diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 38092-8.txt | 3048 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 38092-8.zip | bin | 0 -> 69074 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 38092-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 71788 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 38092-h/38092-h.htm | 3435 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 38092.txt | 3048 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 38092.zip | bin | 0 -> 69051 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
9 files changed, 9547 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/38092-8.txt b/38092-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a5b6b2d --- /dev/null +++ b/38092-8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3048 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Book Of God, by G. W. Foote + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Book Of God + In The Light Of The Higher Criticism + +Author: G. W. Foote + +Release Date: November 22, 2011 [EBook #38092] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BOOK OF GOD *** + + + + +Produced by David Widger + + + + + + +THE BOOK OF GOD + +IN THE LIGHT OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM + +WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO DEAN FARRAR'S NEW APOLOGY + +By G. W. Foote + +London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. + + + + +THE BOOK OF GOD. + + + + +I. INTRODUCTION. + +During the fierce controversy between the divines of the Protestant +Reformation and those of the Roman Catholic Church, the latter asserted +that the former treated the Bible--and treated it quite naturally--as a +wax nose, which could be twisted into any shape and direction. Those +who championed the living voice of God in the Church, against the +dead letter of the written Bible, were always prone to deride the +consequences of private judgment when applied to such a large and +heterogeneous volume as the Christian Scriptures. They contended that +the Bible is a misleading book when read by itself in the mere light +of human reason; that any doctrine may be proved from it by a +judicious selection of texts; and that Christianity would break up into +innumerable sects unless the Church acted as the inspired interpreter of +the inspired revelation. They argued, further, that the Bible was really +not what the Protestants supposed it to be; and what they said on this +point was a curious anticipation of a good deal of the so-called Higher +Criticism. + +Both sides were right, and both sides were wrong, in this dispute. The +Protestants were right against the Church; the Catholics were right +against the Bible. It was reserved for Rationalism to accept +and harmonise the double truth, and to wage war against both +infallibilities. + +The Bible is said to be inspired, but the man who reads it is not. The +consequence is that he deduces from it a creed in harmony with his own +taste, temper, fancy, and intelligence. He lays emphasis on what fits in +with this creed, and slurs over all that is opposed to it. Every one of +the various and conflicting Protestant sects is founded upon one and +the same infallible book. "The Bible teaches this," says one; "The Bible +teaches that," says another. And they are both right. The Bible does +teach the doctrines of all the sects. But do they not contradict each +other? They do. What is the explanation, then? Why this--the Bible +contradicts itself. + +The self-contradictions of the Bible have occasioned the writing of many +"Harmonies," in which it is sought to be proved that all the apparent +discrepancies are most admirable agreements when they are properly +understood. All that is requisite is to add a word here, and subtract a +word there; to regard one and the same word as having several different +meanings, and several different words as having one and the same +meaning; and, above all things, to apply this method with a strong and +earnest desire to find harmony everywhere, and a pious intention of +giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt in every case of perplexity. + +This sort of jugglery, which would be derided and despised in the case +of any other book, is now falling into discredit. Most of the clergy are +ashamed of it. They frankly own, since it can no longer be denied, +that a more honest art of criticism is necessary to save the Bible from +general contempt. + +But the "Harmony" game is not the only one that is played out. All the +"Reconciliations" of the Bible with science, history, morality, and +common sense, are sharing the same fate. The higher clergy leave +such exhibitions of perverted ingenuity to laymen like the late Mr. +Gladstone. Divines like Canon Driver see that this mental tight-rope +dancing may cause astonishment, but will never produce conviction. They +therefore recognise the difficulties, and seek for a more subtle and +plausible method of removing them. They admit that Moses and Darwin are +at variance with each other; that a great deal of Bible "history" is +legendary, and some of it distinctly false; that such stories as those +of Lot's wife and Jonah's whale are decidedly incredible; that some +passages of Scripture are vulgar and brutal, and others detestably +inhuman; and that it is positively useless to disguise the fact. Yet +they are naturally anxious to keep the Bible on its old pedestal; +and this can only be done by means of a new theory of inspiration. +Accordingly, these gentlemen tell us that the Bible is not the Word of +God, but it contains the Word of God. Its writers were inspired, but +their own natural faculties were not entirely suppressed by the +divine spirit. Sometimes the writer's spirit was predominant in the +combination, and the composition was mainly that of an unregenerate +son of Adam. At other times the divine spirit was predominant, and the +result was lofty religion and pure ethics. Moreover, the sacred writers +were only inspired in one direction. God gave them a lift, as it were, +in spiritual matters; but in science and sociology he let them blunder +along as they could. + +The old wax nose is now receiving a decided new twist, and a +considerable number of accomplished and clever divines are engaged in +manipulating it. One of them is Dean Farrar, who has recently published +a bulky volume on _The Bible: its Meaning and Supremacy_, which we shall +subject to a very careful criticism. + +Dean Farrar's book contains nothing that is new to fairly well-read +sceptics. It presents the commonplaces of modern Biblical criticism, +with a due regard to the interests of "the grand old book" and of "true" +and "fundamental" Christianity, which is probably no more than the +particular form of Christianity that is likely to weather the present +storm of controversy. But although this book contains no startling +novelties, it is of importance as the work of a dignitary of the Church +of England. It is also of value, inasmuch as it will be read by many +persons who would shrink from Strauss and Thomas Paine. It is well that +someone should tell Christians the truth, if not the _whole_ truth, +about the Bible, and tell it them from within the fold of faith. His +motive in doing so may be less a regard for truth itself than for the +immediate interests of his own Church; but the main thing is that he +does it, and Freethinkers may be glad even if they are not grateful. + +Dr. Farrar's book has an Introduction, and we propose to examine it +first. He opens by telling the clergy that they ought not to pursue an +"ostrich policy" in regard to religious difficulties; that they +should not indulge in "vituperative phrases," nor assume a "disdainful +infallibility"; that they do wrong in denouncing as "wicked," +"blasphemous," or "dangerous" every conviction which differs from their +own form of orthodoxy; and that they must not expect all that they +choose to assert to be "accepted with humble acquiescence." No doubt +this advice is quite necessary; and the fact that it is so shows +the value of Christianity, after eighteen centuries of trial, as a +training-school in the virtues of modesty and humility, to say nothing +of justice and temperance. + +The clergy are also invited by Dr. Farrar to recognise the general +diffusion of scepticism:-- + +"In recent years much has been written under the assumption that +Christianity no longer deserves the dignity of a refutation; or that, +at any rate, the bases on which it rests have been seriously undermined. +The writings of freethinkers are widely disseminated among the working +classes. The Church of Christ has lost its hold on multitudes of men +in our great cities. Those of the clergy who are working in the crowded +centres of English life can hardly be unaware of the extent to which +scepticism exists among our artizans. Many of them have been persuaded +to believe that the Church is a hostile and organised hypocrisy." + +This is a sad state of things, and how is it to be met? + +Not by denouncing reason as a wild beast, nor yet by relying on emotion +and ceremonial, for "no religious system will be permanent which is +not based on the convictions of the intellect." Dr. Farrar recommends a +different policy. He has "frequently observed that the objections urged +against Christianity are aimed at dogmas which are no part of Christian +faith, or are in no wise essential to its integrity." Even men of +science have been led astray by objections "based on travesties of its +real tenets." One of these false opinions is that "which maintains +the supposed inerrancy and supernatural infallibility of every book, +sentence, and word of the Holy Bible." This is the principal point to be +dealt with; it is here that we must make an adjustment. Nine-tenths of +the case of sceptics "is made up of attacks on the Bible," and the only +way to answer them is to show that they misunderstand it, and that what +they demolish is not Christianity, but "a mummy elaborately painted in +its semblance," or "a scarecrow set up in its guise." + +"It is no part of the Christian faith," Dr. Farrar says, "to maintain +that every word of the Bible was dictated supernaturally, or is equally +valuable, or free from all error, or on the loftiest levels of morality, +as finally revealed." Such a view of the Bible has been popularly +expressed by divines, but they really did not mean it, and it "never +formed any part of the Catholic creed of Christendom." The doctrine of +everlasting punishment is another of these delusions. There is such +a thing as future punishment, but it is not everlasting--it is only +eternal. In the same way, the Bible is the Word of God, but it is not +infallible--it is only inspired. And what _that_ means we shall see as +we proceed. + + + + +II. THE BIBLE CANON + +The first chapter of Dean Farrar's book deals with the Bible Canon. +After another slap at the poor benighted Christians who still hold +that every word of Scripture is "supernaturally dictated and infallibly +true," Dr. Farrar remarks that the Bible is "not a single nor even a +homogeneous book." Strictly speaking, it is not a book, but a library; +and, as is pointed out later on, it is the remains of a much larger +collection which has mostly perished. The Canon of the Old Testament was +"arrived at by slow and uncertain degrees." The common assertion, that +it was fixed by Ezra and the so-called Great Synagogue in the fifth +century before Christ, is in direct opposition to the facts. It was not +really _settled_ until seventy years after the birth of Christ, when the +Rabbis met at Jamnia, and decided in favor of our present thirty-nine +books. According to Dr. Farrar, there was no special influence from +heaven in the determination of the Canon. It was a work which God left +to "the _ordinary_ influences of the Holy Ghost." Let us see then how +these influences operated on the last and most critical occasion. "The +gathering at Jamnia," says Dr. Farrar, "was a tumultuous assemblage, and +in the faction fights of the Rabbinic parties blood was shed by their +scholars. Hence the decision was regarded as irrevocable and sealed +by blood." Such are the _ordinary_ influences of the Holy Ghost. Its +_extraordinary_ influences may be easily imagined. Their history is +written in blood and fire in every country in Christendom. + +Dr. Farrar allows that the Canon of the New Testament was formed "in the +same gradual and tentative way." Many Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypses +were "current" in the "first two centuries." Some of them were "quoted +as sacred books" and read aloud in Christian churches. Seven, at least, +of the books which are now canonical were then "disputed"--namely, the +Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of St. John, +the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, and +the Book of Revelation. The Canon was "formally and officially settled" +by the Council of Laodicea (a.d. 363), and the two Councils of Carthage +(a.d. 397 and 419), the decrees of which were sanctioned by the Trullian +Council (a.d. 692), nearly seven hundred years after Christ. Dr. Farrar +holds, however, that these Councils merely registered the general +agreement of the Christian Church. The real test of canonicity is not +the decision of Councils, which may and do err, but "the verifying +faculty of the Christian consciousness." Dr. Farrar's argument, if it +means anything at all, implies that while Councils may err, consisting +as they do of fallible men, this "Christian consciousness" is really +infallible. But as this Christian consciousness only exists, after +all, in individual Christians, however numerous they may be, or through +however many centuries they may be continued, it is difficult to see how +the greatest multitude of fallibilities can make up one infallibility. +And unless it can, it is also difficult to see how Dr. Farrar can have +an infallible Canon. He disclaims the authority of the Church, on which +Catholics rely; indeed, he says it can hardly be said that the "whole +Church" has pronounced any opinion on the Canon at all. What really +happened is perhaps unconsciously admitted by Dr. Farrar in a rather +simple footnote. "Books were judged," he says, "by the congruity of +their contents with the general Christian conviction." Precisely so; the +books did not decide the doctrine, but the doctrine decided the fate of +the books. And how was the doctrine decided? By fierce controversy, by +forgery and sophistication, by partisan struggles, and finally, after +the adhesion of Constantine, by faction fights that involved the loss of +myriads (some say millions) of lives. + +Not the slightest attempt is made by Dr. Farrar to meet the difficulty +of his position; indeed, he seems unaware that the difficulty exists. +All he sees is the difficulty of the positions taken up by the Catholics +and the early Protestants. It never occurs to him that he has only +shifted from one difficulty to another. The Catholics rely upon the +living voice of God in the Church. That covers everything, like the +sky; and is perfectly satisfactory, if you can only accept it. The +early Protestants repudiated the authority of the Church, at least +as represented by the Pope and Councils; but they acknowledged the +authority of the _primitive_ Church. They were shrewd enough to see +that what cannot possibly rest on mere reason must rest somewhere on +authority; so they admitted as much as was sufficient to cover the +Scriptures and the Creeds, and refused to go a step farther. Dr. Farrar +breaks away from both parties, and what is the result? He talks +about the Canon of the New Testament being formed "by the exercise of +enlightened reason," but he lays down no criterion by which reason can +decide whether a book is inspired or not, or so specially inspired as +to require a place in the Canon. The "verifying faculty of the Christian +consciousness" is one of those comfortable phrases, like the blessed +word Mesopotamia, which are designed to save the pains of accuracy and +the trouble of definite thought. What light does it really shed upon +the following questions? Why is the Protestant Canon different from +the Catholic Canon? Is it owing to some inexplicable difference in the +"verifying faculty of the Christian consciousness" in the two cases; and +by what test shall we decide when the Christian consciousness delivers +two contradictory verdicts? Why is the book of Ecclesiastes in the +Canon, while the book of Ecclesiasticus is (by the Protestants) +relegated to the Apocrypha? Why is the book of Esther in the Canon, and +the book of Judith in the Apocrypha? Why is the book of Jonah in the +Canon, and the book of Tobit in the Apocrypha? Why is the book of +Proverbs in the Canon, and the book of the Wisdom of Solomon in the +Apocrypha? These are questions which the early Protestants answered in +their way, but we defy Dr. Farrar to answer them at all. + +Let us follow Dr. Farrar into his second chapter. He states, truly +enough, that both the Old and the New Testaments represent "the selected +and fragmentary remains of an extensive literature." Many books referred +to in the Old Testament are lost. Some of the canonical books are +anonymous; we do not know who wrote them. Others bear the names of men +"by whom they could not have been composed." The Pentateuch is "a work +of composite structure," which has been "edited and re-edited several +times." The Psalms are a collection of sacred poems in "five separate +books of very various antiquity." The Proverbs consist of "four or +five different collections." The New Testament is a selection from the +voluminous Christian literature of the earliest centuries. Many Gospels +were already in existence when St. Luke prepared his own. "It is all but +certain," Dr. Farrar says, "that St. Paul, and probable that the other +Apostles, must have written many letters which are no longer preserved." +That is to say, some letters actually written by St. Paul were allowed +to perish, while others not written by him were allowed to bear his +name, and were placed as his in the New Testament Canon! There are +passages in the Gospels that are known to be interpolations; for +instance, the story of the Woman taken in Adultery. This story is +"exquisite and supremely valuable," but it is bracketed in the Revised +Version as of "doubtful genuineness." Such passages are eliminated +because they do not "meet the standard of modern critical requirements." +_O sancta simplicitas!_ Is there any reason, in the natural sense of +that word, for believing that John the Apostle wrote the rest of the +Fourth Gospel, any more than he wrote this rejected story? Dr. Farrar +strains at gnats and swallows camels, and prides himself on his +discrimination. + +His references to Justin Martyr and Papias seem less than ingenuous. +It is not true that Justin Martyr "freely uses the Gospels." Dr. Farrar +admits that he "does not name them." Saying that he "used" them is +quietly assuming that they existed. All that Justin Martyr does, as a +matter of fact, is to cite sayings ascribed to Jesus, but not in one +single case does he cite a saying of Jesus in exactly the form in which +it appears in the Four Gospels. Supposing that he wrote freely, and +had ever so bad a memory, and never took the trouble to refer to the +originals, it is simply inconceivable that he should never be right. Now +and then he must have deviated into accuracy. And the fact that he never +does is plain proof that he had not our Gospels before him. Nor does +Papias mention "the Gospels." He mentions only two, Matthew and Mark, +and he says that Matthew was written in _Hebrew_, Now, the earliest date +at which Papias can be fixed is a.d. 140. This is chosen by Dr. Farrar, +and we will let it pass unchallenged. And what follows? Why this, that +no Christian writer before a.d. 140 betrays that he has so much as heard +of _any_ Gospel, and even then but _two_ are known instead of _four_, +and one of these is most certainly _not_ the Gospel which opens the New +Testament. + +All this was proved a quarter of a century ago by the author of +_Supernatural Religion_--a work which is systematically ignored by +the so-called Higher Critics because its author was a pronounced +Rationalist. An excellent summary of this writer's demonstrations +appears in the late Matthew Arnold's _God and the Bible_:-- + +"He seems to have looked out and brought together, to the best of his +powers, every extant _passage_ in which, between the year 70 and the +year 170 of our era, a writer might be supposed to be quoting one of our +Four Gospels. + +"And it turns out that there is constantly the same sort of variation +from our Gospels, a variation inexplicable in men quoting from a real +Canon, and quite unlike what is found in men quoting from our Four +Gospels later on. It may be said that the Old Testament, too, is often +quoted loosely. True; but it is also quoted exactly; and long passages +of it are thus quoted. It would be nothing that our canonical Gospels +were often quoted loosely, if long passages from them, or if passages, +say, of even two or three verses, were sometimes quoted exactly. But +from writers before Irenĉus not one such passage can be produced so +quoted. And the author of _Supernatural Religion_ by bringing all the +alleged quotations forward, has proved it."* + +Now what is the exact value of these demonstrations? We will give it in +Mr. Arnold's words: "There is no evidence of the establishment of our +Four Gospels as a Gospel-Canon, or even of their existence as they now +finally stand at all, before the last quarter of the second century." +Not only is there no evidence of the orthodox theory, but, as Mr. Arnold +says, the "great weight of evidence is against it." + +Dr. Giles--another ignored writer, although a clergyman of the Church +of England--had said and proved the very same thing in his _Christian +Records_; and had appended the following significant declaration:-- + +"There is positive proof, in the writings of the first ages of +Christianity, that the same question as to the age and authorship of the +books of the New Testament was even then agitated, and if it was then +set at rest, this was done, not by a deliberate sentence of the judge, +but by burning all the evidence on which one side of the controversy was +supported,"** + + * Arnold, God and the Bible, pp. 222-3. + + ** Dr. Giles, Christian Records, p. 10. + +It is probable that Dr. Farrar is well aware that our Four Gospels +cannot be traced beyond the second half of the second century--that is, +considerably more than a century after the alleged date of the death of +Christ. But he shrinks from a frank admission of the fact, and leaves +the reader to find it out for himself. + +Instead of making this important and, as some think, damning admission, +Dr. Farrar continues his remarks on the Bible Canon. That thirty-six +books are accepted "on the authority of the Church" simply means, +he tells us, that they are accepted "by the general consensus of +Christians." The whole Church, as such, has hardly pronounced an +opinion on the subject. The Churchmen who voted at Laodicea and Carthage +"exercised no independent judgment," and their critical knowledge was +"elementary." Nor was the decision of the Council of Trent any real +improvement. Dr. Farrar approves the reply of the Reformed Churches, +that "any man may reject books claiming to be Holy Scripture if he do +not feel the evidence of their contents." But this is to make every man +a judge, not only of what the Bible means, but also of what it should +contain. Each unfettered Christian may therefore make up a Bible for +himself; which is simply chaos come again. What then is the way of +escape from this grotesque confusion? Dr. Farrar indicates it with a +crooked finger:-- + +"The decision as to what books are or are not to be regarded as true +Scripture, though we believe it to be wise and right, depends on no +infallible decision. It must satisfy the scientific and critical as well +as the spiritual requirements of each age." + +This reduces the Bible Canon to a perpetual transformation scene. It is +a tacit confession that the Protestant Bible is an arbitrary collection +of questionable documents; that it has nothing to plead for itself but +common usage; that its very contents, as well as their interpretation, +are liable to change; in short, that if the Catholic stands upon the +rock of implicit faith, and defies all dangers by closing his eyes and +clutching the reassuring hand of his Holy Mother Church, the Protestant +flounders about with the poor little dark-lantern of private judgment +in a frightful mud-ocean--his old rock of faith in an infallible Bible +having been reduced to dust by the engines of criticism, and finally to +slush by a downflow from the lofty reservoir of pure reason.* + + * It would be a pity to omit an amusing instance of the + contemptuous dogmatism of Christian divines when they had + the field to themselves. Dr. William Whitaker, a famous + learned writer on the side of the Reformation in England, in + his Disputation with two of the foremost Jesuits, Bellarmine + and Stapleton, wrote as follows:--"Jerome, in the Proem of + his Commentaries on Daniel, relates that Porphyry the + philosopher wrote a volume against the book of our prophet + Daniel, and affirmed that what is now extant under the name + of Daniel was not published by the ancient prophet, but by + some later Daniel, who lived in the times of Antiochus + Epiphanes. But we need not regard what the impious Porphyry + may have written, who mocked at all the scriptures and + religion itself." Well, this opinion of the blasphemous + Porphyry, whose writings were burnt by the Christian Church, + is now accepted by the Higher Critics. Canon Driver, for + instance, admits that the Book of Daniel is not the work of + Daniel, that it could not have been written earlier than 300 + B.C., and that "it is at least _probable_ that it was + composed under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. + 168 or 167" (Introduction to the Literature of the Old + Testament, p. 467). This involves that the fulfilled + prophecies of Daniel were written after the events. + + + + +III. THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE + +Having examined Dean Farrar's observations on the Bible Canon, and seen +that it is a more or less arbitrary selection from Hebrew and early +Christian literature, many of the books being anonymous, while others +bear the names of authors who did not write them, and most of them being +much later compositions than orthodoxy supposes; we now take a leap +forward to his twelfth chapter to see what he has to say on the subject +of the Bible and Science. His first object is to drive home to his +co-religionists the mischief of adhering to the old doctrine of Bible +infallibility. Consequently he does not mince matters in dealing with +the difficulties of the literal theory of inspiration. Writers like +Gaussen contend that the Bible is a perfect authority in matters of +science. Mr. Gladstone argues that Moses supernaturally anticipated +the teachings of modern evolution, and that the inspired fishermen of +Galilee, notably St. Peter, no less supernaturally anticipated all that +modern astronomy teaches as to the final destiny of our planet. Dr. +Farrar declines to follow them in this perilous path. He does not walk +in the opposite direction, for that would lead him among the "infidels." +He strikes off at right angles, and takes the line that the Bible was +never intended to teach science, or anything else but religion. +He quotes with approval the saying of Archbishop Sumner, that "the +Scriptures have never revealed a scientific truth." He maintains that +the writers of Scripture had only a natural knowledge of exact science; +and that was precious little, and was indeed rather ignorance than +knowledge, as they belonged to "the most unscientific of all nations in +the most unscientific of all ages." "It is now understood by competent +inquirers," he says, "that geology is God's revelation to us of one set +of truths, and Genesis of quite another." "Nature," he says, "is a book +which contains a revelation of God in one sphere, and Scripture a book +which contains a revelation of him in another. Both books have often +been misread, but no _truth_ revealed in the one can be irreconcilable +with any truth revealed in the other." This, however, is a mere truism; +for one truth cannot be irreconcilable with another truth. Dr. Farrar's +statement sounds imposing and consolatory, but when you look into its +meaning you see it is only a pulpit platitude. + +But before we proceed to criticise Dr. Farrar's position, let us glance +at his attack upon the literalists. He charges them with having opposed +and persecuted every modern science, and with having manufactured the +most absurd scientific theories from the text of the Bible; the said +theories being not only ludicrous, but irreconcilably opposed to each +other. Lactantius, with the Bible in his hand, ridiculed the rotundity +of the earth. Roger Bacon and Galileo were imprisoned and tortured for +teaching true science instead of the false science of the Church. +John Wesley declared the Copernican astronomy to be in opposition to +Scripture. Thomas Burnet's "Sacred Theory of the Earth," founded upon +the Bible, was assailed by William Whiston, who based a different +"Sacred Theory" upon the very same book. Buffon, the great French +scientist, was compelled by the Sorbonne to recant, and to abandon +everything in his writings that was "contrary to the narrative of +Moses." Even when God (that is to say Dr. Simpson) gave to the world the +priceless boon of anaesthetics, there were many Biblicists who declared +that the use of chloroform in cases of painful confinement was flying +in the face of God's curse upon the daughters of Eve. Catholic and +Protestant have alike pitted the Bible against Science, and both have +been ignominiously beaten. + +But this is not all. The theologians have been disgraced as well as +defeated. With respect to the Buffon case, for instance, Dr. Farrar +writes as follows:-- + +"The line now taken by apologists is very different from that of +previous centuries, and less honest. It declares that Genesis and +geology are in exact accord. It no longer refuses to believe the facts +of nature, but instead of this it boldly sophisticates the facts of +Scripture." + +John Stuart Mill said that every new truth passes through three phases +of reception. At first, it is declared to be false and dangerous; +secondly, it is discovered that there is something to be said for it; +lastly, its opponents turn round and declare "we said so all along." +Dr. Farrar dots all the "i's" in Mill's statement. He asserts that +"religious teachers" first say of every scientific discovery, "It is +blasphemous and contrary to Scripture." Next they say, "There is nothing +in Scripture which absolutely contradicts it." Finally they say, "It is +distinctly revealed in Scripture itself." + +Dr. Farrar puts the historic case against "orthodoxy"--which, of course, +is not Christianity!--in the following fashion:-- + +"The history of most modern sciences has been as follows. Its +discoverers have been proscribed, anathematised, and, in every possible +instance, silenced or persecuted; yet before a generation has passed +the champions of a spurious orthodoxy have had to confess that their +interpretations were erroneous; and--for the most part without an +apology and without a blush--have complacently invented some new line +of exposition by which the phrases of Scripture can be squared into +semblable accordance with the now acknowledged facts." + +Even in the comparatively recent case of Darwin this was perfectly true. +Dr. Farrar, who preached Darwin's funeral sermon in Westminster Abbey, +says that he "endured the fury of pulpits and Church Congresses." He +did so with quiet dignity; not an angry word escaped him. Yet before +Darwin's death not only was the scientific world converted, but leading +theologians said that, if Darwinism were proved to be true, there was +"nothing in it contrary to the creeds of the Catholic faith." + +Darwin never answered the clergy. He had better work to do. All he did +was to smile at them. In one of his letters he said that when the men +of science are agreed about anything all the clergy have to do is to say +ditto. He understood that when science is victorious it will always have +clerical patronage. Had he been able to do it, he would have smiled, in +that beautiful benevolent way of his, at Dr. Farrar's funeral sermon. +The worthy Dean thought they had got Darwin at last; and the grand old +philosopher might have said, "Why yes, my _corpse!_" + +So much for Dr. Farrar's impeachment of "orthodoxy" and its doctrine +of plenary inspiration. Let us now examine his own position, and see +whether it is logical as well as convenient. + +Take the first chapter of Genesis. It is not a scientific revelation, +though it seems to be. Whoever wrote it had only the science of his +time. Nevertheless, it is of "transcendent value," according to Dr. +Farrar. "Its true and deep object," he says, "was to set right an erring +world in the supremely important knowledge that there was one God and +Father of us all, the Creator of heaven and earth, a God who saw all +things which he has made, and pronounced them to be very good." + +This is very pretty in its way; but how absurd it is in the light of the +fact that the Hebrew creation story is all _borrowed!_ While the +Jews were desert nomads, long before the concoction of their sacred +scriptures the doctrine of a Creator of heaven and earth was known in +India and in Egypt, not to recite a list of other nations. If this is +all the first chapter of Genesis teaches, we may well exclaim, "Thank +you for nothing!" It is a curious "revelation" which only discloses +what is familiar. Had the Bible never been written, had the Jews never +existed, the "true and deep object" of the first chapter of Genesis +would have been quite as well subserved. Wherever the Christian +missionaries have gone they have found the creation story in front of +them. Wherever they took it they were carrying coals to Newcastle. + +We venture to suggest that if Dr. Farrar thinks that all things God has +made are very good, there are many persons who do not share his opinion. +It would be idle to read that text to a sailor pursued by a shark. We +could multiply this instance a thousandfold; but why give a list of +all the predatory and parasitical creatures on this planet, from human +tyrants and despoilers down to cholera microbes? Dr. Farrar may reply +that everything ends in mystery, that we must have faith, that it is our +interest as well as our duty to believe. But that is exactly what the +Catholic Church says, and Dr. Farrar laughs it to scorn. The truth is, +that all theology is ultimately a matter of faith; and the quarrel about +more or less is a domestic difference. The greater difference is between +Faith and Reason. This was clearly seen by Cardinal Newman, who pointed +out that every mystery of the Roman Catholic faith is matched by a +mystery in Protestant theology. + +Finally, we have to remark that Dr. Farrar overlooks a very important +point in this controversy. Having argued that the Bible was not intended +to teach science, and has not in fact helped the world to a single +scientific discovery; having also admitted that the Bible has all along +been used to hinder the progress of natural knowledge, and to justify +the persecution of honest investigators; he seems to imagine that there +is no more to be said. But there is _much_ more to be said. We forbear +to press the objection that Omniscience was very curiously employed in +entangling a religious revelation with scientific blunders, which would +necessarily retard the progress of scientific truth, and therefore of +human civilisation. What we wish to emphasise is less open to the retort +that Omniscience is beyond our finite judgment. We desire to urge that +the Bible is not simply non-scientific. It is anti-scientific. Let us +take, for instance, the story of the creation and fall of man. Even +if it be not taken literally, but allegorically, it is thoroughly +antagonistic to the teachings of Evolution. At the very least it implies +that man is something special and unique, whereas he is included in the +general scheme of biology, and is but "the paragon of animals." Get rid +of the actual garden and the actual tree of knowledge, as Dr. Farrar +does, and there still remains the fact that the fall of man is a +falsehood, and the ascent of man a verity. The allegory does not +correspond to the essential truth of man's history; and in spite of all +the flattering rhetoric with which Dr. Farrar invests it--a rhetoric +so inharmonious with its own consummate simplicity--there is something +inexpressibly childish to the modern mind in the awful heinousness which +is attributed to the mere eating of forbidden fruit. An act is really +not vicious because it is prohibited, or virtuous because it conforms to +the dictates of authority. When man attains to intellectual maturity +he smiles at the ethical trick which was played upon his youthful +ignorance. It is not sufficient to tell him that he must do this, and +must not do that. He requires a reason. His intelligence must go hand in +hand with his emotions. It is this union, indeed, which constitutes what +we call conscience. + +The truth is that the Bible is steeped in superstition and +supernaturalism. Its cosmogony, its conception of man's origin and +position in the universe, its infantile legends, its miracles and magic, +its theory of madness and disease, its doctrine of the external efficacy +of prayer, its idea that man's words and wishes avail to change the +sweep of universal forces and the operation of their immutable laws: all +this is in direct opposition to the letter and spirit of Science. The +special pleading of clergymen like Dr. Farrar may afford a temporary +relief to trembling Christians, and keep them for a further term in +the fold of faith; but it will never make the slightest impression upon +sceptics, unless it fills them with contemptuous pity for a number of +clever men who are obliged, for personal reasons, to practise the lowest +arts of sophistry. + + + + +IV. MIRACLES AND WITCHCRAFT + +Dr. Farrar, as we have seen, holds that the Bible is not a revelation +in science. The inspired writers were, in such matters, left to their +natural knowledge. The Holy Spirit taught them that God made the world +and all which it inhabits; but _how_ it was made they only conjectured. +The truth, in _this_ respect, was left to the discovery of later ages. + +This is a pretty and convenient theory, but it does not provide for +every difficulty in the relationship between science and the Bible. +There still remain the questions of miracles and witchcraft. + +Dr. Farrar does not discuss these questions thoroughly. He only ventures +a few observations. In his opinion, the two miracles of the Creation and +the Incarnation "include the credibility of _all_ other miracles." +We agree with him. Admit creation out of nothing, and you need not be +astonished at the transformation of water into wine. Admit the birth +of a boy from a virgin mother, and you need not raise physiological +objections to the story of a man being safely entertained for three +days in a whale's intestines. It is absurd to strain at gnats after +swallowing camels. For this reason we are unable to understand Dr. +Farrar's fastidiousness. He is ready to believe that some miracles are +mistaken metaphors, that some were due to the action of unnoticed +or ill-understood natural causes, and that others were providential +occurrences instead of supernatural events. All this, however, is but a +concession to the sceptical spirit. It is throwing out the children to +the wolves. It may stop their pursuit for a little while, but they will +come on again, and flesh their jaws upon the parents. + +A mixed criterion of true miracles is laid down by Dr. Farrar. They must +be (1) adequately attested, and (2) wrought for adequate ends, and (3) +in accordance with the revealed laws of God's immediate dealings with +man. The second and third conditions are too fanciful for discussion. +They are, in fact, entirely subjective. The first condition is the only +one which can be applied with decisive accuracy. The miracles must be +_adequately attested_. But was it not David Hume who declared that "in +all history" there is not a single miracle attested in this manner? And +did not Professor Huxley say that Hume's assertion was "least likely" +to be challenged by those who are used to weighing evidence and giving +their decision with a due sense of moral responsibility? + +It is easy enough to sneer at Hume. It is just as easy to answer what he +never said. What the apologists of Christianity have to do is to take +a single miracle of their faith and show that it rests upon adequate +evidence. Anything short of this is intellectual thimble-rigging. + +Dr. Farrar does not face this dreadful task. He treats us, instead, to +some personal observations on the Fall, the Tower of Babel, Balaam's +ass, Joshua's arrest of the sun and moon, and Jonah's submarine +excursion. Let us examine these observations. + +No Christian, says Dr. Farrar, is called upon to believe in an actual +Garden of Eden and an actual talking serpent. Christians have believed +in these things by the million. But that was before the clergy invented +"the Higher Criticism" to disarm "infidelity." They know better now. +The story of the Fall is false as a narrative. It is true as a "vivid +pictorial representation of the origin and growth of sin in the human +heart." All the literature of the world has failed to set forth anything +"comparable to it in insight." Therefore it is "inspired." + +How hollow this sounds when we recollect that the Hebrew story of the +Fall was borrowed from the Persian mythology! How much hollower when we +consider it as it stands, stripped of the veil of fancy and divested of +the glamor of association! The "insight" of the inspired writer could +only represent God as the landlord of an orchard, and man as a being +with a taste for forbidden apples. The "philosopheme," as Dr. Farrar +grandiosely styles it, is so absurd in its native nakedness that Rabbis +and other divines have suspected a carnal mystery behind the apples, in +order to give the "sin" of Adam and Eve a darker vein of sensuality.* + + * We cannot elaborate this point in a publication which is + intended for general reading. Suffice it to say that one + famous commentator suggests that Eve was seduced by an ape. + +Nor is this all. The very idea of a Fall is inconsistent with Evolution. +The true Garden of Eden lies not behind us, but before us. The true +Paradise is not the earth as God made it for man, but the earth as +man is making it for himself. The Bible teaches the _descent_ of man. +Science teaches the _ascent_ of man. And the two theories are the +antipodes of each other, not only in physical history, but in every +moral and spiritual implication. + +With regard to the story of the tower of Babel, we must not regard it +as an inspired account of the origin of the diversity of human language. +That is what it appears to be upon the face of it. But philology has +exploded this childish legend, and a new meaning must be read into it. +According to Dr. Farrar, it is a "symbolic way of expressing the +truth that God breaks up into separate nationalities the tyrannous +organisation of cruel despotisms." Now we venture to say that there is +not a suggestion of this in the text. And the "truth" which Dr. +Farrar reads into it so arbitrarily is a phenomenon of modern times. +Nationality is a great force at present, but in ancient days the only +power that could bind tribes together in one polity was a military +despotism. From the point of view of evolution, both conquest and +slavery were inevitable steps in the progress of civilisation. It is +really nothing against the ancient Jews, for instance, that they fought +like devils and made slaves of their enemies. It was the fashion of the +time. The mischief comes in when we are told that their proceedings were +under the sanction and control of God. + +Dr. Farrar next tackles the story of Balaam, which is "another theme for +ignorant ridicule." It is astonishing how sublime these Bible wonders +become in the light of the Higher Criticism. A talking ass sounds like +an echo of the Arabian Nights. But the author himself never intended +you to believe it. Dr. Farrar is quite sure of that. You must forget the +ass, and fix your attention on Balaam. Then you perceive that the story +is "rich in almost unrivalled elements of moral edification." That is to +say, you perceive it if you borrow Dr. Farrar's spectacles. But if you +look with your own naked eyes you see that ass in the foreground of +the picture, with outstretched neck and open jaws, holding forth to an +astonished universe. + +With regard to Joshua's supreme miracle, Dr. Farrar avows his unbelief. +A battle ode got mistaken for actual history. "He who chooses," says Dr. +Farrar, "may believe that the most fundamental laws of the universe were +arrested to enable Joshua to slaughter a few more hundred fugitives; and +he who chooses may believe that nothing of the kind ever entered into +the mind of the narrator." You pay your money and take your choice. +Shape the old wax nose as you please. Believe what you like, and +disbelieve what you like--and swear the author disbelieved it too. + +Nor must the story of Jonah be taken literally. Regard the moral, and +forget its fishy setting. Jesus Christ, indeed, referred to Jonah's +sojourn in the "whale's belly" as typical of his own sojourn in the +heart of the earth. But referring to a story is no proof of any belief +in its truth. Not in the Bible. Jesus Christ also said, "Remember Lot's +wife." But of course he did not believe the story literally. He used +it for his own purpose. For the rest, he did not wish to unsettle men's +minds by throwing doubt on such a time-honored narrative; besides, the +time had not arrived to explain the chemical composition of rock-salt. + +Witchcraft is a more serious matter. The Bible plainly says, "Thou shalt +not suffer a witch to live." This text sealed the doom of millions of +old women. It is the bloodiest text in all literature. The Jews believed +in witchcraft, and the law against witches found its way into their +sacred Scriptures. Sir Matthew Hale, a great English judge and a good +man, sentenced witches to be burnt in 1665, and said that he made no +doubt at all that there were witches, for "the Scriptures had affirmed +so much." Wesley, a century later, said that to give up witchcraft was +to give up the Bible. Dr. Farrar sets down these facts honestly. He is +also eloquent in reprobation of the cruelty inflicted on millions +of "witches" in the Middle Ages. But he denies that the Bible is +responsible for those infamies. "Witches" in the Bible may not mean +witches, but "nefarious impostors." Good old wax nose again! Moreover, +that ancient Jewish law was not binding upon Christians, and to make +it so was "a gross misuse of the Bible." But how on earth could the +Christians use it in any other way? The time came when men outgrew the +superstition of witchcraft. Before that time they killed witches on +Bible authority. Dr. Farrar himself, had he lived then, would have +done the same. Living in a more enlightened age, he says that former +Christians acted wrongly, and in fact diabolically. But what of the book +which misled them? What of the book which, if it did not mislead them +by design, harmonised so completely with their ignorant prejudices, and +gave such a pious color to their unspeakable brutalities? Nor is this +by any means the last word upon the subject. The witchcraft of the Old +Testament has its counterpart in the demoniacal possession of the New +Testament. Both are aspects of one and the same superstition. + +The Bible _is_ responsible for the cruel slaughter of millions of +alleged witches. It is also responsible for the prolonged treatment +of lunatics as possessed. The methods of science are now adopted in +civilised countries. Hysterical women are no longer tortured as witches. +Lunatics are no longer chained and beaten as persons inhabited by +devils. Kindness and common sense have taken the place of cruelty and +superstition. This change was brought about, not through the Bible, but +in spite of it. + +Sir Matthew Hale and John Wesley were at least honest. They were too +sincere to deny the plain teaching of the Bible. Dr. Farrar represents +a more enlightened, but a more hypocritical, form of Christianity. He +sneers at "reconcilers" like Mr. Gladstone, who try to bolster up the +Creation story as a scientific revelation. But is he not a "reconciler" +himself in regard to miracles? And does he not play fast and loose +with truth and honesty in his attempt to clear the Bible of its guilty +responsibility in connection with that witch mania which is one of the +darkest episodes in Christian history? + + + + +V. THE BIBLE AND FREETHOUGHT + +The Bible may well be called the persecutor's text-book. It is +difficult, if not impossible, to find in all its pages a single text +in favor of real freedom of thought. Dr. Farrar champions what he +calls "true Christianity," to which he declares that all persecution is +entirely "alien." This "true Christianity" appears to depend upon "the +spirit" of Christ, and seems to have little or no relation to the letter +of Scripture. But what is the actual fact, when we view it in the light +of history? In one of his lucid intervals of mere common sense, Dr. +Farrar makes an important admission with regard to the worse than +Armenian atrocities of the Jewish policy of extermination in Palestine. +Those atrocities of cruelty and lust are said to have been ordered by +God, but Dr. Farrar says that on this point the Jews were mistaken. They +thought they were doing God a service, but they thought so ignorantly. +And how was their ignorance corrected? Not by a special monition from +heaven, but by the ordinary progress and elevation of the human mind. +"It required," Dr. Farrar says, "but the softening influence of time +and civilisation to obliterate in the best minds those fierce +misconceptions." Precisely so. And is it anything but the softening +influence of time and civilisation that makes Christians like Dr. Farrar +ashamed of the bloody deeds of their co-religionists; which bloody +deeds, by the way, have always been justified by appeals to the +teachings of the Bible? Let there be no mistake on this point. Dr. +Farrar himself does not scruple to write of the "deep damnation of deeds +of deceit and sanguinary ferocity committed in the name of Holy Writ." +"In some of their deadliest sins against the human race," he further +says, "corrupted and cruel Churches have ever been most lavish in their +appeals to Scripture." He admits that "the days are not far distant +when it was regarded as a positive duty to put men to death for their +religious opinions," and that this was defended by Old Testament +examples, and also by some texts from the New Testament. And it was +"by virtue of texts like these" that enemies of the human race were +"enabled" to combine the "garb and language of priests with the temper +and trade of executioners." + +Now, what has Dr. Farrar to urge _per contra?_ Simply this: that the +"early Christians" pleaded for toleration. "Force," they said, "is +hateful to God." "It is no part of religion," said Tertullian, "to +_compel_ religion." But suppose all this be admitted--and there is much +to be said by way of qualification--what does it amount to? The "early +Christians" were in a minority. They did not yet command the sword of +the magistrate. They could not persecute except by holding no fellowship +with unbelievers, by shaking off the dust of their feet against those +who rejected their Gospel, and by other harmless though detestable +exhibitions of bigotry. They had to plead for their own existence, and +in doing so they were obliged to appeal to the principle of general +toleration. But the moment they triumphed, under Constantine, they began +to flout the very principle to which they had formerly appealed. The +humility of their weakness was more than equalled by the pride of their +power. And what was the result? "From Augustine's days down to those +of Luther," Dr. Farrar says, "scarcely one voice was raised in favor, +I will not say of _tolerance_, but even of abstaining from fire and +bloodshed in support of enforced uniformity." Dr. Farrar denounces in +creditable language the frightful butcheries of Alva in the Netherlands, +for which the Pope presented him with a jewelled sword bearing a +pious inscription. He is properly horrified at the massacre of St. +Bartholomew, in honor of which Pope Gregory XIII. struck a triumphant +medal, and went in procession to sing a Te Deum to God, while the cannon +thundered from the Castle of St. Angelo and bonfires blazed in the +streets of Rome. He is bitter against the Church of Rome for its +vast shedding of innocent blood. He reminds us that the infamous Holy +Inquisition is still toasted by Catholic professors at Madrid; and that +intolerance, having lost its power, has not lost its virulence, nor +"ceased to justify its burning hatred by Scripture quotations." And +he cites Manning's successor at Westminster, the truculent Cardinal +Vaughan, as declaring with perfect approval that "the Catholic Church +has never spared the knife, when necessary, to cut off rebels against +her faith and authority." + +But let it not be imagined that all the guilt of persecution rested upon +the Church of Rome. Protestantism persecuted as freely as the Papacy. +That heretics should be put down, and if necessary killed, was a +principle common to both Churches. The question in dispute was, Which +_were_ the heretics? This is so incontestable that we need not fortify +it with Protestant quotations and Protestant examples. It is not true, +as Dr. Farrar alleges, that Luther "boldly proclaimed that thoughts are +toll-free," if it is meant that he condemned persecution. Thoughts were +toll-free against Romish exactions; that was what Luther meant. He held +as strongly as any Papist that those who denied one essential doctrine +of Christianity should be punished by the magistrates. He declared that +reason always led to unbelief. He besought the Protestant princes to +uphold "the faith" by every means in their power. And when the serfs +rebelled, thinking that the "freedom" the Reformers talked about was +to become a reality, it was Luther who wrote against them with +unsurpassable ferocity, and advised that they should be "slaughtered +like mad dogs." + +Dr. Farrar rather judiciously refrains from mentioning Calvin in this +connection, but in another part of the volume he refers to the great +Genevian "reformer" in a somewhat gingerly manner. When the sins of +Catholics have to be condemned he is quite dithyrambic; but when he +has to censure the sins of Protestants he displays a most touching +tenderness. Nothing could well be worse than the mixture of religious +bigotry, personal spleen, and low duplicity, with which Calvin hunted +Servetus to his fiery doom. Dr. Farrar sympathetically describes this +vile act as an "error." He tries to satisfy his conscience, afterwards, +by confessing that the Calvinists in general "were for the most part as +severe to all who differed from them as they imagined God to be severe +to the greater part of the human race." + +Dr. Farrar's treatment of this subject is superficial. It is not a Bible +text here or there which is the real basis of persecution. We advise him +to read George Eliot's review of Lecky's _History of Rationalism_. He +will then see that persecution is founded upon the fatal doctrine of +salvation by faith. This doctrine makes the heretic more noxious than a +serpent. A serpent poisons the body, a heretic poisons the soul. If it +be true that his teaching may draw souls to hell, human welfare demands +his extermination. Dr. Farrar does not disclaim this doctrine, and if he +fails to act upon it he only betrays an amiable inconsistency. His heart +is better than his head. + +Dr. Farrar, like other Protestants, talks about the right of private +judgment. But this is only fine and futile verbiage, unless he admits +the sinlessness of intellectual error. If judgment depends on the will, +it is through the will amenable to motives; consequently, the way +to pro-mote correct opinions is to promise rewards and threaten +punishments. But if judgment does not depend on the will; if it is +necessarily determined by the laws of reason and evidence; then it is +an absurdity to bribe and intimidate. Now there is no third alternative. +One of these two theories must be right, and the other must be wrong. +Dr. Farrar is logically bound to take his choice. If he believes that +judgment depends on the will, he has no right to denounce persecution. +If he believes that judgment does not depend on the will, he has no +right to censure the most absolute freethought. + +There are but two camps--the camp of Faith and the camp of Reason. +Dr. Farrar belongs to the former. But he does not find his position +comfortable. He casts a longing eye on the other camp. He wants to be +in both. He therefore tries to form an alliance between them, if not to +amalgamate them under one banner. + +Reason, said Bishop Butler, is the only faculty wherewith we can judge +of anything, even of revelation itself. Dr. Farrar quotes this statement +with approval. He quotes similar sentences from other Protestant +writers. Then he turns upon the Roman Church for keeping the Bible +out of the hands of the people, and denounces it for this with +ultra-Protestant vigor. He imagines that this is a vindication of +Protestantism, at any rate relatively, as a champion of reason in +opposition to blind faith and absolute authority. But _private_ judgment +and _free_ judgment are not identical. When the Protestant puts an open +Bible into your hands, and tells you to read it and judge of it for +yourself, he is acting like a Freethinker; but when he proceeds to say +that if you do not find it to be a divine book, and believe all its +teaching about God, and Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and heaven +and hell, you will infallibly be damned, he is acting like a Papist. +His right of private judgment, at the finish, always means the right to +differ from him on trivial points, and the duty of agreeing with him on +every point which he chooses to regard as essential. If this is denied +by Dr. Farrar, let him honestly answer this question--Is a Freethinker +who has examined the Bible, and rejected it as a divine revelation, +liable to any sort of penalty for his disbelief? The answer to this +question will decide whether Dr. Farrar is really maintaining the rights +of reason, or is merely maintaining the Protestant theory of faith +against that of the Catholics, and standing up for the authority of the +Book instead of the authority of the Church. + +Meanwhile we venture to suggest that the Bible texts referred to by Dr. +Farrar, as requiring us to exercise the right of private judgment, are +very little to the point. "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord" +is a pretty text, but it does not seem to have much bearing on the +issue. "Try the spirits" is all right in its way; but what if you find +that _all_ the spirits are illusions? "Prove all things" is good, but it +must be taken with the context. Jesus indeed is reported to have said, +"Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?" But he is also +reported to have said, "He that believeth and is baptised shall be +saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." + +By a judicious selection of texts you can prove anything from the Bible, +and disprove anything--as Catholics have often reminded Protestants. To +pick out passages that to some extent are favorable to a certain view, +and to ignore much stronger passages that are clearly opposed to it, may +be an exercise of private judgment, and may satisfy the conscience +of neo-Protestants of the school of Dr. Farrar; but it invites a +contemptuous smile from Freethinkers who believe that Reason ought not +to suffer such a prostitution. + +We have to point out, finally, that Protestantism, with its open Bible, +has everywhere maintained laws against blasphemy and heresy. The laws +against heresy have fallen into desuetude in England, but while they +lasted they were simply ferocious. We heard the late Lord Coleridge say +from his seat in the Court of Queen's Bench, as Lord Chief Justice, that +the Protestant laws against Roman Catholics, particularly in Ireland, +where they were executed with remorseless ferocity, are without a +parallel in the history of the world. Catholicism, however, is no longer +under a ban. Even the Jews have been admitted to equal rights with their +fellow citizens. But laws still remain in existence, and are +occasionally put into operation, against "blasphemers." According to the +language of common law indictments, it is a crime to bring the Holy +Scripture or the Christian Religion into disbelief and contempt. It is +true that many Christians are ready to profess a certain aversion to +such laws, but they make no effort to repeal them. Many others contend +that "blasphemy" is a question of manner, that the feelings of +Christians should be protected, and that while men should not be +punished for being Freethinkers, they should be punished for wounding +orthodox susceptibilities. It is not proposed, however, that any +limitations of taste or temper should be imposed upon Christian +controversialists; and this contention may therefore be regarded as a +subterfuge of bigotry. On the whole, it may be said that Catholics +without the Bible, and Protestants with the Bible, persecute unbelief to +the full extent of their opportunities; and it is only as toleration +grows from other roots, and is nourished by other causes, that the +Bibliolaters find out subtle interpretations of simple texts in favor of +the prevailing tendency. + + + + +VI. MORALS AND MANNERS + +Dr. Farrar takes the position that "the Bible is not homogeneous in its +morality." There is a higher and a lower; and, to adopt the fine but +paradoxical metaphor of Milton, within the lowest deep a lower deep +still opens its dreadful abyss of crime and brutality. The same +admission is made by Professor Bruce,* of the Free Church of Scotland; +but this gentleman is more subtle than Dr. Farrar, and tries to save +the reputation of the Bible by a notable piece of cauistical +special-pleading. He does not allow, though he does not expressly +deny, that the Bible contains any immorality. What he does is to draw +a distinction between high morality and low morality. Immorality is +sinning against your conscience. High morality is acting right up to its +noblest dictates. Low morality is conduct in honest conformity to the +low standard of a conscience but half-enlightened. When the prophetess +Deborah sings triumphantly over the infamous exploit of Jael, who +invited the fugitive Sisera into her tent, and assassinated him while he +slept in the confidence of her hospitality, we must not say that either +of these precious females was guilty of immorality. They were simply +carrying out a low morality. And the same applies to Deborah's +exclamation: "To every man a damsel or two"--meaning that the Jewish +soldiers slew their male enemies and dragged home a brace of maidens +each for themselves. Such conduct would be highly improper now, but it +was all right then; at least it was as right as they knew; and we must +not judge the actors by later ethical standards. So says Professor +Bruce, and it would be true enough if the Bible were not put forward as +a divine book, or if it ever reprehended the infamies of God's chosen +people. But it does nothing of the kind; it mentions Jael and Deborah in +terms of absolute approval. + + * Christian Apologetics, p. 309. + +Dr. Farrar severely denounces the Jewish wars of extermination in +Palestine, regardless of the fact--which is as true as any other +religious fact in the Bible--that these atrocities were expressly +commanded by Jehovah. Divines have defended the massacre of the +Midianites, for instance, and the appropriation of their unmarried +women; but Dr. Farrar calls their arguments "miserable pleas," and adds +that if such "guilty and horrible" doings were "recorded without +blame," it only shows that "the moral views of the desert tribes on such +subjects were in this respect very rudimentary." These desert tribes +were the chosen people of God; their prophets spoke under divine +inspiration; yet even Jeremiah, in denouncing Moab, cries: "Cursed be he +that keepeth back his sword from blood." According to Dr. Farrar, this +proves how "slow" was the "development of the religious consciousness of +mankind." But how did it happen that the Jews, with all the advantage +of special inspiration, were just as slow in this respect as any other +nation in the world's history? What is the use of "inspiration" if +it does not appreciably quicken the natural development of the human +conscience? + +Many of the Bible heroes are fit for a distinguished place in the +Newgate Calendar. Dr. Farrar himself cannot stomach "some details" in +the lives of Abraham, Jacob, Jephthah, and David. Still, he urges +that "the use made of them in the sceptical propaganda is often +illegitimate." These worthies were not "faultless." It is their "general +faithfulness" which is "rightly held up to admiration as our example." +Faithfulness to what? Simply to their own greed and ambition, first of +all, and secondly to the dominance of their tribal god Jehovah, who by +such instruments triumphed over his rival dieties, and became at last +the sole Lord God of Israel. + +Dr. Farrar allows no palliating plea for the cursing Psalms. He cites +a few of the very worst passages, black with hatred and red with blood, +and asks: "Can the casuistry be anything but gross which would palm off +such passages as the very utterance of God?" Moses was "a great lawgiver +and a great prophet," but Dr. Farrar will not "defend the divinity of +passages so morally indefensible" as that, for instance, which gives the +slave-owner impunity in killing his slave, provided he does not slay +him on the spot, but beats him so that he dies "in a day or two." Nor +is there "divinity" in the order to the Jews to refrain from eating bad +meat, but to sell it to the Gentiles. Neither is there "divinity" in +the order (Deut. xxi. 10-14) to take a wife for a month on trial. These +things are parts of an ostensibly divine code, but lawgivers and people +were alike mistaken. Inspiration did not guide them aright, but somehow +or other it enables Dr. Farrar to correct their blunders three thousand +years afterwards; which is merely saying, after all, that inspiration +does not pioneer but follow the march of human progress. + +During the reign of David a dreadful incident occurred. There had been +a three years' famine, and David "inquired of the Lord." The answer was, +"Blood upon Saul and upon his house!" Seven of Saul's sons were hung +up "unto the Lord," and the famine was stopped. Dr. Farrar tells of an +intelligent artisan who got up at a meeting and asked "whether it was +not meant to imply that God was pacified by the blood of innocent human +victims?" But he does not give the answer; and it either means this or +it means nothing at all. In the same way, the story of Jephthah, who +offered his daughter as a burnt-offering to the Lord, takes such an +immolation for granted as a religious act of perfect propriety. Jephthah +is mentioned as a hero of faith in the New Testament, and no hint is +given that he acted wrongly in sacrificing his daughter on the altar of +Jehovah. + +We have said enough on this subject to give the reader a fair idea +of Dr. Farrar's position. Let us now pass from Bible morals to Bible +manners. + +"The Bible," says Dr. Farrar, "is assailed on the ground that it +contains coarse and unedifying stories." Take the story of Lot and his +daughters, to say nothing of the bestial attempt on the angels in Sodom. +Could anything be more repulsive? Is there any excuse for putting such +abominable feculence into the hands of children? After a lot of talk +about it, and about, Dr. Farrar offers us the following most sapient +observation: "The story of Lot wears a very different complexion if we +regard it as an exhibition of unknown traditions about the connection +between the Israelites and the tribes of Moab and Ammon." But what does +this mean? The Moabites and Ammonites, according to the Bible, were +hereditary enemies of the Jews, and it was impossible to exterminate +them. They were evidently near of kin to the chosen people. Now, if +these two facts are put together, it is easy to see the purpose of this +story of Lot and his daughters. The Jews traced their own descent, in a +perfectly honorable way, from Abraham and his legitimate wife Sarah, who +are doubtless legendary characters. On the other hand, they traced +the descent of the Moabites and Ammonites, their cousins and enemies, +through the no less legendary Lot and his two daughters, thus throwing +the aspersion of incest upon the cradle of both those races. This is the +adequate and satisfactory explanation of the story. It is an exhibition +of dirty and unscrupulous hatred; and, as such, it is a curious fragment +of "the Word of God." + +Take next what Dr. Farrar calls "the pathetic story of Hosea," the +prophet who was ordered by God to marry a prostitute--not to use the +more downright language of the English Bible. Dr. Farrar suggests that +there is some doubt as to the meaning of the original. Hosea's wife +may have turned out a baggage after the nuptials, instead of being one +before. "It was the anguish caused by her infidelity," he says, "that +first woke Hosea to the sense of Israel's infidelity to Jehovah." And +read in the light of this "modern criticism" the story of Hosea is "in +the highest degree pure and noble." How pretty! All that remains for Dr. +Farrar to do is to explain away as equally "pure and noble" the imagery +of Ezekiel in reference to Aholah and Aholibah. There is no reason why +"modern criticism" in the hands of gentlemen like Dr. Farrar should not +transform Priapus into a Sunday-school teacher. + +Not only are there very gross stories in the Bible, many of which +are too beastly to dwell upon, but its language is often gratuitously +disgusting. And every scholar knows that the Hebrew text is sometimes +far more "purple" than our English version. Dr. Farrar admits that if +the "exact meaning" of certain passages were understood, they "could not +be read without a blush." "Happily," he says, they are "disguised by the +euphemisms of translations." That is to say, the inspired Bible writers, +or penmen of the Holy Ghost, as old divines called them, were often +indecent and sometimes positively obscene. Dr. Farrar's explanation is, +that "ancient and Eastern readers" were not easily shocked, and that our +modern "sensibility" is of "recent growth." But this proves again +that "inspiration" is in no sense the cause of progress, and does not +anticipate it in the slightest degree. + + + + +VII. POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROGRESS + +"The Bible," Dr. Farrar says, "is inextricably mingled with all that is +greatest in human history." This is a fair specimen of his roystering +style. We presume he has contracted it through long years of preaching +from the coward's castle of the pulpit, where a man can exaggerate as +much as he pleases without the slightest fear of contradiction. Dr. +Farrar does not say that the Bible is mixed up with _much_ of the +greatest in human history; no, it must be mixed up with _all_ the +greatest--which is a transparent falsehood and a no less transparent +absurdity. What did Greece and Rome owe to the Bible? Absolutely +nothing. There is no evidence that they were acquainted with any part +of the Old Testament, and Greece had become a mere name before a line of +the New Testament was written. Some of the greatest things in the world +were done and said by the "heathen." Greek philosophy, Greek literature, +Greek art, are imperishable. Roman jurisprudence and Roman government +are the basis of every civilised polity. Plutarch's heroes are all +Pagans, and let Dr. Farrar match them if he can in the history of +Christendom. + +Dr. Farrar calls the Bible "the statesman's manual," but he judiciously +refrains from showing that statesmen ever act upon its teaching; indeed, +he spends a great deal of time in showing that they ought _not_ to act +upon its teaching, unless they carefully avoid the obvious "letter," +and allow themselves to be influenced by the recondite "spirit." For +instance, it is perfectly clear that the Bible does not contain a single +word against slavery; it is also perfectly clear to all who possess +a tincture of scholarship that many of its references to slavery are +fraudulently translated. "Servants obey your masters" really means +"Slaves obey your owners." Moreover, the Bible contains precise +regulations of slavery. God did not tell the Jews that holding slaves +was infamous, that man could never have honest property in human flesh +and blood. He allowed them to buy and sell Gentiles at their pleasure. +He permitted them to enslave their own countrymen for a period of seven +years, and in certain cases "for ever." Even in the New Testament we +find St Paul sending back a runaway slave to his master. True, he sent +with the slave a touching letter to the slave-owner, but sending him +back at all was giving a sanction to the institution. Dr. Farrar admits +that American pulpits "rang with incessant Scriptural defences of +slavery." He quotes from a Southern bishop, who described slavery as "a +curse and a blight," yet declared it to be "recognised by the Bible," +so that "every man has a right to his own slaves, provided they are not +treated with unnecessary cruelty." Dr. Farrar asks whether there was +ever "a stranger utterance on the lips of a Christian bishop." He calls +this "distorting the Bible." But he does not prove the distortion. He +calmly assumes it. He cannot deny the existence of all those slavery +texts in the Bible. All he can do is to say that what was "relatively +excusable" among the Jews is at present "execrable," and is now +"absolutely and for ever wrong." Very good; but how was that discovered? +Not by reading the Bible. The Jews read the Bible, the early Christians +read the Bible, just as well as Dr. Farrar, but they did not find that +it condemned slavery. Dr. Farrar lives in a later age, in the light of +a higher civilisation. He therefore _reads into_ the Bible whatever it +_ought to_ contain as the word of God. He does not scruple to override +explicit texts by more or less arbitrary deductions from vague maxims +and ejaculations. He pretends that the "spirit" of the Bible in some +way wrought the abolition of slavery. But every well-informed student is +aware that the abolition of slavery depended upon economical conditions. +We _outgrow_ slavery by advancing beyond it in the process of +industrial development, and when we _have_ outgrown it we regard it with +abhorrence. When the institution is in the way of being supplanted by +a higher form of productive labor, the moral revolt against it begins, +growing in strength and intensity as the economical change approaches +its climax. It was natural that the anti-slavery movement in America +should take place in the Northern States, where the conditions +favourable to slavery did not exist as they did in the Southern States. +We may be pardoned for supposing that if Dr. Farrar's lot had been +cast in a Southern State he would have defended slavery as a Bible +institution. He is preaching now after its abolition, when denunciation +of it is cheap and easy, and is no particular credit to the preacher's +religion. While slavery existed in America, it was at first justified +by the Bible in all parts of the Union. Northern abolitionists at last +found that the Bible did not teach slavery after all; but this did not +alter the view of the Southern slaveholders and the Southern Churches. +Here again we see the force of the Catholic taunt that Protestants can +prove anything, and disprove anything, by appealing to texts in such a +composite book as the Bible. Here again we also see that the Bible never +_instigates_ any step in the march of human improvement. + +Dr. Farrar waxes eloquent, after his special fashion, over the glories +of England in the age of Elizabeth. He attributes them all to the "open +Bible," which was then placed in the hands of the people. Of course they +had nothing to do with the new astronomy, the discovery of America, and +the invention of printing! Such paltry causes as these cannot enter +into competition with the might and majesty of the Bible! Still, we may +venture to remind Dr. Farrar that these Englishmen of the Elizabethan +age, with the "open Bible" in their hands, went and started the African +slave trade. Evidently they did not read in it then, as Dr. Farrar does +now, any condemnation of that horrible business. They worked it for all +it was worth. England, with the "open Bible" in its hand, continued to +do so for another two hundred years. One of the chief centres of +the slave trade was the pious city of Bristol. It grew rich on the +abominable traffic. Slavery has been abolished, but the old odor of +piety still clings to the city of Bristol. Its merchants fattened on the +slave trade with the "open Bible" in their hands. They now subscribe to +missionary societies to convert the blacks, and they still stick to the +"open Bible." It was good for upholding black slavery, and it is still +good for upholding white slavery. + +All that we have said about slavery applies in its degree to polygamy. +Both institutions are sanctioned by the Bible, and the pleas of the +"Higher Criticism" in relation to the one are just as hollow as they are +in relation to the other. We may go farther and say that the Bible is +very far from being woman's best friend, as it is often represented. It +starts by making her the Devil's first customer, and the introducer of +sin and death; it continues to hold her as inferior and subject to man, +lumping her in the tenth commandment with the house, the ox, and the +ass, as the man's property; and, finally, in the New Testament, it +expressly tells her that her duty is to be silent and submissive, for +the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church. + +We need not follow Dr. Farrar in his rhapsodical references to the +various achievements of the Bible. We may remark, however, that his +reference to Japan is singularly unhappy. That country _has_ accepted +the leading ideas of Western civilisation, but it has _not_ accepted +Christianity. Nor is Dr. Farrar well advised in laying so much stress on +the Pilgrim Fathers. He says that they had a preference for the "pure, +unadulterated lessons of the Bible." Perhaps they had. But what were +those lessons as illustrated by their actions? Certainly intolerance was +one of them. They had no conception of religious liberty. "The Pilgrim +Fathers," as Sir Walter Besant remarks in his little book on _The Rise +of the Empire_, "believed that everybody should think as they themselves +thought. Had they achieved their own way, they would have sent Laud +himself, and all who thought like him, across the ocean with the +greatest alacrity." They also believed in witchcraft, probably because +Dr. Farrar was not at hand to explain that the Bible did not mean what +it said; and they tortured and burnt witches with remarkable gusto. + +It would also be a waste of time to correct all Dr. Farrar's statements +about the influence of the Bible in other directions. We will take a +single illustration of his fantastical method. He tells us that the +Bible "inspired the pictures of Fra Angelico and Raphael, the music of +Handel and Mendelssohn." Perhaps he will tell us whether it inspired +Raphael's picture of the Fornarina, and why it did not inspire the music +of Beethoven and Wagner. Both those great composers, as a matter of +fact, were "infidels." + +Nothing could be more absurd than orthodox talk about the Bible +"inspiring" great poets, artists, and musicians. Men of genius are +inspired by nature. Their inspiration is born with them. It cannot be +made; it can only be utilised. All that religions have done is to employ +the genius they could not create. Every religion has done this in turn. +The genius was there always as a natural endowment. It existed before +all the world's religions, and it will outlive them. + + + + +VIII. INSPIRATION + +The Higher Criticism, as expounded by Dr. Farrar, admits nearly all +the Bible difficulties that have been advanced by "infidels." Let us +recapitulate the most important. The Bible is hopelessly at variance +with science. It sometimes contradicts well-established history. Many of +its stories, taken literally, are obviously absurd. Some of the actions +it records with apparent approval are wicked or disgusting. A good deal +of its language sins against common decency. Several books were not +written by the authors whose names they bear. Others are, and must for +ever remain, anonymous. The dates of composition of the various +books are not what has been generally supposed. Occasionally the true +chronology differs from the received chronology by many centuries. To +the great majority of readers the Bible has never been known, and never +can be known, except in translations. No translation can possibly be +perfect. Every translation of the Bible is known to contain grave and +numerous errors. Even in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts there +are thousands of various readings. In some cases the text is uncertain, +in some cases interpolated, and in others irrecoverably impaired. The +vowel points by which Hebrew is now read are demonstrably a modern +invention. Even the discourses of Jesus Christ, in the New Testament, +are not reported with accuracy. The New Testament writers seldom quote +from the Old Testament exactly, but generally rely upon the Greek +translation called the Septuagint. + +Sometimes they quote passages which are not in Scripture at all. "Out of +288 passages quoted from the Old Testament in the New," says Dr. Farrar, +"there are but 53 which agree accurately with the original Hebrew. In 76 +the New Testament differs both from the Greek and the Hebrew; and in 99 +the New Testament, the Greek, and the Hebrew are all variant." + +On the face of it, then, the Bible is doomed. A book of which all these +things can be said, without the slightest fear of contradiction, must +sooner or later be dropped as the Word of God. It will be recognised as +a human composition. + +Meanwhile, those who live by the Bible, and are professionally +interested in its "supremacy," as Dr. Farrar calls it, cast about a +for means of giving it a fresh reputation. The old conception of it is +fatally discredited; a new one may give it a fresh lease of life. + +Evidently there is only one direction open to the theological trimmers. +They must start another theory of inspiration--one that will conserve +the "sacred" character of the Bible in spite of every difficulty that +has been, or can be discovered. + +The Bible is no longer to be called _the_ Word of God. Ruskin says, and +Dr. Farrar seems to quote it approvingly, that "it is a grave heresy (or +wilful source of division) to call any book, or collection of books, the +Word of God." Ten pages later, however, we are told that the Bible, as a +whole, _may_ be spoken of as the Word of God, because it "contains words +and messages of God to the human soul." This word "contains" is the +magical spell by which Dr. Farrar seeks to dissipate all difficulties. +He finds the expression in the Church Articles, in the Book of Homilies, +and in the Shorter Catechism. But in order to see how illegitimate is +Dr. Farrar's use of these authorities, let us take his extract from the +last of them: "The Word of God which is _contained_ in the Scriptures of +the Old and New Testament is the only rule to direct us how we may enjoy +and glorify Him." Is it not clear that the word "_contained_" is used +here in its primary meaning? Did not the writers mean that the Word of +God is included or comprehended in the Old and New Testament only, and +is not to be found elsewhere? Would they not have been shocked to hear a +clergyman of the Church of England say that some parts of the Bible were +_not_ the Word of God? If so, their use of the word "contain" lends no +countenance to the use made of it by Dr. Farrar. And is it not a shallow +trick upon our intelligence to argue that different persons, using +the same word, necessarily mean the same thing? Words are the money of +fools, as Hobbes said, but only the counters of wise men. We must get at +the actual value of the thing which is symbolised. And the moment we do +this, we see that Dr. Farrar's theory of the Word of God is _not_ the +same as that of the gentlemen who drew up the Shorter Catechism. They +would indeed have laughed at his "contains," and excommunicated and +imprisoned him, and perhaps burnt him at the stake. It is not by +torturing one poor word ten thousand ways that such wide differences can +be reconciled. + +Passing by this ridiculous legerdemain, let us take Dr. Farrar's theory +for what it is worth. The Bible _contains_ the Word of God. But how are +we to find it? What is the criterion by which we are to separate God's +word from man's word? Dr. Farrar bids us use "the ordinary means of +criticism and spiritual discernment." But such a vague generality is +nothing but verbiage. What we want is the _criterion_. Now the nearest +approach to it in all Dr. Farrar's pages is the following:-- + +"Is it not a plain and simple rule that anything in the Bible which +teaches, or is misinterpreted to teach, anything which is not in +accordance with the love, the gentleness, the truthfulness of Christ's +Gospel, is _not_ God's word to us, however clearly it stands on the page +of Scripture?" + +This is at best a _negative_ criterion; and, on close examination, it +turns out to be no criterion at all. The criterion, to be valid, must be +_external_ to the book itself. Dr. Farrar's criterion is _internal_. +He picks out one part of the Bible as the standard for judging all +the rest. This is entirely arbitrary. Moreover, it would soon be found +impossible in practice. Dr. Farrar's criterion may be "plain," but it +is not so "simple," except in the uncomplimentary sense of the word. +For "Christ's Gospel," by which the rest of the Bible is to be tried, +is itself a very composite and self-contradictory thing. Further, if +all that agrees with Christ's Gospel is the Word of God, is it not +superfluous as being a mere repetition? Dr. Farrar would therefore bring +the actual, valid Word of God within the compass of the Four Gospels; +dismissing all the rest, like the Arabian Caliph who commanded a whole +library to be burnt on the ground that if the books differed from +the Koran they were pernicious, and if they agreed with it they were +useless. Nor is this all. Dr. Farrar admits that the discourses of +Jesus Christ are not reported with accuracy. Therefore, having made the +Gospels the criterion of the Word of God in the rest of the Bible, he +would be obliged to select some special passages as the criterion of the +Word of God in the rest of the Gospels. This is what Shakespeare would +call a world-without-end process. + +Candidly, it seems to us that if the Bible _is_ not the Word of God, but +only _contains_ the Word of God--that is to say, if it is partly God's +word and partly man's word--the clergy of all denominations should unite +in publishing a Bible with the divine and human parts clearly specified +by being printed in different types. And surely, if the Bible is in +any sense inspired, it should be possible, by a new and final act of +inspiration, to settle this distinction for ever. + +Allowing the clergy to meditate this holy enterprise, we proceed to +consider Dr. Farrar's theory of inspiration. Of course he discards +the old theory of verbal dictation; indeed, he calls it "irreverent," +because it attributes to God what modern men of intelligence and good +manners would be ashamed to own. He even quarrels with the very term +inspiration as "vague," and says it would be "a boon if some less +ambiguous word could be adopted." Four theories, he says, have been +entertained in the Christian Church. The first is the _mechanical_ +theory, which implies that the Holy Ghost dictated, and the inspired +penmen were merely his amanuenses. The second is the _dynamic_, which +recognises "the indefeasible guidance of the Holy Spirit." The third is +that of _illumination_, which confines the divine guidance to matters of +faith and doctrine. The fourth is that of _general_ inspiration, which +regards the Holy Spirit as influencing the writers in the same way as it +influences "other noble and holy souls." This fourth theory is the one +which Dr. Farrar himself affects. Every pure and sweet influence upon +the human soul, he says, is a heavenly inspiration. We owe to it "all +that is best and greatest in philosophy, eloquence, and song." Haydn +said of his grandest chorus in the "Creation": "Not from me but from +above it all has come!" "There is inspiration," says Dr. Farrar, +"whenever the spirit of God makes itself heard in the heart of man." +Apparently--for we can never be quite sure of Dr. Farrar--the only +superiority of the Bible lies in the fact that "the voice of God" speaks +to us "far more intensely" out of it than out of "any [other?] form of +human speech." + +Such a theory of inspiration is too vague and universal. Sooner than +give up inspiration altogether Dr. Farrar is prepared to share it all +round. But is not proving too much as bad as proving too little? If the +Bible is only inspired--where it _is_ inspired--in the same sense as +other books are inspired; if the difference is not one of kind, but +simply of degree; then it is really idle to talk about its inspiration +any longer. The word _inspiration_ loses all its original meaning. It +becomes a poetical expression, implying nothing supernatural, but merely +the exaltation of natural powers and faculties. God is then behind the +Bible only as God is behind everything; and Christianity, ceasing to be +a special revelation, becomes only a certain form of Theism. + +This loose theory of _general_ inspiration will doubtless serve the +present turn of the clergy, who have to face a general and growing +dissatisfaction with the Bible. But it cannot live very long in a +scientific age. It will be found out in time, like all the Bible +theories that preceded it. The first Protestant dogma was the +infallibility of Scripture. That was exploded by modern science and +textual criticism. Then came the dogma of plenary inspiration, which had +a comparatively short-lived existence, as it was only the old dogma of +infallibility in disguise. Next came the dogma of illumination, which +may be said to have begun with Coleridge and ended with Maurice. +Finally, we have the dogma of general inspiration, which began nowhere +and ends nowhere, which means anything or nothing, and which is a sort +of "heads we win, tails you lose" theory in the hands of the clever +expounders of the Higher Criticism. + +Behind the last, as well as the first, of all these theories +of inspiration stands the fatal objection of Thomas Paine, that +inspiration, to be real, must be personal. A man may be sure that God +speaks to him, but how can he be sure that God has spoken to another +man? He may think it possible or probable, but he can never be certain. +What is revelation at first-hand, said Paine, is only hearsay at +second-hand. Real inspiration, therefore, eventuates in mysticism. +The inner light shines, the inner voice speaks; God holds personal +communication with the individual soul. Each believer carries what the +author of _Hudibras_ calls "the dark lanthorn of the spirit," which +"none see by but those who bear it." And the very multiplicity and +diversity of the oracle's deliverances are a proof that in all of them +man is speaking to himself. He questions his gods, and hears only the +echo of his own voice. + + + + +IX. THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS + +Some of the teaching of the Higher Criticism as to the authorship and +credibility of the Old Testament is, on the face of it, contrary to +the plain language of Jesus Christ himself in the Gospels. Moses, for +instance, is no longer considered as the author of the Pentateuch. Canon +Driver, who is perhaps the chief scholar of this movement in the Church +of England, as Dean Farrar is perhaps its chief rhetorician, locates the +composition of the book of Deuteronomy in the period between Isaiah and +Jeremiah. Throughout the book, he observes, the writer introduces Moses +in the third person, and puts speeches in his mouth which of course +he never uttered. But in "framing discourses appropriate to Moses' +situation!" he was not guilty of "forgery," for he was "doing nothing +inconsistent with the literary usages of his age and people." That is +to say, everybody did it, and this writer was no worse than his +contemporaries--which is probably true. But passing by the question of +casuistry here involved, we repeat that the Mosaic authorship of the +Pentateuch is entirely abandoned. Dr. Farrar is quite as emphatic as +Dr. Driver on this point. He denies that there is "any proof of the +existence of a _collected_ Pentateuch earlier than the days of Ezra +(b.c. 444 )"--a thousand years after the time of Moses. He points out +that the salient features of the so-called Mosaic Law, such as the +Passover, the Sabbatical year, and the Day of Atonement, are not to be +traced in the old historical books or in the earlier prophets. Nor +does he scruple to assert that the Pentateuch is "a work of composite +structure," which has been "edited and re-edited several times," and +"contains successive strata of legislation." In the New Testament, +however, Moses is repeatedly spoken of as the author of the Pentateuch.* +Not to multiply texts, for in such a case one is as good as a thousand, +we will take a decisive passage in the fourth Gospel:-- + + * Matthew xix. 7, 8; Mark x. 3, 4; xii. 26; Luke xvi. 29-31; + Luke xx. 37; John v. 45, 46; vii. 19, 22, 23. + +"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that +accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, +ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his +writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John v. 45-47). + +The speaker in this instance is Christ himself. It is he, and not the +evangelist, who speaks of the writings of Moses, and declares that Moses +"wrote of me." + +Now let us turn to the book of Psalms, which has been well called the +Hymn Book of the Second Temple. According to Dr. Farrar, they are +"a collection of sacred poems in five separate books of very various +antiquity." Canon Driver points out that they are mostly posterior to +the prophetical writings. "When the Psalms," he says, "are compared +with the prophets, the latter seem to show, on the whole, the greater +originality; the psalmists, in other words, _follow_ the prophets, +appropriating and applying the truths which the prophets proclaimed." +Very few of the Psalms are earlier than the seventh century before +Christ. Dr. Driver affirms this with "tolerable confidence." Dr. Farrar +says that "some may mount to an epoch earlier than David's," but this +is mere conjecture. The more cautious Dr. Driver will not commit himself +further than "a verdict of _non liquet_"; that is to say, there is no +proof that David did not write one or two of the Psalms, and no evidence +that he did. His name was associated with the collection, in the +same way as the name of Solomon was associated with the Proverbs. +Nevertheless it is David who is referred to by Jesus as the author of +the hundred-and-tenth Psalm.* But this Psalm is one of those which are +allowed to belong to a much later period. Jesus quoted it as David's, +but Professor Sanday says "it seems difficult to believe it really came +from him"**--which is as strong an expression as a Christian divine +could be expected to permit himself in a case of such delicacy. + + * Matthew xxii. 43-45; Mark xii. 36, 37; Luke xx. 42-44. + + ** Professor W. Sanday, Bampton Lectures on Inspiration, p. + 409. Canon Gore, with this utterance of Jesus right before + him, still more emphatically denies that this Psalm was, or + could have been, composed by David. See his Bampton Lectures + on The Incarnation of the Son of God, p. 197. + +We have already seen that the book of Daniel was not written by the +prophet Daniel, but by some unknown author hundreds of years later, +probably in the second century before Christ. Upon this subject +Professor Sanday takes precisely the same view as Canon Driver. He says +that this is "the critical view" and has "won the day." All the facts +support the "supposition that the book was written in the second century +b.c.," and not "in the sixth." "The real author," he says, "is unknown," +and "the name of Daniel is only assumed." He was writing, not a history, +but a homily, to encourage his brethren at the time of the Maccabean +struggle. "To this purpose of his," Professor Sanday says, "there were +features in the traditional story of Daniel which appeared to lend +themselves; and so he took that story and worked it up in the way which +seemed to him most effective." Jesus Christ, however, held the orthodox +view of his own time, and spoke of Daniel as the actual author of this +book (Matthew xxiv. 15). "But this," Professor Sanday observes, "it is +right to say, is only in one Gospel, where the mention of Daniel may be +an insertion of the Evangelist's." Such conjectural shifts are Christian +critics reduced to in their effort to minimise difficulties; as though +_reducing_ the mistakes of Jesus in any way saved his _infallibility_. + +We will now turn to some portions of the Old Testament narrative which +the Higher Criticism regards as legendary, but which Jesus regarded as +strictly historical. One of these is the story of the Flood. No one of +any standing is now prepared to defend this story, at least as we find +it in the book of Genesis. A few orthodox scientists, like Sir James +W. Dawson, pour out copious talk about tremendous floods in former +geological ages; but what has this to do with the Bible narrative of a +universal deluge which occurred some four thousand five hundred years +ago? The Higher Critics have the impatience of Freethinkers with such +intellectual charlatanry. They regard the story of the Flood as a Jewish +legend, which was not even original, but borrowed from the superstitions +of Babylon. Yet the opinion of Jesus Christ seems to have been very +different. Here are his own words:-- + +"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man +be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating +and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe +entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them +all away, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew xxiv. +37-39). + +Jesus Christ appears to have believed, like the disciples he was +addressing, like all the rest of his countrymen, and like nearly +all Christians until very recently, that the Flood was an historical +occurrence, that Noah and his family were saved in the ark, and that all +the other inhabitants of the world were drowned. + +Another story which the Higher Criticism dismisses as legendary is that +of Jonah. The book in which it is related was, of course, not written by +Jonah, the son of Amittai, of whom we read in 2 Kings xiv. 25, and who +lived in the reign of Jeroboam II. "It cannot," as Dr. Driver says, +"have been written until long after the lifetime of Jonah himself." Its +probable date is the fifth century before Christ. Dr. Driver says it is +"not strictly historical "--that is to say, the events recorded in it +never happened. Jonah was not really entertained for three days in a +whale's belly, nor did his preaching convert the whole city of Nineveh. +The writer's purpose was didactic; he wished to rebuke the exclusiveness +of his own people, and to teach them that God's care extended, at least +occasionally, to other nations as well as the Jews. Some critics, such +as Cheyne and Wright, regard the story as allegorical; Jonah standing +for Israel, the whale for Babylon, and the vomiting up of the prophet +for the return of the Jews from exile. Dr. Farrar draws attention to the +"remarkable" fact that in the book of Kings "no allusion is made to any +mission or adventure of the historic Jonah." He adds that there is not +"the faintest trace of his mission or its results amid the masses of +Assyrian inscriptions." Even the writer of the book of Jonah, according +to Dr. Farrar, attached "no importance" to its "supernatural incidents," +which "only belong to the allegorical form of the story." So much for +the Higher Critics; and now let us hear Jesus Christ:-- + +"An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall +no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas +was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son +of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The +men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall +condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and behold +a greater than Jonas is here" (Matthew xii. 39-41). + +This utterance of Jesus is also reported in Luke (xi. 29-32), but with +an important variation, the reference to Jonah in the whale's belly +being entirely omitted. This variation is seized upon by Dr. Farrar. +The fishy reference, he says, occurs in Matthew _alone_, and it may +"represent a comment or marginal note by the Evangelist, or of some +other Christian teacher." This, however, is an arbitrary supposition, +which everyone is free to repudiate; and Dr. Farrar feels obliged to add +that "even if our Lord did allude to the whale" it does not follow that +we should regard it as "literal history." But this is not the question +at issue. The real question is, did Jesus Christ believe the story of +Jonah and the whale? If he did not, it must be admitted that he had a +most unfortunate way of expressing himself. + +No educated Christian in the present age believes the story of Lot's +wife being changed into a pillar of rock salt, although Josephus +pretended that he had seen it, and many travellers and pilgrims have +searched for it as a sacred relic. Jesus Christ, however, gave great +prominence to this salted lady. "Remember Lot's wife" is a verse by +itself in the Protestant Bible (Luke xvii. 32). Jesus also refers to the +rain of fire and brimstone by which Sodom was destroyed. + +Here then, upon the face of it, we have Jesus Christ's testimony to +three documents as having been written by men who did not write them, +and to the historical character of three incidents which are purely +fabulous. Now the Higher Criticism must be wrong, or else Jesus Christ +was mistaken; in other words, he was not infallible, and therefore not +God. But the Higher Critics declare that they are not wrong; they also +declare that Jesus Christ was not mistaken. Let us see how they try to +save their own accuracy and his infallibility. + +We must remark, in passing, that some of these critics hint, without +exactly asserting, that Jesus _may_ have been mistaken. Dr. Farrar bids +us remember that "by the very fact of taking our nature upon him Christ +voluntarily submitted himself to human limitations." There were some +things which, as a man, he did not know. Yes, but he was also God; and +the conjunction of "knowledge" and "ignorance" in one person, and with +respect to a single subject, would dissolve the unity of the God-man, +which is a dogma of Christian theology. Moreover, as Canon Liddon +argued, it is not so much a question of Christ's omniscience as a +question of his infallibility. Supposing there were some matters, such +as the date of the day of judgment, of which he was ignorant; he might +confess his ignorance or remain silent, and no harm would accrue to +anyone; but if he spoke upon any matter, and was mistaken through want +of knowledge, he would become a propagator of error; and this would not +only destroy the doctrine of his deity, but very seriously impair his +authority as a teacher, and cause everything he said to be open to +the gravest suspicion. No less dangerous is it to fall back upon the +explanation that "the discourses of Christ are not reproduced by the +Evangelists with verbal identity"--to use Dr. Farrar's own language. Dr. +Sanday seems a little attracted by this explanation. He reminds us that, +whatever views Jesus himself entertained as to the Scriptures of the Old +Testament, his views have come down to us through the medium of persons +who shared the erroneous ideas that were then current on the subject. We +must be prepared, he says, for the possibility that Christ's sayings in +regard to it "have not been reported with absolute accuracy." But +after all "not much allowance" should be made for this; which means, we +suspect, that the worthy Professor saw the dreadful peril of pursuing +this vein of observation, and desisted from it before he had said enough +to cause serious mischief. + +The more astute Higher Critics avoid such dangers. They resort to a +theory that combines mystery and plausibility, by which they hope to +satisfy believers on both sides of their natures. Dr. Farrar tells us +that Christ, to become a man, emptied himself of his glory; and that +this "examination" involved the necessity of speaking as a man to men. +This position is perhaps best expressed by Canon Gore:-- + +"It is contrary to his whole method to reveal his Godhead by any +anticipations of natural knowledge. The Incarnation was a self-emptying +of God to reveal himself under conditions of human nature, and from the +human point of view. We are able to draw a distinction between what he +revealed and what he used......Now when he speaks of the 'sun rising' he +is using ordinary human knowledge. Thus he does not reveal his eternity +by statements as to what had happened in the past, or was to happen in +the future, outside the ken of existing history. He made his Godhead +gradually manifest by his attitude towards men and things about him, by +his moral and spiritual claims, by his expressed relation to his father, +not by any miraculous exemptions of himself from the conditions of +natural knowledge in its own proper province. Thus the utterances of +Christ about the Old Testament do not seem to be nearly definite or +clear enough to allow of our supposing that in this case he is departing +from the general method of the Incarnation, by bringing to bear the +unveiled omniscience of the Godhead, to anticipate or foreclose a +development of natural knowledge."* + +This would perhaps be sublime if it were only intelligible. We are not +surprised at Dr. Driver's turning away from the metaphysics of this +theory. His mind is cast in a more sober and practical mould. It is +enough for him that the aim of Christ's teaching was a religious one; +that he naturally accepted, as the basis of his teaching, the opinions +respecting the Old Testament that were current around him; that he did +not raise "issues for which the time was not yet ripe, and which, had +they been raised, would have interfered seriously with the paramount +purpose of his life."** + + * Rev. Charles Gore, Lux Mundi (seventh edition), pp. 360, + 361. + + ** Introduction, Preface, xix. + + +This is excellently said. It is just what Paley might have written in +present-day circumstances. But it contains no note of the supernatural. +It deals with Jesus as a mere man, who did not disclose all the +information he possessed, but sometimes veiled his knowledge for +temporary reasons. It leaves his Godhead in the background. It does not +recognise how easy it was for Omnipotence to act differently. And when +the Higher Criticism points out that the human mind could, in the course +of time, free itself from errors as to the authorship and credibility +of the Old Testament, it forgets that Jesus Christ, by accommodating +himself to those errors, _perpetuated_ them. His authority was appealed +to for centuries--it is appealed to now--in favor of falsehood. Nor is +this falsehood trivial and innocuous. It has been extremely harmful. It +has fostered a wrong view of the Bible, it has prolonged the reign of +superstition, and thus hindered the growth of true civilisation. This is +an impeachment of the moral character of Jesus. It is a confession that +he served a temporary object at the expense of the permanent interests +of humanity. We feel constrained, therefore, to admit the force of the +words of Canon Liddon:-- + +"We have lived to hear men proclaim the legendary and immoral character +of considerable portions of those Old Testament scriptures, upon which +our Lord has set the seal of his infallible authority. And yet, side +by side with this rejection of Scriptures so deliberately sanctioned +by Christ, there is an unwillingness which, illogical as it is, we must +sincerely welcome, to profess any explicit rejection of the Church's +belief in Christ's divinity. Hence arises the endeavour to intercept +a conclusion, which might otherwise have seemed so plain as to make +arguments in its favor an intellectual impertinence. Hence a series of +singular refinements, by which Christ is presented to the modern world +as really Divine, yet as subject to fatal error; as Founder of the true +religion, yet as the credulous patron of a volume replete with worthless +legends; as the highest Teacher and Leader of humanity, yet withal as +the ignorant victim of the prejudices and follies of an unenlightened +age."* + + * Canon H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Christ (fourteenth + edition), p. 462. + +Canon Gore devotes several pages of his Bampton Lectures to this +subject, but he does not fairly answer the straightforward objections +raised by Canon Liddon. Dealing with the references of Jesus to +the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and to Jonah's three days' +entombment in the whale's belly, and with the argument that this +endorsement by Jesus "binds us to receive these narratives as simple +history," he blandly declares, "To this argument I do not think that we +need yield." Of course not. There is no need to yield to anything you do +not like; for this is a free country, at least to Christians. But what +is the logical conclusion? That is the point to be decided. Canon +Gore does not face it; he merely expresses a personal disinclination. +Subsequently he pleads that "a heavy burden" should not be laid on +"sensitive consciences," and that men should not be asked "to accept as +matter of revelation what seems to them an improbable literary theory." +But this again is a personal appeal. These men must be left to attend +to their own consciences. They have no right to demand a suppression of +truth, or a perversion of logic, for their particular advantage. + +When a candid reader has finished all that the Higher Criticism has to +say on this matter, we believe he will be filled with a sense of its +insincerity. It never strikes a note of triumph, or even a note of +conviction. It is timid, furtive, and apologetic; and shelters +itself against reason by plunging into mystery. In place of all +the difficulties it removes it sets up a colossal one of its own +manufacture; the difficulty, to wit, of conceiving that God himself lent +a sanction to grave and far-reaching error as to his own Word; or what +would inevitably be regarded as a sanction, and would necessarily delay +for many hundreds of years the discovery and reception of the truth. +The Higher Criticism, in short, has supplied a new argument against the +deity of Jesus Christ. + + + + +X. THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND + +Dr. Farrar's book has naturally given offence to the more orthodox +Christians. Clergymen like "Father" Ignatius stigmatise him, and indeed +all clerical exponents of the Higher Criticism, as wolves in sheeps' +clothing, who eat the Church's meat and do the work of "infidelity." +We are not surprised, therefore, that some reassurance has been +deemed necessary; nor astonished that it took the form of a popular +announcement in the newspapers. Some months ago--to be accurate, it was +in September--the following paragraph went the round of the press:-- + +"Dean Farrar and the Scriptures.--A correspondent called the attention +of Dean Farrar to the fact that Atheistic lecturers are in the habit of +affirming that he does not believe in the Bible (referring to his works +as a confirmation of the statement), and observed that, if such a grave +assertion were allowed to be propagated without contradiction, the young +and the ignorant might be deceived by it. The Dean, who is at present +staying in Yorkshire, replied as follows: 'The statement to which you +refer is ignorant nonsense. The doctrine of the Church of England about +Holy Scripture is stated in her Sixth and Seventh. Articles, and that +doctrine I most heartily accept." + +This strikes us as a rather paltry evasion. The Sixth and Seventh +Articles of the Church of England do not state the full Christian belief +as to the Bible, but only the Protestant belief as against that of the +Church of Rome. They emphasise two points, and two points only: first, +that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary to salvation, so +that no man is at the Pope's mercy for a seat in heaven; second, that +fourteen books of the Roman Catholic Bible are apocryphal, and cannot be +used to establish any doctrine. The general Christian view of the Bible, +common to Catholics and Protestants, is taken for granted, as it had +not then been brought into controversy. There is one word in the Sixth +Article, however, which may be commended to Dr. Farrar's attention. +The last clause explains what is meant by "Holy Scripture," and runs +as follows:--"In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those +Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was +never any doubt in the Church." Now, unless Dr. Farrar means to juggle +with the word "authority"--and we do not doubt his capacity for doing +so--it is idle for him to say that he believes in the Bible according to +these terms. He does _not_ believe, for instance, in the "authority" of +the book of Jonah; on the contrary, he believes that Jonah did not write +it, and that it is not history, but romance, from beginning to end. If +_this_ is believing in the Bible, then Atheistic lecturers believe in it +as well as Dr. Farrar. He does not believe that Jonah spent three +days in a whale's belly--nor do they; he does not believe that +Jonah's deep-sea adventure was a prefigurement of the burial of Jesus +Christ--nor do they; he does not believe that the Jonah story is any +the truer because Jesus Christ really or apparently believed it--nor do +they; he simply believes that the story's moral is a good one, as far as +it represents people who are not Jews as entitled to consideration--and +so do they. Substantially there is not the smallest difference between +them. The only discernible difference is a hypothetical one. Dr. Farrar +claims that the book of Jonah is inspired. But he also claims that +everything good and true--that is, everything worth reading--is +inspired. "Very well then," the Atheist may reply, "I agree with you +still, in substance. The only point in dispute between us is whether +there is a God who interferes with the natural course of things, either +in the external world or in the human mind. But on your definition of +the word _inspired_, this makes no particular difference to any one book +or collection of books. And unless you alter (and narrow) your theory of +inspiration, our difference begins outside, not inside, the library--and +is, in brief, not practical, but metaphysical." + +But let us return to Dr. Farrar's method of proving his sufficient +orthodoxy; and let us tell him that if he will only pursue it far +enough, he may get rid of the Bible altogether. + +Suppose we take Pearson's classic _Exposition of the Creed_, and open +it at his address "to the Reader." In the second paragraph he writes as +follows:--"The Creed, without controversy, is a brief comprehension of +the objects of our Christian faith, and is generally taken to contain +all things necessary to be believed." Now this Creed does not mention +the Bible at all. A heathen might read it, and never infer from it that +there was such a thing as the Scriptures in existence. What then is to +prevent Dr. Farrar, or some more audacious clergyman, from saying +that he does not believe in the Bible, as it is nowhere laid down +as necessary to be believed; but that his orthodoxy is nevertheless +unimpeachable, because he "most heartily accepts" the Catholic and +Apostolic Creed which is "without controversy" an accurate compendium of +the Christian faith, and which, being prescribed in the Prayer Book, +is of course binding--and is _alone_ binding--on every loyal son of the +Church of England? + +Dr. Farrar claims, as a clergyman, what he calls a "Christian liberty" +in dealing with the Bible; although, if God has indeed spoken in the +Bible, it is difficult to see what liberty a Christian can have but that +of absolute belief and obedience. In a lengthy footnote of his volume +which we have been criticising, he refers to the famous "Essays and +Reviews Case," and the decisions of the judges in the Court of Arches +and in the Privy Council. Dr. Lushington laid it down that: "Provided +the Articles and Formularies are not contravened, the law lays down no +limits of construction, no rule of interpretation, of the Scriptures." +Lord Westbury declared that the Sixth Article of the Church of England +was based upon "the revelations of the Holy Spirit," and therefore the +Bible might be denominated "holy" and be said to be "the Word of +God"; but this was not "distinctly predicated of every statement and +representation contained in every part of the Old and New Testaments." +"The framers of the Articles," Lord Westbury added, "have not used the +word 'inspiration' as applied to the Holy Scriptures, nor have they laid +down anything as to the nature, extent, or limits of that operation of +the Holy Spirit." + +According to this sapient judgment, which perhaps is very good law, and +covers all possible developments of the Higher Criticism, every member +of the Church of England is bound to regard the Bible as containing "the +revelations of the Holy Spirit," but is not bound to regard it as a work +of "inspiration." A judge, with his legal spectacles on, is notoriously +able to discriminate subtleties where laymen see only what is plain; +and clergymen may take advantage of his preternatural sagacity, without +being able in the long run to impose upon the common sense of the +people, who will always look upon "revelation" and "inspiration" as +interchangeable terms. + +It is quite natural that Dr. Farrar should wish to get rid of this word +"inspiration," since it can no longer be defined without danger. But we +must remind him that, if it does not occur in the Church Articles, it +certainly does occur in the Bible. "All scripture," Paul said, "is given +by inspiration of God."* + + * Timothy iii. 16. + + +And as the New Testament was not then in existence, Paul of course +referred to the Old Testament. This was the "holy scriptures" which +Timothy had "known from a child." And Peter is, if possible, more +definite than Paul. He speaks of the "more sure word of prophecy," +surer than the very voice heard by the three disciples on the mount +of transfiguration. This "prophecy of the scripture" he declares to be +never of "any private interpretation"--which means, according to the +commentators, that it did not spring from any knowledge or personal +conjecture in the prophet. Finally, he clinches his exposition by +affirming that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy +Ghost."* + + * 2 Peter i. 19-21. We quote this epistle as Peter's, + because it passes as his in the New Testament, not because + it was really his writing. + +According to the Sixth Article of the Church of England, both these +epistles, bearing the names of Paul and Peter, are among the books +"of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." Dr. Farrar is +therefore bound by them in logic and honor. He is not free to cast aside +the Biblical term of _inspiration_ nor free to minimise as he pleases +the "moving" influence of the Holy Ghost in either the New or the +Old Testament. As a clergyman of the Church of England, he assumes an +unwarrantable freedom; a freedom which is no more sanctioned by her +Articles than it is by the letter or spirit of the Scriptures. He +departs entirely from the primitive and real position of Protestantism; +namely, that the Bible is the absolute standard of faith and practice, +and that, wherever it is dark or dubious, it must be interpreted by +itself. He treads the _via media_ of compromise and irrationality; +neither going over to Rome, which claims to be inspired, like the Bible, +and to be the vehicle of the living voice of God for the infallible +interpretation of the written revelation--nor going over to Rationalism, +which regards the Catholic Church as but a human institution, and the +Bible as but a human composition. Believe that God has spoken, according +to the words of Paul and Peter, and the Catholic theory is the only +satisfactory one; disbelieve it, and there is no logical alternative but +the most thoroughgoing Rationalism. + + + + +XI. AN ORIENTAL BOOK + +Dr. Farrar stumbles, on one occasion, against the true theory of the +Bible. Having to furnish an excuse, if not a justification, for the +outrageous crudity of a good deal of its language, he reminds us that +decorum changes with time and place. "The rigid external modesty and +propriety of modern and English literature," he observes, "is disgusted +and offended by statements which gave no such shock to ancient and +Eastern readers." And he adds that "The plain-spokenness of Orientals +involved no necessary offence against abstract morality." This is +true enough, but the argument should be developed. What is urged in +extenuation of the grossness of the Scripture is really applicable all +round--to its mythology, its legends, its religion, its philosophy, +its ethics, and its poetry. The Bible is an oriental book. And this +one statement, when properly understood, gives us the true key to +its interpretation, the real criterion of its character, and the just +measure of its value. + +It has been well remarked that the ordinary Christian in this part of +the world appears to imagine that the Bible dropped down from heaven--in +English. Even the expounders of the Higher Criticism, in our own +country, read it first in their mother tongue; and although they +afterwards read it in the original Greek, and sometimes in the original +Hebrew, they are under the witchery of early impressions, and their +apologetics are almost entirely founded upon the vernacular Bible. +Thus they lose sight, and their readers never catch a glimpse, of the +predominant element, the governing factor, of the problem. + +All the Bibles in the world, like all the religions in the world, came +from the East. "Not one of them," as Max Müller remarks, "has been +conceived, composed, or written down in Europe."* + + * Max Müller, Natural Religion, p. 538. + +He classes the _Pilgrim's Progress_ among the "many books which have +exercised a far greater influence on religious faith and moral conduct +than the Bibles of the world"; but Bunyan's originality was artistic and +not religious; he absorbed the Puritanism of his age, and reproduced it +in the form of a magnificent allegory. Religious originality does not +belong to the Western mind, which is too scientific and practical. Every +one of the fashionable crazes that spring up from time to time, and have +their day and give place to a successor, is merely a garment from the +old wardrobe of superstition. This is true of Theosophy, for instance; +all its doctrines, ideas, and jargon being borrowed from India. +"There are five countries only," Max Müller says, "which have been +the birthplace of Sacred Books: (1) India, (2) Persia, (3) China, (4) +Palestine, (5) Arabia." All come from the East, and all have a generic +and historic resemblance. Not one of them was written by the founder of +its religion. Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Christ did not write +a line of the New Testament, Mohammed did not write the Koran, Zoroaster +did not write the Avesta, the Buddhist Scriptures were not written by +Buddha, and the Vedic hymns are far more ancient than writing in India. +All these Sacred Books embody the accepted beliefs of whole peoples; all +of them are canonical and authoritative; all contain very much the same +ethical groundwork, in the form of elementary moral prohibitions; all +of them are held to be of divine character; all of them become a kind of +fetish, which is worshipped and obeyed at the expense of the free spirit +of man, who is told not to be wise above what is written. Ecclesiastical +or kingly authority has generally given these books their final form and +character. Their establishment takes place in open daylight, but their +origin is more or less shrouded in mystery. "It is curious," Max Müller +says, "that wherever we have sacred books, they represent to us the +oldest language of the country. It is so in India, it is the same +in Persia, in China, in Palestine, and very nearly so in Arabia."* +According to Max Müller, the Veda was referred to in India fifteen +hundred years before Christ. Consequently it precedes by many centuries +even the earliest parts of the Bible:-- + +"The Vedic hymns come to us as a collection of sacred poetry, belonging +to certain ancient families, and afterwards united in one collection, +called the Rig-veda-sa_m_hitâ. The names of the poets, handed down by +tradition, are in most cases purely imaginary names. What is really +important is that in the hymns themselves the poets speak of their +thoughts and words as _God-given_--this we can understand--while at a +later time the theory came in that not the thoughts and words only, but +every syllable, every letter, every accent, had been communicated to +half-divine and half-human prophets by Brahma, so that the slightest +mistake in pronunciation, even to the pronunciation of an accent, would +destroy the charm and efficacy of these ancient prayers."** + + * Natural Religion, p. 295. + + ** Max Müller, ibid, p. 558. + +With a slight variation of language, to suit the special circumstances, +nearly all this would apply to the Bible. + +Christianity, like Brahmanism, like Buddhism, like Mohammedanism, is a +book religion. It is "God-given," or revealed, and its Bible has been +elevated to a position of infallibility, above the reach of human +reason, precisely like the Bibles of other oriental faiths. This +sanctification of every thought and word and letter is declared by +Max Müller to have been "the death-blow given to the Vedic religion," +destroying its power of growth and change. A similar observation is made +by Sir William Muir respecting the petrified gospel of the Koran:-- + +"From the stiff and rigid shroud in which it is thus swathed, the +religion of Mohammed cannot emerge. It has no plastic power beyond +that exercised in its earliest days. Hardened now and inelastic, it can +neither adapt itself nor yet shape its votaries, nor even suffer them +to shape themselves, to the varying circumstances, the wants and +developments of mankind."* + +How curious it is, after reading this strong passage, to come across a +diametrically opposite one in the work of another eminent writer on +the same subject. Professor Arnold closes his important book on the +propagation of the Muslim faith with a reference to "the power of this +religion to adapt itself to the peculiar characteristics and the stage +of development of the people whose allegiance it seeks to win."** +Historically, it is perfectly certain that Mohammedanism _has_ been +found compatible with a high degree of civilisation. Many instances +might be given, but a single one is sufficient. The Mohammedan +civilisation in Spain was far superior to the Christian civilisation +which, after terrible bloodshed and enormous destruction, was +established upon its ruins. The truth is, that religions always change +when they must change, and never otherwise. When the necessity +arises, learned divines will always be found to make the requisite +accommodations. This, indeed, is the explanation of the labors of Dr. +Farrar and other exponents of the Higher Criticism. They are simply +accommodating Christianity, and the Bible with it, to the serious +changes that have taken place in educated opinion and sentiment, in +consequence of the development of physical science, the progress of +historical criticism, and the growth of moral culture. All the truth in +Sir William Muir's impeachment of Mohammedanism is no less applicable +to Christianity. The Bible, like the Koran, and like every other +revelation, stereotyped old ideas, and gave them a factitious longevity. +Dr. Farrar himself not only admits, but contends, that the Bible has +been invoked against every advance in science, politics, and sociology. +What more could be said of the Koran or any other sacred book? + + * Sir William Muir, Rise and Decline of Islam, pp. 40, 41. + + ** T. W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam. + +Bring any oriental religion into Europe, and it must change or perish. +Christianity is not true, as Mr. Gladstone and so many orthodox +apologists have argued, because the Christian nations are at the top +of civilisation. The Caucasian mind led the world before the advent of +Christianity, and it is doing the same now. Christians are apt to forget +that Greece and Italy are in Europe, and that Athens and Rome--two +imperishable names in the world's history--were far-shining cities +before a good deal of the Old Testament was written. + +Keep any oriental religion in the East, however, and there is no +saying how long it will last unaltered. Do not travellers talk of +the unchanging East? The civilisation of China is almost what it was +thousands of years ago. Syrian life to-day is like a picture from the +Bible. And the old Orient, as Flaubert said, is the land of religions; +and where Asia looks upon Europe, and the communication between them +began of yore, you may sample all the faiths of antiquity. Flaubert +remarked that the assemblage of all the old religions in Syria was +something incredible; it was enough to study for centuries.* + + * Flaubert, Correspondence, vol. i., p. 344. + +Asia spawned forth all the great religions, and produced all the great +revelations. Arabia is in Africa, but the Arabs are not Africans; they +belong to the Semitic race, like the Jews, and the Koran embodies Jewish +and other Semitic traditions. + +The Bible, then, is an oriental book, an Asiatic book, in spite of the +Greek elements which are incorporated in the New Testament, notably in +the fourth Gospel. It has never been in harmony with the real life of +the West. When it has dominated the life of a particular locality, for a +certain period, the result has been something typically non-European; as +in the case of Scotland under the despotism of the Kirk, whose spiritual +slaves prompted Heine's epigram that the Presbyterian Scotchman was a +Jew, born in the north, who ate pork. Modern civilisation is mainly a +return to the spirit of secular progress which inspired the immortal +achievements of Greece and Rome. + +"The revival of learning and the Renaissance are memorable as the first +sturdy breasting by humanity of the hither slope of the great hollow +which lies between us and the ancient world. The modern man, reformed +and regenerated by knowledge, looks across it, and recognises on the +opposite ridge, in the far-shining cities and stately porticoes, in the +art, politics, and science of antiquity, many more ties of kinship and +sympathy than in the mighty concave between, wherein dwell his Christian +ancestry, in the dim light of scholasticism and theology."* + + * James Cotter Morison, The Service of Man, p. 178. + +Well, if we once fully recognise the Bible as an oriental book, we are +on the road to its complete comprehension. Its grossness of speech, its +gratuitous reference to animal functions, its designation of males +by their sexual attributes even on the most serious occasions, its +religious observances in connection with pregnancy and birth, its +very rite of circumcision; all this, and much more, becomes perfectly +intelligible. It is in keeping with all we know of the ideas, practices, +and language of the East. Moreover, we perceive why it is that +similarities to the theology, the poetry, and the ethics of the Bible +have been so liberally disclosed by the progress of oriental studies. +The Bible, being brought from the East, has to be carried back there to +be properly understood. It is true that Christian divines have offered +their own explanation of these similarities. At first they declared them +to be Satanic anticipations, devilish pre-mockeries, of God's own truth. +Then they declared them to be confused echoes of the oracles of Jehovah. +Finally, they declare them to be evidences of the fact that, although +God chose the Jewish race as the medium of his special revelation, he +also revealed himself partially to other nations. But these explanations +are alike fantastic. They rest upon no ground of history or evolution. +The real explanation is that the Bible is one of the many sacred books +of the East. Its differences from the rest are not of kind, but of +degree; and any superiority that may be claimed for it must henceforth +be argued upon this basis. + +This oriental Bible is at utter variance with the vital beliefs, the +political and social tendencies, and the ethical aspirations, of the +present age. Science has destroyed its naive supernaturalism; reason +has placed its personal God--the magnified, non-natural man--in his own +niche in the world's Pantheon; philosophy has carried us far beyond its +primitive conceptions of human society; our morality has outgrown its +hardness and insularity, however we may still appreciate its finer +ejaculations; even the most pious Christians, with the exception of a +few "peculiar" people, only pay a hypocritical homage to its clearest +injunctions; and the higher development of decency and propriety makes +us turn from its crude expressions with a growing sense of disgust, +while the progress of humanity fills us more and more with a loathing +of its frightful wars and ruthless massacres, its tales of barbaric +cruelty, and its crowning infamy of an everlasting hell. + + + + +XII. FICTITIOUS SUPREMACY + +There are two remarkable characteristics of present-day apologies for +Christianity: one is extravagant laudation of Jesus as man and +teacher, the other is extravagant laudation of the Bible as ethics and +literature. Both these characteristics are really signs of the decadence +of positive faith. Anyone who sincerely believed in the deity of Jesus +would shrink from praising his human virtues. To such a person it would +savor strongly of impertinence. Nor would anyone who really believed the +Bible to be the Word of God make it the subject of meaner panegyrics. +It seems ridiculous to argue that God wrote with unusual power and +sublimity, and is actually the very first of known authors. But this +is what Dr. Farrar does, essentially, in the last six chapters of +his volume. No wonder, therefore, that all the vices of his style are +displayed in the accomplishment of this extraordinary task. He has to +make several quotations from great or distinguished writers, but he +catches no literary infection from them. One of these quotations is from +brave old George Fox. "I saw," the great Quaker wrote, "that there was +an ocean of darkness and death; but an infinite ocean of Light and Love +flowed over the ocean of Darkness; and in that I saw the infinite +love of God." This is magnificent writing. It has vision, force, and +simplicity. In its way it could hardly be beaten. And how poor in +comparison is the turgid pulpit rhetoric of Dr. Farrar! + +We are told by this wordy defender of the faith that the Christian +Scriptures are "the Supreme Bible of Humanity"--as though, if it be the +Word of God, it could be anything less. Our attention is called to +its "unique transcendence"--which is a penny-a-lining pleonasm. We +are informed that it has "triumphed with ease over the assaults of its +enemies"--which is a remarkably modest assertion, especially in view +of the fact that the "enemies" of the Bible were, for fifteen hundred +years, generally subdued by persecution, imprisonment, torture, +assassination, and the burning of their writings. We are further +informed that the Bible commands the reverence, guides the thoughts, +educates the souls, and kindles the moral aspirations of men "through +all the world"--which is an extremely sober statement in view of the +fact that all the _nominal_ Christians, not to be too precise about +the _real_ ones, do not amount to more than a fourth of the world's +inhabitants. So wonderful a book is the Bible that "the Lord Jesus +Christ himself did not disdain to quote from the Old Testament"--which +was his own word, in the sense that it was (professedly) written under +divine inspiration. This is absurd enough, but it is nothing to the +rapturous eulogy of the Bible which follows it. "All the best and +brightest English verse [not _some_, mark, but _all!_], from the poems of +Chaucer to the plays of Shakespeare in their noblest parts, are echoes +of its lessons; and from Cowper to Wordsworth," Dr. Farrar says, "from +Coleridge to Tennyson, the greatest of our poets have drawn from its +pages their loftiest wisdom." Really, one is tempted to ask whether such +stuff as this is possible in any other country than England, or perhaps +America; and whether, even in England or America, it is possible outside +churches, chapels, and Sunday-schools. Sixty pages later--Dr. Farrar +could not sober down in that long interval--he declares that "It was the +Bible which created the prose literature of England." Now if this were +true it would not serve Dr. Farrar's ostensible purpose. It would not +prove that the Bible is a divine revelation. It would only prove the +historical--that is to say, the largely accidental--importance of +the Authorised Version of the Bible in the development of English +literature. But this declaration of Dr. Farrar's is _not_ true. The +Authorised Version did not initiate, it rather closed, a period of our +literary history. The English of the translators in their Preface is +vastly different from the English of their translation. Indeed, they +were rather collators than translators. They took the older versions +as the basis of their work, they altered as little as possible, and the +alterations they did make were strictly in harmony with the time-honored +style of those older versions, a style which was even then very archaic. +Dr. Marsh, himself a devout Christian, contends that "the dialect of +this translation was not, at the time of the revision, or, indeed, at +any other period, the actual current book-language nor the colloquial +speech of the English people." He maintains that it was "a consecrated +diction" which had been "gradually built up" from the time of Wycliffe.* +Its language was not the language of Chaucer's prose, nor even of +Wycliffe's own prose, any more than it was the language of Bacon's +or Shakespeare's, or even that of divines like Hooker. The Authorised +Version is indeed a monument of English, but of special English. It has +always stood aside from the main development of English prose. Of course +it has exercised a considerable influence, but that influence has been +chiefly indirect. From the young naive prose of Malory to the mature and +calculated prose of Swift--not to come farther--there is a clear stream +of development, to which the language and style of the English Bible +have contributed infinitely less than is generally assumed. With the +single exception of Bunyan's masterpiece, which stands apart and alone, +it is difficult to name a first-class prose competition that was greatly +indebted to our Authorised Version. Even the divines disregarded it as +a literary model, and perhaps most conspicuously so in the seventeenth +century, immediately after its publication. + + * George P. Marsh, Lectures on the English Language + (Murray), pp. 441, 445. + +Dr. Farrar is entirely wrong in declaring that the Bible created the +prose literature of England. Even if he only means that English prose +was vastly profited by the religious literature which followed upon the +heels of the Reformation, it is easy to reply that this literature was +mainly controversial and never remarkable for the higher graces and +dexterities. For those virtues, prior to the time of Taylor and South, +we must turn to secular and even to "profane" compositions; a fact which +is well known to every real student of English literature. + +The next device of Dr. Farrar's advocacy would be astounding if one +did not know the muddle-headed public for whom he writes. He devotes a +monstrous number of pages to the citing of a "cloud of witnesses to the +glory and supremacy of the Holy Scriptures," beginning with the +great John Henry Newman and winding up with the notorious Hall Caine. +Sandwiched between these dissimilar "witnesses" are Heine, Goethe, +Rousseau, Wesley, Emerson, Carlyle, Huxley, Arnold, Ruskin, and a host +of others. Most of them were Christians, and afford a partisan testimony +which is not very valuable. In any case, there is no real argument in +a list of names. When a man is being tried on a definite charge, it is +idle to recite a catalogue of his distinguished friends. Witnesses to +character are only heard in mitigation of sentence after the jury has +returned a verdict of Guilty. Perhaps this fact had its influence on Dr. +Farrar's mind; at any rate, he calls his "cloud of witnesses" when he +has ended all he had to say in the form of argument. + +These witnesses, moreover, are jumbled together without the slightest +discrimination. Let us take a few illustrations to show the futility of +Dr. Farrar's method. + +John Wesley cried "Give me the book of God! Here is knowledge enough +for me. Let me be a man of one book." Yes, and John Wesley believed in +witchcraft, and honestly declared that to throw over witchcraft was to +throw over the Bible. He had, also, his own way of proving "the divine +inspiration of the Holy Scriptures." He wrote a "Clear and Concise +Demonstration," from which we take the following extract:-- + +"I beg leave to propose a short, clear, and strong argument to prove the +divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. + +"The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men +or devils, or of God. + +"(1) It could not be the invention of good men or angels; for they +neither would nor could make a book, and tell lies all the time they +were writing it, saying, 'Thus saith the Lord,' when it was their own +invention. + +"(2) It could not be the invention of bad men or devils; for they would +not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns +their souls to hell to all eternity. + +"(3) Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible must be given by +divine inspiration."* + + * John Wesley's Works (1865), vol. xi., pp. 464-465. + +Could anything be more childish than this ridiculous play upon the word +"invention," and this absurd supposition that "good men" and "bad men" +are two sharp divisions of the human species? We know that all men +are mixtures, and that honest men may be mistaken, and tell falsehoods +without lying. We are therefore able to measure the value of John +Wesley's "demonstration" that the Bible is inspired. + +John Ruskin thanks his mother for daily reading the Bible with him in +his childhood, and daily making him learn a part of it by heart. This is +seized upon by Dr. Farrar, who places it in his list of testimonies. But +it might have been wise--it would certainly have been honest--to tell +the reader how Ruskin views the Bible. This great writer has formulated +four theories of the Bible, the third of which he has declared to be +"for the last half-century the theory of the soundest scholars and +thinkers in Europe." And what is this theory? Here it is in Ruskin's own +words:-- + +"That the mass of religious Scripture contains merely the best efforts +which we hitherto know to have been made by any of the races of men +towards the discovery of some relations with the spiritual world; that +they are only trustworthy as expressions of the enthusiastic visions or +beliefs of earnest men oppressed by the world's darkness, and have no +more authoritative claim on our faith than the religious speculations +and histories of the Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, and Indians; but are, +in common with all these, to be reverently studied, as containing +a portion, divinely appointed, of the best wisdom which the human +intellect, earnestly seeking for help from God, has hitherto been able +to gather between birth and death."* + + * Time and Tide, pp. 48, 49. It should be noted that the + Letters in this pregnant little volume were written by + Ruskin as far back as 1867. + +Surely this is a very different view of the Bible from the one which is +presented by Dr. Farrar. Setting aside a little religious phraseology, +a Freethinker might endorse Ruskin's theory of the Bible. Everything is +substantially granted to the Freethinker when it is admitted that the +Bible has "no authoritative claim on our faith." Whatever truth and +beauty it contains may then be thankfully accepted. + +Professor Huxley's famous eulogy of the Bible, as a book to be read in +Board Schools, is made the most of by Dr. Farrar. He must have winced, +however, at Huxley's reference to what a sensible teacher would +"eliminate" as "not desirable for children to occupy themselves with." +He was not sensitive enough to wince at the statement that "even the +noble Stoic, Marcus Antoninus, is too high and refined for an ordinary +child"--which is virtually a testimonial in his favor for grown-up +men and women. Dr. Farrar crows lustily over what he calls "Professor +Huxley's testimony to the unique glory of the Scriptures." It is +perhaps well for him that Huxley is incapable of resenting this +misrepresentation. Still, it must be admitted that on this occasion, as +on one or two others, Huxley did gratuitously play into the hands of +the enemy. He might have known the kind of use they would make of his +"graceful concessions." + +Dr. Farrar had not the honesty to tell his readers that Huxley had +the most sovereign contempt for _his_ theory of the Bible. The great +Agnostic held, for instance, that "belief in a demonic world" is +inculcated throughout the New Testament, and that this belief is +"totally devoid of foundation." He declared that Inspiration, in the +school of the Higher Criticism, is "deprived of its old intelligible +sense," and is "watered down into a mystification." He laughed at +the miracles of the Gospels, and made great fun of the story of the +bedevilled Gadarean swine. He held that religion and morality +have really no necessary connection, and sneered at the +"supernaturalists"--gentlemen like Dr. Farrar--who took to patronising +morality when they saw its importance, and "have ever since tried to +persuade mankind that the existence of ethics is bound up with that of +supernaturalism."* + +To accept a testimonial from such a writer is abject on the part of a +clergyman defending the inspiration of the Bible; and to parade it is +simply contemptible. More than fifty years ago, when this petty trick of +Christian apologetics was coming into vogue, it was rebuked by Newman, +who disdained as "unworthy" the practice of "boasting of the admissions +of infidels concerning the beauty or utility of the Christian system, as +though," he added with fine sarcasm, "it were a great thing for a divine +gift to obtain praise for human excellence."** + + * Huxley, Science and Christian Tradition, pp. xv., 25, 54, + etc. + + ** John Henry Newman, University Sermons, p. 71. + +Dr. Farrar's citation of Matthew Arnold is open to the same kind of +criticism. "He retained but little faith in the miraculous," we are +told, and "his creed was anything but orthodox." But is it fair to +suggest that Arnold had any creed at all? He rejected the idea of a +personal God, he regarded Jesus as a merely human teacher, and it is +evident from his books and his published correspondence that he had no +belief in personal immortality. As for his "faith in the miraculous," it +was not "little," with or without the "but"; it was a minus quantity. +He positively disbelieved in the miraculous. It was a part of his plain +message to the Churches that the reign of the Bible miracles was doomed, +that they were all fairy tales, and that, if the fate of the Bible was +bound up with theirs, the Bible was doomed too. Arnold said all this +when he was living, and it is useless for Dr. Farrar to disguise +the fact, or to minimise it by artful phrases. We commend to his +attention--would that we could commend it to the attention of his +readers!--the following passage from a letter of Arnold's to Sir +Mountstuart Grant Duff, dated July 22, 1882:-- + +"The central fact of the situation always remains to me this: that +whereas the basis of things amidst all chance and change has even in +Europe generally been for ever so long supernatural Christianity, and +far more so in England than in Europe generally, this basis is certainly +going--going amidst the full consciousness of the continentals that it +is going, and amidst the provincial unconsciousness of the English that +it is going."* + + * Matthew Arnold, Letters, vol. ii., p. 201. + +Considering what Arnold's views really were, is it of any use to make +the statement of rather doubtful accuracy that the Bible was his "chief +and constant study"? Is it not misleading to talk of his "intense +reverence and admiration for the Sacred Books"? He did not regard them +as _sacred_. He studied and valued the Bible as literature, not as +revelation; and it is monstrous to cite him as a witness in favor of the +Bible as it is represented in the school of Dr. Farrar. + +We need not waste time over Dr. Farrar's _banal_ remark that +Livingstone, Stanley, and the Bible together have caused "the extension +of the British protectorate over 170,000 square miles" in a certain +part of Africa. We may treat with the same indifference his boast of the +millions of copies of the "Sacred Books" distributed by the British +and American Bible Societies. Such "evidences" are only fit for the +street-corner. Only a low-minded, commercial-sodden Christian could +imagine that the multiplication of copies of a book is any sort of +testimony to its intrinsic truth and value; and in this particular case +the demand is a forced one, depending on the incessant stimulus of the +supply. + +Another argument of Dr. Farrar's for the "supremacy" of the Bible +is based upon the history of Christian martyrdoms. He gives several +instances of Christians, old and young, rich and poor, high-placed and +humble, who have died for their faith, and entered "the dark river and +its still waters with a smile upon their faces." He attributes their +fortitude to trust in the promises of the Bible. But he does not tell us +how it proves the truth of the Bible either as history or as revelation. +Millions of Jews have died at the hands of Christian bigots, and their +heroism amidst torture and massacre has never been exceeded in human +annals. Does this prove that the New Testament is not a revelation, and +that Jesus Christ was not God? Men of other faiths have faced death +with sublime courage. Does this prove that their beliefs were accurate? +Mohammedans are notoriously ready to die for their religion; the +Mohammedan dervishes in the Soudan never quailed before the most +murderous storm of shell and bullets; they fell in thousands at +Omdurman, and the Khalifa's standard-bearer, when all around him were +slain, stood upright under the holy flag, with a smile of defiance on +his face, which never left it until he sank shot-riddled upon the heap +of his dead comrades. Does this prove that the Koran is the Word of God? + +The orthodox argument seems to be this: if a Christian dies for the +Bible, that proves it to be a divine book; if a devotee of any other +faith dies for his Sacred Scripture. That proves nothing--unless it be +the obstinacy of wrong opinions. + +There is something intensely comical in the seriousness with which Dr. +Farrar relates the martyrdom of Christians who were put to death by +other Christians. He does not see that all he gains on one side is lost +on the other, that Christian persecution balances Christian fortitude, +and that nothing is left to the credit of his account. He devotes a +whole page to the murder of Margaret Lachlan and Margaret Wilson by +"brutal and tyrannous bigots" at Wigton in 1677. These two women +were Covenanting Christians, and their murderers were Episcopalian +Christians. They died singing psalms which their murderers believed +to be the word of God. It is difficult to see what advantage the Bible +derives from this incident. + +One may be interested by the reminder that Oliver Cromwell quoted two +verses from the hundred and seventeenth Psalm after his victory at +Dunbar; but one may remember on one's own account that David Leslie, the +defeated Scots general, was as devout a Christian and Bible-reader as +Oliver Cromwell, and that his piety was stimulated by the presence in +his camp of a whole congregation of Presbyterian ministers. Altogether +it is a pity that Dr. Farrar picks his illustrations in this one-eyed +fashion. He forgets that other people may have two eyes, and see on both +sides of them. He almost invites the sarcasm that the one-eyed man is +only a leader amongst the blind. + +The real secret of whatever supremacy belongs to the Bible is to be +sought in a different direction. It was long ago remarked by a French +Freethinker, in a work attributed to Boulanger, but really written by +D'Holbach, that education and authority were the two great pillars of +the Christian revelation. + +"If a body of men in possession of power, and able to like advantage of +the credulity of mankind, were to find their interest concerned in doing +so, they would make men believe at the end of a few centuries that the +adventures of Don Quixote are perfectly true, and that the prophecies +of Nostrodamus have been inspired by God himself. By dint of glosses, +of commentaries, and of allegories, it is easy to discover and to prove +what one pleases; however glaring an imposture may be, it can be made at +last, by the aid of time, cunning, and power, to pass for truth which +no one must doubt. Deceivers who are obstinate, and who are supported +by public authority, can make ignorant people, who are always credulous, +believe anything, especially if they can persuade them that there is +merit in not noticing inconsistencies, contradictions, and palpable +absurdities, and that there is danger in making use of their reason."* + + * Examen Critique de St. Paul, c. 3. + +Abolish all the Churches that exist for the purpose of preaching up the +Bible as a divine revelation; destroy all the clerical corporations +that live and operate upon this basis; take away, at least, the +public revenues and special privileges they enjoy; deprive them of +the patronage of the legislature and the government; remove their Holy +Scriptures from the public schools, where they are retained in defiance +of the principles of civil and religious liberty; let little children +no longer be suborned in favor of the supernatural claims of this book +before they are able to judge for themselves; let the Bible take its own +chance with the rest of the world's literature; and then, and not till +then, can its natural supremacy be established. But the clergy know that +such an experiment would be absolutely fatal to their pretensions. They +dare not accept a fair field and no favor. They know in their heart +of hearts that they are serving a lie. Their dishonesty is apparent at +every turn. Dr. Farrar calls upon England to "cling to her open Bible." +Well, the Peculiar People do so. They read the open Bible, they follow +its teaching as closely as possible, they obey the commandments of Jesus +Christ. And what is the result? They are cast into prison like felons. +One of them is suffering that pain and indignity at the present moment. + +A good husband, a good father, a good neighbor, a good citizen, he has +committed the crime of practically believing what Dr. Farrar and the +rest of the clergy facetiously preach--namely, that the Bible is the +Book of God, and the divine rule of faith and conduct. For this crime he +is imprisoned under the verdict of a Christian jury and the sentence of +a Christian judge; and not a single Christian minister raises his voice +against this infamous spectacle. Christianity is now only an organised +hypocrisy. It subsists upon an inherited fund of power, wealth, and +reputation. Even the clergy have no vital belief in the inspiration +of the Bible. It is merely the charter under which they trade. It is a +source of oracular texts for their ambiguous sermons. It is lauded +and adored, and neglected and defied. To bring it into disbelief and +contempt by argument and ridicule is a misdemeanor; to bring it into +disbelief and contempt by acting upon it is a felony. The only safe +course is that adopted by the clergy, who neither believe it nor +disbelieve it, but use it as it serves their occasions; and as long as +it answers their ends it will remain the Book of God. + +Let us not be misunderstood. We are far from desiring to engage in a +crusade against the Bible as a collection of ancient literature. We are +neither called upon nor disposed to deny its real merits, however they +are exaggerated in religious circles. It undoubtedly contains some fine +poetry, occasional pathos, and more frequent sublimity. Its style has +nearly always the charm of simplicity. All this may be allowed without +playing into the hands of the super-naturalists. Further than this we +need not go. In our opinion, it is absurd to place the Bible at the +top of human compositions. More than sixty writers are alleged to have +contributed to its production, but the whole mass of them do not rival +the magnificent and fecund genius of Shakespeare. Above all, they have +no wit or humour, in which Shakespeare abounds; and wit and humor belong +to the higher development of intellect and emotion. No, the Bible is +not the unapproachable masterpiece which it is declared to be by its +fanatical devotees. But whatever its intrinsic merits may prove to be, +in the light of long and free appreciation, the Bible cannot be accepted +as a revelation from God without wilful self-delusion on the part of +educated men and women. If God had a message for his children, he would +at least make it clear; but this revelation needs another revelation +to explain it, and creeds and commentaries are the symbols of its +obscurity. God's message would tell us what we could not otherwise +learn, but there is no such information in the Bible. God would apprise +us of what he specially desired us to remember, and would not mix it +confusedly with a tremendous mass of alien matter. God would not puzzle +us; he would enlighten us. He would make his communication so clear that +a wayfaring man, though a fool, could understand it; whereas, if the +Bible be his communication, no wayfaring man, unless he _is_ a fool, +pretends to understand it. God would not clog his message with myths, +legends, mysteries, absurdities, falsehoods, and filth; and leave us to +extricate it with endless labor and perpetual uncertainty. The so-called +Higher Criticism is therefore as absurd as the old Orthodoxy in calling +the Bible a work of inspiration. Its exponents affirm that God has left +us to our own knowledge and reason in regard to every other subject but +religion and morality. They are Evolutionists in part. But the principle +of Evolution must be applied over the whole field. Everything is +natural, and happens under the universal law of causation. There are no +miracles, and there never were any except in ignorant imaginations. +But the death of miracles is the death of inspiration. The triumph of +science involves the ruin of every supernatural system. Revelation is +necessarily miraculous, and when the belief in miracles expires the +death-knell rings for every Book of God. We are then left to the +discipline of culture. + +And what is culture? It is steeping our minds in the wisest and +loveliest thoughts of all the ages. And each of us may thus make his own +Bible for himself--a true Bible of Humanity. + + + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Book Of God, by G. W. Foote + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BOOK OF GOD *** + +***** This file should be named 38092-8.txt or 38092-8.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/8/0/9/38092/ + +Produced by David Widger + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/38092-8.zip b/38092-8.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..7623dd6 --- /dev/null +++ b/38092-8.zip diff --git a/38092-h.zip b/38092-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f15f1b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/38092-h.zip diff --git a/38092-h/38092-h.htm b/38092-h/38092-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0ec9b8b --- /dev/null +++ b/38092-h/38092-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,3435 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?> + +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" > + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en"> + <head> + <title> + The Book of God, by G. W. Foote + </title> + <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve"> + + body { margin:5%; background:#faebd0; text-align:justify} + P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .25em; margin-bottom: .25em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } + blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 20%;} + div.fig { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; } + div.middle { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; } + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;} + .pagenum {display:inline; font-size: 70%; font-style:normal; + margin: 0; padding: 0; position: absolute; right: 1%; + text-align: right;} + pre { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;} + +</style> + </head> + <body> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Book Of God, by G. W. Foote + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Book Of God + In The Light Of The Higher Criticism + +Author: G. W. Foote + +Release Date: November 22, 2011 [EBook #38092] +Last Updated: January 25, 2013 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BOOK OF GOD *** + + + + +Produced by David Widger + + + + + +</pre> + <div style="height: 8em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h1> + THE BOOK OF GOD + </h1> + <h2> + IN THE LIGHT OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM + </h2> + <h3> + WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO DEAN FARRAR'S NEW APOLOGY + </h3> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <h2> + By G. W. Foote + </h2> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <h4> + London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. + </h4> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <h2> + Contents + </h2> + <p> + <a href="#link2H_4_0001"><strong>THE BOOK OF GOD.</strong></a><br /> + </p> + <table summary="" style="margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto"> + <tr> + <td> + <a href="#link2H_4_0002">I. </a> + </td> + <td> + INTRODUCTION + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> + <a href="#link2H_4_0003">II. </a> + </td> + <td> + THE BIBLE CANON + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> + <a href="#link2H_4_0004">III. </a> + </td> + <td> + THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> + <a href="#link2H_4_0005">IV. </a> + </td> + <td> + MIRACLES AND WITCHCRAFT + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> + <a href="#link2H_4_0006">V. </a> + </td> + <td> + THE BIBLE AND FREETHOUGHT + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> + <a href="#link2H_4_0007">VI. </a> + </td> + <td> + MORALS AND MANNERS + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> + <a href="#link2H_4_0008">VII. </a> + </td> + <td> + POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROGRESS + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> + <a href="#link2H_4_0009">VIII. </a> + </td> + <td> + INSPIRATION + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> + <a href="#link2H_4_0010">IX. </a> + </td> + <td> + THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> + <a href="#link2H_4_0011">X. </a> + </td> + <td> + THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> + <a href="#link2H_4_0012">XI. </a> + </td> + <td> + AN ORIENTAL BOOK + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> + <a href="#link2H_4_0013">XII. </a> + </td> + <td> + FICTITIOUS SUPREMACY + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td> + </td> + </tr> + </table> + <p> + <br /> <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> <br /> <a name="link2H_4_0001" id="link2H_4_0001"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h1> + THE BOOK OF GOD. + </h1> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0002" id="link2H_4_0002"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + I. INTRODUCTION. + </h2> + <p> + During the fierce controversy between the divines of the Protestant + Reformation and those of the Roman Catholic Church, the latter asserted + that the former treated the Bible—and treated it quite naturally—as + a wax nose, which could be twisted into any shape and direction. Those who + championed the living voice of God in the Church, against the dead letter + of the written Bible, were always prone to deride the consequences of + private judgment when applied to such a large and heterogeneous volume as + the Christian Scriptures. They contended that the Bible is a misleading + book when read by itself in the mere light of human reason; that any + doctrine may be proved from it by a judicious selection of texts; and that + Christianity would break up into innumerable sects unless the Church acted + as the inspired interpreter of the inspired revelation. They argued, + further, that the Bible was really not what the Protestants supposed it to + be; and what they said on this point was a curious anticipation of a good + deal of the so-called Higher Criticism. + </p> + <p> + Both sides were right, and both sides were wrong, in this dispute. The + Protestants were right against the Church; the Catholics were right + against the Bible. It was reserved for Rationalism to accept and harmonise + the double truth, and to wage war against both infallibilities. + </p> + <p> + The Bible is said to be inspired, but the man who reads it is not. The + consequence is that he deduces from it a creed in harmony with his own + taste, temper, fancy, and intelligence. He lays emphasis on what fits in + with this creed, and slurs over all that is opposed to it. Every one of + the various and conflicting Protestant sects is founded upon one and the + same infallible book. "The Bible teaches this," says one; "The Bible + teaches that," says another. And they are both right. The Bible does teach + the doctrines of all the sects. But do they not contradict each other? + They do. What is the explanation, then? Why this—the Bible + contradicts itself. + </p> + <p> + The self-contradictions of the Bible have occasioned the writing of many + "Harmonies," in which it is sought to be proved that all the apparent + discrepancies are most admirable agreements when they are properly + understood. All that is requisite is to add a word here, and subtract a + word there; to regard one and the same word as having several different + meanings, and several different words as having one and the same meaning; + and, above all things, to apply this method with a strong and earnest + desire to find harmony everywhere, and a pious intention of giving the + Bible the benefit of the doubt in every case of perplexity. + </p> + <p> + This sort of jugglery, which would be derided and despised in the case of + any other book, is now falling into discredit. Most of the clergy are + ashamed of it. They frankly own, since it can no longer be denied, that a + more honest art of criticism is necessary to save the Bible from general + contempt. + </p> + <p> + But the "Harmony" game is not the only one that is played out. All the + "Reconciliations" of the Bible with science, history, morality, and common + sense, are sharing the same fate. The higher clergy leave such exhibitions + of perverted ingenuity to laymen like the late Mr. Gladstone. Divines like + Canon Driver see that this mental tight-rope dancing may cause + astonishment, but will never produce conviction. They therefore recognise + the difficulties, and seek for a more subtle and plausible method of + removing them. They admit that Moses and Darwin are at variance with each + other; that a great deal of Bible "history" is legendary, and some of it + distinctly false; that such stories as those of Lot's wife and Jonah's + whale are decidedly incredible; that some passages of Scripture are vulgar + and brutal, and others detestably inhuman; and that it is positively + useless to disguise the fact. Yet they are naturally anxious to keep the + Bible on its old pedestal; and this can only be done by means of a new + theory of inspiration. Accordingly, these gentlemen tell us that the Bible + is not the Word of God, but it contains the Word of God. Its writers were + inspired, but their own natural faculties were not entirely suppressed by + the divine spirit. Sometimes the writer's spirit was predominant in the + combination, and the composition was mainly that of an unregenerate son of + Adam. At other times the divine spirit was predominant, and the result was + lofty religion and pure ethics. Moreover, the sacred writers were only + inspired in one direction. God gave them a lift, as it were, in spiritual + matters; but in science and sociology he let them blunder along as they + could. + </p> + <p> + The old wax nose is now receiving a decided new twist, and a considerable + number of accomplished and clever divines are engaged in manipulating it. + One of them is Dean Farrar, who has recently published a bulky volume on + <i>The Bible: its Meaning and Supremacy</i>, which we shall subject to a + very careful criticism. + </p> + <p> + Dean Farrar's book contains nothing that is new to fairly well-read + sceptics. It presents the commonplaces of modern Biblical criticism, with + a due regard to the interests of "the grand old book" and of "true" and + "fundamental" Christianity, which is probably no more than the particular + form of Christianity that is likely to weather the present storm of + controversy. But although this book contains no startling novelties, it is + of importance as the work of a dignitary of the Church of England. It is + also of value, inasmuch as it will be read by many persons who would + shrink from Strauss and Thomas Paine. It is well that someone should tell + Christians the truth, if not the <i>whole</i> truth, about the Bible, and + tell it them from within the fold of faith. His motive in doing so may be + less a regard for truth itself than for the immediate interests of his own + Church; but the main thing is that he does it, and Freethinkers may be + glad even if they are not grateful. + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar's book has an Introduction, and we propose to examine it first. + He opens by telling the clergy that they ought not to pursue an "ostrich + policy" in regard to religious difficulties; that they should not indulge + in "vituperative phrases," nor assume a "disdainful infallibility"; that + they do wrong in denouncing as "wicked," "blasphemous," or "dangerous" + every conviction which differs from their own form of orthodoxy; and that + they must not expect all that they choose to assert to be "accepted with + humble acquiescence." No doubt this advice is quite necessary; and the + fact that it is so shows the value of Christianity, after eighteen + centuries of trial, as a training-school in the virtues of modesty and + humility, to say nothing of justice and temperance. + </p> + <p> + The clergy are also invited by Dr. Farrar to recognise the general + diffusion of scepticism:— + </p> + <p> + "In recent years much has been written under the assumption that + Christianity no longer deserves the dignity of a refutation; or that, at + any rate, the bases on which it rests have been seriously undermined. The + writings of freethinkers are widely disseminated among the working + classes. The Church of Christ has lost its hold on multitudes of men in + our great cities. Those of the clergy who are working in the crowded + centres of English life can hardly be unaware of the extent to which + scepticism exists among our artizans. Many of them have been persuaded to + believe that the Church is a hostile and organised hypocrisy." + </p> + <p> + This is a sad state of things, and how is it to be met? + </p> + <p> + Not by denouncing reason as a wild beast, nor yet by relying on emotion + and ceremonial, for "no religious system will be permanent which is not + based on the convictions of the intellect." Dr. Farrar recommends a + different policy. He has "frequently observed that the objections urged + against Christianity are aimed at dogmas which are no part of Christian + faith, or are in no wise essential to its integrity." Even men of science + have been led astray by objections "based on travesties of its real + tenets." One of these false opinions is that "which maintains the supposed + inerrancy and supernatural infallibility of every book, sentence, and word + of the Holy Bible." This is the principal point to be dealt with; it is + here that we must make an adjustment. Nine-tenths of the case of sceptics + "is made up of attacks on the Bible," and the only way to answer them is + to show that they misunderstand it, and that what they demolish is not + Christianity, but "a mummy elaborately painted in its semblance," or "a + scarecrow set up in its guise." + </p> + <p> + "It is no part of the Christian faith," Dr. Farrar says, "to maintain that + every word of the Bible was dictated supernaturally, or is equally + valuable, or free from all error, or on the loftiest levels of morality, + as finally revealed." Such a view of the Bible has been popularly + expressed by divines, but they really did not mean it, and it "never + formed any part of the Catholic creed of Christendom." The doctrine of + everlasting punishment is another of these delusions. There is such a + thing as future punishment, but it is not everlasting—it is only + eternal. In the same way, the Bible is the Word of God, but it is not + infallible—it is only inspired. And what <i>that</i> means we shall + see as we proceed. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0003" id="link2H_4_0003"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + II. THE BIBLE CANON + </h2> + <p> + The first chapter of Dean Farrar's book deals with the Bible Canon. After + another slap at the poor benighted Christians who still hold that every + word of Scripture is "supernaturally dictated and infallibly true," Dr. + Farrar remarks that the Bible is "not a single nor even a homogeneous + book." Strictly speaking, it is not a book, but a library; and, as is + pointed out later on, it is the remains of a much larger collection which + has mostly perished. The Canon of the Old Testament was "arrived at by + slow and uncertain degrees." The common assertion, that it was fixed by + Ezra and the so-called Great Synagogue in the fifth century before Christ, + is in direct opposition to the facts. It was not really <i>settled</i> + until seventy years after the birth of Christ, when the Rabbis met at + Jamnia, and decided in favor of our present thirty-nine books. According + to Dr. Farrar, there was no special influence from heaven in the + determination of the Canon. It was a work which God left to "the <i>ordinary</i> + influences of the Holy Ghost." Let us see then how these influences + operated on the last and most critical occasion. "The gathering at + Jamnia," says Dr. Farrar, "was a tumultuous assemblage, and in the faction + fights of the Rabbinic parties blood was shed by their scholars. Hence the + decision was regarded as irrevocable and sealed by blood." Such are the <i>ordinary</i> + influences of the Holy Ghost. Its <i>extraordinary</i> influences may be + easily imagined. Their history is written in blood and fire in every + country in Christendom. + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar allows that the Canon of the New Testament was formed "in the + same gradual and tentative way." Many Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypses + were "current" in the "first two centuries." Some of them were "quoted as + sacred books" and read aloud in Christian churches. Seven, at least, of + the books which are now canonical were then "disputed"—namely, the + Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of St. John, + the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, and + the Book of Revelation. The Canon was "formally and officially settled" by + the Council of Laodicea (a.d. 363), and the two Councils of Carthage (a.d. + 397 and 419), the decrees of which were sanctioned by the Trullian Council + (a.d. 692), nearly seven hundred years after Christ. Dr. Farrar holds, + however, that these Councils merely registered the general agreement of + the Christian Church. The real test of canonicity is not the decision of + Councils, which may and do err, but "the verifying faculty of the + Christian consciousness." Dr. Farrar's argument, if it means anything at + all, implies that while Councils may err, consisting as they do of + fallible men, this "Christian consciousness" is really infallible. But as + this Christian consciousness only exists, after all, in individual + Christians, however numerous they may be, or through however many + centuries they may be continued, it is difficult to see how the greatest + multitude of fallibilities can make up one infallibility. And unless it + can, it is also difficult to see how Dr. Farrar can have an infallible + Canon. He disclaims the authority of the Church, on which Catholics rely; + indeed, he says it can hardly be said that the "whole Church" has + pronounced any opinion on the Canon at all. What really happened is + perhaps unconsciously admitted by Dr. Farrar in a rather simple footnote. + "Books were judged," he says, "by the congruity of their contents with the + general Christian conviction." Precisely so; the books did not decide the + doctrine, but the doctrine decided the fate of the books. And how was the + doctrine decided? By fierce controversy, by forgery and sophistication, by + partisan struggles, and finally, after the adhesion of Constantine, by + faction fights that involved the loss of myriads (some say millions) of + lives. + </p> + <p> + Not the slightest attempt is made by Dr. Farrar to meet the difficulty of + his position; indeed, he seems unaware that the difficulty exists. All he + sees is the difficulty of the positions taken up by the Catholics and the + early Protestants. It never occurs to him that he has only shifted from + one difficulty to another. The Catholics rely upon the living voice of God + in the Church. That covers everything, like the sky; and is perfectly + satisfactory, if you can only accept it. The early Protestants repudiated + the authority of the Church, at least as represented by the Pope and + Councils; but they acknowledged the authority of the <i>primitive</i> + Church. They were shrewd enough to see that what cannot possibly rest on + mere reason must rest somewhere on authority; so they admitted as much as + was sufficient to cover the Scriptures and the Creeds, and refused to go a + step farther. Dr. Farrar breaks away from both parties, and what is the + result? He talks about the Canon of the New Testament being formed "by the + exercise of enlightened reason," but he lays down no criterion by which + reason can decide whether a book is inspired or not, or so specially + inspired as to require a place in the Canon. The "verifying faculty of the + Christian consciousness" is one of those comfortable phrases, like the + blessed word Mesopotamia, which are designed to save the pains of accuracy + and the trouble of definite thought. What light does it really shed upon + the following questions? Why is the Protestant Canon different from the + Catholic Canon? Is it owing to some inexplicable difference in the + "verifying faculty of the Christian consciousness" in the two cases; and + by what test shall we decide when the Christian consciousness delivers two + contradictory verdicts? Why is the book of Ecclesiastes in the Canon, + while the book of Ecclesiasticus is (by the Protestants) relegated to the + Apocrypha? Why is the book of Esther in the Canon, and the book of Judith + in the Apocrypha? Why is the book of Jonah in the Canon, and the book of + Tobit in the Apocrypha? Why is the book of Proverbs in the Canon, and the + book of the Wisdom of Solomon in the Apocrypha? These are questions which + the early Protestants answered in their way, but we defy Dr. Farrar to + answer them at all. + </p> + <p> + Let us follow Dr. Farrar into his second chapter. He states, truly enough, + that both the Old and the New Testaments represent "the selected and + fragmentary remains of an extensive literature." Many books referred to in + the Old Testament are lost. Some of the canonical books are anonymous; we + do not know who wrote them. Others bear the names of men "by whom they + could not have been composed." The Pentateuch is "a work of composite + structure," which has been "edited and re-edited several times." The + Psalms are a collection of sacred poems in "five separate books of very + various antiquity." The Proverbs consist of "four or five different + collections." The New Testament is a selection from the voluminous + Christian literature of the earliest centuries. Many Gospels were already + in existence when St. Luke prepared his own. "It is all but certain," Dr. + Farrar says, "that St. Paul, and probable that the other Apostles, must + have written many letters which are no longer preserved." That is to say, + some letters actually written by St. Paul were allowed to perish, while + others not written by him were allowed to bear his name, and were placed + as his in the New Testament Canon! There are passages in the Gospels that + are known to be interpolations; for instance, the story of the Woman taken + in Adultery. This story is "exquisite and supremely valuable," but it is + bracketed in the Revised Version as of "doubtful genuineness." Such + passages are eliminated because they do not "meet the standard of modern + critical requirements." <i>O sancta simplicitas!</i> Is there any reason, + in the natural sense of that word, for believing that John the Apostle + wrote the rest of the Fourth Gospel, any more than he wrote this rejected + story? Dr. Farrar strains at gnats and swallows camels, and prides himself + on his discrimination. + </p> + <p> + His references to Justin Martyr and Papias seem less than ingenuous. It is + not true that Justin Martyr "freely uses the Gospels." Dr. Farrar admits + that he "does not name them." Saying that he "used" them is quietly + assuming that they existed. All that Justin Martyr does, as a matter of + fact, is to cite sayings ascribed to Jesus, but not in one single case + does he cite a saying of Jesus in exactly the form in which it appears in + the Four Gospels. Supposing that he wrote freely, and had ever so bad a + memory, and never took the trouble to refer to the originals, it is simply + inconceivable that he should never be right. Now and then he must have + deviated into accuracy. And the fact that he never does is plain proof + that he had not our Gospels before him. Nor does Papias mention "the + Gospels." He mentions only two, Matthew and Mark, and he says that Matthew + was written in <i>Hebrew</i>, Now, the earliest date at which Papias can + be fixed is a.d. 140. This is chosen by Dr. Farrar, and we will let it + pass unchallenged. And what follows? Why this, that no Christian writer + before a.d. 140 betrays that he has so much as heard of <i>any</i> Gospel, + and even then but <i>two</i> are known instead of <i>four</i>, and one of + these is most certainly <i>not</i> the Gospel which opens the New + Testament. + </p> + <p> + All this was proved a quarter of a century ago by the author of <i>Supernatural + Religion</i>—a work which is systematically ignored by the so-called + Higher Critics because its author was a pronounced Rationalist. An + excellent summary of this writer's demonstrations appears in the late + Matthew Arnold's <i>God and the Bible</i>:— + </p> + <p> + "He seems to have looked out and brought together, to the best of his + powers, every extant <i>passage</i> in which, between the year 70 and the + year 170 of our era, a writer might be supposed to be quoting one of our + Four Gospels. + </p> + <p> + "And it turns out that there is constantly the same sort of variation from + our Gospels, a variation inexplicable in men quoting from a real Canon, + and quite unlike what is found in men quoting from our Four Gospels later + on. It may be said that the Old Testament, too, is often quoted loosely. + True; but it is also quoted exactly; and long passages of it are thus + quoted. It would be nothing that our canonical Gospels were often quoted + loosely, if long passages from them, or if passages, say, of even two or + three verses, were sometimes quoted exactly. But from writers before Irenæus + not one such passage can be produced so quoted. And the author of <i>Supernatural + Religion</i> by bringing all the alleged quotations forward, has proved + it."* + </p> + <p> + Now what is the exact value of these demonstrations? We will give it in + Mr. Arnold's words: "There is no evidence of the establishment of our Four + Gospels as a Gospel-Canon, or even of their existence as they now finally + stand at all, before the last quarter of the second century." Not only is + there no evidence of the orthodox theory, but, as Mr. Arnold says, the + "great weight of evidence is against it." + </p> + <p> + Dr. Giles—another ignored writer, although a clergyman of the Church + of England—had said and proved the very same thing in his <i>Christian + Records</i>; and had appended the following significant declaration:— + </p> + <p> + "There is positive proof, in the writings of the first ages of + Christianity, that the same question as to the age and authorship of the + books of the New Testament was even then agitated, and if it was then set + at rest, this was done, not by a deliberate sentence of the judge, but by + burning all the evidence on which one side of the controversy was + supported,"** + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Arnold, God and the Bible, pp. 222-3. + + ** Dr. Giles, Christian Records, p. 10. +</pre> + <p> + It is probable that Dr. Farrar is well aware that our Four Gospels cannot + be traced beyond the second half of the second century—that is, + considerably more than a century after the alleged date of the death of + Christ. But he shrinks from a frank admission of the fact, and leaves the + reader to find it out for himself. + </p> + <p> + Instead of making this important and, as some think, damning admission, + Dr. Farrar continues his remarks on the Bible Canon. That thirty-six books + are accepted "on the authority of the Church" simply means, he tells us, + that they are accepted "by the general consensus of Christians." The whole + Church, as such, has hardly pronounced an opinion on the subject. The + Churchmen who voted at Laodicea and Carthage "exercised no independent + judgment," and their critical knowledge was "elementary." Nor was the + decision of the Council of Trent any real improvement. Dr. Farrar approves + the reply of the Reformed Churches, that "any man may reject books + claiming to be Holy Scripture if he do not feel the evidence of their + contents." But this is to make every man a judge, not only of what the + Bible means, but also of what it should contain. Each unfettered Christian + may therefore make up a Bible for himself; which is simply chaos come + again. What then is the way of escape from this grotesque confusion? Dr. + Farrar indicates it with a crooked finger:— + </p> + <p> + "The decision as to what books are or are not to be regarded as true + Scripture, though we believe it to be wise and right, depends on no + infallible decision. It must satisfy the scientific and critical as well + as the spiritual requirements of each age." + </p> + <p> + This reduces the Bible Canon to a perpetual transformation scene. It is a + tacit confession that the Protestant Bible is an arbitrary collection of + questionable documents; that it has nothing to plead for itself but common + usage; that its very contents, as well as their interpretation, are liable + to change; in short, that if the Catholic stands upon the rock of implicit + faith, and defies all dangers by closing his eyes and clutching the + reassuring hand of his Holy Mother Church, the Protestant flounders about + with the poor little dark-lantern of private judgment in a frightful + mud-ocean—his old rock of faith in an infallible Bible having been + reduced to dust by the engines of criticism, and finally to slush by a + downflow from the lofty reservoir of pure reason.* + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * It would be a pity to omit an amusing instance of the + contemptuous dogmatism of Christian divines when they had + the field to themselves. Dr. William Whitaker, a famous + learned writer on the side of the Reformation in England, in + his Disputation with two of the foremost Jesuits, Bellarmine + and Stapleton, wrote as follows:—"Jerome, in the Proem of + his Commentaries on Daniel, relates that Porphyry the + philosopher wrote a volume against the book of our prophet + Daniel, and affirmed that what is now extant under the name + of Daniel was not published by the ancient prophet, but by + some later Daniel, who lived in the times of Antiochus + Epiphanes. But we need not regard what the impious Porphyry + may have written, who mocked at all the scriptures and + religion itself." Well, this opinion of the blasphemous + Porphyry, whose writings were burnt by the Christian Church, + is now accepted by the Higher Critics. Canon Driver, for + instance, admits that the Book of Daniel is not the work of + Daniel, that it could not have been written earlier than 300 + B.C., and that "it is at least <i>probable</i> that it was + composed under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. + 168 or 167" (Introduction to the Literature of the Old + Testament, p. 467). This involves that the fulfilled + prophecies of Daniel were written after the events. +</pre> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0004" id="link2H_4_0004"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + III. THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE + </h2> + <p> + Having examined Dean Farrar's observations on the Bible Canon, and seen + that it is a more or less arbitrary selection from Hebrew and early + Christian literature, many of the books being anonymous, while others bear + the names of authors who did not write them, and most of them being much + later compositions than orthodoxy supposes; we now take a leap forward to + his twelfth chapter to see what he has to say on the subject of the Bible + and Science. His first object is to drive home to his co-religionists the + mischief of adhering to the old doctrine of Bible infallibility. + Consequently he does not mince matters in dealing with the difficulties of + the literal theory of inspiration. Writers like Gaussen contend that the + Bible is a perfect authority in matters of science. Mr. Gladstone argues + that Moses supernaturally anticipated the teachings of modern evolution, + and that the inspired fishermen of Galilee, notably St. Peter, no less + supernaturally anticipated all that modern astronomy teaches as to the + final destiny of our planet. Dr. Farrar declines to follow them in this + perilous path. He does not walk in the opposite direction, for that would + lead him among the "infidels." He strikes off at right angles, and takes + the line that the Bible was never intended to teach science, or anything + else but religion. He quotes with approval the saying of Archbishop + Sumner, that "the Scriptures have never revealed a scientific truth." He + maintains that the writers of Scripture had only a natural knowledge of + exact science; and that was precious little, and was indeed rather + ignorance than knowledge, as they belonged to "the most unscientific of + all nations in the most unscientific of all ages." "It is now understood + by competent inquirers," he says, "that geology is God's revelation to us + of one set of truths, and Genesis of quite another." "Nature," he says, + "is a book which contains a revelation of God in one sphere, and Scripture + a book which contains a revelation of him in another. Both books have + often been misread, but no <i>truth</i> revealed in the one can be + irreconcilable with any truth revealed in the other." This, however, is a + mere truism; for one truth cannot be irreconcilable with another truth. + Dr. Farrar's statement sounds imposing and consolatory, but when you look + into its meaning you see it is only a pulpit platitude. + </p> + <p> + But before we proceed to criticise Dr. Farrar's position, let us glance at + his attack upon the literalists. He charges them with having opposed and + persecuted every modern science, and with having manufactured the most + absurd scientific theories from the text of the Bible; the said theories + being not only ludicrous, but irreconcilably opposed to each other. + Lactantius, with the Bible in his hand, ridiculed the rotundity of the + earth. Roger Bacon and Galileo were imprisoned and tortured for teaching + true science instead of the false science of the Church. John Wesley + declared the Copernican astronomy to be in opposition to Scripture. Thomas + Burnet's "Sacred Theory of the Earth," founded upon the Bible, was + assailed by William Whiston, who based a different "Sacred Theory" upon + the very same book. Buffon, the great French scientist, was compelled by + the Sorbonne to recant, and to abandon everything in his writings that was + "contrary to the narrative of Moses." Even when God (that is to say Dr. + Simpson) gave to the world the priceless boon of anaesthetics, there were + many Biblicists who declared that the use of chloroform in cases of + painful confinement was flying in the face of God's curse upon the + daughters of Eve. Catholic and Protestant have alike pitted the Bible + against Science, and both have been ignominiously beaten. + </p> + <p> + But this is not all. The theologians have been disgraced as well as + defeated. With respect to the Buffon case, for instance, Dr. Farrar writes + as follows:— + </p> + <p> + "The line now taken by apologists is very different from that of previous + centuries, and less honest. It declares that Genesis and geology are in + exact accord. It no longer refuses to believe the facts of nature, but + instead of this it boldly sophisticates the facts of Scripture." + </p> + <p> + John Stuart Mill said that every new truth passes through three phases of + reception. At first, it is declared to be false and dangerous; secondly, + it is discovered that there is something to be said for it; lastly, its + opponents turn round and declare "we said so all along." Dr. Farrar dots + all the "i's" in Mill's statement. He asserts that "religious teachers" + first say of every scientific discovery, "It is blasphemous and contrary + to Scripture." Next they say, "There is nothing in Scripture which + absolutely contradicts it." Finally they say, "It is distinctly revealed + in Scripture itself." + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar puts the historic case against "orthodoxy"—which, of + course, is not Christianity!—in the following fashion:— + </p> + <p> + "The history of most modern sciences has been as follows. Its discoverers + have been proscribed, anathematised, and, in every possible instance, + silenced or persecuted; yet before a generation has passed the champions + of a spurious orthodoxy have had to confess that their interpretations + were erroneous; and—for the most part without an apology and without + a blush—have complacently invented some new line of exposition by + which the phrases of Scripture can be squared into semblable accordance + with the now acknowledged facts." + </p> + <p> + Even in the comparatively recent case of Darwin this was perfectly true. + Dr. Farrar, who preached Darwin's funeral sermon in Westminster Abbey, + says that he "endured the fury of pulpits and Church Congresses." He did + so with quiet dignity; not an angry word escaped him. Yet before Darwin's + death not only was the scientific world converted, but leading theologians + said that, if Darwinism were proved to be true, there was "nothing in it + contrary to the creeds of the Catholic faith." + </p> + <p> + Darwin never answered the clergy. He had better work to do. All he did was + to smile at them. In one of his letters he said that when the men of + science are agreed about anything all the clergy have to do is to say + ditto. He understood that when science is victorious it will always have + clerical patronage. Had he been able to do it, he would have smiled, in + that beautiful benevolent way of his, at Dr. Farrar's funeral sermon. The + worthy Dean thought they had got Darwin at last; and the grand old + philosopher might have said, "Why yes, my <i>corpse!</i>" + </p> + <p> + So much for Dr. Farrar's impeachment of "orthodoxy" and its doctrine of + plenary inspiration. Let us now examine his own position, and see whether + it is logical as well as convenient. + </p> + <p> + Take the first chapter of Genesis. It is not a scientific revelation, + though it seems to be. Whoever wrote it had only the science of his time. + Nevertheless, it is of "transcendent value," according to Dr. Farrar. "Its + true and deep object," he says, "was to set right an erring world in the + supremely important knowledge that there was one God and Father of us all, + the Creator of heaven and earth, a God who saw all things which he has + made, and pronounced them to be very good." + </p> + <p> + This is very pretty in its way; but how absurd it is in the light of the + fact that the Hebrew creation story is all <i>borrowed!</i> While the Jews + were desert nomads, long before the concoction of their sacred scriptures + the doctrine of a Creator of heaven and earth was known in India and in + Egypt, not to recite a list of other nations. If this is all the first + chapter of Genesis teaches, we may well exclaim, "Thank you for nothing!" + It is a curious "revelation" which only discloses what is familiar. Had + the Bible never been written, had the Jews never existed, the "true and + deep object" of the first chapter of Genesis would have been quite as well + subserved. Wherever the Christian missionaries have gone they have found + the creation story in front of them. Wherever they took it they were + carrying coals to Newcastle. + </p> + <p> + We venture to suggest that if Dr. Farrar thinks that all things God has + made are very good, there are many persons who do not share his opinion. + It would be idle to read that text to a sailor pursued by a shark. We + could multiply this instance a thousandfold; but why give a list of all + the predatory and parasitical creatures on this planet, from human tyrants + and despoilers down to cholera microbes? Dr. Farrar may reply that + everything ends in mystery, that we must have faith, that it is our + interest as well as our duty to believe. But that is exactly what the + Catholic Church says, and Dr. Farrar laughs it to scorn. The truth is, + that all theology is ultimately a matter of faith; and the quarrel about + more or less is a domestic difference. The greater difference is between + Faith and Reason. This was clearly seen by Cardinal Newman, who pointed + out that every mystery of the Roman Catholic faith is matched by a mystery + in Protestant theology. + </p> + <p> + Finally, we have to remark that Dr. Farrar overlooks a very important + point in this controversy. Having argued that the Bible was not intended + to teach science, and has not in fact helped the world to a single + scientific discovery; having also admitted that the Bible has all along + been used to hinder the progress of natural knowledge, and to justify the + persecution of honest investigators; he seems to imagine that there is no + more to be said. But there is <i>much</i> more to be said. We forbear to + press the objection that Omniscience was very curiously employed in + entangling a religious revelation with scientific blunders, which would + necessarily retard the progress of scientific truth, and therefore of + human civilisation. What we wish to emphasise is less open to the retort + that Omniscience is beyond our finite judgment. We desire to urge that the + Bible is not simply non-scientific. It is anti-scientific. Let us take, + for instance, the story of the creation and fall of man. Even if it be not + taken literally, but allegorically, it is thoroughly antagonistic to the + teachings of Evolution. At the very least it implies that man is something + special and unique, whereas he is included in the general scheme of + biology, and is but "the paragon of animals." Get rid of the actual garden + and the actual tree of knowledge, as Dr. Farrar does, and there still + remains the fact that the fall of man is a falsehood, and the ascent of + man a verity. The allegory does not correspond to the essential truth of + man's history; and in spite of all the flattering rhetoric with which Dr. + Farrar invests it—a rhetoric so inharmonious with its own consummate + simplicity—there is something inexpressibly childish to the modern + mind in the awful heinousness which is attributed to the mere eating of + forbidden fruit. An act is really not vicious because it is prohibited, or + virtuous because it conforms to the dictates of authority. When man + attains to intellectual maturity he smiles at the ethical trick which was + played upon his youthful ignorance. It is not sufficient to tell him that + he must do this, and must not do that. He requires a reason. His + intelligence must go hand in hand with his emotions. It is this union, + indeed, which constitutes what we call conscience. + </p> + <p> + The truth is that the Bible is steeped in superstition and + supernaturalism. Its cosmogony, its conception of man's origin and + position in the universe, its infantile legends, its miracles and magic, + its theory of madness and disease, its doctrine of the external efficacy + of prayer, its idea that man's words and wishes avail to change the sweep + of universal forces and the operation of their immutable laws: all this is + in direct opposition to the letter and spirit of Science. The special + pleading of clergymen like Dr. Farrar may afford a temporary relief to + trembling Christians, and keep them for a further term in the fold of + faith; but it will never make the slightest impression upon sceptics, + unless it fills them with contemptuous pity for a number of clever men who + are obliged, for personal reasons, to practise the lowest arts of + sophistry. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0005" id="link2H_4_0005"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + IV. MIRACLES AND WITCHCRAFT + </h2> + <p> + Dr. Farrar, as we have seen, holds that the Bible is not a revelation in + science. The inspired writers were, in such matters, left to their natural + knowledge. The Holy Spirit taught them that God made the world and all + which it inhabits; but <i>how</i> it was made they only conjectured. The + truth, in <i>this</i> respect, was left to the discovery of later ages. + </p> + <p> + This is a pretty and convenient theory, but it does not provide for every + difficulty in the relationship between science and the Bible. There still + remain the questions of miracles and witchcraft. + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar does not discuss these questions thoroughly. He only ventures a + few observations. In his opinion, the two miracles of the Creation and the + Incarnation "include the credibility of <i>all</i> other miracles." We + agree with him. Admit creation out of nothing, and you need not be + astonished at the transformation of water into wine. Admit the birth of a + boy from a virgin mother, and you need not raise physiological objections + to the story of a man being safely entertained for three days in a whale's + intestines. It is absurd to strain at gnats after swallowing camels. For + this reason we are unable to understand Dr. Farrar's fastidiousness. He is + ready to believe that some miracles are mistaken metaphors, that some were + due to the action of unnoticed or ill-understood natural causes, and that + others were providential occurrences instead of supernatural events. All + this, however, is but a concession to the sceptical spirit. It is throwing + out the children to the wolves. It may stop their pursuit for a little + while, but they will come on again, and flesh their jaws upon the parents. + </p> + <p> + A mixed criterion of true miracles is laid down by Dr. Farrar. They must + be (1) adequately attested, and (2) wrought for adequate ends, and (3) in + accordance with the revealed laws of God's immediate dealings with man. + The second and third conditions are too fanciful for discussion. They are, + in fact, entirely subjective. The first condition is the only one which + can be applied with decisive accuracy. The miracles must be <i>adequately + attested</i>. But was it not David Hume who declared that "in all history" + there is not a single miracle attested in this manner? And did not + Professor Huxley say that Hume's assertion was "least likely" to be + challenged by those who are used to weighing evidence and giving their + decision with a due sense of moral responsibility? + </p> + <p> + It is easy enough to sneer at Hume. It is just as easy to answer what he + never said. What the apologists of Christianity have to do is to take a + single miracle of their faith and show that it rests upon adequate + evidence. Anything short of this is intellectual thimble-rigging. + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar does not face this dreadful task. He treats us, instead, to + some personal observations on the Fall, the Tower of Babel, Balaam's ass, + Joshua's arrest of the sun and moon, and Jonah's submarine excursion. Let + us examine these observations. + </p> + <p> + No Christian, says Dr. Farrar, is called upon to believe in an actual + Garden of Eden and an actual talking serpent. Christians have believed in + these things by the million. But that was before the clergy invented "the + Higher Criticism" to disarm "infidelity." They know better now. The story + of the Fall is false as a narrative. It is true as a "vivid pictorial + representation of the origin and growth of sin in the human heart." All + the literature of the world has failed to set forth anything "comparable + to it in insight." Therefore it is "inspired." + </p> + <p> + How hollow this sounds when we recollect that the Hebrew story of the Fall + was borrowed from the Persian mythology! How much hollower when we + consider it as it stands, stripped of the veil of fancy and divested of + the glamor of association! The "insight" of the inspired writer could only + represent God as the landlord of an orchard, and man as a being with a + taste for forbidden apples. The "philosopheme," as Dr. Farrar grandiosely + styles it, is so absurd in its native nakedness that Rabbis and other + divines have suspected a carnal mystery behind the apples, in order to + give the "sin" of Adam and Eve a darker vein of sensuality.* + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * We cannot elaborate this point in a publication which is + intended for general reading. Suffice it to say that one + famous commentator suggests that Eve was seduced by an ape. +</pre> + <p> + Nor is this all. The very idea of a Fall is inconsistent with Evolution. + The true Garden of Eden lies not behind us, but before us. The true + Paradise is not the earth as God made it for man, but the earth as man is + making it for himself. The Bible teaches the <i>descent</i> of man. + Science teaches the <i>ascent</i> of man. And the two theories are the + antipodes of each other, not only in physical history, but in every moral + and spiritual implication. + </p> + <p> + With regard to the story of the tower of Babel, we must not regard it as + an inspired account of the origin of the diversity of human language. That + is what it appears to be upon the face of it. But philology has exploded + this childish legend, and a new meaning must be read into it. According to + Dr. Farrar, it is a "symbolic way of expressing the truth that God breaks + up into separate nationalities the tyrannous organisation of cruel + despotisms." Now we venture to say that there is not a suggestion of this + in the text. And the "truth" which Dr. Farrar reads into it so arbitrarily + is a phenomenon of modern times. Nationality is a great force at present, + but in ancient days the only power that could bind tribes together in one + polity was a military despotism. From the point of view of evolution, both + conquest and slavery were inevitable steps in the progress of + civilisation. It is really nothing against the ancient Jews, for instance, + that they fought like devils and made slaves of their enemies. It was the + fashion of the time. The mischief comes in when we are told that their + proceedings were under the sanction and control of God. + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar next tackles the story of Balaam, which is "another theme for + ignorant ridicule." It is astonishing how sublime these Bible wonders + become in the light of the Higher Criticism. A talking ass sounds like an + echo of the Arabian Nights. But the author himself never intended you to + believe it. Dr. Farrar is quite sure of that. You must forget the ass, and + fix your attention on Balaam. Then you perceive that the story is "rich in + almost unrivalled elements of moral edification." That is to say, you + perceive it if you borrow Dr. Farrar's spectacles. But if you look with + your own naked eyes you see that ass in the foreground of the picture, + with outstretched neck and open jaws, holding forth to an astonished + universe. + </p> + <p> + With regard to Joshua's supreme miracle, Dr. Farrar avows his unbelief. A + battle ode got mistaken for actual history. "He who chooses," says Dr. + Farrar, "may believe that the most fundamental laws of the universe were + arrested to enable Joshua to slaughter a few more hundred fugitives; and + he who chooses may believe that nothing of the kind ever entered into the + mind of the narrator." You pay your money and take your choice. Shape the + old wax nose as you please. Believe what you like, and disbelieve what you + like—and swear the author disbelieved it too. + </p> + <p> + Nor must the story of Jonah be taken literally. Regard the moral, and + forget its fishy setting. Jesus Christ, indeed, referred to Jonah's + sojourn in the "whale's belly" as typical of his own sojourn in the heart + of the earth. But referring to a story is no proof of any belief in its + truth. Not in the Bible. Jesus Christ also said, "Remember Lot's wife." + But of course he did not believe the story literally. He used it for his + own purpose. For the rest, he did not wish to unsettle men's minds by + throwing doubt on such a time-honored narrative; besides, the time had not + arrived to explain the chemical composition of rock-salt. + </p> + <p> + Witchcraft is a more serious matter. The Bible plainly says, "Thou shalt + not suffer a witch to live." This text sealed the doom of millions of old + women. It is the bloodiest text in all literature. The Jews believed in + witchcraft, and the law against witches found its way into their sacred + Scriptures. Sir Matthew Hale, a great English judge and a good man, + sentenced witches to be burnt in 1665, and said that he made no doubt at + all that there were witches, for "the Scriptures had affirmed so much." + Wesley, a century later, said that to give up witchcraft was to give up + the Bible. Dr. Farrar sets down these facts honestly. He is also eloquent + in reprobation of the cruelty inflicted on millions of "witches" in the + Middle Ages. But he denies that the Bible is responsible for those + infamies. "Witches" in the Bible may not mean witches, but "nefarious + impostors." Good old wax nose again! Moreover, that ancient Jewish law was + not binding upon Christians, and to make it so was "a gross misuse of the + Bible." But how on earth could the Christians use it in any other way? The + time came when men outgrew the superstition of witchcraft. Before that + time they killed witches on Bible authority. Dr. Farrar himself, had he + lived then, would have done the same. Living in a more enlightened age, he + says that former Christians acted wrongly, and in fact diabolically. But + what of the book which misled them? What of the book which, if it did not + mislead them by design, harmonised so completely with their ignorant + prejudices, and gave such a pious color to their unspeakable brutalities? + Nor is this by any means the last word upon the subject. The witchcraft of + the Old Testament has its counterpart in the demoniacal possession of the + New Testament. Both are aspects of one and the same superstition. + </p> + <p> + The Bible <i>is</i> responsible for the cruel slaughter of millions of + alleged witches. It is also responsible for the prolonged treatment of + lunatics as possessed. The methods of science are now adopted in civilised + countries. Hysterical women are no longer tortured as witches. Lunatics + are no longer chained and beaten as persons inhabited by devils. Kindness + and common sense have taken the place of cruelty and superstition. This + change was brought about, not through the Bible, but in spite of it. + </p> + <p> + Sir Matthew Hale and John Wesley were at least honest. They were too + sincere to deny the plain teaching of the Bible. Dr. Farrar represents a + more enlightened, but a more hypocritical, form of Christianity. He sneers + at "reconcilers" like Mr. Gladstone, who try to bolster up the Creation + story as a scientific revelation. But is he not a "reconciler" himself in + regard to miracles? And does he not play fast and loose with truth and + honesty in his attempt to clear the Bible of its guilty responsibility in + connection with that witch mania which is one of the darkest episodes in + Christian history? + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0006" id="link2H_4_0006"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + V. THE BIBLE AND FREETHOUGHT + </h2> + <p> + The Bible may well be called the persecutor's text-book. It is difficult, + if not impossible, to find in all its pages a single text in favor of real + freedom of thought. Dr. Farrar champions what he calls "true + Christianity," to which he declares that all persecution is entirely + "alien." This "true Christianity" appears to depend upon "the spirit" of + Christ, and seems to have little or no relation to the letter of + Scripture. But what is the actual fact, when we view it in the light of + history? In one of his lucid intervals of mere common sense, Dr. Farrar + makes an important admission with regard to the worse than Armenian + atrocities of the Jewish policy of extermination in Palestine. Those + atrocities of cruelty and lust are said to have been ordered by God, but + Dr. Farrar says that on this point the Jews were mistaken. They thought + they were doing God a service, but they thought so ignorantly. And how was + their ignorance corrected? Not by a special monition from heaven, but by + the ordinary progress and elevation of the human mind. "It required," Dr. + Farrar says, "but the softening influence of time and civilisation to + obliterate in the best minds those fierce misconceptions." Precisely so. + And is it anything but the softening influence of time and civilisation + that makes Christians like Dr. Farrar ashamed of the bloody deeds of their + co-religionists; which bloody deeds, by the way, have always been + justified by appeals to the teachings of the Bible? Let there be no + mistake on this point. Dr. Farrar himself does not scruple to write of the + "deep damnation of deeds of deceit and sanguinary ferocity committed in + the name of Holy Writ." "In some of their deadliest sins against the human + race," he further says, "corrupted and cruel Churches have ever been most + lavish in their appeals to Scripture." He admits that "the days are not + far distant when it was regarded as a positive duty to put men to death + for their religious opinions," and that this was defended by Old Testament + examples, and also by some texts from the New Testament. And it was "by + virtue of texts like these" that enemies of the human race were "enabled" + to combine the "garb and language of priests with the temper and trade of + executioners." + </p> + <p> + Now, what has Dr. Farrar to urge <i>per contra?</i> Simply this: that the + "early Christians" pleaded for toleration. "Force," they said, "is hateful + to God." "It is no part of religion," said Tertullian, "to <i>compel</i> + religion." But suppose all this be admitted—and there is much to be + said by way of qualification—what does it amount to? The "early + Christians" were in a minority. They did not yet command the sword of the + magistrate. They could not persecute except by holding no fellowship with + unbelievers, by shaking off the dust of their feet against those who + rejected their Gospel, and by other harmless though detestable exhibitions + of bigotry. They had to plead for their own existence, and in doing so + they were obliged to appeal to the principle of general toleration. But + the moment they triumphed, under Constantine, they began to flout the very + principle to which they had formerly appealed. The humility of their + weakness was more than equalled by the pride of their power. And what was + the result? "From Augustine's days down to those of Luther," Dr. Farrar + says, "scarcely one voice was raised in favor, I will not say of <i>tolerance</i>, + but even of abstaining from fire and bloodshed in support of enforced + uniformity." Dr. Farrar denounces in creditable language the frightful + butcheries of Alva in the Netherlands, for which the Pope presented him + with a jewelled sword bearing a pious inscription. He is properly + horrified at the massacre of St. Bartholomew, in honor of which Pope + Gregory XIII. struck a triumphant medal, and went in procession to sing a + Te Deum to God, while the cannon thundered from the Castle of St. Angelo + and bonfires blazed in the streets of Rome. He is bitter against the + Church of Rome for its vast shedding of innocent blood. He reminds us that + the infamous Holy Inquisition is still toasted by Catholic professors at + Madrid; and that intolerance, having lost its power, has not lost its + virulence, nor "ceased to justify its burning hatred by Scripture + quotations." And he cites Manning's successor at Westminster, the + truculent Cardinal Vaughan, as declaring with perfect approval that "the + Catholic Church has never spared the knife, when necessary, to cut off + rebels against her faith and authority." + </p> + <p> + But let it not be imagined that all the guilt of persecution rested upon + the Church of Rome. Protestantism persecuted as freely as the Papacy. That + heretics should be put down, and if necessary killed, was a principle + common to both Churches. The question in dispute was, Which <i>were</i> + the heretics? This is so incontestable that we need not fortify it with + Protestant quotations and Protestant examples. It is not true, as Dr. + Farrar alleges, that Luther "boldly proclaimed that thoughts are + toll-free," if it is meant that he condemned persecution. Thoughts were + toll-free against Romish exactions; that was what Luther meant. He held as + strongly as any Papist that those who denied one essential doctrine of + Christianity should be punished by the magistrates. He declared that + reason always led to unbelief. He besought the Protestant princes to + uphold "the faith" by every means in their power. And when the serfs + rebelled, thinking that the "freedom" the Reformers talked about was to + become a reality, it was Luther who wrote against them with unsurpassable + ferocity, and advised that they should be "slaughtered like mad dogs." + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar rather judiciously refrains from mentioning Calvin in this + connection, but in another part of the volume he refers to the great + Genevian "reformer" in a somewhat gingerly manner. When the sins of + Catholics have to be condemned he is quite dithyrambic; but when he has to + censure the sins of Protestants he displays a most touching tenderness. + Nothing could well be worse than the mixture of religious bigotry, + personal spleen, and low duplicity, with which Calvin hunted Servetus to + his fiery doom. Dr. Farrar sympathetically describes this vile act as an + "error." He tries to satisfy his conscience, afterwards, by confessing + that the Calvinists in general "were for the most part as severe to all + who differed from them as they imagined God to be severe to the greater + part of the human race." + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar's treatment of this subject is superficial. It is not a Bible + text here or there which is the real basis of persecution. We advise him + to read George Eliot's review of Lecky's <i>History of Rationalism</i>. He + will then see that persecution is founded upon the fatal doctrine of + salvation by faith. This doctrine makes the heretic more noxious than a + serpent. A serpent poisons the body, a heretic poisons the soul. If it be + true that his teaching may draw souls to hell, human welfare demands his + extermination. Dr. Farrar does not disclaim this doctrine, and if he fails + to act upon it he only betrays an amiable inconsistency. His heart is + better than his head. + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar, like other Protestants, talks about the right of private + judgment. But this is only fine and futile verbiage, unless he admits the + sinlessness of intellectual error. If judgment depends on the will, it is + through the will amenable to motives; consequently, the way to pro-mote + correct opinions is to promise rewards and threaten punishments. But if + judgment does not depend on the will; if it is necessarily determined by + the laws of reason and evidence; then it is an absurdity to bribe and + intimidate. Now there is no third alternative. One of these two theories + must be right, and the other must be wrong. Dr. Farrar is logically bound + to take his choice. If he believes that judgment depends on the will, he + has no right to denounce persecution. If he believes that judgment does + not depend on the will, he has no right to censure the most absolute + freethought. + </p> + <p> + There are but two camps—the camp of Faith and the camp of Reason. + Dr. Farrar belongs to the former. But he does not find his position + comfortable. He casts a longing eye on the other camp. He wants to be in + both. He therefore tries to form an alliance between them, if not to + amalgamate them under one banner. + </p> + <p> + Reason, said Bishop Butler, is the only faculty wherewith we can judge of + anything, even of revelation itself. Dr. Farrar quotes this statement with + approval. He quotes similar sentences from other Protestant writers. Then + he turns upon the Roman Church for keeping the Bible out of the hands of + the people, and denounces it for this with ultra-Protestant vigor. He + imagines that this is a vindication of Protestantism, at any rate + relatively, as a champion of reason in opposition to blind faith and + absolute authority. But <i>private</i> judgment and <i>free</i> judgment + are not identical. When the Protestant puts an open Bible into your hands, + and tells you to read it and judge of it for yourself, he is acting like a + Freethinker; but when he proceeds to say that if you do not find it to be + a divine book, and believe all its teaching about God, and Jesus Christ, + and the Holy Ghost, and heaven and hell, you will infallibly be damned, he + is acting like a Papist. His right of private judgment, at the finish, + always means the right to differ from him on trivial points, and the duty + of agreeing with him on every point which he chooses to regard as + essential. If this is denied by Dr. Farrar, let him honestly answer this + question—Is a Freethinker who has examined the Bible, and rejected + it as a divine revelation, liable to any sort of penalty for his + disbelief? The answer to this question will decide whether Dr. Farrar is + really maintaining the rights of reason, or is merely maintaining the + Protestant theory of faith against that of the Catholics, and standing up + for the authority of the Book instead of the authority of the Church. + </p> + <p> + Meanwhile we venture to suggest that the Bible texts referred to by Dr. + Farrar, as requiring us to exercise the right of private judgment, are + very little to the point. "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord" is + a pretty text, but it does not seem to have much bearing on the issue. + "Try the spirits" is all right in its way; but what if you find that <i>all</i> + the spirits are illusions? "Prove all things" is good, but it must be + taken with the context. Jesus indeed is reported to have said, "Why even + of yourselves judge ye not what is right?" But he is also reported to have + said, "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, and he that + believeth not shall be damned." + </p> + <p> + By a judicious selection of texts you can prove anything from the Bible, + and disprove anything—as Catholics have often reminded Protestants. + To pick out passages that to some extent are favorable to a certain view, + and to ignore much stronger passages that are clearly opposed to it, may + be an exercise of private judgment, and may satisfy the conscience of + neo-Protestants of the school of Dr. Farrar; but it invites a contemptuous + smile from Freethinkers who believe that Reason ought not to suffer such a + prostitution. + </p> + <p> + We have to point out, finally, that Protestantism, with its open Bible, + has everywhere maintained laws against blasphemy and heresy. The laws + against heresy have fallen into desuetude in England, but while they + lasted they were simply ferocious. We heard the late Lord Coleridge say + from his seat in the Court of Queen's Bench, as Lord Chief Justice, that + the Protestant laws against Roman Catholics, particularly in Ireland, + where they were executed with remorseless ferocity, are without a parallel + in the history of the world. Catholicism, however, is no longer under a + ban. Even the Jews have been admitted to equal rights with their fellow + citizens. But laws still remain in existence, and are occasionally put + into operation, against "blasphemers." According to the language of common + law indictments, it is a crime to bring the Holy Scripture or the + Christian Religion into disbelief and contempt. It is true that many + Christians are ready to profess a certain aversion to such laws, but they + make no effort to repeal them. Many others contend that "blasphemy" is a + question of manner, that the feelings of Christians should be protected, + and that while men should not be punished for being Freethinkers, they + should be punished for wounding orthodox susceptibilities. It is not + proposed, however, that any limitations of taste or temper should be + imposed upon Christian controversialists; and this contention may + therefore be regarded as a subterfuge of bigotry. On the whole, it may be + said that Catholics without the Bible, and Protestants with the Bible, + persecute unbelief to the full extent of their opportunities; and it is + only as toleration grows from other roots, and is nourished by other + causes, that the Bibliolaters find out subtle interpretations of simple + texts in favor of the prevailing tendency. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0007" id="link2H_4_0007"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + VI. MORALS AND MANNERS + </h2> + <p> + Dr. Farrar takes the position that "the Bible is not homogeneous in its + morality." There is a higher and a lower; and, to adopt the fine but + paradoxical metaphor of Milton, within the lowest deep a lower deep still + opens its dreadful abyss of crime and brutality. The same admission is + made by Professor Bruce,* of the Free Church of Scotland; but this + gentleman is more subtle than Dr. Farrar, and tries to save the reputation + of the Bible by a notable piece of cauistical special-pleading. He does + not allow, though he does not expressly deny, that the Bible contains any + immorality. What he does is to draw a distinction between high morality + and low morality. Immorality is sinning against your conscience. High + morality is acting right up to its noblest dictates. Low morality is + conduct in honest conformity to the low standard of a conscience but + half-enlightened. When the prophetess Deborah sings triumphantly over the + infamous exploit of Jael, who invited the fugitive Sisera into her tent, + and assassinated him while he slept in the confidence of her hospitality, + we must not say that either of these precious females was guilty of + immorality. They were simply carrying out a low morality. And the same + applies to Deborah's exclamation: "To every man a damsel or two"—meaning + that the Jewish soldiers slew their male enemies and dragged home a brace + of maidens each for themselves. Such conduct would be highly improper now, + but it was all right then; at least it was as right as they knew; and we + must not judge the actors by later ethical standards. So says Professor + Bruce, and it would be true enough if the Bible were not put forward as a + divine book, or if it ever reprehended the infamies of God's chosen + people. But it does nothing of the kind; it mentions Jael and Deborah in + terms of absolute approval. + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Christian Apologetics, p. 309. +</pre> + <p> + Dr. Farrar severely denounces the Jewish wars of extermination in + Palestine, regardless of the fact—which is as true as any other + religious fact in the Bible—that these atrocities were expressly + commanded by Jehovah. Divines have defended the massacre of the + Midianites, for instance, and the appropriation of their unmarried women; + but Dr. Farrar calls their arguments "miserable pleas," and adds that if + such "guilty and horrible" doings were "recorded without blame," it only + shows that "the moral views of the desert tribes on such subjects were in + this respect very rudimentary." These desert tribes were the chosen people + of God; their prophets spoke under divine inspiration; yet even Jeremiah, + in denouncing Moab, cries: "Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from + blood." According to Dr. Farrar, this proves how "slow" was the + "development of the religious consciousness of mankind." But how did it + happen that the Jews, with all the advantage of special inspiration, were + just as slow in this respect as any other nation in the world's history? + What is the use of "inspiration" if it does not appreciably quicken the + natural development of the human conscience? + </p> + <p> + Many of the Bible heroes are fit for a distinguished place in the Newgate + Calendar. Dr. Farrar himself cannot stomach "some details" in the lives of + Abraham, Jacob, Jephthah, and David. Still, he urges that "the use made of + them in the sceptical propaganda is often illegitimate." These worthies + were not "faultless." It is their "general faithfulness" which is "rightly + held up to admiration as our example." Faithfulness to what? Simply to + their own greed and ambition, first of all, and secondly to the dominance + of their tribal god Jehovah, who by such instruments triumphed over his + rival dieties, and became at last the sole Lord God of Israel. + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar allows no palliating plea for the cursing Psalms. He cites a + few of the very worst passages, black with hatred and red with blood, and + asks: "Can the casuistry be anything but gross which would palm off such + passages as the very utterance of God?" Moses was "a great lawgiver and a + great prophet," but Dr. Farrar will not "defend the divinity of passages + so morally indefensible" as that, for instance, which gives the + slave-owner impunity in killing his slave, provided he does not slay him + on the spot, but beats him so that he dies "in a day or two." Nor is there + "divinity" in the order to the Jews to refrain from eating bad meat, but + to sell it to the Gentiles. Neither is there "divinity" in the order + (Deut. xxi. 10-14) to take a wife for a month on trial. These things are + parts of an ostensibly divine code, but lawgivers and people were alike + mistaken. Inspiration did not guide them aright, but somehow or other it + enables Dr. Farrar to correct their blunders three thousand years + afterwards; which is merely saying, after all, that inspiration does not + pioneer but follow the march of human progress. + </p> + <p> + During the reign of David a dreadful incident occurred. There had been a + three years' famine, and David "inquired of the Lord." The answer was, + "Blood upon Saul and upon his house!" Seven of Saul's sons were hung up + "unto the Lord," and the famine was stopped. Dr. Farrar tells of an + intelligent artisan who got up at a meeting and asked "whether it was not + meant to imply that God was pacified by the blood of innocent human + victims?" But he does not give the answer; and it either means this or it + means nothing at all. In the same way, the story of Jephthah, who offered + his daughter as a burnt-offering to the Lord, takes such an immolation for + granted as a religious act of perfect propriety. Jephthah is mentioned as + a hero of faith in the New Testament, and no hint is given that he acted + wrongly in sacrificing his daughter on the altar of Jehovah. + </p> + <p> + We have said enough on this subject to give the reader a fair idea of Dr. + Farrar's position. Let us now pass from Bible morals to Bible manners. + </p> + <p> + "The Bible," says Dr. Farrar, "is assailed on the ground that it contains + coarse and unedifying stories." Take the story of Lot and his daughters, + to say nothing of the bestial attempt on the angels in Sodom. Could + anything be more repulsive? Is there any excuse for putting such + abominable feculence into the hands of children? After a lot of talk about + it, and about, Dr. Farrar offers us the following most sapient + observation: "The story of Lot wears a very different complexion if we + regard it as an exhibition of unknown traditions about the connection + between the Israelites and the tribes of Moab and Ammon." But what does + this mean? The Moabites and Ammonites, according to the Bible, were + hereditary enemies of the Jews, and it was impossible to exterminate them. + They were evidently near of kin to the chosen people. Now, if these two + facts are put together, it is easy to see the purpose of this story of Lot + and his daughters. The Jews traced their own descent, in a perfectly + honorable way, from Abraham and his legitimate wife Sarah, who are + doubtless legendary characters. On the other hand, they traced the descent + of the Moabites and Ammonites, their cousins and enemies, through the no + less legendary Lot and his two daughters, thus throwing the aspersion of + incest upon the cradle of both those races. This is the adequate and + satisfactory explanation of the story. It is an exhibition of dirty and + unscrupulous hatred; and, as such, it is a curious fragment of "the Word + of God." + </p> + <p> + Take next what Dr. Farrar calls "the pathetic story of Hosea," the prophet + who was ordered by God to marry a prostitute—not to use the more + downright language of the English Bible. Dr. Farrar suggests that there is + some doubt as to the meaning of the original. Hosea's wife may have turned + out a baggage after the nuptials, instead of being one before. "It was the + anguish caused by her infidelity," he says, "that first woke Hosea to the + sense of Israel's infidelity to Jehovah." And read in the light of this + "modern criticism" the story of Hosea is "in the highest degree pure and + noble." How pretty! All that remains for Dr. Farrar to do is to explain + away as equally "pure and noble" the imagery of Ezekiel in reference to + Aholah and Aholibah. There is no reason why "modern criticism" in the + hands of gentlemen like Dr. Farrar should not transform Priapus into a + Sunday-school teacher. + </p> + <p> + Not only are there very gross stories in the Bible, many of which are too + beastly to dwell upon, but its language is often gratuitously disgusting. + And every scholar knows that the Hebrew text is sometimes far more + "purple" than our English version. Dr. Farrar admits that if the "exact + meaning" of certain passages were understood, they "could not be read + without a blush." "Happily," he says, they are "disguised by the + euphemisms of translations." That is to say, the inspired Bible writers, + or penmen of the Holy Ghost, as old divines called them, were often + indecent and sometimes positively obscene. Dr. Farrar's explanation is, + that "ancient and Eastern readers" were not easily shocked, and that our + modern "sensibility" is of "recent growth." But this proves again that + "inspiration" is in no sense the cause of progress, and does not + anticipate it in the slightest degree. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0008" id="link2H_4_0008"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + VII. POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROGRESS + </h2> + <p> + "The Bible," Dr. Farrar says, "is inextricably mingled with all that is + greatest in human history." This is a fair specimen of his roystering + style. We presume he has contracted it through long years of preaching + from the coward's castle of the pulpit, where a man can exaggerate as much + as he pleases without the slightest fear of contradiction. Dr. Farrar does + not say that the Bible is mixed up with <i>much</i> of the greatest in + human history; no, it must be mixed up with <i>all</i> the greatest—which + is a transparent falsehood and a no less transparent absurdity. What did + Greece and Rome owe to the Bible? Absolutely nothing. There is no evidence + that they were acquainted with any part of the Old Testament, and Greece + had become a mere name before a line of the New Testament was written. + Some of the greatest things in the world were done and said by the + "heathen." Greek philosophy, Greek literature, Greek art, are + imperishable. Roman jurisprudence and Roman government are the basis of + every civilised polity. Plutarch's heroes are all Pagans, and let Dr. + Farrar match them if he can in the history of Christendom. + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar calls the Bible "the statesman's manual," but he judiciously + refrains from showing that statesmen ever act upon its teaching; indeed, + he spends a great deal of time in showing that they ought <i>not</i> to + act upon its teaching, unless they carefully avoid the obvious "letter," + and allow themselves to be influenced by the recondite "spirit." For + instance, it is perfectly clear that the Bible does not contain a single + word against slavery; it is also perfectly clear to all who possess a + tincture of scholarship that many of its references to slavery are + fraudulently translated. "Servants obey your masters" really means "Slaves + obey your owners." Moreover, the Bible contains precise regulations of + slavery. God did not tell the Jews that holding slaves was infamous, that + man could never have honest property in human flesh and blood. He allowed + them to buy and sell Gentiles at their pleasure. He permitted them to + enslave their own countrymen for a period of seven years, and in certain + cases "for ever." Even in the New Testament we find St Paul sending back a + runaway slave to his master. True, he sent with the slave a touching + letter to the slave-owner, but sending him back at all was giving a + sanction to the institution. Dr. Farrar admits that American pulpits "rang + with incessant Scriptural defences of slavery." He quotes from a Southern + bishop, who described slavery as "a curse and a blight," yet declared it + to be "recognised by the Bible," so that "every man has a right to his own + slaves, provided they are not treated with unnecessary cruelty." Dr. + Farrar asks whether there was ever "a stranger utterance on the lips of a + Christian bishop." He calls this "distorting the Bible." But he does not + prove the distortion. He calmly assumes it. He cannot deny the existence + of all those slavery texts in the Bible. All he can do is to say that what + was "relatively excusable" among the Jews is at present "execrable," and + is now "absolutely and for ever wrong." Very good; but how was that + discovered? Not by reading the Bible. The Jews read the Bible, the early + Christians read the Bible, just as well as Dr. Farrar, but they did not + find that it condemned slavery. Dr. Farrar lives in a later age, in the + light of a higher civilisation. He therefore <i>reads into</i> the Bible + whatever it <i>ought to</i> contain as the word of God. He does not + scruple to override explicit texts by more or less arbitrary deductions + from vague maxims and ejaculations. He pretends that the "spirit" of the + Bible in some way wrought the abolition of slavery. But every + well-informed student is aware that the abolition of slavery depended upon + economical conditions. We <i>outgrow</i> slavery by advancing beyond it in + the process of industrial development, and when we <i>have</i> outgrown it + we regard it with abhorrence. When the institution is in the way of being + supplanted by a higher form of productive labor, the moral revolt against + it begins, growing in strength and intensity as the economical change + approaches its climax. It was natural that the anti-slavery movement in + America should take place in the Northern States, where the conditions + favourable to slavery did not exist as they did in the Southern States. We + may be pardoned for supposing that if Dr. Farrar's lot had been cast in a + Southern State he would have defended slavery as a Bible institution. He + is preaching now after its abolition, when denunciation of it is cheap and + easy, and is no particular credit to the preacher's religion. While + slavery existed in America, it was at first justified by the Bible in all + parts of the Union. Northern abolitionists at last found that the Bible + did not teach slavery after all; but this did not alter the view of the + Southern slaveholders and the Southern Churches. Here again we see the + force of the Catholic taunt that Protestants can prove anything, and + disprove anything, by appealing to texts in such a composite book as the + Bible. Here again we also see that the Bible never <i>instigates</i> any + step in the march of human improvement. + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar waxes eloquent, after his special fashion, over the glories of + England in the age of Elizabeth. He attributes them all to the "open + Bible," which was then placed in the hands of the people. Of course they + had nothing to do with the new astronomy, the discovery of America, and + the invention of printing! Such paltry causes as these cannot enter into + competition with the might and majesty of the Bible! Still, we may venture + to remind Dr. Farrar that these Englishmen of the Elizabethan age, with + the "open Bible" in their hands, went and started the African slave trade. + Evidently they did not read in it then, as Dr. Farrar does now, any + condemnation of that horrible business. They worked it for all it was + worth. England, with the "open Bible" in its hand, continued to do so for + another two hundred years. One of the chief centres of the slave trade was + the pious city of Bristol. It grew rich on the abominable traffic. Slavery + has been abolished, but the old odor of piety still clings to the city of + Bristol. Its merchants fattened on the slave trade with the "open Bible" + in their hands. They now subscribe to missionary societies to convert the + blacks, and they still stick to the "open Bible." It was good for + upholding black slavery, and it is still good for upholding white slavery. + </p> + <p> + All that we have said about slavery applies in its degree to polygamy. + Both institutions are sanctioned by the Bible, and the pleas of the + "Higher Criticism" in relation to the one are just as hollow as they are + in relation to the other. We may go farther and say that the Bible is very + far from being woman's best friend, as it is often represented. It starts + by making her the Devil's first customer, and the introducer of sin and + death; it continues to hold her as inferior and subject to man, lumping + her in the tenth commandment with the house, the ox, and the ass, as the + man's property; and, finally, in the New Testament, it expressly tells her + that her duty is to be silent and submissive, for the husband is the head + of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church. + </p> + <p> + We need not follow Dr. Farrar in his rhapsodical references to the various + achievements of the Bible. We may remark, however, that his reference to + Japan is singularly unhappy. That country <i>has</i> accepted the leading + ideas of Western civilisation, but it has <i>not</i> accepted + Christianity. Nor is Dr. Farrar well advised in laying so much stress on + the Pilgrim Fathers. He says that they had a preference for the "pure, + unadulterated lessons of the Bible." Perhaps they had. But what were those + lessons as illustrated by their actions? Certainly intolerance was one of + them. They had no conception of religious liberty. "The Pilgrim Fathers," + as Sir Walter Besant remarks in his little book on <i>The Rise of the + Empire</i>, "believed that everybody should think as they themselves + thought. Had they achieved their own way, they would have sent Laud + himself, and all who thought like him, across the ocean with the greatest + alacrity." They also believed in witchcraft, probably because Dr. Farrar + was not at hand to explain that the Bible did not mean what it said; and + they tortured and burnt witches with remarkable gusto. + </p> + <p> + It would also be a waste of time to correct all Dr. Farrar's statements + about the influence of the Bible in other directions. We will take a + single illustration of his fantastical method. He tells us that the Bible + "inspired the pictures of Fra Angelico and Raphael, the music of Handel + and Mendelssohn." Perhaps he will tell us whether it inspired Raphael's + picture of the Fornarina, and why it did not inspire the music of + Beethoven and Wagner. Both those great composers, as a matter of fact, + were "infidels." + </p> + <p> + Nothing could be more absurd than orthodox talk about the Bible + "inspiring" great poets, artists, and musicians. Men of genius are + inspired by nature. Their inspiration is born with them. It cannot be + made; it can only be utilised. All that religions have done is to employ + the genius they could not create. Every religion has done this in turn. + The genius was there always as a natural endowment. It existed before all + the world's religions, and it will outlive them. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0009" id="link2H_4_0009"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + VIII. INSPIRATION + </h2> + <p> + The Higher Criticism, as expounded by Dr. Farrar, admits nearly all the + Bible difficulties that have been advanced by "infidels." Let us + recapitulate the most important. The Bible is hopelessly at variance with + science. It sometimes contradicts well-established history. Many of its + stories, taken literally, are obviously absurd. Some of the actions it + records with apparent approval are wicked or disgusting. A good deal of + its language sins against common decency. Several books were not written + by the authors whose names they bear. Others are, and must for ever + remain, anonymous. The dates of composition of the various books are not + what has been generally supposed. Occasionally the true chronology differs + from the received chronology by many centuries. To the great majority of + readers the Bible has never been known, and never can be known, except in + translations. No translation can possibly be perfect. Every translation of + the Bible is known to contain grave and numerous errors. Even in the + original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts there are thousands of various + readings. In some cases the text is uncertain, in some cases interpolated, + and in others irrecoverably impaired. The vowel points by which Hebrew is + now read are demonstrably a modern invention. Even the discourses of Jesus + Christ, in the New Testament, are not reported with accuracy. The New + Testament writers seldom quote from the Old Testament exactly, but + generally rely upon the Greek translation called the Septuagint. + </p> + <p> + Sometimes they quote passages which are not in Scripture at all. "Out of + 288 passages quoted from the Old Testament in the New," says Dr. Farrar, + "there are but 53 which agree accurately with the original Hebrew. In 76 + the New Testament differs both from the Greek and the Hebrew; and in 99 + the New Testament, the Greek, and the Hebrew are all variant." + </p> + <p> + On the face of it, then, the Bible is doomed. A book of which all these + things can be said, without the slightest fear of contradiction, must + sooner or later be dropped as the Word of God. It will be recognised as a + human composition. + </p> + <p> + Meanwhile, those who live by the Bible, and are professionally interested + in its "supremacy," as Dr. Farrar calls it, cast about a for means of + giving it a fresh reputation. The old conception of it is fatally + discredited; a new one may give it a fresh lease of life. + </p> + <p> + Evidently there is only one direction open to the theological trimmers. + They must start another theory of inspiration—one that will conserve + the "sacred" character of the Bible in spite of every difficulty that has + been, or can be discovered. + </p> + <p> + The Bible is no longer to be called <i>the</i> Word of God. Ruskin says, + and Dr. Farrar seems to quote it approvingly, that "it is a grave heresy + (or wilful source of division) to call any book, or collection of books, + the Word of God." Ten pages later, however, we are told that the Bible, as + a whole, <i>may</i> be spoken of as the Word of God, because it "contains + words and messages of God to the human soul." This word "contains" is the + magical spell by which Dr. Farrar seeks to dissipate all difficulties. He + finds the expression in the Church Articles, in the Book of Homilies, and + in the Shorter Catechism. But in order to see how illegitimate is Dr. + Farrar's use of these authorities, let us take his extract from the last + of them: "The Word of God which is <i>contained</i> in the Scriptures of + the Old and New Testament is the only rule to direct us how we may enjoy + and glorify Him." Is it not clear that the word "<i>contained</i>" is used + here in its primary meaning? Did not the writers mean that the Word of God + is included or comprehended in the Old and New Testament only, and is not + to be found elsewhere? Would they not have been shocked to hear a + clergyman of the Church of England say that some parts of the Bible were + <i>not</i> the Word of God? If so, their use of the word "contain" lends + no countenance to the use made of it by Dr. Farrar. And is it not a + shallow trick upon our intelligence to argue that different persons, using + the same word, necessarily mean the same thing? Words are the money of + fools, as Hobbes said, but only the counters of wise men. We must get at + the actual value of the thing which is symbolised. And the moment we do + this, we see that Dr. Farrar's theory of the Word of God is <i>not</i> the + same as that of the gentlemen who drew up the Shorter Catechism. They + would indeed have laughed at his "contains," and excommunicated and + imprisoned him, and perhaps burnt him at the stake. It is not by torturing + one poor word ten thousand ways that such wide differences can be + reconciled. + </p> + <p> + Passing by this ridiculous legerdemain, let us take Dr. Farrar's theory + for what it is worth. The Bible <i>contains</i> the Word of God. But how + are we to find it? What is the criterion by which we are to separate God's + word from man's word? Dr. Farrar bids us use "the ordinary means of + criticism and spiritual discernment." But such a vague generality is + nothing but verbiage. What we want is the <i>criterion</i>. Now the + nearest approach to it in all Dr. Farrar's pages is the following:— + </p> + <p> + "Is it not a plain and simple rule that anything in the Bible which + teaches, or is misinterpreted to teach, anything which is not in + accordance with the love, the gentleness, the truthfulness of Christ's + Gospel, is <i>not</i> God's word to us, however clearly it stands on the + page of Scripture?" + </p> + <p> + This is at best a <i>negative</i> criterion; and, on close examination, it + turns out to be no criterion at all. The criterion, to be valid, must be + <i>external</i> to the book itself. Dr. Farrar's criterion is <i>internal</i>. + He picks out one part of the Bible as the standard for judging all the + rest. This is entirely arbitrary. Moreover, it would soon be found + impossible in practice. Dr. Farrar's criterion may be "plain," but it is + not so "simple," except in the uncomplimentary sense of the word. For + "Christ's Gospel," by which the rest of the Bible is to be tried, is + itself a very composite and self-contradictory thing. Further, if all that + agrees with Christ's Gospel is the Word of God, is it not superfluous as + being a mere repetition? Dr. Farrar would therefore bring the actual, + valid Word of God within the compass of the Four Gospels; dismissing all + the rest, like the Arabian Caliph who commanded a whole library to be + burnt on the ground that if the books differed from the Koran they were + pernicious, and if they agreed with it they were useless. Nor is this all. + Dr. Farrar admits that the discourses of Jesus Christ are not reported + with accuracy. Therefore, having made the Gospels the criterion of the + Word of God in the rest of the Bible, he would be obliged to select some + special passages as the criterion of the Word of God in the rest of the + Gospels. This is what Shakespeare would call a world-without-end process. + </p> + <p> + Candidly, it seems to us that if the Bible <i>is</i> not the Word of God, + but only <i>contains</i> the Word of God—that is to say, if it is + partly God's word and partly man's word—the clergy of all + denominations should unite in publishing a Bible with the divine and human + parts clearly specified by being printed in different types. And surely, + if the Bible is in any sense inspired, it should be possible, by a new and + final act of inspiration, to settle this distinction for ever. + </p> + <p> + Allowing the clergy to meditate this holy enterprise, we proceed to + consider Dr. Farrar's theory of inspiration. Of course he discards the old + theory of verbal dictation; indeed, he calls it "irreverent," because it + attributes to God what modern men of intelligence and good manners would + be ashamed to own. He even quarrels with the very term inspiration as + "vague," and says it would be "a boon if some less ambiguous word could be + adopted." Four theories, he says, have been entertained in the Christian + Church. The first is the <i>mechanical</i> theory, which implies that the + Holy Ghost dictated, and the inspired penmen were merely his amanuenses. + The second is the <i>dynamic</i>, which recognises "the indefeasible + guidance of the Holy Spirit." The third is that of <i>illumination</i>, + which confines the divine guidance to matters of faith and doctrine. The + fourth is that of <i>general</i> inspiration, which regards the Holy + Spirit as influencing the writers in the same way as it influences "other + noble and holy souls." This fourth theory is the one which Dr. Farrar + himself affects. Every pure and sweet influence upon the human soul, he + says, is a heavenly inspiration. We owe to it "all that is best and + greatest in philosophy, eloquence, and song." Haydn said of his grandest + chorus in the "Creation": "Not from me but from above it all has come!" + "There is inspiration," says Dr. Farrar, "whenever the spirit of God makes + itself heard in the heart of man." Apparently—for we can never be + quite sure of Dr. Farrar—the only superiority of the Bible lies in + the fact that "the voice of God" speaks to us "far more intensely" out of + it than out of "any [other?] form of human speech." + </p> + <p> + Such a theory of inspiration is too vague and universal. Sooner than give + up inspiration altogether Dr. Farrar is prepared to share it all round. + But is not proving too much as bad as proving too little? If the Bible is + only inspired—where it <i>is</i> inspired—in the same sense as + other books are inspired; if the difference is not one of kind, but simply + of degree; then it is really idle to talk about its inspiration any + longer. The word <i>inspiration</i> loses all its original meaning. It + becomes a poetical expression, implying nothing supernatural, but merely + the exaltation of natural powers and faculties. God is then behind the + Bible only as God is behind everything; and Christianity, ceasing to be a + special revelation, becomes only a certain form of Theism. + </p> + <p> + This loose theory of <i>general</i> inspiration will doubtless serve the + present turn of the clergy, who have to face a general and growing + dissatisfaction with the Bible. But it cannot live very long in a + scientific age. It will be found out in time, like all the Bible theories + that preceded it. The first Protestant dogma was the infallibility of + Scripture. That was exploded by modern science and textual criticism. Then + came the dogma of plenary inspiration, which had a comparatively + short-lived existence, as it was only the old dogma of infallibility in + disguise. Next came the dogma of illumination, which may be said to have + begun with Coleridge and ended with Maurice. Finally, we have the dogma of + general inspiration, which began nowhere and ends nowhere, which means + anything or nothing, and which is a sort of "heads we win, tails you lose" + theory in the hands of the clever expounders of the Higher Criticism. + </p> + <p> + Behind the last, as well as the first, of all these theories of + inspiration stands the fatal objection of Thomas Paine, that inspiration, + to be real, must be personal. A man may be sure that God speaks to him, + but how can he be sure that God has spoken to another man? He may think it + possible or probable, but he can never be certain. What is revelation at + first-hand, said Paine, is only hearsay at second-hand. Real inspiration, + therefore, eventuates in mysticism. The inner light shines, the inner + voice speaks; God holds personal communication with the individual soul. + Each believer carries what the author of <i>Hudibras</i> calls "the dark + lanthorn of the spirit," which "none see by but those who bear it." And + the very multiplicity and diversity of the oracle's deliverances are a + proof that in all of them man is speaking to himself. He questions his + gods, and hears only the echo of his own voice. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0010" id="link2H_4_0010"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + IX. THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS + </h2> + <p> + Some of the teaching of the Higher Criticism as to the authorship and + credibility of the Old Testament is, on the face of it, contrary to the + plain language of Jesus Christ himself in the Gospels. Moses, for + instance, is no longer considered as the author of the Pentateuch. Canon + Driver, who is perhaps the chief scholar of this movement in the Church of + England, as Dean Farrar is perhaps its chief rhetorician, locates the + composition of the book of Deuteronomy in the period between Isaiah and + Jeremiah. Throughout the book, he observes, the writer introduces Moses in + the third person, and puts speeches in his mouth which of course he never + uttered. But in "framing discourses appropriate to Moses' situation!" he + was not guilty of "forgery," for he was "doing nothing inconsistent with + the literary usages of his age and people." That is to say, everybody did + it, and this writer was no worse than his contemporaries—which is + probably true. But passing by the question of casuistry here involved, we + repeat that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is entirely abandoned. + Dr. Farrar is quite as emphatic as Dr. Driver on this point. He denies + that there is "any proof of the existence of a <i>collected</i> Pentateuch + earlier than the days of Ezra (b.c. 444 )"—a thousand years after + the time of Moses. He points out that the salient features of the + so-called Mosaic Law, such as the Passover, the Sabbatical year, and the + Day of Atonement, are not to be traced in the old historical books or in + the earlier prophets. Nor does he scruple to assert that the Pentateuch is + "a work of composite structure," which has been "edited and re-edited + several times," and "contains successive strata of legislation." In the + New Testament, however, Moses is repeatedly spoken of as the author of the + Pentateuch.* Not to multiply texts, for in such a case one is as good as a + thousand, we will take a decisive passage in the fourth Gospel:— + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Matthew xix. 7, 8; Mark x. 3, 4; xii. 26; Luke xvi. 29-31; + Luke xx. 37; John v. 45, 46; vii. 19, 22, 23. +</pre> + <p> + "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that + accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye + would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his + writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John v. 45-47). + </p> + <p> + The speaker in this instance is Christ himself. It is he, and not the + evangelist, who speaks of the writings of Moses, and declares that Moses + "wrote of me." + </p> + <p> + Now let us turn to the book of Psalms, which has been well called the Hymn + Book of the Second Temple. According to Dr. Farrar, they are "a collection + of sacred poems in five separate books of very various antiquity." Canon + Driver points out that they are mostly posterior to the prophetical + writings. "When the Psalms," he says, "are compared with the prophets, the + latter seem to show, on the whole, the greater originality; the psalmists, + in other words, <i>follow</i> the prophets, appropriating and applying the + truths which the prophets proclaimed." Very few of the Psalms are earlier + than the seventh century before Christ. Dr. Driver affirms this with + "tolerable confidence." Dr. Farrar says that "some may mount to an epoch + earlier than David's," but this is mere conjecture. The more cautious Dr. + Driver will not commit himself further than "a verdict of <i>non liquet</i>"; + that is to say, there is no proof that David did not write one or two of + the Psalms, and no evidence that he did. His name was associated with the + collection, in the same way as the name of Solomon was associated with the + Proverbs. Nevertheless it is David who is referred to by Jesus as the + author of the hundred-and-tenth Psalm.* But this Psalm is one of those + which are allowed to belong to a much later period. Jesus quoted it as + David's, but Professor Sanday says "it seems difficult to believe it + really came from him"**—which is as strong an expression as a + Christian divine could be expected to permit himself in a case of such + delicacy. + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Matthew xxii. 43-45; Mark xii. 36, 37; Luke xx. 42-44. + + ** Professor W. Sanday, Bampton Lectures on Inspiration, p. + 409. Canon Gore, with this utterance of Jesus right before + him, still more emphatically denies that this Psalm was, or + could have been, composed by David. See his Bampton Lectures + on The Incarnation of the Son of God, p. 197. +</pre> + <p> + We have already seen that the book of Daniel was not written by the + prophet Daniel, but by some unknown author hundreds of years later, + probably in the second century before Christ. Upon this subject Professor + Sanday takes precisely the same view as Canon Driver. He says that this is + "the critical view" and has "won the day." All the facts support the + "supposition that the book was written in the second century b.c.," and + not "in the sixth." "The real author," he says, "is unknown," and "the + name of Daniel is only assumed." He was writing, not a history, but a + homily, to encourage his brethren at the time of the Maccabean struggle. + "To this purpose of his," Professor Sanday says, "there were features in + the traditional story of Daniel which appeared to lend themselves; and so + he took that story and worked it up in the way which seemed to him most + effective." Jesus Christ, however, held the orthodox view of his own time, + and spoke of Daniel as the actual author of this book (Matthew xxiv. 15). + "But this," Professor Sanday observes, "it is right to say, is only in one + Gospel, where the mention of Daniel may be an insertion of the + Evangelist's." Such conjectural shifts are Christian critics reduced to in + their effort to minimise difficulties; as though <i>reducing</i> the + mistakes of Jesus in any way saved his <i>infallibility</i>. + </p> + <p> + We will now turn to some portions of the Old Testament narrative which the + Higher Criticism regards as legendary, but which Jesus regarded as + strictly historical. One of these is the story of the Flood. No one of any + standing is now prepared to defend this story, at least as we find it in + the book of Genesis. A few orthodox scientists, like Sir James W. Dawson, + pour out copious talk about tremendous floods in former geological ages; + but what has this to do with the Bible narrative of a universal deluge + which occurred some four thousand five hundred years ago? The Higher + Critics have the impatience of Freethinkers with such intellectual + charlatanry. They regard the story of the Flood as a Jewish legend, which + was not even original, but borrowed from the superstitions of Babylon. Yet + the opinion of Jesus Christ seems to have been very different. Here are + his own words:— + </p> + <p> + "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man + be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and + drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered + into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away, + so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew xxiv. 37-39). + </p> + <p> + Jesus Christ appears to have believed, like the disciples he was + addressing, like all the rest of his countrymen, and like nearly all + Christians until very recently, that the Flood was an historical + occurrence, that Noah and his family were saved in the ark, and that all + the other inhabitants of the world were drowned. + </p> + <p> + Another story which the Higher Criticism dismisses as legendary is that of + Jonah. The book in which it is related was, of course, not written by + Jonah, the son of Amittai, of whom we read in 2 Kings xiv. 25, and who + lived in the reign of Jeroboam II. "It cannot," as Dr. Driver says, "have + been written until long after the lifetime of Jonah himself." Its probable + date is the fifth century before Christ. Dr. Driver says it is "not + strictly historical "—that is to say, the events recorded in it + never happened. Jonah was not really entertained for three days in a + whale's belly, nor did his preaching convert the whole city of Nineveh. + The writer's purpose was didactic; he wished to rebuke the exclusiveness + of his own people, and to teach them that God's care extended, at least + occasionally, to other nations as well as the Jews. Some critics, such as + Cheyne and Wright, regard the story as allegorical; Jonah standing for + Israel, the whale for Babylon, and the vomiting up of the prophet for the + return of the Jews from exile. Dr. Farrar draws attention to the + "remarkable" fact that in the book of Kings "no allusion is made to any + mission or adventure of the historic Jonah." He adds that there is not + "the faintest trace of his mission or its results amid the masses of + Assyrian inscriptions." Even the writer of the book of Jonah, according to + Dr. Farrar, attached "no importance" to its "supernatural incidents," + which "only belong to the allegorical form of the story." So much for the + Higher Critics; and now let us hear Jesus Christ:— + </p> + <p> + "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall + no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas + was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of + man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of + Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: + because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and behold a greater than + Jonas is here" (Matthew xii. 39-41). + </p> + <p> + This utterance of Jesus is also reported in Luke (xi. 29-32), but with an + important variation, the reference to Jonah in the whale's belly being + entirely omitted. This variation is seized upon by Dr. Farrar. The fishy + reference, he says, occurs in Matthew <i>alone</i>, and it may "represent + a comment or marginal note by the Evangelist, or of some other Christian + teacher." This, however, is an arbitrary supposition, which everyone is + free to repudiate; and Dr. Farrar feels obliged to add that "even if our + Lord did allude to the whale" it does not follow that we should regard it + as "literal history." But this is not the question at issue. The real + question is, did Jesus Christ believe the story of Jonah and the whale? If + he did not, it must be admitted that he had a most unfortunate way of + expressing himself. + </p> + <p> + No educated Christian in the present age believes the story of Lot's wife + being changed into a pillar of rock salt, although Josephus pretended that + he had seen it, and many travellers and pilgrims have searched for it as a + sacred relic. Jesus Christ, however, gave great prominence to this salted + lady. "Remember Lot's wife" is a verse by itself in the Protestant Bible + (Luke xvii. 32). Jesus also refers to the rain of fire and brimstone by + which Sodom was destroyed. + </p> + <p> + Here then, upon the face of it, we have Jesus Christ's testimony to three + documents as having been written by men who did not write them, and to the + historical character of three incidents which are purely fabulous. Now the + Higher Criticism must be wrong, or else Jesus Christ was mistaken; in + other words, he was not infallible, and therefore not God. But the Higher + Critics declare that they are not wrong; they also declare that Jesus + Christ was not mistaken. Let us see how they try to save their own + accuracy and his infallibility. + </p> + <p> + We must remark, in passing, that some of these critics hint, without + exactly asserting, that Jesus <i>may</i> have been mistaken. Dr. Farrar + bids us remember that "by the very fact of taking our nature upon him + Christ voluntarily submitted himself to human limitations." There were + some things which, as a man, he did not know. Yes, but he was also God; + and the conjunction of "knowledge" and "ignorance" in one person, and with + respect to a single subject, would dissolve the unity of the God-man, + which is a dogma of Christian theology. Moreover, as Canon Liddon argued, + it is not so much a question of Christ's omniscience as a question of his + infallibility. Supposing there were some matters, such as the date of the + day of judgment, of which he was ignorant; he might confess his ignorance + or remain silent, and no harm would accrue to anyone; but if he spoke upon + any matter, and was mistaken through want of knowledge, he would become a + propagator of error; and this would not only destroy the doctrine of his + deity, but very seriously impair his authority as a teacher, and cause + everything he said to be open to the gravest suspicion. No less dangerous + is it to fall back upon the explanation that "the discourses of Christ are + not reproduced by the Evangelists with verbal identity"—to use Dr. + Farrar's own language. Dr. Sanday seems a little attracted by this + explanation. He reminds us that, whatever views Jesus himself entertained + as to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, his views have come down to us + through the medium of persons who shared the erroneous ideas that were + then current on the subject. We must be prepared, he says, for the + possibility that Christ's sayings in regard to it "have not been reported + with absolute accuracy." But after all "not much allowance" should be made + for this; which means, we suspect, that the worthy Professor saw the + dreadful peril of pursuing this vein of observation, and desisted from it + before he had said enough to cause serious mischief. + </p> + <p> + The more astute Higher Critics avoid such dangers. They resort to a theory + that combines mystery and plausibility, by which they hope to satisfy + believers on both sides of their natures. Dr. Farrar tells us that Christ, + to become a man, emptied himself of his glory; and that this "examination" + involved the necessity of speaking as a man to men. This position is + perhaps best expressed by Canon Gore:— + </p> + <p> + "It is contrary to his whole method to reveal his Godhead by any + anticipations of natural knowledge. The Incarnation was a self-emptying of + God to reveal himself under conditions of human nature, and from the human + point of view. We are able to draw a distinction between what he revealed + and what he used......Now when he speaks of the 'sun rising' he is using + ordinary human knowledge. Thus he does not reveal his eternity by + statements as to what had happened in the past, or was to happen in the + future, outside the ken of existing history. He made his Godhead gradually + manifest by his attitude towards men and things about him, by his moral + and spiritual claims, by his expressed relation to his father, not by any + miraculous exemptions of himself from the conditions of natural knowledge + in its own proper province. Thus the utterances of Christ about the Old + Testament do not seem to be nearly definite or clear enough to allow of + our supposing that in this case he is departing from the general method of + the Incarnation, by bringing to bear the unveiled omniscience of the + Godhead, to anticipate or foreclose a development of natural knowledge."* + </p> + <p> + This would perhaps be sublime if it were only intelligible. We are not + surprised at Dr. Driver's turning away from the metaphysics of this + theory. His mind is cast in a more sober and practical mould. It is enough + for him that the aim of Christ's teaching was a religious one; that he + naturally accepted, as the basis of his teaching, the opinions respecting + the Old Testament that were current around him; that he did not raise + "issues for which the time was not yet ripe, and which, had they been + raised, would have interfered seriously with the paramount purpose of his + life."** + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Rev. Charles Gore, Lux Mundi (seventh edition), pp. 360, + 361. + + ** Introduction, Preface, xix. +</pre> + <p> + This is excellently said. It is just what Paley might have written in + present-day circumstances. But it contains no note of the supernatural. It + deals with Jesus as a mere man, who did not disclose all the information + he possessed, but sometimes veiled his knowledge for temporary reasons. It + leaves his Godhead in the background. It does not recognise how easy it + was for Omnipotence to act differently. And when the Higher Criticism + points out that the human mind could, in the course of time, free itself + from errors as to the authorship and credibility of the Old Testament, it + forgets that Jesus Christ, by accommodating himself to those errors, <i>perpetuated</i> + them. His authority was appealed to for centuries—it is appealed to + now—in favor of falsehood. Nor is this falsehood trivial and + innocuous. It has been extremely harmful. It has fostered a wrong view of + the Bible, it has prolonged the reign of superstition, and thus hindered + the growth of true civilisation. This is an impeachment of the moral + character of Jesus. It is a confession that he served a temporary object + at the expense of the permanent interests of humanity. We feel + constrained, therefore, to admit the force of the words of Canon Liddon:— + </p> + <p> + "We have lived to hear men proclaim the legendary and immoral character of + considerable portions of those Old Testament scriptures, upon which our + Lord has set the seal of his infallible authority. And yet, side by side + with this rejection of Scriptures so deliberately sanctioned by Christ, + there is an unwillingness which, illogical as it is, we must sincerely + welcome, to profess any explicit rejection of the Church's belief in + Christ's divinity. Hence arises the endeavour to intercept a conclusion, + which might otherwise have seemed so plain as to make arguments in its + favor an intellectual impertinence. Hence a series of singular + refinements, by which Christ is presented to the modern world as really + Divine, yet as subject to fatal error; as Founder of the true religion, + yet as the credulous patron of a volume replete with worthless legends; as + the highest Teacher and Leader of humanity, yet withal as the ignorant + victim of the prejudices and follies of an unenlightened age."* + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Canon H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Christ (fourteenth + edition), p. 462. +</pre> + <p> + Canon Gore devotes several pages of his Bampton Lectures to this subject, + but he does not fairly answer the straightforward objections raised by + Canon Liddon. Dealing with the references of Jesus to the Mosaic + authorship of the Pentateuch, and to Jonah's three days' entombment in the + whale's belly, and with the argument that this endorsement by Jesus "binds + us to receive these narratives as simple history," he blandly declares, + "To this argument I do not think that we need yield." Of course not. There + is no need to yield to anything you do not like; for this is a free + country, at least to Christians. But what is the logical conclusion? That + is the point to be decided. Canon Gore does not face it; he merely + expresses a personal disinclination. Subsequently he pleads that "a heavy + burden" should not be laid on "sensitive consciences," and that men should + not be asked "to accept as matter of revelation what seems to them an + improbable literary theory." But this again is a personal appeal. These + men must be left to attend to their own consciences. They have no right to + demand a suppression of truth, or a perversion of logic, for their + particular advantage. + </p> + <p> + When a candid reader has finished all that the Higher Criticism has to say + on this matter, we believe he will be filled with a sense of its + insincerity. It never strikes a note of triumph, or even a note of + conviction. It is timid, furtive, and apologetic; and shelters itself + against reason by plunging into mystery. In place of all the difficulties + it removes it sets up a colossal one of its own manufacture; the + difficulty, to wit, of conceiving that God himself lent a sanction to + grave and far-reaching error as to his own Word; or what would inevitably + be regarded as a sanction, and would necessarily delay for many hundreds + of years the discovery and reception of the truth. The Higher Criticism, + in short, has supplied a new argument against the deity of Jesus Christ. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0011" id="link2H_4_0011"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + X. THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND + </h2> + <p> + Dr. Farrar's book has naturally given offence to the more orthodox + Christians. Clergymen like "Father" Ignatius stigmatise him, and indeed + all clerical exponents of the Higher Criticism, as wolves in sheeps' + clothing, who eat the Church's meat and do the work of "infidelity." We + are not surprised, therefore, that some reassurance has been deemed + necessary; nor astonished that it took the form of a popular announcement + in the newspapers. Some months ago—to be accurate, it was in + September—the following paragraph went the round of the press:— + </p> + <p> + "Dean Farrar and the Scriptures.—A correspondent called the + attention of Dean Farrar to the fact that Atheistic lecturers are in the + habit of affirming that he does not believe in the Bible (referring to his + works as a confirmation of the statement), and observed that, if such a + grave assertion were allowed to be propagated without contradiction, the + young and the ignorant might be deceived by it. The Dean, who is at + present staying in Yorkshire, replied as follows: 'The statement to which + you refer is ignorant nonsense. The doctrine of the Church of England + about Holy Scripture is stated in her Sixth and Seventh. Articles, and + that doctrine I most heartily accept." + </p> + <p> + This strikes us as a rather paltry evasion. The Sixth and Seventh Articles + of the Church of England do not state the full Christian belief as to the + Bible, but only the Protestant belief as against that of the Church of + Rome. They emphasise two points, and two points only: first, that the + Scriptures contain all that is necessary to salvation, so that no man is + at the Pope's mercy for a seat in heaven; second, that fourteen books of + the Roman Catholic Bible are apocryphal, and cannot be used to establish + any doctrine. The general Christian view of the Bible, common to Catholics + and Protestants, is taken for granted, as it had not then been brought + into controversy. There is one word in the Sixth Article, however, which + may be commended to Dr. Farrar's attention. The last clause explains what + is meant by "Holy Scripture," and runs as follows:—"In the name of + the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and + New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." Now, + unless Dr. Farrar means to juggle with the word "authority"—and we + do not doubt his capacity for doing so—it is idle for him to say + that he believes in the Bible according to these terms. He does <i>not</i> + believe, for instance, in the "authority" of the book of Jonah; on the + contrary, he believes that Jonah did not write it, and that it is not + history, but romance, from beginning to end. If <i>this</i> is believing + in the Bible, then Atheistic lecturers believe in it as well as Dr. + Farrar. He does not believe that Jonah spent three days in a whale's belly—nor + do they; he does not believe that Jonah's deep-sea adventure was a + prefigurement of the burial of Jesus Christ—nor do they; he does not + believe that the Jonah story is any the truer because Jesus Christ really + or apparently believed it—nor do they; he simply believes that the + story's moral is a good one, as far as it represents people who are not + Jews as entitled to consideration—and so do they. Substantially + there is not the smallest difference between them. The only discernible + difference is a hypothetical one. Dr. Farrar claims that the book of Jonah + is inspired. But he also claims that everything good and true—that + is, everything worth reading—is inspired. "Very well then," the + Atheist may reply, "I agree with you still, in substance. The only point + in dispute between us is whether there is a God who interferes with the + natural course of things, either in the external world or in the human + mind. But on your definition of the word <i>inspired</i>, this makes no + particular difference to any one book or collection of books. And unless + you alter (and narrow) your theory of inspiration, our difference begins + outside, not inside, the library—and is, in brief, not practical, + but metaphysical." + </p> + <p> + But let us return to Dr. Farrar's method of proving his sufficient + orthodoxy; and let us tell him that if he will only pursue it far enough, + he may get rid of the Bible altogether. + </p> + <p> + Suppose we take Pearson's classic <i>Exposition of the Creed</i>, and open + it at his address "to the Reader." In the second paragraph he writes as + follows:—"The Creed, without controversy, is a brief comprehension + of the objects of our Christian faith, and is generally taken to contain + all things necessary to be believed." Now this Creed does not mention the + Bible at all. A heathen might read it, and never infer from it that there + was such a thing as the Scriptures in existence. What then is to prevent + Dr. Farrar, or some more audacious clergyman, from saying that he does not + believe in the Bible, as it is nowhere laid down as necessary to be + believed; but that his orthodoxy is nevertheless unimpeachable, because he + "most heartily accepts" the Catholic and Apostolic Creed which is "without + controversy" an accurate compendium of the Christian faith, and which, + being prescribed in the Prayer Book, is of course binding—and is <i>alone</i> + binding—on every loyal son of the Church of England? + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar claims, as a clergyman, what he calls a "Christian liberty" in + dealing with the Bible; although, if God has indeed spoken in the Bible, + it is difficult to see what liberty a Christian can have but that of + absolute belief and obedience. In a lengthy footnote of his volume which + we have been criticising, he refers to the famous "Essays and Reviews + Case," and the decisions of the judges in the Court of Arches and in the + Privy Council. Dr. Lushington laid it down that: "Provided the Articles + and Formularies are not contravened, the law lays down no limits of + construction, no rule of interpretation, of the Scriptures." Lord Westbury + declared that the Sixth Article of the Church of England was based upon + "the revelations of the Holy Spirit," and therefore the Bible might be + denominated "holy" and be said to be "the Word of God"; but this was not + "distinctly predicated of every statement and representation contained in + every part of the Old and New Testaments." "The framers of the Articles," + Lord Westbury added, "have not used the word 'inspiration' as applied to + the Holy Scriptures, nor have they laid down anything as to the nature, + extent, or limits of that operation of the Holy Spirit." + </p> + <p> + According to this sapient judgment, which perhaps is very good law, and + covers all possible developments of the Higher Criticism, every member of + the Church of England is bound to regard the Bible as containing "the + revelations of the Holy Spirit," but is not bound to regard it as a work + of "inspiration." A judge, with his legal spectacles on, is notoriously + able to discriminate subtleties where laymen see only what is plain; and + clergymen may take advantage of his preternatural sagacity, without being + able in the long run to impose upon the common sense of the people, who + will always look upon "revelation" and "inspiration" as interchangeable + terms. + </p> + <p> + It is quite natural that Dr. Farrar should wish to get rid of this word + "inspiration," since it can no longer be defined without danger. But we + must remind him that, if it does not occur in the Church Articles, it + certainly does occur in the Bible. "All scripture," Paul said, "is given + by inspiration of God."* + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Timothy iii. 16. +</pre> + <p> + And as the New Testament was not then in existence, Paul of course + referred to the Old Testament. This was the "holy scriptures" which + Timothy had "known from a child." And Peter is, if possible, more definite + than Paul. He speaks of the "more sure word of prophecy," surer than the + very voice heard by the three disciples on the mount of transfiguration. + This "prophecy of the scripture" he declares to be never of "any private + interpretation"—which means, according to the commentators, that it + did not spring from any knowledge or personal conjecture in the prophet. + Finally, he clinches his exposition by affirming that "holy men of God + spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."* + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * 2 Peter i. 19-21. We quote this epistle as Peter's, + because it passes as his in the New Testament, not because + it was really his writing. +</pre> + <p> + According to the Sixth Article of the Church of England, both these + epistles, bearing the names of Paul and Peter, are among the books "of + whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." Dr. Farrar is + therefore bound by them in logic and honor. He is not free to cast aside + the Biblical term of <i>inspiration</i> nor free to minimise as he pleases + the "moving" influence of the Holy Ghost in either the New or the Old + Testament. As a clergyman of the Church of England, he assumes an + unwarrantable freedom; a freedom which is no more sanctioned by her + Articles than it is by the letter or spirit of the Scriptures. He departs + entirely from the primitive and real position of Protestantism; namely, + that the Bible is the absolute standard of faith and practice, and that, + wherever it is dark or dubious, it must be interpreted by itself. He + treads the <i>via media</i> of compromise and irrationality; neither going + over to Rome, which claims to be inspired, like the Bible, and to be the + vehicle of the living voice of God for the infallible interpretation of + the written revelation—nor going over to Rationalism, which regards + the Catholic Church as but a human institution, and the Bible as but a + human composition. Believe that God has spoken, according to the words of + Paul and Peter, and the Catholic theory is the only satisfactory one; + disbelieve it, and there is no logical alternative but the most + thoroughgoing Rationalism. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0012" id="link2H_4_0012"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + XI. AN ORIENTAL BOOK + </h2> + <p> + Dr. Farrar stumbles, on one occasion, against the true theory of the + Bible. Having to furnish an excuse, if not a justification, for the + outrageous crudity of a good deal of its language, he reminds us that + decorum changes with time and place. "The rigid external modesty and + propriety of modern and English literature," he observes, "is disgusted + and offended by statements which gave no such shock to ancient and Eastern + readers." And he adds that "The plain-spokenness of Orientals involved no + necessary offence against abstract morality." This is true enough, but the + argument should be developed. What is urged in extenuation of the + grossness of the Scripture is really applicable all round—to its + mythology, its legends, its religion, its philosophy, its ethics, and its + poetry. The Bible is an oriental book. And this one statement, when + properly understood, gives us the true key to its interpretation, the real + criterion of its character, and the just measure of its value. + </p> + <p> + It has been well remarked that the ordinary Christian in this part of the + world appears to imagine that the Bible dropped down from heaven—in + English. Even the expounders of the Higher Criticism, in our own country, + read it first in their mother tongue; and although they afterwards read it + in the original Greek, and sometimes in the original Hebrew, they are + under the witchery of early impressions, and their apologetics are almost + entirely founded upon the vernacular Bible. Thus they lose sight, and + their readers never catch a glimpse, of the predominant element, the + governing factor, of the problem. + </p> + <p> + All the Bibles in the world, like all the religions in the world, came + from the East. "Not one of them," as Max Müller remarks, "has been + conceived, composed, or written down in Europe."* + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Max Müller, Natural Religion, p. 538. +</pre> + <p> + He classes the <i>Pilgrim's Progress</i> among the "many books which have + exercised a far greater influence on religious faith and moral conduct + than the Bibles of the world"; but Bunyan's originality was artistic and + not religious; he absorbed the Puritanism of his age, and reproduced it in + the form of a magnificent allegory. Religious originality does not belong + to the Western mind, which is too scientific and practical. Every one of + the fashionable crazes that spring up from time to time, and have their + day and give place to a successor, is merely a garment from the old + wardrobe of superstition. This is true of Theosophy, for instance; all its + doctrines, ideas, and jargon being borrowed from India. "There are five + countries only," Max Müller says, "which have been the birthplace of + Sacred Books: (1) India, (2) Persia, (3) China, (4) Palestine, (5) + Arabia." All come from the East, and all have a generic and historic + resemblance. Not one of them was written by the founder of its religion. + Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Christ did not write a line of the New + Testament, Mohammed did not write the Koran, Zoroaster did not write the + Avesta, the Buddhist Scriptures were not written by Buddha, and the Vedic + hymns are far more ancient than writing in India. All these Sacred Books + embody the accepted beliefs of whole peoples; all of them are canonical + and authoritative; all contain very much the same ethical groundwork, in + the form of elementary moral prohibitions; all of them are held to be of + divine character; all of them become a kind of fetish, which is worshipped + and obeyed at the expense of the free spirit of man, who is told not to be + wise above what is written. Ecclesiastical or kingly authority has + generally given these books their final form and character. Their + establishment takes place in open daylight, but their origin is more or + less shrouded in mystery. "It is curious," Max Müller says, "that + wherever we have sacred books, they represent to us the oldest language of + the country. It is so in India, it is the same in Persia, in China, in + Palestine, and very nearly so in Arabia."* According to Max Müller, + the Veda was referred to in India fifteen hundred years before Christ. + Consequently it precedes by many centuries even the earliest parts of the + Bible:— + </p> + <p> + "The Vedic hymns come to us as a collection of sacred poetry, belonging to + certain ancient families, and afterwards united in one collection, called + the Rig-veda-sa<i>m</i>hitâ. The names of the poets, handed down by + tradition, are in most cases purely imaginary names. What is really + important is that in the hymns themselves the poets speak of their + thoughts and words as <i>God-given</i>—this we can understand—while + at a later time the theory came in that not the thoughts and words only, + but every syllable, every letter, every accent, had been communicated to + half-divine and half-human prophets by Brahma, so that the slightest + mistake in pronunciation, even to the pronunciation of an accent, would + destroy the charm and efficacy of these ancient prayers."** + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Natural Religion, p. 295. + + ** Max Müller, ibid, p. 558. +</pre> + <p> + With a slight variation of language, to suit the special circumstances, + nearly all this would apply to the Bible. + </p> + <p> + Christianity, like Brahmanism, like Buddhism, like Mohammedanism, is a + book religion. It is "God-given," or revealed, and its Bible has been + elevated to a position of infallibility, above the reach of human reason, + precisely like the Bibles of other oriental faiths. This sanctification of + every thought and word and letter is declared by Max Müller to have + been "the death-blow given to the Vedic religion," destroying its power of + growth and change. A similar observation is made by Sir William Muir + respecting the petrified gospel of the Koran:— + </p> + <p> + "From the stiff and rigid shroud in which it is thus swathed, the religion + of Mohammed cannot emerge. It has no plastic power beyond that exercised + in its earliest days. Hardened now and inelastic, it can neither adapt + itself nor yet shape its votaries, nor even suffer them to shape + themselves, to the varying circumstances, the wants and developments of + mankind."* + </p> + <p> + How curious it is, after reading this strong passage, to come across a + diametrically opposite one in the work of another eminent writer on the + same subject. Professor Arnold closes his important book on the + propagation of the Muslim faith with a reference to "the power of this + religion to adapt itself to the peculiar characteristics and the stage of + development of the people whose allegiance it seeks to win."** + Historically, it is perfectly certain that Mohammedanism <i>has</i> been + found compatible with a high degree of civilisation. Many instances might + be given, but a single one is sufficient. The Mohammedan civilisation in + Spain was far superior to the Christian civilisation which, after terrible + bloodshed and enormous destruction, was established upon its ruins. The + truth is, that religions always change when they must change, and never + otherwise. When the necessity arises, learned divines will always be found + to make the requisite accommodations. This, indeed, is the explanation of + the labors of Dr. Farrar and other exponents of the Higher Criticism. They + are simply accommodating Christianity, and the Bible with it, to the + serious changes that have taken place in educated opinion and sentiment, + in consequence of the development of physical science, the progress of + historical criticism, and the growth of moral culture. All the truth in + Sir William Muir's impeachment of Mohammedanism is no less applicable to + Christianity. The Bible, like the Koran, and like every other revelation, + stereotyped old ideas, and gave them a factitious longevity. Dr. Farrar + himself not only admits, but contends, that the Bible has been invoked + against every advance in science, politics, and sociology. What more could + be said of the Koran or any other sacred book? + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Sir William Muir, Rise and Decline of Islam, pp. 40, 41. + + ** T. W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam. +</pre> + <p> + Bring any oriental religion into Europe, and it must change or perish. + Christianity is not true, as Mr. Gladstone and so many orthodox apologists + have argued, because the Christian nations are at the top of civilisation. + The Caucasian mind led the world before the advent of Christianity, and it + is doing the same now. Christians are apt to forget that Greece and Italy + are in Europe, and that Athens and Rome—two imperishable names in + the world's history—were far-shining cities before a good deal of + the Old Testament was written. + </p> + <p> + Keep any oriental religion in the East, however, and there is no saying + how long it will last unaltered. Do not travellers talk of the unchanging + East? The civilisation of China is almost what it was thousands of years + ago. Syrian life to-day is like a picture from the Bible. And the old + Orient, as Flaubert said, is the land of religions; and where Asia looks + upon Europe, and the communication between them began of yore, you may + sample all the faiths of antiquity. Flaubert remarked that the assemblage + of all the old religions in Syria was something incredible; it was enough + to study for centuries.* + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Flaubert, Correspondence, vol. i., p. 344. +</pre> + <p> + Asia spawned forth all the great religions, and produced all the great + revelations. Arabia is in Africa, but the Arabs are not Africans; they + belong to the Semitic race, like the Jews, and the Koran embodies Jewish + and other Semitic traditions. + </p> + <p> + The Bible, then, is an oriental book, an Asiatic book, in spite of the + Greek elements which are incorporated in the New Testament, notably in the + fourth Gospel. It has never been in harmony with the real life of the + West. When it has dominated the life of a particular locality, for a + certain period, the result has been something typically non-European; as + in the case of Scotland under the despotism of the Kirk, whose spiritual + slaves prompted Heine's epigram that the Presbyterian Scotchman was a Jew, + born in the north, who ate pork. Modern civilisation is mainly a return to + the spirit of secular progress which inspired the immortal achievements of + Greece and Rome. + </p> + <p> + "The revival of learning and the Renaissance are memorable as the first + sturdy breasting by humanity of the hither slope of the great hollow which + lies between us and the ancient world. The modern man, reformed and + regenerated by knowledge, looks across it, and recognises on the opposite + ridge, in the far-shining cities and stately porticoes, in the art, + politics, and science of antiquity, many more ties of kinship and sympathy + than in the mighty concave between, wherein dwell his Christian ancestry, + in the dim light of scholasticism and theology."* + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * James Cotter Morison, The Service of Man, p. 178. +</pre> + <p> + Well, if we once fully recognise the Bible as an oriental book, we are on + the road to its complete comprehension. Its grossness of speech, its + gratuitous reference to animal functions, its designation of males by + their sexual attributes even on the most serious occasions, its religious + observances in connection with pregnancy and birth, its very rite of + circumcision; all this, and much more, becomes perfectly intelligible. It + is in keeping with all we know of the ideas, practices, and language of + the East. Moreover, we perceive why it is that similarities to the + theology, the poetry, and the ethics of the Bible have been so liberally + disclosed by the progress of oriental studies. The Bible, being brought + from the East, has to be carried back there to be properly understood. It + is true that Christian divines have offered their own explanation of these + similarities. At first they declared them to be Satanic anticipations, + devilish pre-mockeries, of God's own truth. Then they declared them to be + confused echoes of the oracles of Jehovah. Finally, they declare them to + be evidences of the fact that, although God chose the Jewish race as the + medium of his special revelation, he also revealed himself partially to + other nations. But these explanations are alike fantastic. They rest upon + no ground of history or evolution. The real explanation is that the Bible + is one of the many sacred books of the East. Its differences from the rest + are not of kind, but of degree; and any superiority that may be claimed + for it must henceforth be argued upon this basis. + </p> + <p> + This oriental Bible is at utter variance with the vital beliefs, the + political and social tendencies, and the ethical aspirations, of the + present age. Science has destroyed its naive supernaturalism; reason has + placed its personal God—the magnified, non-natural man—in his + own niche in the world's Pantheon; philosophy has carried us far beyond + its primitive conceptions of human society; our morality has outgrown its + hardness and insularity, however we may still appreciate its finer + ejaculations; even the most pious Christians, with the exception of a few + "peculiar" people, only pay a hypocritical homage to its clearest + injunctions; and the higher development of decency and propriety makes us + turn from its crude expressions with a growing sense of disgust, while the + progress of humanity fills us more and more with a loathing of its + frightful wars and ruthless massacres, its tales of barbaric cruelty, and + its crowning infamy of an everlasting hell. + </p> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0013" id="link2H_4_0013"> + <!-- H2 anchor --> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> + <h2> + XII. FICTITIOUS SUPREMACY + </h2> + <p> + There are two remarkable characteristics of present-day apologies for + Christianity: one is extravagant laudation of Jesus as man and teacher, + the other is extravagant laudation of the Bible as ethics and literature. + Both these characteristics are really signs of the decadence of positive + faith. Anyone who sincerely believed in the deity of Jesus would shrink + from praising his human virtues. To such a person it would savor strongly + of impertinence. Nor would anyone who really believed the Bible to be the + Word of God make it the subject of meaner panegyrics. It seems ridiculous + to argue that God wrote with unusual power and sublimity, and is actually + the very first of known authors. But this is what Dr. Farrar does, + essentially, in the last six chapters of his volume. No wonder, therefore, + that all the vices of his style are displayed in the accomplishment of + this extraordinary task. He has to make several quotations from great or + distinguished writers, but he catches no literary infection from them. One + of these quotations is from brave old George Fox. "I saw," the great + Quaker wrote, "that there was an ocean of darkness and death; but an + infinite ocean of Light and Love flowed over the ocean of Darkness; and in + that I saw the infinite love of God." This is magnificent writing. It has + vision, force, and simplicity. In its way it could hardly be beaten. And + how poor in comparison is the turgid pulpit rhetoric of Dr. Farrar! + </p> + <p> + We are told by this wordy defender of the faith that the Christian + Scriptures are "the Supreme Bible of Humanity"—as though, if it be + the Word of God, it could be anything less. Our attention is called to its + "unique transcendence"—which is a penny-a-lining pleonasm. We are + informed that it has "triumphed with ease over the assaults of its + enemies"—which is a remarkably modest assertion, especially in view + of the fact that the "enemies" of the Bible were, for fifteen hundred + years, generally subdued by persecution, imprisonment, torture, + assassination, and the burning of their writings. We are further informed + that the Bible commands the reverence, guides the thoughts, educates the + souls, and kindles the moral aspirations of men "through all the world"—which + is an extremely sober statement in view of the fact that all the <i>nominal</i> + Christians, not to be too precise about the <i>real</i> ones, do not + amount to more than a fourth of the world's inhabitants. So wonderful a + book is the Bible that "the Lord Jesus Christ himself did not disdain to + quote from the Old Testament"—which was his own word, in the sense + that it was (professedly) written under divine inspiration. This is absurd + enough, but it is nothing to the rapturous eulogy of the Bible which + follows it. "All the best and brightest English verse [not <i>some</i>, + mark, but <i>all!</i>], from the poems of Chaucer to the plays of + Shakespeare in their noblest parts, are echoes of its lessons; and from + Cowper to Wordsworth," Dr. Farrar says, "from Coleridge to Tennyson, the + greatest of our poets have drawn from its pages their loftiest wisdom." + Really, one is tempted to ask whether such stuff as this is possible in + any other country than England, or perhaps America; and whether, even in + England or America, it is possible outside churches, chapels, and + Sunday-schools. Sixty pages later—Dr. Farrar could not sober down in + that long interval—he declares that "It was the Bible which created + the prose literature of England." Now if this were true it would not serve + Dr. Farrar's ostensible purpose. It would not prove that the Bible is a + divine revelation. It would only prove the historical—that is to + say, the largely accidental—importance of the Authorised Version of + the Bible in the development of English literature. But this declaration + of Dr. Farrar's is <i>not</i> true. The Authorised Version did not + initiate, it rather closed, a period of our literary history. The English + of the translators in their Preface is vastly different from the English + of their translation. Indeed, they were rather collators than translators. + They took the older versions as the basis of their work, they altered as + little as possible, and the alterations they did make were strictly in + harmony with the time-honored style of those older versions, a style which + was even then very archaic. Dr. Marsh, himself a devout Christian, + contends that "the dialect of this translation was not, at the time of the + revision, or, indeed, at any other period, the actual current + book-language nor the colloquial speech of the English people." He + maintains that it was "a consecrated diction" which had been "gradually + built up" from the time of Wycliffe.* Its language was not the language of + Chaucer's prose, nor even of Wycliffe's own prose, any more than it was + the language of Bacon's or Shakespeare's, or even that of divines like + Hooker. The Authorised Version is indeed a monument of English, but of + special English. It has always stood aside from the main development of + English prose. Of course it has exercised a considerable influence, but + that influence has been chiefly indirect. From the young naive prose of + Malory to the mature and calculated prose of Swift—not to come + farther—there is a clear stream of development, to which the + language and style of the English Bible have contributed infinitely less + than is generally assumed. With the single exception of Bunyan's + masterpiece, which stands apart and alone, it is difficult to name a + first-class prose competition that was greatly indebted to our Authorised + Version. Even the divines disregarded it as a literary model, and perhaps + most conspicuously so in the seventeenth century, immediately after its + publication. + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * George P. Marsh, Lectures on the English Language + (Murray), pp. 441, 445. +</pre> + <p> + Dr. Farrar is entirely wrong in declaring that the Bible created the prose + literature of England. Even if he only means that English prose was vastly + profited by the religious literature which followed upon the heels of the + Reformation, it is easy to reply that this literature was mainly + controversial and never remarkable for the higher graces and dexterities. + For those virtues, prior to the time of Taylor and South, we must turn to + secular and even to "profane" compositions; a fact which is well known to + every real student of English literature. + </p> + <p> + The next device of Dr. Farrar's advocacy would be astounding if one did + not know the muddle-headed public for whom he writes. He devotes a + monstrous number of pages to the citing of a "cloud of witnesses to the + glory and supremacy of the Holy Scriptures," beginning with the great John + Henry Newman and winding up with the notorious Hall Caine. Sandwiched + between these dissimilar "witnesses" are Heine, Goethe, Rousseau, Wesley, + Emerson, Carlyle, Huxley, Arnold, Ruskin, and a host of others. Most of + them were Christians, and afford a partisan testimony which is not very + valuable. In any case, there is no real argument in a list of names. When + a man is being tried on a definite charge, it is idle to recite a + catalogue of his distinguished friends. Witnesses to character are only + heard in mitigation of sentence after the jury has returned a verdict of + Guilty. Perhaps this fact had its influence on Dr. Farrar's mind; at any + rate, he calls his "cloud of witnesses" when he has ended all he had to + say in the form of argument. + </p> + <p> + These witnesses, moreover, are jumbled together without the slightest + discrimination. Let us take a few illustrations to show the futility of + Dr. Farrar's method. + </p> + <p> + John Wesley cried "Give me the book of God! Here is knowledge enough for + me. Let me be a man of one book." Yes, and John Wesley believed in + witchcraft, and honestly declared that to throw over witchcraft was to + throw over the Bible. He had, also, his own way of proving "the divine + inspiration of the Holy Scriptures." He wrote a "Clear and Concise + Demonstration," from which we take the following extract:— + </p> + <p> + "I beg leave to propose a short, clear, and strong argument to prove the + divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. + </p> + <p> + "The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or + devils, or of God. + </p> + <p> + "(1) It could not be the invention of good men or angels; for they neither + would nor could make a book, and tell lies all the time they were writing + it, saying, 'Thus saith the Lord,' when it was their own invention. + </p> + <p> + "(2) It could not be the invention of bad men or devils; for they would + not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns + their souls to hell to all eternity. + </p> + <p> + "(3) Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible must be given by + divine inspiration."* + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * John Wesley's Works (1865), vol. xi., pp. 464-465. +</pre> + <p> + Could anything be more childish than this ridiculous play upon the word + "invention," and this absurd supposition that "good men" and "bad men" are + two sharp divisions of the human species? We know that all men are + mixtures, and that honest men may be mistaken, and tell falsehoods without + lying. We are therefore able to measure the value of John Wesley's + "demonstration" that the Bible is inspired. + </p> + <p> + John Ruskin thanks his mother for daily reading the Bible with him in his + childhood, and daily making him learn a part of it by heart. This is + seized upon by Dr. Farrar, who places it in his list of testimonies. But + it might have been wise—it would certainly have been honest—to + tell the reader how Ruskin views the Bible. This great writer has + formulated four theories of the Bible, the third of which he has declared + to be "for the last half-century the theory of the soundest scholars and + thinkers in Europe." And what is this theory? Here it is in Ruskin's own + words:— + </p> + <p> + "That the mass of religious Scripture contains merely the best efforts + which we hitherto know to have been made by any of the races of men + towards the discovery of some relations with the spiritual world; that + they are only trustworthy as expressions of the enthusiastic visions or + beliefs of earnest men oppressed by the world's darkness, and have no more + authoritative claim on our faith than the religious speculations and + histories of the Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, and Indians; but are, in + common with all these, to be reverently studied, as containing a portion, + divinely appointed, of the best wisdom which the human intellect, + earnestly seeking for help from God, has hitherto been able to gather + between birth and death."* + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Time and Tide, pp. 48, 49. It should be noted that the + Letters in this pregnant little volume were written by + Ruskin as far back as 1867. +</pre> + <p> + Surely this is a very different view of the Bible from the one which is + presented by Dr. Farrar. Setting aside a little religious phraseology, a + Freethinker might endorse Ruskin's theory of the Bible. Everything is + substantially granted to the Freethinker when it is admitted that the + Bible has "no authoritative claim on our faith." Whatever truth and beauty + it contains may then be thankfully accepted. + </p> + <p> + Professor Huxley's famous eulogy of the Bible, as a book to be read in + Board Schools, is made the most of by Dr. Farrar. He must have winced, + however, at Huxley's reference to what a sensible teacher would + "eliminate" as "not desirable for children to occupy themselves with." He + was not sensitive enough to wince at the statement that "even the noble + Stoic, Marcus Antoninus, is too high and refined for an ordinary child"—which + is virtually a testimonial in his favor for grown-up men and women. Dr. + Farrar crows lustily over what he calls "Professor Huxley's testimony to + the unique glory of the Scriptures." It is perhaps well for him that + Huxley is incapable of resenting this misrepresentation. Still, it must be + admitted that on this occasion, as on one or two others, Huxley did + gratuitously play into the hands of the enemy. He might have known the + kind of use they would make of his "graceful concessions." + </p> + <p> + Dr. Farrar had not the honesty to tell his readers that Huxley had the + most sovereign contempt for <i>his</i> theory of the Bible. The great + Agnostic held, for instance, that "belief in a demonic world" is + inculcated throughout the New Testament, and that this belief is "totally + devoid of foundation." He declared that Inspiration, in the school of the + Higher Criticism, is "deprived of its old intelligible sense," and is + "watered down into a mystification." He laughed at the miracles of the + Gospels, and made great fun of the story of the bedevilled Gadarean swine. + He held that religion and morality have really no necessary connection, + and sneered at the "supernaturalists"—gentlemen like Dr. Farrar—who + took to patronising morality when they saw its importance, and "have ever + since tried to persuade mankind that the existence of ethics is bound up + with that of supernaturalism."* + </p> + <p> + To accept a testimonial from such a writer is abject on the part of a + clergyman defending the inspiration of the Bible; and to parade it is + simply contemptible. More than fifty years ago, when this petty trick of + Christian apologetics was coming into vogue, it was rebuked by Newman, who + disdained as "unworthy" the practice of "boasting of the admissions of + infidels concerning the beauty or utility of the Christian system, as + though," he added with fine sarcasm, "it were a great thing for a divine + gift to obtain praise for human excellence."** + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Huxley, Science and Christian Tradition, pp. xv., 25, 54, + etc. + + ** John Henry Newman, University Sermons, p. 71. +</pre> + <p> + Dr. Farrar's citation of Matthew Arnold is open to the same kind of + criticism. "He retained but little faith in the miraculous," we are told, + and "his creed was anything but orthodox." But is it fair to suggest that + Arnold had any creed at all? He rejected the idea of a personal God, he + regarded Jesus as a merely human teacher, and it is evident from his books + and his published correspondence that he had no belief in personal + immortality. As for his "faith in the miraculous," it was not "little," + with or without the "but"; it was a minus quantity. He positively + disbelieved in the miraculous. It was a part of his plain message to the + Churches that the reign of the Bible miracles was doomed, that they were + all fairy tales, and that, if the fate of the Bible was bound up with + theirs, the Bible was doomed too. Arnold said all this when he was living, + and it is useless for Dr. Farrar to disguise the fact, or to minimise it + by artful phrases. We commend to his attention—would that we could + commend it to the attention of his readers!—the following passage + from a letter of Arnold's to Sir Mountstuart Grant Duff, dated July 22, + 1882:— + </p> + <p> + "The central fact of the situation always remains to me this: that whereas + the basis of things amidst all chance and change has even in Europe + generally been for ever so long supernatural Christianity, and far more so + in England than in Europe generally, this basis is certainly going—going + amidst the full consciousness of the continentals that it is going, and + amidst the provincial unconsciousness of the English that it is going."* + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Matthew Arnold, Letters, vol. ii., p. 201. +</pre> + <p> + Considering what Arnold's views really were, is it of any use to make the + statement of rather doubtful accuracy that the Bible was his "chief and + constant study"? Is it not misleading to talk of his "intense reverence + and admiration for the Sacred Books"? He did not regard them as <i>sacred</i>. + He studied and valued the Bible as literature, not as revelation; and it + is monstrous to cite him as a witness in favor of the Bible as it is + represented in the school of Dr. Farrar. + </p> + <p> + We need not waste time over Dr. Farrar's <i>banal</i> remark that + Livingstone, Stanley, and the Bible together have caused "the extension of + the British protectorate over 170,000 square miles" in a certain part of + Africa. We may treat with the same indifference his boast of the millions + of copies of the "Sacred Books" distributed by the British and American + Bible Societies. Such "evidences" are only fit for the street-corner. Only + a low-minded, commercial-sodden Christian could imagine that the + multiplication of copies of a book is any sort of testimony to its + intrinsic truth and value; and in this particular case the demand is a + forced one, depending on the incessant stimulus of the supply. + </p> + <p> + Another argument of Dr. Farrar's for the "supremacy" of the Bible is based + upon the history of Christian martyrdoms. He gives several instances of + Christians, old and young, rich and poor, high-placed and humble, who have + died for their faith, and entered "the dark river and its still waters + with a smile upon their faces." He attributes their fortitude to trust in + the promises of the Bible. But he does not tell us how it proves the truth + of the Bible either as history or as revelation. Millions of Jews have + died at the hands of Christian bigots, and their heroism amidst torture + and massacre has never been exceeded in human annals. Does this prove that + the New Testament is not a revelation, and that Jesus Christ was not God? + Men of other faiths have faced death with sublime courage. Does this prove + that their beliefs were accurate? Mohammedans are notoriously ready to die + for their religion; the Mohammedan dervishes in the Soudan never quailed + before the most murderous storm of shell and bullets; they fell in + thousands at Omdurman, and the Khalifa's standard-bearer, when all around + him were slain, stood upright under the holy flag, with a smile of + defiance on his face, which never left it until he sank shot-riddled upon + the heap of his dead comrades. Does this prove that the Koran is the Word + of God? + </p> + <p> + The orthodox argument seems to be this: if a Christian dies for the Bible, + that proves it to be a divine book; if a devotee of any other faith dies + for his Sacred Scripture. That proves nothing—unless it be the + obstinacy of wrong opinions. + </p> + <p> + There is something intensely comical in the seriousness with which Dr. + Farrar relates the martyrdom of Christians who were put to death by other + Christians. He does not see that all he gains on one side is lost on the + other, that Christian persecution balances Christian fortitude, and that + nothing is left to the credit of his account. He devotes a whole page to + the murder of Margaret Lachlan and Margaret Wilson by "brutal and + tyrannous bigots" at Wigton in 1677. These two women were Covenanting + Christians, and their murderers were Episcopalian Christians. They died + singing psalms which their murderers believed to be the word of God. It is + difficult to see what advantage the Bible derives from this incident. + </p> + <p> + One may be interested by the reminder that Oliver Cromwell quoted two + verses from the hundred and seventeenth Psalm after his victory at Dunbar; + but one may remember on one's own account that David Leslie, the defeated + Scots general, was as devout a Christian and Bible-reader as Oliver + Cromwell, and that his piety was stimulated by the presence in his camp of + a whole congregation of Presbyterian ministers. Altogether it is a pity + that Dr. Farrar picks his illustrations in this one-eyed fashion. He + forgets that other people may have two eyes, and see on both sides of + them. He almost invites the sarcasm that the one-eyed man is only a leader + amongst the blind. + </p> + <p> + The real secret of whatever supremacy belongs to the Bible is to be sought + in a different direction. It was long ago remarked by a French + Freethinker, in a work attributed to Boulanger, but really written by + D'Holbach, that education and authority were the two great pillars of the + Christian revelation. + </p> + <p> + "If a body of men in possession of power, and able to like advantage of + the credulity of mankind, were to find their interest concerned in doing + so, they would make men believe at the end of a few centuries that the + adventures of Don Quixote are perfectly true, and that the prophecies of + Nostrodamus have been inspired by God himself. By dint of glosses, of + commentaries, and of allegories, it is easy to discover and to prove what + one pleases; however glaring an imposture may be, it can be made at last, + by the aid of time, cunning, and power, to pass for truth which no one + must doubt. Deceivers who are obstinate, and who are supported by public + authority, can make ignorant people, who are always credulous, believe + anything, especially if they can persuade them that there is merit in not + noticing inconsistencies, contradictions, and palpable absurdities, and + that there is danger in making use of their reason."* + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + * Examen Critique de St. Paul, c. 3. +</pre> + <p> + Abolish all the Churches that exist for the purpose of preaching up the + Bible as a divine revelation; destroy all the clerical corporations that + live and operate upon this basis; take away, at least, the public revenues + and special privileges they enjoy; deprive them of the patronage of the + legislature and the government; remove their Holy Scriptures from the + public schools, where they are retained in defiance of the principles of + civil and religious liberty; let little children no longer be suborned in + favor of the supernatural claims of this book before they are able to + judge for themselves; let the Bible take its own chance with the rest of + the world's literature; and then, and not till then, can its natural + supremacy be established. But the clergy know that such an experiment + would be absolutely fatal to their pretensions. They dare not accept a + fair field and no favor. They know in their heart of hearts that they are + serving a lie. Their dishonesty is apparent at every turn. Dr. Farrar + calls upon England to "cling to her open Bible." Well, the Peculiar People + do so. They read the open Bible, they follow its teaching as closely as + possible, they obey the commandments of Jesus Christ. And what is the + result? They are cast into prison like felons. One of them is suffering + that pain and indignity at the present moment. + </p> + <p> + A good husband, a good father, a good neighbor, a good citizen, he has + committed the crime of practically believing what Dr. Farrar and the rest + of the clergy facetiously preach—namely, that the Bible is the Book + of God, and the divine rule of faith and conduct. For this crime he is + imprisoned under the verdict of a Christian jury and the sentence of a + Christian judge; and not a single Christian minister raises his voice + against this infamous spectacle. Christianity is now only an organised + hypocrisy. It subsists upon an inherited fund of power, wealth, and + reputation. Even the clergy have no vital belief in the inspiration of the + Bible. It is merely the charter under which they trade. It is a source of + oracular texts for their ambiguous sermons. It is lauded and adored, and + neglected and defied. To bring it into disbelief and contempt by argument + and ridicule is a misdemeanor; to bring it into disbelief and contempt by + acting upon it is a felony. The only safe course is that adopted by the + clergy, who neither believe it nor disbelieve it, but use it as it serves + their occasions; and as long as it answers their ends it will remain the + Book of God. + </p> + <p> + Let us not be misunderstood. We are far from desiring to engage in a + crusade against the Bible as a collection of ancient literature. We are + neither called upon nor disposed to deny its real merits, however they are + exaggerated in religious circles. It undoubtedly contains some fine + poetry, occasional pathos, and more frequent sublimity. Its style has + nearly always the charm of simplicity. All this may be allowed without + playing into the hands of the super-naturalists. Further than this we need + not go. In our opinion, it is absurd to place the Bible at the top of + human compositions. More than sixty writers are alleged to have + contributed to its production, but the whole mass of them do not rival the + magnificent and fecund genius of Shakespeare. Above all, they have no wit + or humour, in which Shakespeare abounds; and wit and humor belong to the + higher development of intellect and emotion. No, the Bible is not the + unapproachable masterpiece which it is declared to be by its fanatical + devotees. But whatever its intrinsic merits may prove to be, in the light + of long and free appreciation, the Bible cannot be accepted as a + revelation from God without wilful self-delusion on the part of educated + men and women. If God had a message for his children, he would at least + make it clear; but this revelation needs another revelation to explain it, + and creeds and commentaries are the symbols of its obscurity. God's + message would tell us what we could not otherwise learn, but there is no + such information in the Bible. God would apprise us of what he specially + desired us to remember, and would not mix it confusedly with a tremendous + mass of alien matter. God would not puzzle us; he would enlighten us. He + would make his communication so clear that a wayfaring man, though a fool, + could understand it; whereas, if the Bible be his communication, no + wayfaring man, unless he <i>is</i> a fool, pretends to understand it. God + would not clog his message with myths, legends, mysteries, absurdities, + falsehoods, and filth; and leave us to extricate it with endless labor and + perpetual uncertainty. The so-called Higher Criticism is therefore as + absurd as the old Orthodoxy in calling the Bible a work of inspiration. + Its exponents affirm that God has left us to our own knowledge and reason + in regard to every other subject but religion and morality. They are + Evolutionists in part. But the principle of Evolution must be applied over + the whole field. Everything is natural, and happens under the universal + law of causation. There are no miracles, and there never were any except + in ignorant imaginations. But the death of miracles is the death of + inspiration. The triumph of science involves the ruin of every + supernatural system. Revelation is necessarily miraculous, and when the + belief in miracles expires the death-knell rings for every Book of God. We + are then left to the discipline of culture. + </p> + <p> + And what is culture? It is steeping our minds in the wisest and loveliest + thoughts of all the ages. And each of us may thus make his own Bible for + himself—a true Bible of Humanity. + </p> + <div style="height: 6em;"> + <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> + </div> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Book Of God, by G. W. Foote + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BOOK OF GOD *** + +***** This file should be named 38092-h.htm or 38092-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/8/0/9/38092/ + +Produced by David Widger + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + </body> +</html> diff --git a/38092.txt b/38092.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d3829f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/38092.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3048 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Book Of God, by G. W. Foote + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Book Of God + In The Light Of The Higher Criticism + +Author: G. W. Foote + +Release Date: November 22, 2011 [EBook #38092] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BOOK OF GOD *** + + + + +Produced by David Widger + + + + + + +THE BOOK OF GOD + +IN THE LIGHT OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM + +WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO DEAN FARRAR'S NEW APOLOGY + +By G. W. Foote + +London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. + + + + +THE BOOK OF GOD. + + + + +I. INTRODUCTION. + +During the fierce controversy between the divines of the Protestant +Reformation and those of the Roman Catholic Church, the latter asserted +that the former treated the Bible--and treated it quite naturally--as a +wax nose, which could be twisted into any shape and direction. Those +who championed the living voice of God in the Church, against the +dead letter of the written Bible, were always prone to deride the +consequences of private judgment when applied to such a large and +heterogeneous volume as the Christian Scriptures. They contended that +the Bible is a misleading book when read by itself in the mere light +of human reason; that any doctrine may be proved from it by a +judicious selection of texts; and that Christianity would break up into +innumerable sects unless the Church acted as the inspired interpreter of +the inspired revelation. They argued, further, that the Bible was really +not what the Protestants supposed it to be; and what they said on this +point was a curious anticipation of a good deal of the so-called Higher +Criticism. + +Both sides were right, and both sides were wrong, in this dispute. The +Protestants were right against the Church; the Catholics were right +against the Bible. It was reserved for Rationalism to accept +and harmonise the double truth, and to wage war against both +infallibilities. + +The Bible is said to be inspired, but the man who reads it is not. The +consequence is that he deduces from it a creed in harmony with his own +taste, temper, fancy, and intelligence. He lays emphasis on what fits in +with this creed, and slurs over all that is opposed to it. Every one of +the various and conflicting Protestant sects is founded upon one and +the same infallible book. "The Bible teaches this," says one; "The Bible +teaches that," says another. And they are both right. The Bible does +teach the doctrines of all the sects. But do they not contradict each +other? They do. What is the explanation, then? Why this--the Bible +contradicts itself. + +The self-contradictions of the Bible have occasioned the writing of many +"Harmonies," in which it is sought to be proved that all the apparent +discrepancies are most admirable agreements when they are properly +understood. All that is requisite is to add a word here, and subtract a +word there; to regard one and the same word as having several different +meanings, and several different words as having one and the same +meaning; and, above all things, to apply this method with a strong and +earnest desire to find harmony everywhere, and a pious intention of +giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt in every case of perplexity. + +This sort of jugglery, which would be derided and despised in the case +of any other book, is now falling into discredit. Most of the clergy are +ashamed of it. They frankly own, since it can no longer be denied, +that a more honest art of criticism is necessary to save the Bible from +general contempt. + +But the "Harmony" game is not the only one that is played out. All the +"Reconciliations" of the Bible with science, history, morality, and +common sense, are sharing the same fate. The higher clergy leave +such exhibitions of perverted ingenuity to laymen like the late Mr. +Gladstone. Divines like Canon Driver see that this mental tight-rope +dancing may cause astonishment, but will never produce conviction. They +therefore recognise the difficulties, and seek for a more subtle and +plausible method of removing them. They admit that Moses and Darwin are +at variance with each other; that a great deal of Bible "history" is +legendary, and some of it distinctly false; that such stories as those +of Lot's wife and Jonah's whale are decidedly incredible; that some +passages of Scripture are vulgar and brutal, and others detestably +inhuman; and that it is positively useless to disguise the fact. Yet +they are naturally anxious to keep the Bible on its old pedestal; +and this can only be done by means of a new theory of inspiration. +Accordingly, these gentlemen tell us that the Bible is not the Word of +God, but it contains the Word of God. Its writers were inspired, but +their own natural faculties were not entirely suppressed by the +divine spirit. Sometimes the writer's spirit was predominant in the +combination, and the composition was mainly that of an unregenerate +son of Adam. At other times the divine spirit was predominant, and the +result was lofty religion and pure ethics. Moreover, the sacred writers +were only inspired in one direction. God gave them a lift, as it were, +in spiritual matters; but in science and sociology he let them blunder +along as they could. + +The old wax nose is now receiving a decided new twist, and a +considerable number of accomplished and clever divines are engaged in +manipulating it. One of them is Dean Farrar, who has recently published +a bulky volume on _The Bible: its Meaning and Supremacy_, which we shall +subject to a very careful criticism. + +Dean Farrar's book contains nothing that is new to fairly well-read +sceptics. It presents the commonplaces of modern Biblical criticism, +with a due regard to the interests of "the grand old book" and of "true" +and "fundamental" Christianity, which is probably no more than the +particular form of Christianity that is likely to weather the present +storm of controversy. But although this book contains no startling +novelties, it is of importance as the work of a dignitary of the Church +of England. It is also of value, inasmuch as it will be read by many +persons who would shrink from Strauss and Thomas Paine. It is well that +someone should tell Christians the truth, if not the _whole_ truth, +about the Bible, and tell it them from within the fold of faith. His +motive in doing so may be less a regard for truth itself than for the +immediate interests of his own Church; but the main thing is that he +does it, and Freethinkers may be glad even if they are not grateful. + +Dr. Farrar's book has an Introduction, and we propose to examine it +first. He opens by telling the clergy that they ought not to pursue an +"ostrich policy" in regard to religious difficulties; that they +should not indulge in "vituperative phrases," nor assume a "disdainful +infallibility"; that they do wrong in denouncing as "wicked," +"blasphemous," or "dangerous" every conviction which differs from their +own form of orthodoxy; and that they must not expect all that they +choose to assert to be "accepted with humble acquiescence." No doubt +this advice is quite necessary; and the fact that it is so shows +the value of Christianity, after eighteen centuries of trial, as a +training-school in the virtues of modesty and humility, to say nothing +of justice and temperance. + +The clergy are also invited by Dr. Farrar to recognise the general +diffusion of scepticism:-- + +"In recent years much has been written under the assumption that +Christianity no longer deserves the dignity of a refutation; or that, +at any rate, the bases on which it rests have been seriously undermined. +The writings of freethinkers are widely disseminated among the working +classes. The Church of Christ has lost its hold on multitudes of men +in our great cities. Those of the clergy who are working in the crowded +centres of English life can hardly be unaware of the extent to which +scepticism exists among our artizans. Many of them have been persuaded +to believe that the Church is a hostile and organised hypocrisy." + +This is a sad state of things, and how is it to be met? + +Not by denouncing reason as a wild beast, nor yet by relying on emotion +and ceremonial, for "no religious system will be permanent which is +not based on the convictions of the intellect." Dr. Farrar recommends a +different policy. He has "frequently observed that the objections urged +against Christianity are aimed at dogmas which are no part of Christian +faith, or are in no wise essential to its integrity." Even men of +science have been led astray by objections "based on travesties of its +real tenets." One of these false opinions is that "which maintains +the supposed inerrancy and supernatural infallibility of every book, +sentence, and word of the Holy Bible." This is the principal point to be +dealt with; it is here that we must make an adjustment. Nine-tenths of +the case of sceptics "is made up of attacks on the Bible," and the only +way to answer them is to show that they misunderstand it, and that what +they demolish is not Christianity, but "a mummy elaborately painted in +its semblance," or "a scarecrow set up in its guise." + +"It is no part of the Christian faith," Dr. Farrar says, "to maintain +that every word of the Bible was dictated supernaturally, or is equally +valuable, or free from all error, or on the loftiest levels of morality, +as finally revealed." Such a view of the Bible has been popularly +expressed by divines, but they really did not mean it, and it "never +formed any part of the Catholic creed of Christendom." The doctrine of +everlasting punishment is another of these delusions. There is such +a thing as future punishment, but it is not everlasting--it is only +eternal. In the same way, the Bible is the Word of God, but it is not +infallible--it is only inspired. And what _that_ means we shall see as +we proceed. + + + + +II. THE BIBLE CANON + +The first chapter of Dean Farrar's book deals with the Bible Canon. +After another slap at the poor benighted Christians who still hold +that every word of Scripture is "supernaturally dictated and infallibly +true," Dr. Farrar remarks that the Bible is "not a single nor even a +homogeneous book." Strictly speaking, it is not a book, but a library; +and, as is pointed out later on, it is the remains of a much larger +collection which has mostly perished. The Canon of the Old Testament was +"arrived at by slow and uncertain degrees." The common assertion, that +it was fixed by Ezra and the so-called Great Synagogue in the fifth +century before Christ, is in direct opposition to the facts. It was not +really _settled_ until seventy years after the birth of Christ, when the +Rabbis met at Jamnia, and decided in favor of our present thirty-nine +books. According to Dr. Farrar, there was no special influence from +heaven in the determination of the Canon. It was a work which God left +to "the _ordinary_ influences of the Holy Ghost." Let us see then how +these influences operated on the last and most critical occasion. "The +gathering at Jamnia," says Dr. Farrar, "was a tumultuous assemblage, and +in the faction fights of the Rabbinic parties blood was shed by their +scholars. Hence the decision was regarded as irrevocable and sealed +by blood." Such are the _ordinary_ influences of the Holy Ghost. Its +_extraordinary_ influences may be easily imagined. Their history is +written in blood and fire in every country in Christendom. + +Dr. Farrar allows that the Canon of the New Testament was formed "in the +same gradual and tentative way." Many Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypses +were "current" in the "first two centuries." Some of them were "quoted +as sacred books" and read aloud in Christian churches. Seven, at least, +of the books which are now canonical were then "disputed"--namely, the +Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of St. John, +the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, and +the Book of Revelation. The Canon was "formally and officially settled" +by the Council of Laodicea (a.d. 363), and the two Councils of Carthage +(a.d. 397 and 419), the decrees of which were sanctioned by the Trullian +Council (a.d. 692), nearly seven hundred years after Christ. Dr. Farrar +holds, however, that these Councils merely registered the general +agreement of the Christian Church. The real test of canonicity is not +the decision of Councils, which may and do err, but "the verifying +faculty of the Christian consciousness." Dr. Farrar's argument, if it +means anything at all, implies that while Councils may err, consisting +as they do of fallible men, this "Christian consciousness" is really +infallible. But as this Christian consciousness only exists, after +all, in individual Christians, however numerous they may be, or through +however many centuries they may be continued, it is difficult to see how +the greatest multitude of fallibilities can make up one infallibility. +And unless it can, it is also difficult to see how Dr. Farrar can have +an infallible Canon. He disclaims the authority of the Church, on which +Catholics rely; indeed, he says it can hardly be said that the "whole +Church" has pronounced any opinion on the Canon at all. What really +happened is perhaps unconsciously admitted by Dr. Farrar in a rather +simple footnote. "Books were judged," he says, "by the congruity of +their contents with the general Christian conviction." Precisely so; the +books did not decide the doctrine, but the doctrine decided the fate of +the books. And how was the doctrine decided? By fierce controversy, by +forgery and sophistication, by partisan struggles, and finally, after +the adhesion of Constantine, by faction fights that involved the loss of +myriads (some say millions) of lives. + +Not the slightest attempt is made by Dr. Farrar to meet the difficulty +of his position; indeed, he seems unaware that the difficulty exists. +All he sees is the difficulty of the positions taken up by the Catholics +and the early Protestants. It never occurs to him that he has only +shifted from one difficulty to another. The Catholics rely upon the +living voice of God in the Church. That covers everything, like the +sky; and is perfectly satisfactory, if you can only accept it. The +early Protestants repudiated the authority of the Church, at least +as represented by the Pope and Councils; but they acknowledged the +authority of the _primitive_ Church. They were shrewd enough to see +that what cannot possibly rest on mere reason must rest somewhere on +authority; so they admitted as much as was sufficient to cover the +Scriptures and the Creeds, and refused to go a step farther. Dr. Farrar +breaks away from both parties, and what is the result? He talks +about the Canon of the New Testament being formed "by the exercise of +enlightened reason," but he lays down no criterion by which reason can +decide whether a book is inspired or not, or so specially inspired as +to require a place in the Canon. The "verifying faculty of the Christian +consciousness" is one of those comfortable phrases, like the blessed +word Mesopotamia, which are designed to save the pains of accuracy and +the trouble of definite thought. What light does it really shed upon +the following questions? Why is the Protestant Canon different from +the Catholic Canon? Is it owing to some inexplicable difference in the +"verifying faculty of the Christian consciousness" in the two cases; and +by what test shall we decide when the Christian consciousness delivers +two contradictory verdicts? Why is the book of Ecclesiastes in the +Canon, while the book of Ecclesiasticus is (by the Protestants) +relegated to the Apocrypha? Why is the book of Esther in the Canon, and +the book of Judith in the Apocrypha? Why is the book of Jonah in the +Canon, and the book of Tobit in the Apocrypha? Why is the book of +Proverbs in the Canon, and the book of the Wisdom of Solomon in the +Apocrypha? These are questions which the early Protestants answered in +their way, but we defy Dr. Farrar to answer them at all. + +Let us follow Dr. Farrar into his second chapter. He states, truly +enough, that both the Old and the New Testaments represent "the selected +and fragmentary remains of an extensive literature." Many books referred +to in the Old Testament are lost. Some of the canonical books are +anonymous; we do not know who wrote them. Others bear the names of men +"by whom they could not have been composed." The Pentateuch is "a work +of composite structure," which has been "edited and re-edited several +times." The Psalms are a collection of sacred poems in "five separate +books of very various antiquity." The Proverbs consist of "four or +five different collections." The New Testament is a selection from the +voluminous Christian literature of the earliest centuries. Many Gospels +were already in existence when St. Luke prepared his own. "It is all but +certain," Dr. Farrar says, "that St. Paul, and probable that the other +Apostles, must have written many letters which are no longer preserved." +That is to say, some letters actually written by St. Paul were allowed +to perish, while others not written by him were allowed to bear his +name, and were placed as his in the New Testament Canon! There are +passages in the Gospels that are known to be interpolations; for +instance, the story of the Woman taken in Adultery. This story is +"exquisite and supremely valuable," but it is bracketed in the Revised +Version as of "doubtful genuineness." Such passages are eliminated +because they do not "meet the standard of modern critical requirements." +_O sancta simplicitas!_ Is there any reason, in the natural sense of +that word, for believing that John the Apostle wrote the rest of the +Fourth Gospel, any more than he wrote this rejected story? Dr. Farrar +strains at gnats and swallows camels, and prides himself on his +discrimination. + +His references to Justin Martyr and Papias seem less than ingenuous. +It is not true that Justin Martyr "freely uses the Gospels." Dr. Farrar +admits that he "does not name them." Saying that he "used" them is +quietly assuming that they existed. All that Justin Martyr does, as a +matter of fact, is to cite sayings ascribed to Jesus, but not in one +single case does he cite a saying of Jesus in exactly the form in which +it appears in the Four Gospels. Supposing that he wrote freely, and +had ever so bad a memory, and never took the trouble to refer to the +originals, it is simply inconceivable that he should never be right. Now +and then he must have deviated into accuracy. And the fact that he never +does is plain proof that he had not our Gospels before him. Nor does +Papias mention "the Gospels." He mentions only two, Matthew and Mark, +and he says that Matthew was written in _Hebrew_, Now, the earliest date +at which Papias can be fixed is a.d. 140. This is chosen by Dr. Farrar, +and we will let it pass unchallenged. And what follows? Why this, that +no Christian writer before a.d. 140 betrays that he has so much as heard +of _any_ Gospel, and even then but _two_ are known instead of _four_, +and one of these is most certainly _not_ the Gospel which opens the New +Testament. + +All this was proved a quarter of a century ago by the author of +_Supernatural Religion_--a work which is systematically ignored by +the so-called Higher Critics because its author was a pronounced +Rationalist. An excellent summary of this writer's demonstrations +appears in the late Matthew Arnold's _God and the Bible_:-- + +"He seems to have looked out and brought together, to the best of his +powers, every extant _passage_ in which, between the year 70 and the +year 170 of our era, a writer might be supposed to be quoting one of our +Four Gospels. + +"And it turns out that there is constantly the same sort of variation +from our Gospels, a variation inexplicable in men quoting from a real +Canon, and quite unlike what is found in men quoting from our Four +Gospels later on. It may be said that the Old Testament, too, is often +quoted loosely. True; but it is also quoted exactly; and long passages +of it are thus quoted. It would be nothing that our canonical Gospels +were often quoted loosely, if long passages from them, or if passages, +say, of even two or three verses, were sometimes quoted exactly. But +from writers before Irenaeus not one such passage can be produced so +quoted. And the author of _Supernatural Religion_ by bringing all the +alleged quotations forward, has proved it."* + +Now what is the exact value of these demonstrations? We will give it in +Mr. Arnold's words: "There is no evidence of the establishment of our +Four Gospels as a Gospel-Canon, or even of their existence as they now +finally stand at all, before the last quarter of the second century." +Not only is there no evidence of the orthodox theory, but, as Mr. Arnold +says, the "great weight of evidence is against it." + +Dr. Giles--another ignored writer, although a clergyman of the Church +of England--had said and proved the very same thing in his _Christian +Records_; and had appended the following significant declaration:-- + +"There is positive proof, in the writings of the first ages of +Christianity, that the same question as to the age and authorship of the +books of the New Testament was even then agitated, and if it was then +set at rest, this was done, not by a deliberate sentence of the judge, +but by burning all the evidence on which one side of the controversy was +supported,"** + + * Arnold, God and the Bible, pp. 222-3. + + ** Dr. Giles, Christian Records, p. 10. + +It is probable that Dr. Farrar is well aware that our Four Gospels +cannot be traced beyond the second half of the second century--that is, +considerably more than a century after the alleged date of the death of +Christ. But he shrinks from a frank admission of the fact, and leaves +the reader to find it out for himself. + +Instead of making this important and, as some think, damning admission, +Dr. Farrar continues his remarks on the Bible Canon. That thirty-six +books are accepted "on the authority of the Church" simply means, +he tells us, that they are accepted "by the general consensus of +Christians." The whole Church, as such, has hardly pronounced an +opinion on the subject. The Churchmen who voted at Laodicea and Carthage +"exercised no independent judgment," and their critical knowledge was +"elementary." Nor was the decision of the Council of Trent any real +improvement. Dr. Farrar approves the reply of the Reformed Churches, +that "any man may reject books claiming to be Holy Scripture if he do +not feel the evidence of their contents." But this is to make every man +a judge, not only of what the Bible means, but also of what it should +contain. Each unfettered Christian may therefore make up a Bible for +himself; which is simply chaos come again. What then is the way of +escape from this grotesque confusion? Dr. Farrar indicates it with a +crooked finger:-- + +"The decision as to what books are or are not to be regarded as true +Scripture, though we believe it to be wise and right, depends on no +infallible decision. It must satisfy the scientific and critical as well +as the spiritual requirements of each age." + +This reduces the Bible Canon to a perpetual transformation scene. It is +a tacit confession that the Protestant Bible is an arbitrary collection +of questionable documents; that it has nothing to plead for itself but +common usage; that its very contents, as well as their interpretation, +are liable to change; in short, that if the Catholic stands upon the +rock of implicit faith, and defies all dangers by closing his eyes and +clutching the reassuring hand of his Holy Mother Church, the Protestant +flounders about with the poor little dark-lantern of private judgment +in a frightful mud-ocean--his old rock of faith in an infallible Bible +having been reduced to dust by the engines of criticism, and finally to +slush by a downflow from the lofty reservoir of pure reason.* + + * It would be a pity to omit an amusing instance of the + contemptuous dogmatism of Christian divines when they had + the field to themselves. Dr. William Whitaker, a famous + learned writer on the side of the Reformation in England, in + his Disputation with two of the foremost Jesuits, Bellarmine + and Stapleton, wrote as follows:--"Jerome, in the Proem of + his Commentaries on Daniel, relates that Porphyry the + philosopher wrote a volume against the book of our prophet + Daniel, and affirmed that what is now extant under the name + of Daniel was not published by the ancient prophet, but by + some later Daniel, who lived in the times of Antiochus + Epiphanes. But we need not regard what the impious Porphyry + may have written, who mocked at all the scriptures and + religion itself." Well, this opinion of the blasphemous + Porphyry, whose writings were burnt by the Christian Church, + is now accepted by the Higher Critics. Canon Driver, for + instance, admits that the Book of Daniel is not the work of + Daniel, that it could not have been written earlier than 300 + B.C., and that "it is at least _probable_ that it was + composed under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. + 168 or 167" (Introduction to the Literature of the Old + Testament, p. 467). This involves that the fulfilled + prophecies of Daniel were written after the events. + + + + +III. THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE + +Having examined Dean Farrar's observations on the Bible Canon, and seen +that it is a more or less arbitrary selection from Hebrew and early +Christian literature, many of the books being anonymous, while others +bear the names of authors who did not write them, and most of them being +much later compositions than orthodoxy supposes; we now take a leap +forward to his twelfth chapter to see what he has to say on the subject +of the Bible and Science. His first object is to drive home to his +co-religionists the mischief of adhering to the old doctrine of Bible +infallibility. Consequently he does not mince matters in dealing with +the difficulties of the literal theory of inspiration. Writers like +Gaussen contend that the Bible is a perfect authority in matters of +science. Mr. Gladstone argues that Moses supernaturally anticipated +the teachings of modern evolution, and that the inspired fishermen of +Galilee, notably St. Peter, no less supernaturally anticipated all that +modern astronomy teaches as to the final destiny of our planet. Dr. +Farrar declines to follow them in this perilous path. He does not walk +in the opposite direction, for that would lead him among the "infidels." +He strikes off at right angles, and takes the line that the Bible was +never intended to teach science, or anything else but religion. +He quotes with approval the saying of Archbishop Sumner, that "the +Scriptures have never revealed a scientific truth." He maintains that +the writers of Scripture had only a natural knowledge of exact science; +and that was precious little, and was indeed rather ignorance than +knowledge, as they belonged to "the most unscientific of all nations in +the most unscientific of all ages." "It is now understood by competent +inquirers," he says, "that geology is God's revelation to us of one set +of truths, and Genesis of quite another." "Nature," he says, "is a book +which contains a revelation of God in one sphere, and Scripture a book +which contains a revelation of him in another. Both books have often +been misread, but no _truth_ revealed in the one can be irreconcilable +with any truth revealed in the other." This, however, is a mere truism; +for one truth cannot be irreconcilable with another truth. Dr. Farrar's +statement sounds imposing and consolatory, but when you look into its +meaning you see it is only a pulpit platitude. + +But before we proceed to criticise Dr. Farrar's position, let us glance +at his attack upon the literalists. He charges them with having opposed +and persecuted every modern science, and with having manufactured the +most absurd scientific theories from the text of the Bible; the said +theories being not only ludicrous, but irreconcilably opposed to each +other. Lactantius, with the Bible in his hand, ridiculed the rotundity +of the earth. Roger Bacon and Galileo were imprisoned and tortured for +teaching true science instead of the false science of the Church. +John Wesley declared the Copernican astronomy to be in opposition to +Scripture. Thomas Burnet's "Sacred Theory of the Earth," founded upon +the Bible, was assailed by William Whiston, who based a different +"Sacred Theory" upon the very same book. Buffon, the great French +scientist, was compelled by the Sorbonne to recant, and to abandon +everything in his writings that was "contrary to the narrative of +Moses." Even when God (that is to say Dr. Simpson) gave to the world the +priceless boon of anaesthetics, there were many Biblicists who declared +that the use of chloroform in cases of painful confinement was flying +in the face of God's curse upon the daughters of Eve. Catholic and +Protestant have alike pitted the Bible against Science, and both have +been ignominiously beaten. + +But this is not all. The theologians have been disgraced as well as +defeated. With respect to the Buffon case, for instance, Dr. Farrar +writes as follows:-- + +"The line now taken by apologists is very different from that of +previous centuries, and less honest. It declares that Genesis and +geology are in exact accord. It no longer refuses to believe the facts +of nature, but instead of this it boldly sophisticates the facts of +Scripture." + +John Stuart Mill said that every new truth passes through three phases +of reception. At first, it is declared to be false and dangerous; +secondly, it is discovered that there is something to be said for it; +lastly, its opponents turn round and declare "we said so all along." +Dr. Farrar dots all the "i's" in Mill's statement. He asserts that +"religious teachers" first say of every scientific discovery, "It is +blasphemous and contrary to Scripture." Next they say, "There is nothing +in Scripture which absolutely contradicts it." Finally they say, "It is +distinctly revealed in Scripture itself." + +Dr. Farrar puts the historic case against "orthodoxy"--which, of course, +is not Christianity!--in the following fashion:-- + +"The history of most modern sciences has been as follows. Its +discoverers have been proscribed, anathematised, and, in every possible +instance, silenced or persecuted; yet before a generation has passed +the champions of a spurious orthodoxy have had to confess that their +interpretations were erroneous; and--for the most part without an +apology and without a blush--have complacently invented some new line +of exposition by which the phrases of Scripture can be squared into +semblable accordance with the now acknowledged facts." + +Even in the comparatively recent case of Darwin this was perfectly true. +Dr. Farrar, who preached Darwin's funeral sermon in Westminster Abbey, +says that he "endured the fury of pulpits and Church Congresses." He +did so with quiet dignity; not an angry word escaped him. Yet before +Darwin's death not only was the scientific world converted, but leading +theologians said that, if Darwinism were proved to be true, there was +"nothing in it contrary to the creeds of the Catholic faith." + +Darwin never answered the clergy. He had better work to do. All he did +was to smile at them. In one of his letters he said that when the men +of science are agreed about anything all the clergy have to do is to say +ditto. He understood that when science is victorious it will always have +clerical patronage. Had he been able to do it, he would have smiled, in +that beautiful benevolent way of his, at Dr. Farrar's funeral sermon. +The worthy Dean thought they had got Darwin at last; and the grand old +philosopher might have said, "Why yes, my _corpse!_" + +So much for Dr. Farrar's impeachment of "orthodoxy" and its doctrine +of plenary inspiration. Let us now examine his own position, and see +whether it is logical as well as convenient. + +Take the first chapter of Genesis. It is not a scientific revelation, +though it seems to be. Whoever wrote it had only the science of his +time. Nevertheless, it is of "transcendent value," according to Dr. +Farrar. "Its true and deep object," he says, "was to set right an erring +world in the supremely important knowledge that there was one God and +Father of us all, the Creator of heaven and earth, a God who saw all +things which he has made, and pronounced them to be very good." + +This is very pretty in its way; but how absurd it is in the light of the +fact that the Hebrew creation story is all _borrowed!_ While the +Jews were desert nomads, long before the concoction of their sacred +scriptures the doctrine of a Creator of heaven and earth was known in +India and in Egypt, not to recite a list of other nations. If this is +all the first chapter of Genesis teaches, we may well exclaim, "Thank +you for nothing!" It is a curious "revelation" which only discloses +what is familiar. Had the Bible never been written, had the Jews never +existed, the "true and deep object" of the first chapter of Genesis +would have been quite as well subserved. Wherever the Christian +missionaries have gone they have found the creation story in front of +them. Wherever they took it they were carrying coals to Newcastle. + +We venture to suggest that if Dr. Farrar thinks that all things God has +made are very good, there are many persons who do not share his opinion. +It would be idle to read that text to a sailor pursued by a shark. We +could multiply this instance a thousandfold; but why give a list of +all the predatory and parasitical creatures on this planet, from human +tyrants and despoilers down to cholera microbes? Dr. Farrar may reply +that everything ends in mystery, that we must have faith, that it is our +interest as well as our duty to believe. But that is exactly what the +Catholic Church says, and Dr. Farrar laughs it to scorn. The truth is, +that all theology is ultimately a matter of faith; and the quarrel about +more or less is a domestic difference. The greater difference is between +Faith and Reason. This was clearly seen by Cardinal Newman, who pointed +out that every mystery of the Roman Catholic faith is matched by a +mystery in Protestant theology. + +Finally, we have to remark that Dr. Farrar overlooks a very important +point in this controversy. Having argued that the Bible was not intended +to teach science, and has not in fact helped the world to a single +scientific discovery; having also admitted that the Bible has all along +been used to hinder the progress of natural knowledge, and to justify +the persecution of honest investigators; he seems to imagine that there +is no more to be said. But there is _much_ more to be said. We forbear +to press the objection that Omniscience was very curiously employed in +entangling a religious revelation with scientific blunders, which would +necessarily retard the progress of scientific truth, and therefore of +human civilisation. What we wish to emphasise is less open to the retort +that Omniscience is beyond our finite judgment. We desire to urge that +the Bible is not simply non-scientific. It is anti-scientific. Let us +take, for instance, the story of the creation and fall of man. Even +if it be not taken literally, but allegorically, it is thoroughly +antagonistic to the teachings of Evolution. At the very least it implies +that man is something special and unique, whereas he is included in the +general scheme of biology, and is but "the paragon of animals." Get rid +of the actual garden and the actual tree of knowledge, as Dr. Farrar +does, and there still remains the fact that the fall of man is a +falsehood, and the ascent of man a verity. The allegory does not +correspond to the essential truth of man's history; and in spite of all +the flattering rhetoric with which Dr. Farrar invests it--a rhetoric +so inharmonious with its own consummate simplicity--there is something +inexpressibly childish to the modern mind in the awful heinousness which +is attributed to the mere eating of forbidden fruit. An act is really +not vicious because it is prohibited, or virtuous because it conforms to +the dictates of authority. When man attains to intellectual maturity +he smiles at the ethical trick which was played upon his youthful +ignorance. It is not sufficient to tell him that he must do this, and +must not do that. He requires a reason. His intelligence must go hand in +hand with his emotions. It is this union, indeed, which constitutes what +we call conscience. + +The truth is that the Bible is steeped in superstition and +supernaturalism. Its cosmogony, its conception of man's origin and +position in the universe, its infantile legends, its miracles and magic, +its theory of madness and disease, its doctrine of the external efficacy +of prayer, its idea that man's words and wishes avail to change the +sweep of universal forces and the operation of their immutable laws: all +this is in direct opposition to the letter and spirit of Science. The +special pleading of clergymen like Dr. Farrar may afford a temporary +relief to trembling Christians, and keep them for a further term in +the fold of faith; but it will never make the slightest impression upon +sceptics, unless it fills them with contemptuous pity for a number of +clever men who are obliged, for personal reasons, to practise the lowest +arts of sophistry. + + + + +IV. MIRACLES AND WITCHCRAFT + +Dr. Farrar, as we have seen, holds that the Bible is not a revelation +in science. The inspired writers were, in such matters, left to their +natural knowledge. The Holy Spirit taught them that God made the world +and all which it inhabits; but _how_ it was made they only conjectured. +The truth, in _this_ respect, was left to the discovery of later ages. + +This is a pretty and convenient theory, but it does not provide for +every difficulty in the relationship between science and the Bible. +There still remain the questions of miracles and witchcraft. + +Dr. Farrar does not discuss these questions thoroughly. He only ventures +a few observations. In his opinion, the two miracles of the Creation and +the Incarnation "include the credibility of _all_ other miracles." +We agree with him. Admit creation out of nothing, and you need not be +astonished at the transformation of water into wine. Admit the birth +of a boy from a virgin mother, and you need not raise physiological +objections to the story of a man being safely entertained for three +days in a whale's intestines. It is absurd to strain at gnats after +swallowing camels. For this reason we are unable to understand Dr. +Farrar's fastidiousness. He is ready to believe that some miracles are +mistaken metaphors, that some were due to the action of unnoticed +or ill-understood natural causes, and that others were providential +occurrences instead of supernatural events. All this, however, is but a +concession to the sceptical spirit. It is throwing out the children to +the wolves. It may stop their pursuit for a little while, but they will +come on again, and flesh their jaws upon the parents. + +A mixed criterion of true miracles is laid down by Dr. Farrar. They must +be (1) adequately attested, and (2) wrought for adequate ends, and (3) +in accordance with the revealed laws of God's immediate dealings with +man. The second and third conditions are too fanciful for discussion. +They are, in fact, entirely subjective. The first condition is the only +one which can be applied with decisive accuracy. The miracles must be +_adequately attested_. But was it not David Hume who declared that "in +all history" there is not a single miracle attested in this manner? And +did not Professor Huxley say that Hume's assertion was "least likely" +to be challenged by those who are used to weighing evidence and giving +their decision with a due sense of moral responsibility? + +It is easy enough to sneer at Hume. It is just as easy to answer what he +never said. What the apologists of Christianity have to do is to take +a single miracle of their faith and show that it rests upon adequate +evidence. Anything short of this is intellectual thimble-rigging. + +Dr. Farrar does not face this dreadful task. He treats us, instead, to +some personal observations on the Fall, the Tower of Babel, Balaam's +ass, Joshua's arrest of the sun and moon, and Jonah's submarine +excursion. Let us examine these observations. + +No Christian, says Dr. Farrar, is called upon to believe in an actual +Garden of Eden and an actual talking serpent. Christians have believed +in these things by the million. But that was before the clergy invented +"the Higher Criticism" to disarm "infidelity." They know better now. +The story of the Fall is false as a narrative. It is true as a "vivid +pictorial representation of the origin and growth of sin in the human +heart." All the literature of the world has failed to set forth anything +"comparable to it in insight." Therefore it is "inspired." + +How hollow this sounds when we recollect that the Hebrew story of the +Fall was borrowed from the Persian mythology! How much hollower when we +consider it as it stands, stripped of the veil of fancy and divested of +the glamor of association! The "insight" of the inspired writer could +only represent God as the landlord of an orchard, and man as a being +with a taste for forbidden apples. The "philosopheme," as Dr. Farrar +grandiosely styles it, is so absurd in its native nakedness that Rabbis +and other divines have suspected a carnal mystery behind the apples, in +order to give the "sin" of Adam and Eve a darker vein of sensuality.* + + * We cannot elaborate this point in a publication which is + intended for general reading. Suffice it to say that one + famous commentator suggests that Eve was seduced by an ape. + +Nor is this all. The very idea of a Fall is inconsistent with Evolution. +The true Garden of Eden lies not behind us, but before us. The true +Paradise is not the earth as God made it for man, but the earth as +man is making it for himself. The Bible teaches the _descent_ of man. +Science teaches the _ascent_ of man. And the two theories are the +antipodes of each other, not only in physical history, but in every +moral and spiritual implication. + +With regard to the story of the tower of Babel, we must not regard it +as an inspired account of the origin of the diversity of human language. +That is what it appears to be upon the face of it. But philology has +exploded this childish legend, and a new meaning must be read into it. +According to Dr. Farrar, it is a "symbolic way of expressing the +truth that God breaks up into separate nationalities the tyrannous +organisation of cruel despotisms." Now we venture to say that there is +not a suggestion of this in the text. And the "truth" which Dr. +Farrar reads into it so arbitrarily is a phenomenon of modern times. +Nationality is a great force at present, but in ancient days the only +power that could bind tribes together in one polity was a military +despotism. From the point of view of evolution, both conquest and +slavery were inevitable steps in the progress of civilisation. It is +really nothing against the ancient Jews, for instance, that they fought +like devils and made slaves of their enemies. It was the fashion of the +time. The mischief comes in when we are told that their proceedings were +under the sanction and control of God. + +Dr. Farrar next tackles the story of Balaam, which is "another theme for +ignorant ridicule." It is astonishing how sublime these Bible wonders +become in the light of the Higher Criticism. A talking ass sounds like +an echo of the Arabian Nights. But the author himself never intended +you to believe it. Dr. Farrar is quite sure of that. You must forget the +ass, and fix your attention on Balaam. Then you perceive that the story +is "rich in almost unrivalled elements of moral edification." That is to +say, you perceive it if you borrow Dr. Farrar's spectacles. But if you +look with your own naked eyes you see that ass in the foreground of +the picture, with outstretched neck and open jaws, holding forth to an +astonished universe. + +With regard to Joshua's supreme miracle, Dr. Farrar avows his unbelief. +A battle ode got mistaken for actual history. "He who chooses," says Dr. +Farrar, "may believe that the most fundamental laws of the universe were +arrested to enable Joshua to slaughter a few more hundred fugitives; and +he who chooses may believe that nothing of the kind ever entered into +the mind of the narrator." You pay your money and take your choice. +Shape the old wax nose as you please. Believe what you like, and +disbelieve what you like--and swear the author disbelieved it too. + +Nor must the story of Jonah be taken literally. Regard the moral, and +forget its fishy setting. Jesus Christ, indeed, referred to Jonah's +sojourn in the "whale's belly" as typical of his own sojourn in the +heart of the earth. But referring to a story is no proof of any belief +in its truth. Not in the Bible. Jesus Christ also said, "Remember Lot's +wife." But of course he did not believe the story literally. He used +it for his own purpose. For the rest, he did not wish to unsettle men's +minds by throwing doubt on such a time-honored narrative; besides, the +time had not arrived to explain the chemical composition of rock-salt. + +Witchcraft is a more serious matter. The Bible plainly says, "Thou shalt +not suffer a witch to live." This text sealed the doom of millions of +old women. It is the bloodiest text in all literature. The Jews believed +in witchcraft, and the law against witches found its way into their +sacred Scriptures. Sir Matthew Hale, a great English judge and a good +man, sentenced witches to be burnt in 1665, and said that he made no +doubt at all that there were witches, for "the Scriptures had affirmed +so much." Wesley, a century later, said that to give up witchcraft was +to give up the Bible. Dr. Farrar sets down these facts honestly. He is +also eloquent in reprobation of the cruelty inflicted on millions +of "witches" in the Middle Ages. But he denies that the Bible is +responsible for those infamies. "Witches" in the Bible may not mean +witches, but "nefarious impostors." Good old wax nose again! Moreover, +that ancient Jewish law was not binding upon Christians, and to make +it so was "a gross misuse of the Bible." But how on earth could the +Christians use it in any other way? The time came when men outgrew the +superstition of witchcraft. Before that time they killed witches on +Bible authority. Dr. Farrar himself, had he lived then, would have +done the same. Living in a more enlightened age, he says that former +Christians acted wrongly, and in fact diabolically. But what of the book +which misled them? What of the book which, if it did not mislead them +by design, harmonised so completely with their ignorant prejudices, and +gave such a pious color to their unspeakable brutalities? Nor is this +by any means the last word upon the subject. The witchcraft of the Old +Testament has its counterpart in the demoniacal possession of the New +Testament. Both are aspects of one and the same superstition. + +The Bible _is_ responsible for the cruel slaughter of millions of +alleged witches. It is also responsible for the prolonged treatment +of lunatics as possessed. The methods of science are now adopted in +civilised countries. Hysterical women are no longer tortured as witches. +Lunatics are no longer chained and beaten as persons inhabited by +devils. Kindness and common sense have taken the place of cruelty and +superstition. This change was brought about, not through the Bible, but +in spite of it. + +Sir Matthew Hale and John Wesley were at least honest. They were too +sincere to deny the plain teaching of the Bible. Dr. Farrar represents +a more enlightened, but a more hypocritical, form of Christianity. He +sneers at "reconcilers" like Mr. Gladstone, who try to bolster up the +Creation story as a scientific revelation. But is he not a "reconciler" +himself in regard to miracles? And does he not play fast and loose +with truth and honesty in his attempt to clear the Bible of its guilty +responsibility in connection with that witch mania which is one of the +darkest episodes in Christian history? + + + + +V. THE BIBLE AND FREETHOUGHT + +The Bible may well be called the persecutor's text-book. It is +difficult, if not impossible, to find in all its pages a single text +in favor of real freedom of thought. Dr. Farrar champions what he +calls "true Christianity," to which he declares that all persecution is +entirely "alien." This "true Christianity" appears to depend upon "the +spirit" of Christ, and seems to have little or no relation to the letter +of Scripture. But what is the actual fact, when we view it in the light +of history? In one of his lucid intervals of mere common sense, Dr. +Farrar makes an important admission with regard to the worse than +Armenian atrocities of the Jewish policy of extermination in Palestine. +Those atrocities of cruelty and lust are said to have been ordered by +God, but Dr. Farrar says that on this point the Jews were mistaken. They +thought they were doing God a service, but they thought so ignorantly. +And how was their ignorance corrected? Not by a special monition from +heaven, but by the ordinary progress and elevation of the human mind. +"It required," Dr. Farrar says, "but the softening influence of time +and civilisation to obliterate in the best minds those fierce +misconceptions." Precisely so. And is it anything but the softening +influence of time and civilisation that makes Christians like Dr. Farrar +ashamed of the bloody deeds of their co-religionists; which bloody +deeds, by the way, have always been justified by appeals to the +teachings of the Bible? Let there be no mistake on this point. Dr. +Farrar himself does not scruple to write of the "deep damnation of deeds +of deceit and sanguinary ferocity committed in the name of Holy Writ." +"In some of their deadliest sins against the human race," he further +says, "corrupted and cruel Churches have ever been most lavish in their +appeals to Scripture." He admits that "the days are not far distant +when it was regarded as a positive duty to put men to death for their +religious opinions," and that this was defended by Old Testament +examples, and also by some texts from the New Testament. And it was +"by virtue of texts like these" that enemies of the human race were +"enabled" to combine the "garb and language of priests with the temper +and trade of executioners." + +Now, what has Dr. Farrar to urge _per contra?_ Simply this: that the +"early Christians" pleaded for toleration. "Force," they said, "is +hateful to God." "It is no part of religion," said Tertullian, "to +_compel_ religion." But suppose all this be admitted--and there is much +to be said by way of qualification--what does it amount to? The "early +Christians" were in a minority. They did not yet command the sword of +the magistrate. They could not persecute except by holding no fellowship +with unbelievers, by shaking off the dust of their feet against those +who rejected their Gospel, and by other harmless though detestable +exhibitions of bigotry. They had to plead for their own existence, and +in doing so they were obliged to appeal to the principle of general +toleration. But the moment they triumphed, under Constantine, they began +to flout the very principle to which they had formerly appealed. The +humility of their weakness was more than equalled by the pride of their +power. And what was the result? "From Augustine's days down to those +of Luther," Dr. Farrar says, "scarcely one voice was raised in favor, +I will not say of _tolerance_, but even of abstaining from fire and +bloodshed in support of enforced uniformity." Dr. Farrar denounces in +creditable language the frightful butcheries of Alva in the Netherlands, +for which the Pope presented him with a jewelled sword bearing a +pious inscription. He is properly horrified at the massacre of St. +Bartholomew, in honor of which Pope Gregory XIII. struck a triumphant +medal, and went in procession to sing a Te Deum to God, while the cannon +thundered from the Castle of St. Angelo and bonfires blazed in the +streets of Rome. He is bitter against the Church of Rome for its +vast shedding of innocent blood. He reminds us that the infamous Holy +Inquisition is still toasted by Catholic professors at Madrid; and that +intolerance, having lost its power, has not lost its virulence, nor +"ceased to justify its burning hatred by Scripture quotations." And +he cites Manning's successor at Westminster, the truculent Cardinal +Vaughan, as declaring with perfect approval that "the Catholic Church +has never spared the knife, when necessary, to cut off rebels against +her faith and authority." + +But let it not be imagined that all the guilt of persecution rested upon +the Church of Rome. Protestantism persecuted as freely as the Papacy. +That heretics should be put down, and if necessary killed, was a +principle common to both Churches. The question in dispute was, Which +_were_ the heretics? This is so incontestable that we need not fortify +it with Protestant quotations and Protestant examples. It is not true, +as Dr. Farrar alleges, that Luther "boldly proclaimed that thoughts are +toll-free," if it is meant that he condemned persecution. Thoughts were +toll-free against Romish exactions; that was what Luther meant. He held +as strongly as any Papist that those who denied one essential doctrine +of Christianity should be punished by the magistrates. He declared that +reason always led to unbelief. He besought the Protestant princes to +uphold "the faith" by every means in their power. And when the serfs +rebelled, thinking that the "freedom" the Reformers talked about was +to become a reality, it was Luther who wrote against them with +unsurpassable ferocity, and advised that they should be "slaughtered +like mad dogs." + +Dr. Farrar rather judiciously refrains from mentioning Calvin in this +connection, but in another part of the volume he refers to the great +Genevian "reformer" in a somewhat gingerly manner. When the sins of +Catholics have to be condemned he is quite dithyrambic; but when he +has to censure the sins of Protestants he displays a most touching +tenderness. Nothing could well be worse than the mixture of religious +bigotry, personal spleen, and low duplicity, with which Calvin hunted +Servetus to his fiery doom. Dr. Farrar sympathetically describes this +vile act as an "error." He tries to satisfy his conscience, afterwards, +by confessing that the Calvinists in general "were for the most part as +severe to all who differed from them as they imagined God to be severe +to the greater part of the human race." + +Dr. Farrar's treatment of this subject is superficial. It is not a Bible +text here or there which is the real basis of persecution. We advise him +to read George Eliot's review of Lecky's _History of Rationalism_. He +will then see that persecution is founded upon the fatal doctrine of +salvation by faith. This doctrine makes the heretic more noxious than a +serpent. A serpent poisons the body, a heretic poisons the soul. If it +be true that his teaching may draw souls to hell, human welfare demands +his extermination. Dr. Farrar does not disclaim this doctrine, and if he +fails to act upon it he only betrays an amiable inconsistency. His heart +is better than his head. + +Dr. Farrar, like other Protestants, talks about the right of private +judgment. But this is only fine and futile verbiage, unless he admits +the sinlessness of intellectual error. If judgment depends on the will, +it is through the will amenable to motives; consequently, the way +to pro-mote correct opinions is to promise rewards and threaten +punishments. But if judgment does not depend on the will; if it is +necessarily determined by the laws of reason and evidence; then it is +an absurdity to bribe and intimidate. Now there is no third alternative. +One of these two theories must be right, and the other must be wrong. +Dr. Farrar is logically bound to take his choice. If he believes that +judgment depends on the will, he has no right to denounce persecution. +If he believes that judgment does not depend on the will, he has no +right to censure the most absolute freethought. + +There are but two camps--the camp of Faith and the camp of Reason. +Dr. Farrar belongs to the former. But he does not find his position +comfortable. He casts a longing eye on the other camp. He wants to be +in both. He therefore tries to form an alliance between them, if not to +amalgamate them under one banner. + +Reason, said Bishop Butler, is the only faculty wherewith we can judge +of anything, even of revelation itself. Dr. Farrar quotes this statement +with approval. He quotes similar sentences from other Protestant +writers. Then he turns upon the Roman Church for keeping the Bible +out of the hands of the people, and denounces it for this with +ultra-Protestant vigor. He imagines that this is a vindication of +Protestantism, at any rate relatively, as a champion of reason in +opposition to blind faith and absolute authority. But _private_ judgment +and _free_ judgment are not identical. When the Protestant puts an open +Bible into your hands, and tells you to read it and judge of it for +yourself, he is acting like a Freethinker; but when he proceeds to say +that if you do not find it to be a divine book, and believe all its +teaching about God, and Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and heaven +and hell, you will infallibly be damned, he is acting like a Papist. +His right of private judgment, at the finish, always means the right to +differ from him on trivial points, and the duty of agreeing with him on +every point which he chooses to regard as essential. If this is denied +by Dr. Farrar, let him honestly answer this question--Is a Freethinker +who has examined the Bible, and rejected it as a divine revelation, +liable to any sort of penalty for his disbelief? The answer to this +question will decide whether Dr. Farrar is really maintaining the rights +of reason, or is merely maintaining the Protestant theory of faith +against that of the Catholics, and standing up for the authority of the +Book instead of the authority of the Church. + +Meanwhile we venture to suggest that the Bible texts referred to by Dr. +Farrar, as requiring us to exercise the right of private judgment, are +very little to the point. "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord" +is a pretty text, but it does not seem to have much bearing on the +issue. "Try the spirits" is all right in its way; but what if you find +that _all_ the spirits are illusions? "Prove all things" is good, but it +must be taken with the context. Jesus indeed is reported to have said, +"Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?" But he is also +reported to have said, "He that believeth and is baptised shall be +saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." + +By a judicious selection of texts you can prove anything from the Bible, +and disprove anything--as Catholics have often reminded Protestants. To +pick out passages that to some extent are favorable to a certain view, +and to ignore much stronger passages that are clearly opposed to it, may +be an exercise of private judgment, and may satisfy the conscience +of neo-Protestants of the school of Dr. Farrar; but it invites a +contemptuous smile from Freethinkers who believe that Reason ought not +to suffer such a prostitution. + +We have to point out, finally, that Protestantism, with its open Bible, +has everywhere maintained laws against blasphemy and heresy. The laws +against heresy have fallen into desuetude in England, but while they +lasted they were simply ferocious. We heard the late Lord Coleridge say +from his seat in the Court of Queen's Bench, as Lord Chief Justice, that +the Protestant laws against Roman Catholics, particularly in Ireland, +where they were executed with remorseless ferocity, are without a +parallel in the history of the world. Catholicism, however, is no longer +under a ban. Even the Jews have been admitted to equal rights with their +fellow citizens. But laws still remain in existence, and are +occasionally put into operation, against "blasphemers." According to the +language of common law indictments, it is a crime to bring the Holy +Scripture or the Christian Religion into disbelief and contempt. It is +true that many Christians are ready to profess a certain aversion to +such laws, but they make no effort to repeal them. Many others contend +that "blasphemy" is a question of manner, that the feelings of +Christians should be protected, and that while men should not be +punished for being Freethinkers, they should be punished for wounding +orthodox susceptibilities. It is not proposed, however, that any +limitations of taste or temper should be imposed upon Christian +controversialists; and this contention may therefore be regarded as a +subterfuge of bigotry. On the whole, it may be said that Catholics +without the Bible, and Protestants with the Bible, persecute unbelief to +the full extent of their opportunities; and it is only as toleration +grows from other roots, and is nourished by other causes, that the +Bibliolaters find out subtle interpretations of simple texts in favor of +the prevailing tendency. + + + + +VI. MORALS AND MANNERS + +Dr. Farrar takes the position that "the Bible is not homogeneous in its +morality." There is a higher and a lower; and, to adopt the fine but +paradoxical metaphor of Milton, within the lowest deep a lower deep +still opens its dreadful abyss of crime and brutality. The same +admission is made by Professor Bruce,* of the Free Church of Scotland; +but this gentleman is more subtle than Dr. Farrar, and tries to save +the reputation of the Bible by a notable piece of cauistical +special-pleading. He does not allow, though he does not expressly +deny, that the Bible contains any immorality. What he does is to draw +a distinction between high morality and low morality. Immorality is +sinning against your conscience. High morality is acting right up to its +noblest dictates. Low morality is conduct in honest conformity to the +low standard of a conscience but half-enlightened. When the prophetess +Deborah sings triumphantly over the infamous exploit of Jael, who +invited the fugitive Sisera into her tent, and assassinated him while he +slept in the confidence of her hospitality, we must not say that either +of these precious females was guilty of immorality. They were simply +carrying out a low morality. And the same applies to Deborah's +exclamation: "To every man a damsel or two"--meaning that the Jewish +soldiers slew their male enemies and dragged home a brace of maidens +each for themselves. Such conduct would be highly improper now, but it +was all right then; at least it was as right as they knew; and we must +not judge the actors by later ethical standards. So says Professor +Bruce, and it would be true enough if the Bible were not put forward as +a divine book, or if it ever reprehended the infamies of God's chosen +people. But it does nothing of the kind; it mentions Jael and Deborah in +terms of absolute approval. + + * Christian Apologetics, p. 309. + +Dr. Farrar severely denounces the Jewish wars of extermination in +Palestine, regardless of the fact--which is as true as any other +religious fact in the Bible--that these atrocities were expressly +commanded by Jehovah. Divines have defended the massacre of the +Midianites, for instance, and the appropriation of their unmarried +women; but Dr. Farrar calls their arguments "miserable pleas," and adds +that if such "guilty and horrible" doings were "recorded without +blame," it only shows that "the moral views of the desert tribes on such +subjects were in this respect very rudimentary." These desert tribes +were the chosen people of God; their prophets spoke under divine +inspiration; yet even Jeremiah, in denouncing Moab, cries: "Cursed be he +that keepeth back his sword from blood." According to Dr. Farrar, this +proves how "slow" was the "development of the religious consciousness of +mankind." But how did it happen that the Jews, with all the advantage +of special inspiration, were just as slow in this respect as any other +nation in the world's history? What is the use of "inspiration" if +it does not appreciably quicken the natural development of the human +conscience? + +Many of the Bible heroes are fit for a distinguished place in the +Newgate Calendar. Dr. Farrar himself cannot stomach "some details" in +the lives of Abraham, Jacob, Jephthah, and David. Still, he urges +that "the use made of them in the sceptical propaganda is often +illegitimate." These worthies were not "faultless." It is their "general +faithfulness" which is "rightly held up to admiration as our example." +Faithfulness to what? Simply to their own greed and ambition, first of +all, and secondly to the dominance of their tribal god Jehovah, who by +such instruments triumphed over his rival dieties, and became at last +the sole Lord God of Israel. + +Dr. Farrar allows no palliating plea for the cursing Psalms. He cites +a few of the very worst passages, black with hatred and red with blood, +and asks: "Can the casuistry be anything but gross which would palm off +such passages as the very utterance of God?" Moses was "a great lawgiver +and a great prophet," but Dr. Farrar will not "defend the divinity of +passages so morally indefensible" as that, for instance, which gives the +slave-owner impunity in killing his slave, provided he does not slay +him on the spot, but beats him so that he dies "in a day or two." Nor +is there "divinity" in the order to the Jews to refrain from eating bad +meat, but to sell it to the Gentiles. Neither is there "divinity" in +the order (Deut. xxi. 10-14) to take a wife for a month on trial. These +things are parts of an ostensibly divine code, but lawgivers and people +were alike mistaken. Inspiration did not guide them aright, but somehow +or other it enables Dr. Farrar to correct their blunders three thousand +years afterwards; which is merely saying, after all, that inspiration +does not pioneer but follow the march of human progress. + +During the reign of David a dreadful incident occurred. There had been +a three years' famine, and David "inquired of the Lord." The answer was, +"Blood upon Saul and upon his house!" Seven of Saul's sons were hung +up "unto the Lord," and the famine was stopped. Dr. Farrar tells of an +intelligent artisan who got up at a meeting and asked "whether it was +not meant to imply that God was pacified by the blood of innocent human +victims?" But he does not give the answer; and it either means this or +it means nothing at all. In the same way, the story of Jephthah, who +offered his daughter as a burnt-offering to the Lord, takes such an +immolation for granted as a religious act of perfect propriety. Jephthah +is mentioned as a hero of faith in the New Testament, and no hint is +given that he acted wrongly in sacrificing his daughter on the altar of +Jehovah. + +We have said enough on this subject to give the reader a fair idea +of Dr. Farrar's position. Let us now pass from Bible morals to Bible +manners. + +"The Bible," says Dr. Farrar, "is assailed on the ground that it +contains coarse and unedifying stories." Take the story of Lot and his +daughters, to say nothing of the bestial attempt on the angels in Sodom. +Could anything be more repulsive? Is there any excuse for putting such +abominable feculence into the hands of children? After a lot of talk +about it, and about, Dr. Farrar offers us the following most sapient +observation: "The story of Lot wears a very different complexion if we +regard it as an exhibition of unknown traditions about the connection +between the Israelites and the tribes of Moab and Ammon." But what does +this mean? The Moabites and Ammonites, according to the Bible, were +hereditary enemies of the Jews, and it was impossible to exterminate +them. They were evidently near of kin to the chosen people. Now, if +these two facts are put together, it is easy to see the purpose of this +story of Lot and his daughters. The Jews traced their own descent, in a +perfectly honorable way, from Abraham and his legitimate wife Sarah, who +are doubtless legendary characters. On the other hand, they traced +the descent of the Moabites and Ammonites, their cousins and enemies, +through the no less legendary Lot and his two daughters, thus throwing +the aspersion of incest upon the cradle of both those races. This is the +adequate and satisfactory explanation of the story. It is an exhibition +of dirty and unscrupulous hatred; and, as such, it is a curious fragment +of "the Word of God." + +Take next what Dr. Farrar calls "the pathetic story of Hosea," the +prophet who was ordered by God to marry a prostitute--not to use the +more downright language of the English Bible. Dr. Farrar suggests that +there is some doubt as to the meaning of the original. Hosea's wife +may have turned out a baggage after the nuptials, instead of being one +before. "It was the anguish caused by her infidelity," he says, "that +first woke Hosea to the sense of Israel's infidelity to Jehovah." And +read in the light of this "modern criticism" the story of Hosea is "in +the highest degree pure and noble." How pretty! All that remains for Dr. +Farrar to do is to explain away as equally "pure and noble" the imagery +of Ezekiel in reference to Aholah and Aholibah. There is no reason why +"modern criticism" in the hands of gentlemen like Dr. Farrar should not +transform Priapus into a Sunday-school teacher. + +Not only are there very gross stories in the Bible, many of which +are too beastly to dwell upon, but its language is often gratuitously +disgusting. And every scholar knows that the Hebrew text is sometimes +far more "purple" than our English version. Dr. Farrar admits that if +the "exact meaning" of certain passages were understood, they "could not +be read without a blush." "Happily," he says, they are "disguised by the +euphemisms of translations." That is to say, the inspired Bible writers, +or penmen of the Holy Ghost, as old divines called them, were often +indecent and sometimes positively obscene. Dr. Farrar's explanation is, +that "ancient and Eastern readers" were not easily shocked, and that our +modern "sensibility" is of "recent growth." But this proves again +that "inspiration" is in no sense the cause of progress, and does not +anticipate it in the slightest degree. + + + + +VII. POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROGRESS + +"The Bible," Dr. Farrar says, "is inextricably mingled with all that is +greatest in human history." This is a fair specimen of his roystering +style. We presume he has contracted it through long years of preaching +from the coward's castle of the pulpit, where a man can exaggerate as +much as he pleases without the slightest fear of contradiction. Dr. +Farrar does not say that the Bible is mixed up with _much_ of the +greatest in human history; no, it must be mixed up with _all_ the +greatest--which is a transparent falsehood and a no less transparent +absurdity. What did Greece and Rome owe to the Bible? Absolutely +nothing. There is no evidence that they were acquainted with any part +of the Old Testament, and Greece had become a mere name before a line of +the New Testament was written. Some of the greatest things in the world +were done and said by the "heathen." Greek philosophy, Greek literature, +Greek art, are imperishable. Roman jurisprudence and Roman government +are the basis of every civilised polity. Plutarch's heroes are all +Pagans, and let Dr. Farrar match them if he can in the history of +Christendom. + +Dr. Farrar calls the Bible "the statesman's manual," but he judiciously +refrains from showing that statesmen ever act upon its teaching; indeed, +he spends a great deal of time in showing that they ought _not_ to act +upon its teaching, unless they carefully avoid the obvious "letter," +and allow themselves to be influenced by the recondite "spirit." For +instance, it is perfectly clear that the Bible does not contain a single +word against slavery; it is also perfectly clear to all who possess +a tincture of scholarship that many of its references to slavery are +fraudulently translated. "Servants obey your masters" really means +"Slaves obey your owners." Moreover, the Bible contains precise +regulations of slavery. God did not tell the Jews that holding slaves +was infamous, that man could never have honest property in human flesh +and blood. He allowed them to buy and sell Gentiles at their pleasure. +He permitted them to enslave their own countrymen for a period of seven +years, and in certain cases "for ever." Even in the New Testament we +find St Paul sending back a runaway slave to his master. True, he sent +with the slave a touching letter to the slave-owner, but sending him +back at all was giving a sanction to the institution. Dr. Farrar admits +that American pulpits "rang with incessant Scriptural defences of +slavery." He quotes from a Southern bishop, who described slavery as "a +curse and a blight," yet declared it to be "recognised by the Bible," +so that "every man has a right to his own slaves, provided they are not +treated with unnecessary cruelty." Dr. Farrar asks whether there was +ever "a stranger utterance on the lips of a Christian bishop." He calls +this "distorting the Bible." But he does not prove the distortion. He +calmly assumes it. He cannot deny the existence of all those slavery +texts in the Bible. All he can do is to say that what was "relatively +excusable" among the Jews is at present "execrable," and is now +"absolutely and for ever wrong." Very good; but how was that discovered? +Not by reading the Bible. The Jews read the Bible, the early Christians +read the Bible, just as well as Dr. Farrar, but they did not find that +it condemned slavery. Dr. Farrar lives in a later age, in the light of +a higher civilisation. He therefore _reads into_ the Bible whatever it +_ought to_ contain as the word of God. He does not scruple to override +explicit texts by more or less arbitrary deductions from vague maxims +and ejaculations. He pretends that the "spirit" of the Bible in some +way wrought the abolition of slavery. But every well-informed student is +aware that the abolition of slavery depended upon economical conditions. +We _outgrow_ slavery by advancing beyond it in the process of +industrial development, and when we _have_ outgrown it we regard it with +abhorrence. When the institution is in the way of being supplanted by +a higher form of productive labor, the moral revolt against it begins, +growing in strength and intensity as the economical change approaches +its climax. It was natural that the anti-slavery movement in America +should take place in the Northern States, where the conditions +favourable to slavery did not exist as they did in the Southern States. +We may be pardoned for supposing that if Dr. Farrar's lot had been +cast in a Southern State he would have defended slavery as a Bible +institution. He is preaching now after its abolition, when denunciation +of it is cheap and easy, and is no particular credit to the preacher's +religion. While slavery existed in America, it was at first justified +by the Bible in all parts of the Union. Northern abolitionists at last +found that the Bible did not teach slavery after all; but this did not +alter the view of the Southern slaveholders and the Southern Churches. +Here again we see the force of the Catholic taunt that Protestants can +prove anything, and disprove anything, by appealing to texts in such a +composite book as the Bible. Here again we also see that the Bible never +_instigates_ any step in the march of human improvement. + +Dr. Farrar waxes eloquent, after his special fashion, over the glories +of England in the age of Elizabeth. He attributes them all to the "open +Bible," which was then placed in the hands of the people. Of course they +had nothing to do with the new astronomy, the discovery of America, and +the invention of printing! Such paltry causes as these cannot enter +into competition with the might and majesty of the Bible! Still, we may +venture to remind Dr. Farrar that these Englishmen of the Elizabethan +age, with the "open Bible" in their hands, went and started the African +slave trade. Evidently they did not read in it then, as Dr. Farrar does +now, any condemnation of that horrible business. They worked it for all +it was worth. England, with the "open Bible" in its hand, continued to +do so for another two hundred years. One of the chief centres of +the slave trade was the pious city of Bristol. It grew rich on the +abominable traffic. Slavery has been abolished, but the old odor of +piety still clings to the city of Bristol. Its merchants fattened on the +slave trade with the "open Bible" in their hands. They now subscribe to +missionary societies to convert the blacks, and they still stick to the +"open Bible." It was good for upholding black slavery, and it is still +good for upholding white slavery. + +All that we have said about slavery applies in its degree to polygamy. +Both institutions are sanctioned by the Bible, and the pleas of the +"Higher Criticism" in relation to the one are just as hollow as they are +in relation to the other. We may go farther and say that the Bible is +very far from being woman's best friend, as it is often represented. It +starts by making her the Devil's first customer, and the introducer of +sin and death; it continues to hold her as inferior and subject to man, +lumping her in the tenth commandment with the house, the ox, and the +ass, as the man's property; and, finally, in the New Testament, it +expressly tells her that her duty is to be silent and submissive, for +the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church. + +We need not follow Dr. Farrar in his rhapsodical references to the +various achievements of the Bible. We may remark, however, that his +reference to Japan is singularly unhappy. That country _has_ accepted +the leading ideas of Western civilisation, but it has _not_ accepted +Christianity. Nor is Dr. Farrar well advised in laying so much stress on +the Pilgrim Fathers. He says that they had a preference for the "pure, +unadulterated lessons of the Bible." Perhaps they had. But what were +those lessons as illustrated by their actions? Certainly intolerance was +one of them. They had no conception of religious liberty. "The Pilgrim +Fathers," as Sir Walter Besant remarks in his little book on _The Rise +of the Empire_, "believed that everybody should think as they themselves +thought. Had they achieved their own way, they would have sent Laud +himself, and all who thought like him, across the ocean with the +greatest alacrity." They also believed in witchcraft, probably because +Dr. Farrar was not at hand to explain that the Bible did not mean what +it said; and they tortured and burnt witches with remarkable gusto. + +It would also be a waste of time to correct all Dr. Farrar's statements +about the influence of the Bible in other directions. We will take a +single illustration of his fantastical method. He tells us that the +Bible "inspired the pictures of Fra Angelico and Raphael, the music of +Handel and Mendelssohn." Perhaps he will tell us whether it inspired +Raphael's picture of the Fornarina, and why it did not inspire the music +of Beethoven and Wagner. Both those great composers, as a matter of +fact, were "infidels." + +Nothing could be more absurd than orthodox talk about the Bible +"inspiring" great poets, artists, and musicians. Men of genius are +inspired by nature. Their inspiration is born with them. It cannot be +made; it can only be utilised. All that religions have done is to employ +the genius they could not create. Every religion has done this in turn. +The genius was there always as a natural endowment. It existed before +all the world's religions, and it will outlive them. + + + + +VIII. INSPIRATION + +The Higher Criticism, as expounded by Dr. Farrar, admits nearly all +the Bible difficulties that have been advanced by "infidels." Let us +recapitulate the most important. The Bible is hopelessly at variance +with science. It sometimes contradicts well-established history. Many of +its stories, taken literally, are obviously absurd. Some of the actions +it records with apparent approval are wicked or disgusting. A good deal +of its language sins against common decency. Several books were not +written by the authors whose names they bear. Others are, and must for +ever remain, anonymous. The dates of composition of the various +books are not what has been generally supposed. Occasionally the true +chronology differs from the received chronology by many centuries. To +the great majority of readers the Bible has never been known, and never +can be known, except in translations. No translation can possibly be +perfect. Every translation of the Bible is known to contain grave and +numerous errors. Even in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts there +are thousands of various readings. In some cases the text is uncertain, +in some cases interpolated, and in others irrecoverably impaired. The +vowel points by which Hebrew is now read are demonstrably a modern +invention. Even the discourses of Jesus Christ, in the New Testament, +are not reported with accuracy. The New Testament writers seldom quote +from the Old Testament exactly, but generally rely upon the Greek +translation called the Septuagint. + +Sometimes they quote passages which are not in Scripture at all. "Out of +288 passages quoted from the Old Testament in the New," says Dr. Farrar, +"there are but 53 which agree accurately with the original Hebrew. In 76 +the New Testament differs both from the Greek and the Hebrew; and in 99 +the New Testament, the Greek, and the Hebrew are all variant." + +On the face of it, then, the Bible is doomed. A book of which all these +things can be said, without the slightest fear of contradiction, must +sooner or later be dropped as the Word of God. It will be recognised as +a human composition. + +Meanwhile, those who live by the Bible, and are professionally +interested in its "supremacy," as Dr. Farrar calls it, cast about a +for means of giving it a fresh reputation. The old conception of it is +fatally discredited; a new one may give it a fresh lease of life. + +Evidently there is only one direction open to the theological trimmers. +They must start another theory of inspiration--one that will conserve +the "sacred" character of the Bible in spite of every difficulty that +has been, or can be discovered. + +The Bible is no longer to be called _the_ Word of God. Ruskin says, and +Dr. Farrar seems to quote it approvingly, that "it is a grave heresy (or +wilful source of division) to call any book, or collection of books, the +Word of God." Ten pages later, however, we are told that the Bible, as a +whole, _may_ be spoken of as the Word of God, because it "contains words +and messages of God to the human soul." This word "contains" is the +magical spell by which Dr. Farrar seeks to dissipate all difficulties. +He finds the expression in the Church Articles, in the Book of Homilies, +and in the Shorter Catechism. But in order to see how illegitimate is +Dr. Farrar's use of these authorities, let us take his extract from the +last of them: "The Word of God which is _contained_ in the Scriptures of +the Old and New Testament is the only rule to direct us how we may enjoy +and glorify Him." Is it not clear that the word "_contained_" is used +here in its primary meaning? Did not the writers mean that the Word of +God is included or comprehended in the Old and New Testament only, and +is not to be found elsewhere? Would they not have been shocked to hear a +clergyman of the Church of England say that some parts of the Bible were +_not_ the Word of God? If so, their use of the word "contain" lends no +countenance to the use made of it by Dr. Farrar. And is it not a shallow +trick upon our intelligence to argue that different persons, using +the same word, necessarily mean the same thing? Words are the money of +fools, as Hobbes said, but only the counters of wise men. We must get at +the actual value of the thing which is symbolised. And the moment we do +this, we see that Dr. Farrar's theory of the Word of God is _not_ the +same as that of the gentlemen who drew up the Shorter Catechism. They +would indeed have laughed at his "contains," and excommunicated and +imprisoned him, and perhaps burnt him at the stake. It is not by +torturing one poor word ten thousand ways that such wide differences can +be reconciled. + +Passing by this ridiculous legerdemain, let us take Dr. Farrar's theory +for what it is worth. The Bible _contains_ the Word of God. But how are +we to find it? What is the criterion by which we are to separate God's +word from man's word? Dr. Farrar bids us use "the ordinary means of +criticism and spiritual discernment." But such a vague generality is +nothing but verbiage. What we want is the _criterion_. Now the nearest +approach to it in all Dr. Farrar's pages is the following:-- + +"Is it not a plain and simple rule that anything in the Bible which +teaches, or is misinterpreted to teach, anything which is not in +accordance with the love, the gentleness, the truthfulness of Christ's +Gospel, is _not_ God's word to us, however clearly it stands on the page +of Scripture?" + +This is at best a _negative_ criterion; and, on close examination, it +turns out to be no criterion at all. The criterion, to be valid, must be +_external_ to the book itself. Dr. Farrar's criterion is _internal_. +He picks out one part of the Bible as the standard for judging all +the rest. This is entirely arbitrary. Moreover, it would soon be found +impossible in practice. Dr. Farrar's criterion may be "plain," but it +is not so "simple," except in the uncomplimentary sense of the word. +For "Christ's Gospel," by which the rest of the Bible is to be tried, +is itself a very composite and self-contradictory thing. Further, if +all that agrees with Christ's Gospel is the Word of God, is it not +superfluous as being a mere repetition? Dr. Farrar would therefore bring +the actual, valid Word of God within the compass of the Four Gospels; +dismissing all the rest, like the Arabian Caliph who commanded a whole +library to be burnt on the ground that if the books differed from +the Koran they were pernicious, and if they agreed with it they were +useless. Nor is this all. Dr. Farrar admits that the discourses of +Jesus Christ are not reported with accuracy. Therefore, having made the +Gospels the criterion of the Word of God in the rest of the Bible, he +would be obliged to select some special passages as the criterion of the +Word of God in the rest of the Gospels. This is what Shakespeare would +call a world-without-end process. + +Candidly, it seems to us that if the Bible _is_ not the Word of God, but +only _contains_ the Word of God--that is to say, if it is partly God's +word and partly man's word--the clergy of all denominations should unite +in publishing a Bible with the divine and human parts clearly specified +by being printed in different types. And surely, if the Bible is in +any sense inspired, it should be possible, by a new and final act of +inspiration, to settle this distinction for ever. + +Allowing the clergy to meditate this holy enterprise, we proceed to +consider Dr. Farrar's theory of inspiration. Of course he discards +the old theory of verbal dictation; indeed, he calls it "irreverent," +because it attributes to God what modern men of intelligence and good +manners would be ashamed to own. He even quarrels with the very term +inspiration as "vague," and says it would be "a boon if some less +ambiguous word could be adopted." Four theories, he says, have been +entertained in the Christian Church. The first is the _mechanical_ +theory, which implies that the Holy Ghost dictated, and the inspired +penmen were merely his amanuenses. The second is the _dynamic_, which +recognises "the indefeasible guidance of the Holy Spirit." The third is +that of _illumination_, which confines the divine guidance to matters of +faith and doctrine. The fourth is that of _general_ inspiration, which +regards the Holy Spirit as influencing the writers in the same way as it +influences "other noble and holy souls." This fourth theory is the one +which Dr. Farrar himself affects. Every pure and sweet influence upon +the human soul, he says, is a heavenly inspiration. We owe to it "all +that is best and greatest in philosophy, eloquence, and song." Haydn +said of his grandest chorus in the "Creation": "Not from me but from +above it all has come!" "There is inspiration," says Dr. Farrar, +"whenever the spirit of God makes itself heard in the heart of man." +Apparently--for we can never be quite sure of Dr. Farrar--the only +superiority of the Bible lies in the fact that "the voice of God" speaks +to us "far more intensely" out of it than out of "any [other?] form of +human speech." + +Such a theory of inspiration is too vague and universal. Sooner than +give up inspiration altogether Dr. Farrar is prepared to share it all +round. But is not proving too much as bad as proving too little? If the +Bible is only inspired--where it _is_ inspired--in the same sense as +other books are inspired; if the difference is not one of kind, but +simply of degree; then it is really idle to talk about its inspiration +any longer. The word _inspiration_ loses all its original meaning. It +becomes a poetical expression, implying nothing supernatural, but merely +the exaltation of natural powers and faculties. God is then behind the +Bible only as God is behind everything; and Christianity, ceasing to be +a special revelation, becomes only a certain form of Theism. + +This loose theory of _general_ inspiration will doubtless serve the +present turn of the clergy, who have to face a general and growing +dissatisfaction with the Bible. But it cannot live very long in a +scientific age. It will be found out in time, like all the Bible +theories that preceded it. The first Protestant dogma was the +infallibility of Scripture. That was exploded by modern science and +textual criticism. Then came the dogma of plenary inspiration, which had +a comparatively short-lived existence, as it was only the old dogma of +infallibility in disguise. Next came the dogma of illumination, which +may be said to have begun with Coleridge and ended with Maurice. +Finally, we have the dogma of general inspiration, which began nowhere +and ends nowhere, which means anything or nothing, and which is a sort +of "heads we win, tails you lose" theory in the hands of the clever +expounders of the Higher Criticism. + +Behind the last, as well as the first, of all these theories +of inspiration stands the fatal objection of Thomas Paine, that +inspiration, to be real, must be personal. A man may be sure that God +speaks to him, but how can he be sure that God has spoken to another +man? He may think it possible or probable, but he can never be certain. +What is revelation at first-hand, said Paine, is only hearsay at +second-hand. Real inspiration, therefore, eventuates in mysticism. +The inner light shines, the inner voice speaks; God holds personal +communication with the individual soul. Each believer carries what the +author of _Hudibras_ calls "the dark lanthorn of the spirit," which +"none see by but those who bear it." And the very multiplicity and +diversity of the oracle's deliverances are a proof that in all of them +man is speaking to himself. He questions his gods, and hears only the +echo of his own voice. + + + + +IX. THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS + +Some of the teaching of the Higher Criticism as to the authorship and +credibility of the Old Testament is, on the face of it, contrary to +the plain language of Jesus Christ himself in the Gospels. Moses, for +instance, is no longer considered as the author of the Pentateuch. Canon +Driver, who is perhaps the chief scholar of this movement in the Church +of England, as Dean Farrar is perhaps its chief rhetorician, locates the +composition of the book of Deuteronomy in the period between Isaiah and +Jeremiah. Throughout the book, he observes, the writer introduces Moses +in the third person, and puts speeches in his mouth which of course +he never uttered. But in "framing discourses appropriate to Moses' +situation!" he was not guilty of "forgery," for he was "doing nothing +inconsistent with the literary usages of his age and people." That is +to say, everybody did it, and this writer was no worse than his +contemporaries--which is probably true. But passing by the question of +casuistry here involved, we repeat that the Mosaic authorship of the +Pentateuch is entirely abandoned. Dr. Farrar is quite as emphatic as +Dr. Driver on this point. He denies that there is "any proof of the +existence of a _collected_ Pentateuch earlier than the days of Ezra +(b.c. 444 )"--a thousand years after the time of Moses. He points out +that the salient features of the so-called Mosaic Law, such as the +Passover, the Sabbatical year, and the Day of Atonement, are not to be +traced in the old historical books or in the earlier prophets. Nor +does he scruple to assert that the Pentateuch is "a work of composite +structure," which has been "edited and re-edited several times," and +"contains successive strata of legislation." In the New Testament, +however, Moses is repeatedly spoken of as the author of the Pentateuch.* +Not to multiply texts, for in such a case one is as good as a thousand, +we will take a decisive passage in the fourth Gospel:-- + + * Matthew xix. 7, 8; Mark x. 3, 4; xii. 26; Luke xvi. 29-31; + Luke xx. 37; John v. 45, 46; vii. 19, 22, 23. + +"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that +accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, +ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his +writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John v. 45-47). + +The speaker in this instance is Christ himself. It is he, and not the +evangelist, who speaks of the writings of Moses, and declares that Moses +"wrote of me." + +Now let us turn to the book of Psalms, which has been well called the +Hymn Book of the Second Temple. According to Dr. Farrar, they are +"a collection of sacred poems in five separate books of very various +antiquity." Canon Driver points out that they are mostly posterior to +the prophetical writings. "When the Psalms," he says, "are compared +with the prophets, the latter seem to show, on the whole, the greater +originality; the psalmists, in other words, _follow_ the prophets, +appropriating and applying the truths which the prophets proclaimed." +Very few of the Psalms are earlier than the seventh century before +Christ. Dr. Driver affirms this with "tolerable confidence." Dr. Farrar +says that "some may mount to an epoch earlier than David's," but this +is mere conjecture. The more cautious Dr. Driver will not commit himself +further than "a verdict of _non liquet_"; that is to say, there is no +proof that David did not write one or two of the Psalms, and no evidence +that he did. His name was associated with the collection, in the +same way as the name of Solomon was associated with the Proverbs. +Nevertheless it is David who is referred to by Jesus as the author of +the hundred-and-tenth Psalm.* But this Psalm is one of those which are +allowed to belong to a much later period. Jesus quoted it as David's, +but Professor Sanday says "it seems difficult to believe it really came +from him"**--which is as strong an expression as a Christian divine +could be expected to permit himself in a case of such delicacy. + + * Matthew xxii. 43-45; Mark xii. 36, 37; Luke xx. 42-44. + + ** Professor W. Sanday, Bampton Lectures on Inspiration, p. + 409. Canon Gore, with this utterance of Jesus right before + him, still more emphatically denies that this Psalm was, or + could have been, composed by David. See his Bampton Lectures + on The Incarnation of the Son of God, p. 197. + +We have already seen that the book of Daniel was not written by the +prophet Daniel, but by some unknown author hundreds of years later, +probably in the second century before Christ. Upon this subject +Professor Sanday takes precisely the same view as Canon Driver. He says +that this is "the critical view" and has "won the day." All the facts +support the "supposition that the book was written in the second century +b.c.," and not "in the sixth." "The real author," he says, "is unknown," +and "the name of Daniel is only assumed." He was writing, not a history, +but a homily, to encourage his brethren at the time of the Maccabean +struggle. "To this purpose of his," Professor Sanday says, "there were +features in the traditional story of Daniel which appeared to lend +themselves; and so he took that story and worked it up in the way which +seemed to him most effective." Jesus Christ, however, held the orthodox +view of his own time, and spoke of Daniel as the actual author of this +book (Matthew xxiv. 15). "But this," Professor Sanday observes, "it is +right to say, is only in one Gospel, where the mention of Daniel may be +an insertion of the Evangelist's." Such conjectural shifts are Christian +critics reduced to in their effort to minimise difficulties; as though +_reducing_ the mistakes of Jesus in any way saved his _infallibility_. + +We will now turn to some portions of the Old Testament narrative which +the Higher Criticism regards as legendary, but which Jesus regarded as +strictly historical. One of these is the story of the Flood. No one of +any standing is now prepared to defend this story, at least as we find +it in the book of Genesis. A few orthodox scientists, like Sir James +W. Dawson, pour out copious talk about tremendous floods in former +geological ages; but what has this to do with the Bible narrative of a +universal deluge which occurred some four thousand five hundred years +ago? The Higher Critics have the impatience of Freethinkers with such +intellectual charlatanry. They regard the story of the Flood as a Jewish +legend, which was not even original, but borrowed from the superstitions +of Babylon. Yet the opinion of Jesus Christ seems to have been very +different. Here are his own words:-- + +"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man +be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating +and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe +entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them +all away, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew xxiv. +37-39). + +Jesus Christ appears to have believed, like the disciples he was +addressing, like all the rest of his countrymen, and like nearly +all Christians until very recently, that the Flood was an historical +occurrence, that Noah and his family were saved in the ark, and that all +the other inhabitants of the world were drowned. + +Another story which the Higher Criticism dismisses as legendary is that +of Jonah. The book in which it is related was, of course, not written by +Jonah, the son of Amittai, of whom we read in 2 Kings xiv. 25, and who +lived in the reign of Jeroboam II. "It cannot," as Dr. Driver says, +"have been written until long after the lifetime of Jonah himself." Its +probable date is the fifth century before Christ. Dr. Driver says it is +"not strictly historical "--that is to say, the events recorded in it +never happened. Jonah was not really entertained for three days in a +whale's belly, nor did his preaching convert the whole city of Nineveh. +The writer's purpose was didactic; he wished to rebuke the exclusiveness +of his own people, and to teach them that God's care extended, at least +occasionally, to other nations as well as the Jews. Some critics, such +as Cheyne and Wright, regard the story as allegorical; Jonah standing +for Israel, the whale for Babylon, and the vomiting up of the prophet +for the return of the Jews from exile. Dr. Farrar draws attention to the +"remarkable" fact that in the book of Kings "no allusion is made to any +mission or adventure of the historic Jonah." He adds that there is not +"the faintest trace of his mission or its results amid the masses of +Assyrian inscriptions." Even the writer of the book of Jonah, according +to Dr. Farrar, attached "no importance" to its "supernatural incidents," +which "only belong to the allegorical form of the story." So much for +the Higher Critics; and now let us hear Jesus Christ:-- + +"An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall +no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas +was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son +of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The +men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall +condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and behold +a greater than Jonas is here" (Matthew xii. 39-41). + +This utterance of Jesus is also reported in Luke (xi. 29-32), but with +an important variation, the reference to Jonah in the whale's belly +being entirely omitted. This variation is seized upon by Dr. Farrar. +The fishy reference, he says, occurs in Matthew _alone_, and it may +"represent a comment or marginal note by the Evangelist, or of some +other Christian teacher." This, however, is an arbitrary supposition, +which everyone is free to repudiate; and Dr. Farrar feels obliged to add +that "even if our Lord did allude to the whale" it does not follow that +we should regard it as "literal history." But this is not the question +at issue. The real question is, did Jesus Christ believe the story of +Jonah and the whale? If he did not, it must be admitted that he had a +most unfortunate way of expressing himself. + +No educated Christian in the present age believes the story of Lot's +wife being changed into a pillar of rock salt, although Josephus +pretended that he had seen it, and many travellers and pilgrims have +searched for it as a sacred relic. Jesus Christ, however, gave great +prominence to this salted lady. "Remember Lot's wife" is a verse by +itself in the Protestant Bible (Luke xvii. 32). Jesus also refers to the +rain of fire and brimstone by which Sodom was destroyed. + +Here then, upon the face of it, we have Jesus Christ's testimony to +three documents as having been written by men who did not write them, +and to the historical character of three incidents which are purely +fabulous. Now the Higher Criticism must be wrong, or else Jesus Christ +was mistaken; in other words, he was not infallible, and therefore not +God. But the Higher Critics declare that they are not wrong; they also +declare that Jesus Christ was not mistaken. Let us see how they try to +save their own accuracy and his infallibility. + +We must remark, in passing, that some of these critics hint, without +exactly asserting, that Jesus _may_ have been mistaken. Dr. Farrar bids +us remember that "by the very fact of taking our nature upon him Christ +voluntarily submitted himself to human limitations." There were some +things which, as a man, he did not know. Yes, but he was also God; and +the conjunction of "knowledge" and "ignorance" in one person, and with +respect to a single subject, would dissolve the unity of the God-man, +which is a dogma of Christian theology. Moreover, as Canon Liddon +argued, it is not so much a question of Christ's omniscience as a +question of his infallibility. Supposing there were some matters, such +as the date of the day of judgment, of which he was ignorant; he might +confess his ignorance or remain silent, and no harm would accrue to +anyone; but if he spoke upon any matter, and was mistaken through want +of knowledge, he would become a propagator of error; and this would not +only destroy the doctrine of his deity, but very seriously impair his +authority as a teacher, and cause everything he said to be open to +the gravest suspicion. No less dangerous is it to fall back upon the +explanation that "the discourses of Christ are not reproduced by the +Evangelists with verbal identity"--to use Dr. Farrar's own language. Dr. +Sanday seems a little attracted by this explanation. He reminds us that, +whatever views Jesus himself entertained as to the Scriptures of the Old +Testament, his views have come down to us through the medium of persons +who shared the erroneous ideas that were then current on the subject. We +must be prepared, he says, for the possibility that Christ's sayings in +regard to it "have not been reported with absolute accuracy." But +after all "not much allowance" should be made for this; which means, we +suspect, that the worthy Professor saw the dreadful peril of pursuing +this vein of observation, and desisted from it before he had said enough +to cause serious mischief. + +The more astute Higher Critics avoid such dangers. They resort to a +theory that combines mystery and plausibility, by which they hope to +satisfy believers on both sides of their natures. Dr. Farrar tells us +that Christ, to become a man, emptied himself of his glory; and that +this "examination" involved the necessity of speaking as a man to men. +This position is perhaps best expressed by Canon Gore:-- + +"It is contrary to his whole method to reveal his Godhead by any +anticipations of natural knowledge. The Incarnation was a self-emptying +of God to reveal himself under conditions of human nature, and from the +human point of view. We are able to draw a distinction between what he +revealed and what he used......Now when he speaks of the 'sun rising' he +is using ordinary human knowledge. Thus he does not reveal his eternity +by statements as to what had happened in the past, or was to happen in +the future, outside the ken of existing history. He made his Godhead +gradually manifest by his attitude towards men and things about him, by +his moral and spiritual claims, by his expressed relation to his father, +not by any miraculous exemptions of himself from the conditions of +natural knowledge in its own proper province. Thus the utterances of +Christ about the Old Testament do not seem to be nearly definite or +clear enough to allow of our supposing that in this case he is departing +from the general method of the Incarnation, by bringing to bear the +unveiled omniscience of the Godhead, to anticipate or foreclose a +development of natural knowledge."* + +This would perhaps be sublime if it were only intelligible. We are not +surprised at Dr. Driver's turning away from the metaphysics of this +theory. His mind is cast in a more sober and practical mould. It is +enough for him that the aim of Christ's teaching was a religious one; +that he naturally accepted, as the basis of his teaching, the opinions +respecting the Old Testament that were current around him; that he did +not raise "issues for which the time was not yet ripe, and which, had +they been raised, would have interfered seriously with the paramount +purpose of his life."** + + * Rev. Charles Gore, Lux Mundi (seventh edition), pp. 360, + 361. + + ** Introduction, Preface, xix. + + +This is excellently said. It is just what Paley might have written in +present-day circumstances. But it contains no note of the supernatural. +It deals with Jesus as a mere man, who did not disclose all the +information he possessed, but sometimes veiled his knowledge for +temporary reasons. It leaves his Godhead in the background. It does not +recognise how easy it was for Omnipotence to act differently. And when +the Higher Criticism points out that the human mind could, in the course +of time, free itself from errors as to the authorship and credibility +of the Old Testament, it forgets that Jesus Christ, by accommodating +himself to those errors, _perpetuated_ them. His authority was appealed +to for centuries--it is appealed to now--in favor of falsehood. Nor is +this falsehood trivial and innocuous. It has been extremely harmful. It +has fostered a wrong view of the Bible, it has prolonged the reign of +superstition, and thus hindered the growth of true civilisation. This is +an impeachment of the moral character of Jesus. It is a confession that +he served a temporary object at the expense of the permanent interests +of humanity. We feel constrained, therefore, to admit the force of the +words of Canon Liddon:-- + +"We have lived to hear men proclaim the legendary and immoral character +of considerable portions of those Old Testament scriptures, upon which +our Lord has set the seal of his infallible authority. And yet, side +by side with this rejection of Scriptures so deliberately sanctioned +by Christ, there is an unwillingness which, illogical as it is, we must +sincerely welcome, to profess any explicit rejection of the Church's +belief in Christ's divinity. Hence arises the endeavour to intercept +a conclusion, which might otherwise have seemed so plain as to make +arguments in its favor an intellectual impertinence. Hence a series of +singular refinements, by which Christ is presented to the modern world +as really Divine, yet as subject to fatal error; as Founder of the true +religion, yet as the credulous patron of a volume replete with worthless +legends; as the highest Teacher and Leader of humanity, yet withal as +the ignorant victim of the prejudices and follies of an unenlightened +age."* + + * Canon H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Christ (fourteenth + edition), p. 462. + +Canon Gore devotes several pages of his Bampton Lectures to this +subject, but he does not fairly answer the straightforward objections +raised by Canon Liddon. Dealing with the references of Jesus to +the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and to Jonah's three days' +entombment in the whale's belly, and with the argument that this +endorsement by Jesus "binds us to receive these narratives as simple +history," he blandly declares, "To this argument I do not think that we +need yield." Of course not. There is no need to yield to anything you do +not like; for this is a free country, at least to Christians. But what +is the logical conclusion? That is the point to be decided. Canon +Gore does not face it; he merely expresses a personal disinclination. +Subsequently he pleads that "a heavy burden" should not be laid on +"sensitive consciences," and that men should not be asked "to accept as +matter of revelation what seems to them an improbable literary theory." +But this again is a personal appeal. These men must be left to attend +to their own consciences. They have no right to demand a suppression of +truth, or a perversion of logic, for their particular advantage. + +When a candid reader has finished all that the Higher Criticism has to +say on this matter, we believe he will be filled with a sense of its +insincerity. It never strikes a note of triumph, or even a note of +conviction. It is timid, furtive, and apologetic; and shelters +itself against reason by plunging into mystery. In place of all +the difficulties it removes it sets up a colossal one of its own +manufacture; the difficulty, to wit, of conceiving that God himself lent +a sanction to grave and far-reaching error as to his own Word; or what +would inevitably be regarded as a sanction, and would necessarily delay +for many hundreds of years the discovery and reception of the truth. +The Higher Criticism, in short, has supplied a new argument against the +deity of Jesus Christ. + + + + +X. THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND + +Dr. Farrar's book has naturally given offence to the more orthodox +Christians. Clergymen like "Father" Ignatius stigmatise him, and indeed +all clerical exponents of the Higher Criticism, as wolves in sheeps' +clothing, who eat the Church's meat and do the work of "infidelity." +We are not surprised, therefore, that some reassurance has been +deemed necessary; nor astonished that it took the form of a popular +announcement in the newspapers. Some months ago--to be accurate, it was +in September--the following paragraph went the round of the press:-- + +"Dean Farrar and the Scriptures.--A correspondent called the attention +of Dean Farrar to the fact that Atheistic lecturers are in the habit of +affirming that he does not believe in the Bible (referring to his works +as a confirmation of the statement), and observed that, if such a grave +assertion were allowed to be propagated without contradiction, the young +and the ignorant might be deceived by it. The Dean, who is at present +staying in Yorkshire, replied as follows: 'The statement to which you +refer is ignorant nonsense. The doctrine of the Church of England about +Holy Scripture is stated in her Sixth and Seventh. Articles, and that +doctrine I most heartily accept." + +This strikes us as a rather paltry evasion. The Sixth and Seventh +Articles of the Church of England do not state the full Christian belief +as to the Bible, but only the Protestant belief as against that of the +Church of Rome. They emphasise two points, and two points only: first, +that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary to salvation, so +that no man is at the Pope's mercy for a seat in heaven; second, that +fourteen books of the Roman Catholic Bible are apocryphal, and cannot be +used to establish any doctrine. The general Christian view of the Bible, +common to Catholics and Protestants, is taken for granted, as it had +not then been brought into controversy. There is one word in the Sixth +Article, however, which may be commended to Dr. Farrar's attention. +The last clause explains what is meant by "Holy Scripture," and runs +as follows:--"In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those +Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was +never any doubt in the Church." Now, unless Dr. Farrar means to juggle +with the word "authority"--and we do not doubt his capacity for doing +so--it is idle for him to say that he believes in the Bible according to +these terms. He does _not_ believe, for instance, in the "authority" of +the book of Jonah; on the contrary, he believes that Jonah did not write +it, and that it is not history, but romance, from beginning to end. If +_this_ is believing in the Bible, then Atheistic lecturers believe in it +as well as Dr. Farrar. He does not believe that Jonah spent three +days in a whale's belly--nor do they; he does not believe that +Jonah's deep-sea adventure was a prefigurement of the burial of Jesus +Christ--nor do they; he does not believe that the Jonah story is any +the truer because Jesus Christ really or apparently believed it--nor do +they; he simply believes that the story's moral is a good one, as far as +it represents people who are not Jews as entitled to consideration--and +so do they. Substantially there is not the smallest difference between +them. The only discernible difference is a hypothetical one. Dr. Farrar +claims that the book of Jonah is inspired. But he also claims that +everything good and true--that is, everything worth reading--is +inspired. "Very well then," the Atheist may reply, "I agree with you +still, in substance. The only point in dispute between us is whether +there is a God who interferes with the natural course of things, either +in the external world or in the human mind. But on your definition of +the word _inspired_, this makes no particular difference to any one book +or collection of books. And unless you alter (and narrow) your theory of +inspiration, our difference begins outside, not inside, the library--and +is, in brief, not practical, but metaphysical." + +But let us return to Dr. Farrar's method of proving his sufficient +orthodoxy; and let us tell him that if he will only pursue it far +enough, he may get rid of the Bible altogether. + +Suppose we take Pearson's classic _Exposition of the Creed_, and open +it at his address "to the Reader." In the second paragraph he writes as +follows:--"The Creed, without controversy, is a brief comprehension of +the objects of our Christian faith, and is generally taken to contain +all things necessary to be believed." Now this Creed does not mention +the Bible at all. A heathen might read it, and never infer from it that +there was such a thing as the Scriptures in existence. What then is to +prevent Dr. Farrar, or some more audacious clergyman, from saying +that he does not believe in the Bible, as it is nowhere laid down +as necessary to be believed; but that his orthodoxy is nevertheless +unimpeachable, because he "most heartily accepts" the Catholic and +Apostolic Creed which is "without controversy" an accurate compendium of +the Christian faith, and which, being prescribed in the Prayer Book, +is of course binding--and is _alone_ binding--on every loyal son of the +Church of England? + +Dr. Farrar claims, as a clergyman, what he calls a "Christian liberty" +in dealing with the Bible; although, if God has indeed spoken in the +Bible, it is difficult to see what liberty a Christian can have but that +of absolute belief and obedience. In a lengthy footnote of his volume +which we have been criticising, he refers to the famous "Essays and +Reviews Case," and the decisions of the judges in the Court of Arches +and in the Privy Council. Dr. Lushington laid it down that: "Provided +the Articles and Formularies are not contravened, the law lays down no +limits of construction, no rule of interpretation, of the Scriptures." +Lord Westbury declared that the Sixth Article of the Church of England +was based upon "the revelations of the Holy Spirit," and therefore the +Bible might be denominated "holy" and be said to be "the Word of +God"; but this was not "distinctly predicated of every statement and +representation contained in every part of the Old and New Testaments." +"The framers of the Articles," Lord Westbury added, "have not used the +word 'inspiration' as applied to the Holy Scriptures, nor have they laid +down anything as to the nature, extent, or limits of that operation of +the Holy Spirit." + +According to this sapient judgment, which perhaps is very good law, and +covers all possible developments of the Higher Criticism, every member +of the Church of England is bound to regard the Bible as containing "the +revelations of the Holy Spirit," but is not bound to regard it as a work +of "inspiration." A judge, with his legal spectacles on, is notoriously +able to discriminate subtleties where laymen see only what is plain; +and clergymen may take advantage of his preternatural sagacity, without +being able in the long run to impose upon the common sense of the +people, who will always look upon "revelation" and "inspiration" as +interchangeable terms. + +It is quite natural that Dr. Farrar should wish to get rid of this word +"inspiration," since it can no longer be defined without danger. But we +must remind him that, if it does not occur in the Church Articles, it +certainly does occur in the Bible. "All scripture," Paul said, "is given +by inspiration of God."* + + * Timothy iii. 16. + + +And as the New Testament was not then in existence, Paul of course +referred to the Old Testament. This was the "holy scriptures" which +Timothy had "known from a child." And Peter is, if possible, more +definite than Paul. He speaks of the "more sure word of prophecy," +surer than the very voice heard by the three disciples on the mount +of transfiguration. This "prophecy of the scripture" he declares to be +never of "any private interpretation"--which means, according to the +commentators, that it did not spring from any knowledge or personal +conjecture in the prophet. Finally, he clinches his exposition by +affirming that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy +Ghost."* + + * 2 Peter i. 19-21. We quote this epistle as Peter's, + because it passes as his in the New Testament, not because + it was really his writing. + +According to the Sixth Article of the Church of England, both these +epistles, bearing the names of Paul and Peter, are among the books +"of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." Dr. Farrar is +therefore bound by them in logic and honor. He is not free to cast aside +the Biblical term of _inspiration_ nor free to minimise as he pleases +the "moving" influence of the Holy Ghost in either the New or the +Old Testament. As a clergyman of the Church of England, he assumes an +unwarrantable freedom; a freedom which is no more sanctioned by her +Articles than it is by the letter or spirit of the Scriptures. He +departs entirely from the primitive and real position of Protestantism; +namely, that the Bible is the absolute standard of faith and practice, +and that, wherever it is dark or dubious, it must be interpreted by +itself. He treads the _via media_ of compromise and irrationality; +neither going over to Rome, which claims to be inspired, like the Bible, +and to be the vehicle of the living voice of God for the infallible +interpretation of the written revelation--nor going over to Rationalism, +which regards the Catholic Church as but a human institution, and the +Bible as but a human composition. Believe that God has spoken, according +to the words of Paul and Peter, and the Catholic theory is the only +satisfactory one; disbelieve it, and there is no logical alternative but +the most thoroughgoing Rationalism. + + + + +XI. AN ORIENTAL BOOK + +Dr. Farrar stumbles, on one occasion, against the true theory of the +Bible. Having to furnish an excuse, if not a justification, for the +outrageous crudity of a good deal of its language, he reminds us that +decorum changes with time and place. "The rigid external modesty and +propriety of modern and English literature," he observes, "is disgusted +and offended by statements which gave no such shock to ancient and +Eastern readers." And he adds that "The plain-spokenness of Orientals +involved no necessary offence against abstract morality." This is +true enough, but the argument should be developed. What is urged in +extenuation of the grossness of the Scripture is really applicable all +round--to its mythology, its legends, its religion, its philosophy, +its ethics, and its poetry. The Bible is an oriental book. And this +one statement, when properly understood, gives us the true key to +its interpretation, the real criterion of its character, and the just +measure of its value. + +It has been well remarked that the ordinary Christian in this part of +the world appears to imagine that the Bible dropped down from heaven--in +English. Even the expounders of the Higher Criticism, in our own +country, read it first in their mother tongue; and although they +afterwards read it in the original Greek, and sometimes in the original +Hebrew, they are under the witchery of early impressions, and their +apologetics are almost entirely founded upon the vernacular Bible. +Thus they lose sight, and their readers never catch a glimpse, of the +predominant element, the governing factor, of the problem. + +All the Bibles in the world, like all the religions in the world, came +from the East. "Not one of them," as Max Mueller remarks, "has been +conceived, composed, or written down in Europe."* + + * Max Mueller, Natural Religion, p. 538. + +He classes the _Pilgrim's Progress_ among the "many books which have +exercised a far greater influence on religious faith and moral conduct +than the Bibles of the world"; but Bunyan's originality was artistic and +not religious; he absorbed the Puritanism of his age, and reproduced it +in the form of a magnificent allegory. Religious originality does not +belong to the Western mind, which is too scientific and practical. Every +one of the fashionable crazes that spring up from time to time, and have +their day and give place to a successor, is merely a garment from the +old wardrobe of superstition. This is true of Theosophy, for instance; +all its doctrines, ideas, and jargon being borrowed from India. +"There are five countries only," Max Mueller says, "which have been +the birthplace of Sacred Books: (1) India, (2) Persia, (3) China, (4) +Palestine, (5) Arabia." All come from the East, and all have a generic +and historic resemblance. Not one of them was written by the founder of +its religion. Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Christ did not write +a line of the New Testament, Mohammed did not write the Koran, Zoroaster +did not write the Avesta, the Buddhist Scriptures were not written by +Buddha, and the Vedic hymns are far more ancient than writing in India. +All these Sacred Books embody the accepted beliefs of whole peoples; all +of them are canonical and authoritative; all contain very much the same +ethical groundwork, in the form of elementary moral prohibitions; all +of them are held to be of divine character; all of them become a kind of +fetish, which is worshipped and obeyed at the expense of the free spirit +of man, who is told not to be wise above what is written. Ecclesiastical +or kingly authority has generally given these books their final form and +character. Their establishment takes place in open daylight, but their +origin is more or less shrouded in mystery. "It is curious," Max Mueller +says, "that wherever we have sacred books, they represent to us the +oldest language of the country. It is so in India, it is the same +in Persia, in China, in Palestine, and very nearly so in Arabia."* +According to Max Mueller, the Veda was referred to in India fifteen +hundred years before Christ. Consequently it precedes by many centuries +even the earliest parts of the Bible:-- + +"The Vedic hymns come to us as a collection of sacred poetry, belonging +to certain ancient families, and afterwards united in one collection, +called the Rig-veda-sa_m_hita. The names of the poets, handed down by +tradition, are in most cases purely imaginary names. What is really +important is that in the hymns themselves the poets speak of their +thoughts and words as _God-given_--this we can understand--while at a +later time the theory came in that not the thoughts and words only, but +every syllable, every letter, every accent, had been communicated to +half-divine and half-human prophets by Brahma, so that the slightest +mistake in pronunciation, even to the pronunciation of an accent, would +destroy the charm and efficacy of these ancient prayers."** + + * Natural Religion, p. 295. + + ** Max Mueller, ibid, p. 558. + +With a slight variation of language, to suit the special circumstances, +nearly all this would apply to the Bible. + +Christianity, like Brahmanism, like Buddhism, like Mohammedanism, is a +book religion. It is "God-given," or revealed, and its Bible has been +elevated to a position of infallibility, above the reach of human +reason, precisely like the Bibles of other oriental faiths. This +sanctification of every thought and word and letter is declared by +Max Mueller to have been "the death-blow given to the Vedic religion," +destroying its power of growth and change. A similar observation is made +by Sir William Muir respecting the petrified gospel of the Koran:-- + +"From the stiff and rigid shroud in which it is thus swathed, the +religion of Mohammed cannot emerge. It has no plastic power beyond +that exercised in its earliest days. Hardened now and inelastic, it can +neither adapt itself nor yet shape its votaries, nor even suffer them +to shape themselves, to the varying circumstances, the wants and +developments of mankind."* + +How curious it is, after reading this strong passage, to come across a +diametrically opposite one in the work of another eminent writer on +the same subject. Professor Arnold closes his important book on the +propagation of the Muslim faith with a reference to "the power of this +religion to adapt itself to the peculiar characteristics and the stage +of development of the people whose allegiance it seeks to win."** +Historically, it is perfectly certain that Mohammedanism _has_ been +found compatible with a high degree of civilisation. Many instances +might be given, but a single one is sufficient. The Mohammedan +civilisation in Spain was far superior to the Christian civilisation +which, after terrible bloodshed and enormous destruction, was +established upon its ruins. The truth is, that religions always change +when they must change, and never otherwise. When the necessity +arises, learned divines will always be found to make the requisite +accommodations. This, indeed, is the explanation of the labors of Dr. +Farrar and other exponents of the Higher Criticism. They are simply +accommodating Christianity, and the Bible with it, to the serious +changes that have taken place in educated opinion and sentiment, in +consequence of the development of physical science, the progress of +historical criticism, and the growth of moral culture. All the truth in +Sir William Muir's impeachment of Mohammedanism is no less applicable +to Christianity. The Bible, like the Koran, and like every other +revelation, stereotyped old ideas, and gave them a factitious longevity. +Dr. Farrar himself not only admits, but contends, that the Bible has +been invoked against every advance in science, politics, and sociology. +What more could be said of the Koran or any other sacred book? + + * Sir William Muir, Rise and Decline of Islam, pp. 40, 41. + + ** T. W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam. + +Bring any oriental religion into Europe, and it must change or perish. +Christianity is not true, as Mr. Gladstone and so many orthodox +apologists have argued, because the Christian nations are at the top +of civilisation. The Caucasian mind led the world before the advent of +Christianity, and it is doing the same now. Christians are apt to forget +that Greece and Italy are in Europe, and that Athens and Rome--two +imperishable names in the world's history--were far-shining cities +before a good deal of the Old Testament was written. + +Keep any oriental religion in the East, however, and there is no +saying how long it will last unaltered. Do not travellers talk of +the unchanging East? The civilisation of China is almost what it was +thousands of years ago. Syrian life to-day is like a picture from the +Bible. And the old Orient, as Flaubert said, is the land of religions; +and where Asia looks upon Europe, and the communication between them +began of yore, you may sample all the faiths of antiquity. Flaubert +remarked that the assemblage of all the old religions in Syria was +something incredible; it was enough to study for centuries.* + + * Flaubert, Correspondence, vol. i., p. 344. + +Asia spawned forth all the great religions, and produced all the great +revelations. Arabia is in Africa, but the Arabs are not Africans; they +belong to the Semitic race, like the Jews, and the Koran embodies Jewish +and other Semitic traditions. + +The Bible, then, is an oriental book, an Asiatic book, in spite of the +Greek elements which are incorporated in the New Testament, notably in +the fourth Gospel. It has never been in harmony with the real life of +the West. When it has dominated the life of a particular locality, for a +certain period, the result has been something typically non-European; as +in the case of Scotland under the despotism of the Kirk, whose spiritual +slaves prompted Heine's epigram that the Presbyterian Scotchman was a +Jew, born in the north, who ate pork. Modern civilisation is mainly a +return to the spirit of secular progress which inspired the immortal +achievements of Greece and Rome. + +"The revival of learning and the Renaissance are memorable as the first +sturdy breasting by humanity of the hither slope of the great hollow +which lies between us and the ancient world. The modern man, reformed +and regenerated by knowledge, looks across it, and recognises on the +opposite ridge, in the far-shining cities and stately porticoes, in the +art, politics, and science of antiquity, many more ties of kinship and +sympathy than in the mighty concave between, wherein dwell his Christian +ancestry, in the dim light of scholasticism and theology."* + + * James Cotter Morison, The Service of Man, p. 178. + +Well, if we once fully recognise the Bible as an oriental book, we are +on the road to its complete comprehension. Its grossness of speech, its +gratuitous reference to animal functions, its designation of males +by their sexual attributes even on the most serious occasions, its +religious observances in connection with pregnancy and birth, its +very rite of circumcision; all this, and much more, becomes perfectly +intelligible. It is in keeping with all we know of the ideas, practices, +and language of the East. Moreover, we perceive why it is that +similarities to the theology, the poetry, and the ethics of the Bible +have been so liberally disclosed by the progress of oriental studies. +The Bible, being brought from the East, has to be carried back there to +be properly understood. It is true that Christian divines have offered +their own explanation of these similarities. At first they declared them +to be Satanic anticipations, devilish pre-mockeries, of God's own truth. +Then they declared them to be confused echoes of the oracles of Jehovah. +Finally, they declare them to be evidences of the fact that, although +God chose the Jewish race as the medium of his special revelation, he +also revealed himself partially to other nations. But these explanations +are alike fantastic. They rest upon no ground of history or evolution. +The real explanation is that the Bible is one of the many sacred books +of the East. Its differences from the rest are not of kind, but of +degree; and any superiority that may be claimed for it must henceforth +be argued upon this basis. + +This oriental Bible is at utter variance with the vital beliefs, the +political and social tendencies, and the ethical aspirations, of the +present age. Science has destroyed its naive supernaturalism; reason +has placed its personal God--the magnified, non-natural man--in his own +niche in the world's Pantheon; philosophy has carried us far beyond its +primitive conceptions of human society; our morality has outgrown its +hardness and insularity, however we may still appreciate its finer +ejaculations; even the most pious Christians, with the exception of a +few "peculiar" people, only pay a hypocritical homage to its clearest +injunctions; and the higher development of decency and propriety makes +us turn from its crude expressions with a growing sense of disgust, +while the progress of humanity fills us more and more with a loathing +of its frightful wars and ruthless massacres, its tales of barbaric +cruelty, and its crowning infamy of an everlasting hell. + + + + +XII. FICTITIOUS SUPREMACY + +There are two remarkable characteristics of present-day apologies for +Christianity: one is extravagant laudation of Jesus as man and +teacher, the other is extravagant laudation of the Bible as ethics and +literature. Both these characteristics are really signs of the decadence +of positive faith. Anyone who sincerely believed in the deity of Jesus +would shrink from praising his human virtues. To such a person it would +savor strongly of impertinence. Nor would anyone who really believed the +Bible to be the Word of God make it the subject of meaner panegyrics. +It seems ridiculous to argue that God wrote with unusual power and +sublimity, and is actually the very first of known authors. But this +is what Dr. Farrar does, essentially, in the last six chapters of +his volume. No wonder, therefore, that all the vices of his style are +displayed in the accomplishment of this extraordinary task. He has to +make several quotations from great or distinguished writers, but he +catches no literary infection from them. One of these quotations is from +brave old George Fox. "I saw," the great Quaker wrote, "that there was +an ocean of darkness and death; but an infinite ocean of Light and Love +flowed over the ocean of Darkness; and in that I saw the infinite +love of God." This is magnificent writing. It has vision, force, and +simplicity. In its way it could hardly be beaten. And how poor in +comparison is the turgid pulpit rhetoric of Dr. Farrar! + +We are told by this wordy defender of the faith that the Christian +Scriptures are "the Supreme Bible of Humanity"--as though, if it be the +Word of God, it could be anything less. Our attention is called to +its "unique transcendence"--which is a penny-a-lining pleonasm. We +are informed that it has "triumphed with ease over the assaults of its +enemies"--which is a remarkably modest assertion, especially in view +of the fact that the "enemies" of the Bible were, for fifteen hundred +years, generally subdued by persecution, imprisonment, torture, +assassination, and the burning of their writings. We are further +informed that the Bible commands the reverence, guides the thoughts, +educates the souls, and kindles the moral aspirations of men "through +all the world"--which is an extremely sober statement in view of the +fact that all the _nominal_ Christians, not to be too precise about +the _real_ ones, do not amount to more than a fourth of the world's +inhabitants. So wonderful a book is the Bible that "the Lord Jesus +Christ himself did not disdain to quote from the Old Testament"--which +was his own word, in the sense that it was (professedly) written under +divine inspiration. This is absurd enough, but it is nothing to the +rapturous eulogy of the Bible which follows it. "All the best and +brightest English verse [not _some_, mark, but _all!_], from the poems of +Chaucer to the plays of Shakespeare in their noblest parts, are echoes +of its lessons; and from Cowper to Wordsworth," Dr. Farrar says, "from +Coleridge to Tennyson, the greatest of our poets have drawn from its +pages their loftiest wisdom." Really, one is tempted to ask whether such +stuff as this is possible in any other country than England, or perhaps +America; and whether, even in England or America, it is possible outside +churches, chapels, and Sunday-schools. Sixty pages later--Dr. Farrar +could not sober down in that long interval--he declares that "It was the +Bible which created the prose literature of England." Now if this were +true it would not serve Dr. Farrar's ostensible purpose. It would not +prove that the Bible is a divine revelation. It would only prove the +historical--that is to say, the largely accidental--importance of +the Authorised Version of the Bible in the development of English +literature. But this declaration of Dr. Farrar's is _not_ true. The +Authorised Version did not initiate, it rather closed, a period of our +literary history. The English of the translators in their Preface is +vastly different from the English of their translation. Indeed, they +were rather collators than translators. They took the older versions +as the basis of their work, they altered as little as possible, and the +alterations they did make were strictly in harmony with the time-honored +style of those older versions, a style which was even then very archaic. +Dr. Marsh, himself a devout Christian, contends that "the dialect of +this translation was not, at the time of the revision, or, indeed, at +any other period, the actual current book-language nor the colloquial +speech of the English people." He maintains that it was "a consecrated +diction" which had been "gradually built up" from the time of Wycliffe.* +Its language was not the language of Chaucer's prose, nor even of +Wycliffe's own prose, any more than it was the language of Bacon's +or Shakespeare's, or even that of divines like Hooker. The Authorised +Version is indeed a monument of English, but of special English. It has +always stood aside from the main development of English prose. Of course +it has exercised a considerable influence, but that influence has been +chiefly indirect. From the young naive prose of Malory to the mature and +calculated prose of Swift--not to come farther--there is a clear stream +of development, to which the language and style of the English Bible +have contributed infinitely less than is generally assumed. With the +single exception of Bunyan's masterpiece, which stands apart and alone, +it is difficult to name a first-class prose competition that was greatly +indebted to our Authorised Version. Even the divines disregarded it as +a literary model, and perhaps most conspicuously so in the seventeenth +century, immediately after its publication. + + * George P. Marsh, Lectures on the English Language + (Murray), pp. 441, 445. + +Dr. Farrar is entirely wrong in declaring that the Bible created the +prose literature of England. Even if he only means that English prose +was vastly profited by the religious literature which followed upon the +heels of the Reformation, it is easy to reply that this literature was +mainly controversial and never remarkable for the higher graces and +dexterities. For those virtues, prior to the time of Taylor and South, +we must turn to secular and even to "profane" compositions; a fact which +is well known to every real student of English literature. + +The next device of Dr. Farrar's advocacy would be astounding if one +did not know the muddle-headed public for whom he writes. He devotes a +monstrous number of pages to the citing of a "cloud of witnesses to the +glory and supremacy of the Holy Scriptures," beginning with the +great John Henry Newman and winding up with the notorious Hall Caine. +Sandwiched between these dissimilar "witnesses" are Heine, Goethe, +Rousseau, Wesley, Emerson, Carlyle, Huxley, Arnold, Ruskin, and a host +of others. Most of them were Christians, and afford a partisan testimony +which is not very valuable. In any case, there is no real argument in +a list of names. When a man is being tried on a definite charge, it is +idle to recite a catalogue of his distinguished friends. Witnesses to +character are only heard in mitigation of sentence after the jury has +returned a verdict of Guilty. Perhaps this fact had its influence on Dr. +Farrar's mind; at any rate, he calls his "cloud of witnesses" when he +has ended all he had to say in the form of argument. + +These witnesses, moreover, are jumbled together without the slightest +discrimination. Let us take a few illustrations to show the futility of +Dr. Farrar's method. + +John Wesley cried "Give me the book of God! Here is knowledge enough +for me. Let me be a man of one book." Yes, and John Wesley believed in +witchcraft, and honestly declared that to throw over witchcraft was to +throw over the Bible. He had, also, his own way of proving "the divine +inspiration of the Holy Scriptures." He wrote a "Clear and Concise +Demonstration," from which we take the following extract:-- + +"I beg leave to propose a short, clear, and strong argument to prove the +divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. + +"The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men +or devils, or of God. + +"(1) It could not be the invention of good men or angels; for they +neither would nor could make a book, and tell lies all the time they +were writing it, saying, 'Thus saith the Lord,' when it was their own +invention. + +"(2) It could not be the invention of bad men or devils; for they would +not make a book which commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns +their souls to hell to all eternity. + +"(3) Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible must be given by +divine inspiration."* + + * John Wesley's Works (1865), vol. xi., pp. 464-465. + +Could anything be more childish than this ridiculous play upon the word +"invention," and this absurd supposition that "good men" and "bad men" +are two sharp divisions of the human species? We know that all men +are mixtures, and that honest men may be mistaken, and tell falsehoods +without lying. We are therefore able to measure the value of John +Wesley's "demonstration" that the Bible is inspired. + +John Ruskin thanks his mother for daily reading the Bible with him in +his childhood, and daily making him learn a part of it by heart. This is +seized upon by Dr. Farrar, who places it in his list of testimonies. But +it might have been wise--it would certainly have been honest--to tell +the reader how Ruskin views the Bible. This great writer has formulated +four theories of the Bible, the third of which he has declared to be +"for the last half-century the theory of the soundest scholars and +thinkers in Europe." And what is this theory? Here it is in Ruskin's own +words:-- + +"That the mass of religious Scripture contains merely the best efforts +which we hitherto know to have been made by any of the races of men +towards the discovery of some relations with the spiritual world; that +they are only trustworthy as expressions of the enthusiastic visions or +beliefs of earnest men oppressed by the world's darkness, and have no +more authoritative claim on our faith than the religious speculations +and histories of the Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, and Indians; but are, +in common with all these, to be reverently studied, as containing +a portion, divinely appointed, of the best wisdom which the human +intellect, earnestly seeking for help from God, has hitherto been able +to gather between birth and death."* + + * Time and Tide, pp. 48, 49. It should be noted that the + Letters in this pregnant little volume were written by + Ruskin as far back as 1867. + +Surely this is a very different view of the Bible from the one which is +presented by Dr. Farrar. Setting aside a little religious phraseology, +a Freethinker might endorse Ruskin's theory of the Bible. Everything is +substantially granted to the Freethinker when it is admitted that the +Bible has "no authoritative claim on our faith." Whatever truth and +beauty it contains may then be thankfully accepted. + +Professor Huxley's famous eulogy of the Bible, as a book to be read in +Board Schools, is made the most of by Dr. Farrar. He must have winced, +however, at Huxley's reference to what a sensible teacher would +"eliminate" as "not desirable for children to occupy themselves with." +He was not sensitive enough to wince at the statement that "even the +noble Stoic, Marcus Antoninus, is too high and refined for an ordinary +child"--which is virtually a testimonial in his favor for grown-up +men and women. Dr. Farrar crows lustily over what he calls "Professor +Huxley's testimony to the unique glory of the Scriptures." It is +perhaps well for him that Huxley is incapable of resenting this +misrepresentation. Still, it must be admitted that on this occasion, as +on one or two others, Huxley did gratuitously play into the hands of +the enemy. He might have known the kind of use they would make of his +"graceful concessions." + +Dr. Farrar had not the honesty to tell his readers that Huxley had +the most sovereign contempt for _his_ theory of the Bible. The great +Agnostic held, for instance, that "belief in a demonic world" is +inculcated throughout the New Testament, and that this belief is +"totally devoid of foundation." He declared that Inspiration, in the +school of the Higher Criticism, is "deprived of its old intelligible +sense," and is "watered down into a mystification." He laughed at +the miracles of the Gospels, and made great fun of the story of the +bedevilled Gadarean swine. He held that religion and morality +have really no necessary connection, and sneered at the +"supernaturalists"--gentlemen like Dr. Farrar--who took to patronising +morality when they saw its importance, and "have ever since tried to +persuade mankind that the existence of ethics is bound up with that of +supernaturalism."* + +To accept a testimonial from such a writer is abject on the part of a +clergyman defending the inspiration of the Bible; and to parade it is +simply contemptible. More than fifty years ago, when this petty trick of +Christian apologetics was coming into vogue, it was rebuked by Newman, +who disdained as "unworthy" the practice of "boasting of the admissions +of infidels concerning the beauty or utility of the Christian system, as +though," he added with fine sarcasm, "it were a great thing for a divine +gift to obtain praise for human excellence."** + + * Huxley, Science and Christian Tradition, pp. xv., 25, 54, + etc. + + ** John Henry Newman, University Sermons, p. 71. + +Dr. Farrar's citation of Matthew Arnold is open to the same kind of +criticism. "He retained but little faith in the miraculous," we are +told, and "his creed was anything but orthodox." But is it fair to +suggest that Arnold had any creed at all? He rejected the idea of a +personal God, he regarded Jesus as a merely human teacher, and it is +evident from his books and his published correspondence that he had no +belief in personal immortality. As for his "faith in the miraculous," it +was not "little," with or without the "but"; it was a minus quantity. +He positively disbelieved in the miraculous. It was a part of his plain +message to the Churches that the reign of the Bible miracles was doomed, +that they were all fairy tales, and that, if the fate of the Bible was +bound up with theirs, the Bible was doomed too. Arnold said all this +when he was living, and it is useless for Dr. Farrar to disguise +the fact, or to minimise it by artful phrases. We commend to his +attention--would that we could commend it to the attention of his +readers!--the following passage from a letter of Arnold's to Sir +Mountstuart Grant Duff, dated July 22, 1882:-- + +"The central fact of the situation always remains to me this: that +whereas the basis of things amidst all chance and change has even in +Europe generally been for ever so long supernatural Christianity, and +far more so in England than in Europe generally, this basis is certainly +going--going amidst the full consciousness of the continentals that it +is going, and amidst the provincial unconsciousness of the English that +it is going."* + + * Matthew Arnold, Letters, vol. ii., p. 201. + +Considering what Arnold's views really were, is it of any use to make +the statement of rather doubtful accuracy that the Bible was his "chief +and constant study"? Is it not misleading to talk of his "intense +reverence and admiration for the Sacred Books"? He did not regard them +as _sacred_. He studied and valued the Bible as literature, not as +revelation; and it is monstrous to cite him as a witness in favor of the +Bible as it is represented in the school of Dr. Farrar. + +We need not waste time over Dr. Farrar's _banal_ remark that +Livingstone, Stanley, and the Bible together have caused "the extension +of the British protectorate over 170,000 square miles" in a certain +part of Africa. We may treat with the same indifference his boast of the +millions of copies of the "Sacred Books" distributed by the British +and American Bible Societies. Such "evidences" are only fit for the +street-corner. Only a low-minded, commercial-sodden Christian could +imagine that the multiplication of copies of a book is any sort of +testimony to its intrinsic truth and value; and in this particular case +the demand is a forced one, depending on the incessant stimulus of the +supply. + +Another argument of Dr. Farrar's for the "supremacy" of the Bible +is based upon the history of Christian martyrdoms. He gives several +instances of Christians, old and young, rich and poor, high-placed and +humble, who have died for their faith, and entered "the dark river and +its still waters with a smile upon their faces." He attributes their +fortitude to trust in the promises of the Bible. But he does not tell us +how it proves the truth of the Bible either as history or as revelation. +Millions of Jews have died at the hands of Christian bigots, and their +heroism amidst torture and massacre has never been exceeded in human +annals. Does this prove that the New Testament is not a revelation, and +that Jesus Christ was not God? Men of other faiths have faced death +with sublime courage. Does this prove that their beliefs were accurate? +Mohammedans are notoriously ready to die for their religion; the +Mohammedan dervishes in the Soudan never quailed before the most +murderous storm of shell and bullets; they fell in thousands at +Omdurman, and the Khalifa's standard-bearer, when all around him were +slain, stood upright under the holy flag, with a smile of defiance on +his face, which never left it until he sank shot-riddled upon the heap +of his dead comrades. Does this prove that the Koran is the Word of God? + +The orthodox argument seems to be this: if a Christian dies for the +Bible, that proves it to be a divine book; if a devotee of any other +faith dies for his Sacred Scripture. That proves nothing--unless it be +the obstinacy of wrong opinions. + +There is something intensely comical in the seriousness with which Dr. +Farrar relates the martyrdom of Christians who were put to death by +other Christians. He does not see that all he gains on one side is lost +on the other, that Christian persecution balances Christian fortitude, +and that nothing is left to the credit of his account. He devotes a +whole page to the murder of Margaret Lachlan and Margaret Wilson by +"brutal and tyrannous bigots" at Wigton in 1677. These two women +were Covenanting Christians, and their murderers were Episcopalian +Christians. They died singing psalms which their murderers believed +to be the word of God. It is difficult to see what advantage the Bible +derives from this incident. + +One may be interested by the reminder that Oliver Cromwell quoted two +verses from the hundred and seventeenth Psalm after his victory at +Dunbar; but one may remember on one's own account that David Leslie, the +defeated Scots general, was as devout a Christian and Bible-reader as +Oliver Cromwell, and that his piety was stimulated by the presence in +his camp of a whole congregation of Presbyterian ministers. Altogether +it is a pity that Dr. Farrar picks his illustrations in this one-eyed +fashion. He forgets that other people may have two eyes, and see on both +sides of them. He almost invites the sarcasm that the one-eyed man is +only a leader amongst the blind. + +The real secret of whatever supremacy belongs to the Bible is to be +sought in a different direction. It was long ago remarked by a French +Freethinker, in a work attributed to Boulanger, but really written by +D'Holbach, that education and authority were the two great pillars of +the Christian revelation. + +"If a body of men in possession of power, and able to like advantage of +the credulity of mankind, were to find their interest concerned in doing +so, they would make men believe at the end of a few centuries that the +adventures of Don Quixote are perfectly true, and that the prophecies +of Nostrodamus have been inspired by God himself. By dint of glosses, +of commentaries, and of allegories, it is easy to discover and to prove +what one pleases; however glaring an imposture may be, it can be made at +last, by the aid of time, cunning, and power, to pass for truth which +no one must doubt. Deceivers who are obstinate, and who are supported +by public authority, can make ignorant people, who are always credulous, +believe anything, especially if they can persuade them that there is +merit in not noticing inconsistencies, contradictions, and palpable +absurdities, and that there is danger in making use of their reason."* + + * Examen Critique de St. Paul, c. 3. + +Abolish all the Churches that exist for the purpose of preaching up the +Bible as a divine revelation; destroy all the clerical corporations +that live and operate upon this basis; take away, at least, the +public revenues and special privileges they enjoy; deprive them of +the patronage of the legislature and the government; remove their Holy +Scriptures from the public schools, where they are retained in defiance +of the principles of civil and religious liberty; let little children +no longer be suborned in favor of the supernatural claims of this book +before they are able to judge for themselves; let the Bible take its own +chance with the rest of the world's literature; and then, and not till +then, can its natural supremacy be established. But the clergy know that +such an experiment would be absolutely fatal to their pretensions. They +dare not accept a fair field and no favor. They know in their heart +of hearts that they are serving a lie. Their dishonesty is apparent at +every turn. Dr. Farrar calls upon England to "cling to her open Bible." +Well, the Peculiar People do so. They read the open Bible, they follow +its teaching as closely as possible, they obey the commandments of Jesus +Christ. And what is the result? They are cast into prison like felons. +One of them is suffering that pain and indignity at the present moment. + +A good husband, a good father, a good neighbor, a good citizen, he has +committed the crime of practically believing what Dr. Farrar and the +rest of the clergy facetiously preach--namely, that the Bible is the +Book of God, and the divine rule of faith and conduct. For this crime he +is imprisoned under the verdict of a Christian jury and the sentence of +a Christian judge; and not a single Christian minister raises his voice +against this infamous spectacle. Christianity is now only an organised +hypocrisy. It subsists upon an inherited fund of power, wealth, and +reputation. Even the clergy have no vital belief in the inspiration +of the Bible. It is merely the charter under which they trade. It is a +source of oracular texts for their ambiguous sermons. It is lauded +and adored, and neglected and defied. To bring it into disbelief and +contempt by argument and ridicule is a misdemeanor; to bring it into +disbelief and contempt by acting upon it is a felony. The only safe +course is that adopted by the clergy, who neither believe it nor +disbelieve it, but use it as it serves their occasions; and as long as +it answers their ends it will remain the Book of God. + +Let us not be misunderstood. We are far from desiring to engage in a +crusade against the Bible as a collection of ancient literature. We are +neither called upon nor disposed to deny its real merits, however they +are exaggerated in religious circles. It undoubtedly contains some fine +poetry, occasional pathos, and more frequent sublimity. Its style has +nearly always the charm of simplicity. All this may be allowed without +playing into the hands of the super-naturalists. Further than this we +need not go. In our opinion, it is absurd to place the Bible at the +top of human compositions. More than sixty writers are alleged to have +contributed to its production, but the whole mass of them do not rival +the magnificent and fecund genius of Shakespeare. Above all, they have +no wit or humour, in which Shakespeare abounds; and wit and humor belong +to the higher development of intellect and emotion. No, the Bible is +not the unapproachable masterpiece which it is declared to be by its +fanatical devotees. But whatever its intrinsic merits may prove to be, +in the light of long and free appreciation, the Bible cannot be accepted +as a revelation from God without wilful self-delusion on the part of +educated men and women. If God had a message for his children, he would +at least make it clear; but this revelation needs another revelation +to explain it, and creeds and commentaries are the symbols of its +obscurity. God's message would tell us what we could not otherwise +learn, but there is no such information in the Bible. God would apprise +us of what he specially desired us to remember, and would not mix it +confusedly with a tremendous mass of alien matter. God would not puzzle +us; he would enlighten us. He would make his communication so clear that +a wayfaring man, though a fool, could understand it; whereas, if the +Bible be his communication, no wayfaring man, unless he _is_ a fool, +pretends to understand it. God would not clog his message with myths, +legends, mysteries, absurdities, falsehoods, and filth; and leave us to +extricate it with endless labor and perpetual uncertainty. The so-called +Higher Criticism is therefore as absurd as the old Orthodoxy in calling +the Bible a work of inspiration. Its exponents affirm that God has left +us to our own knowledge and reason in regard to every other subject but +religion and morality. They are Evolutionists in part. But the principle +of Evolution must be applied over the whole field. Everything is +natural, and happens under the universal law of causation. There are no +miracles, and there never were any except in ignorant imaginations. +But the death of miracles is the death of inspiration. The triumph of +science involves the ruin of every supernatural system. Revelation is +necessarily miraculous, and when the belief in miracles expires the +death-knell rings for every Book of God. We are then left to the +discipline of culture. + +And what is culture? It is steeping our minds in the wisest and +loveliest thoughts of all the ages. And each of us may thus make his own +Bible for himself--a true Bible of Humanity. + + + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Book Of God, by G. W. Foote + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BOOK OF GOD *** + +***** This file should be named 38092.txt or 38092.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/8/0/9/38092/ + +Produced by David Widger + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/38092.zip b/38092.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a4c2710 --- /dev/null +++ b/38092.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1e3fa3c --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #38092 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38092) |