged to have\ncontributed to its production, but the whole mass of them do not rival\nthe magnificent and fecund genius of Shakespeare. Above all, they have\nno wit or humour, in which Shakespeare abounds; and wit and humor belong\nto the higher development of intellect and emotion. No, the Bible is\nnot the unapproachable masterpiece which it is declared to be by its\nfanatical devotees. But whatever its intrinsic merits may prove to be,\nin the light of long and free appreciation, the Bible cannot be accepted\nas a revelation from God without wilful self-delusion on the part of\neducated men and women. If God had a message for his children, he would\nat least make it clear; but this revelation needs another revelation\nto explain it, and creeds and commentaries are the symbols of its\nobscurity. God's message would tell us what we could not otherwise\nlearn, but there is no such information in the Bible. God would apprise\nus of what he specially desired us to remember, and would not mix it\nconfusedly with a tremendous mass of alien matter. God would not puzzle\nus; he would enlighten us. He would make his communication so clear that\na wayfaring man, though a fool, could understand it; whereas, if the\nBible be his communication, no wayfaring man, unless he _is_ a fool,\npretends to understand it. God would not clog his message with myths,\nlegends, mysteries, absurdities, falsehoods, and filth; and leave us to\nextricate it with endless labor and perpetual uncertainty. The so-called\nHigher Criticism is therefore as absurd as the old Orthodoxy in calling\nthe Bible a work of inspiration. Its exponents affirm that God has left\nus to our own knowledge and reason in regard to every other subject but\nreligion and morality. They are Evolutionists in part. But the principle\nof Evolution must be applied over the whole field. Everything is\nnatural, and happens under the universal law of causation. There are no\nmiracles, and there never were any except in ignorant imaginations.\nBut the death of miracles is the death of inspiration. The triumph of\nscience involves the ruin of every supernatural system. Revelation is\nnecessarily miraculous, and when the belief in miracles expires the\ndeath-knell rings for every Book of God. We are then left to the\ndiscipline of culture.\n\nAnd what is culture? It is steeping our minds in the wisest and\nloveliest thoughts of all the ages. And each of us may thus make his own\nBible for himself--a true Bible of Humanity.","title":"The Book of God : In the Light of the Higher Criticism: With Special Reference to Dean Farrar's New Apology","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":27358}