,,the ,,book ,,of ,,god ,,in ,,the ,,light ,,of ,,the ,,higher ,,criticism ,,with ,,special ,,reference ,,to ,,dean ,,farrar',s ,,new ,,apology ,by ,g4 ,w4 ,foote ,london3 ,r4 ,forder1 #bh ,stonecutter ,street1 ,e4,c4 ,,the ,,book ,,of ,,god4 ,i4 ,,introduction4 ,during the fierce controversy between the divines of the ,protestant ,reformation and those of the ,roman ,catholic ,church1 the latter asserted that the former treated the ,bible--and treated it quite naturally--as a wax nose1 which could be twisted into any shape and direction4 ,those who championed the living voice of ,god in the ,church1 against the dead letter of the written ,bible1 were always prone to deride the consequences of private judgment when applied to such a large and heterogeneous volume as the ,christian ,scriptures4 ,they contended that the ,bible is a misleading book when read by itself in the mere light of human reason2 that any doctrine may be proved from it by a judicious selection of texts2 and that ,christianity would break up into innumerable sects unless the ,church acted as the inspired interpreter of the inspired revelation4 ,they argued1 further1 that the ,bible was really not what the ,protestants supposed it to be2 and what they said on this point was a curious anticipation of a good deal of the so-called ,higher ,criticism4 ,both sides were right1 and both sides were wrong1 in this dispute4 ,the ,protestants were right against the ,church2 the ,catholics were right against the ,bible4 ,it was reserved for ,rationalism to accept and harmonise the double truth1 and to wage war against both infallibilities4 ,the ,bible is said to be inspired1 but the man who reads it is not4 ,the consequence is that he deduces from it a creed in harmony with his own taste1 temper1 fancy1 and intelligence4 ,he lays emphasis on what fits in with this creed1 and slurs over all that is opposed to it4 ,every one of the various and conflicting ,protestant sects is founded upon one and the same infallible book4 ,the ,bible teaches this1 says one2 ,the ,bible teaches that1 says another4 ,and they are both right4 ,the ,bible does teach the doctrines of all the sects4 ,but do they not contradict each other8 ,they do4 ,what is the explanation1 then8 ,why this--the ,bible contradicts itself4 ,the self-contradictions of the ,bible have occasioned the writing of many ,harmonies1 in which it is sought to be proved that all the apparent discrepancies are most admirable agreements when they are properly understood4 ,all that is requisite is to add a word here1 and subtract a word there2 to regard one and the same word as having several different meanings1 and several different words as having one and the same meaning2 and1 above all things1 to apply this method with a strong and earnest desire to find harmony everywhere1 and a pious intention of giving the ,bible the benefit of the doubt in every case of perplexity4 ,this sort of jugglery1 which would be derided and despised in the case of any other book1 is now falling into discredit4 ,most of the clergy are ashamed of it4 ,they frankly own1 since it can no longer be denied1 that a more honest art of criticism is necessary to save the ,bible from general contempt4 ,but the ,harmony game is not the only one that is played out4 ,all the ,reconciliations of the ,bible with science1 history1 morality1 and common sense1 are sharing the same fate4 ,the higher clergy leave such exhibitions of perverted ingenuity to laymen like the late ,mr4 ,gladstone4 ,divines like ,canon ,driver see that this mental tight-rope dancing may cause astonishment1 but will never produce conviction4 ,they therefore recognise the difficulties1 and seek for a more subtle and plausible method of removing them4 ,they admit that ,moses and ,darwin are at variance with each other2 that a great deal of ,bible history is legendary1 and some of it distinctly false2 that such stories as those of ,lot's wife and ,jonah's whale are decidedly incredible2 that some passages of ,scripture are vulgar and brutal1 and others detestably inhuman2 and that it is positively useless to disguise the fact4 ,yet they are naturally anxious to keep the ,bible on its old pedestal2 and this can only be done by means of a new theory of inspiration4 ,accordingly1 these gentlemen tell us that the ,bible is not the ,word of ,god1 but it contains the ,word of ,god4 ,its writers were inspired1 but their own natural faculties were not entirely suppressed by the divine spirit4 ,sometimes the writer's spirit was predominant in the combination1 and the composition was mainly that of an unregenerate son of ,adam4 ,at other times the divine spirit was predominant1 and the result was lofty religion and pure ethics4 ,moreover1 the sacred writers were only inspired in one direction4 ,god gave them a lift1 as it were1 in spiritual matters2 but in science and sociology he let them blunder along as they could4 ,the old wax nose is now receiving a decided new twist1 and a considerable number of accomplished and clever divines are engaged in manipulating it4 ,one of them is ,dean ,farrar1 who has recently published a bulky volume on ,the ,bible3 its ,meaning and ,supremacy1 which we shall subject to a very careful criticism4 ,dean ,farrar's book contains nothing that is new to fairly well-read sceptics4 ,it presents the commonplaces of modern ,biblical criticism1 with a due regard to the interests of the grand old book and of true and fundamental ,christianity1 which is probably no more than the particular form of ,christianity that is likely to weather the present storm of controversy4 ,but although this book contains no startling novelties1 it is of importance as the work of a dignitary of the ,church of ,england4 ,it is also of value1 inasmuch as it will be read by many persons who would shrink from ,strauss and ,thomas ,paine4 ,it is well that someone should tell ,christians the truth1 if not the whole truth1 about the ,bible1 and tell it them from within the fold of faith4 ,his motive in doing so may be less a regard for truth itself than for the immediate interests of his own ,church2 but the main thing is that he does it1 and ,freethinkers may be glad even if they are not grateful4 ,dr4 ,farrar's book has an ,introduction1 and we propose to examine it first4 ,he opens by telling the clergy that they ought not to pursue an ostrich policy in regard to religious difficulties2 that they should not indulge in vituperative phrases1 nor assume a disdainful infallibility2 that they do wrong in denouncing as wicked1 blasphemous1 or dangerous every conviction which differs from their own form of orthodoxy2 and that they must not expect all that they choose to assert to be accepted with humble acquiescence4 ,no doubt this advice is quite necessary2 and the fact that it is so shows the value of ,christianity1 after eighteen centuries of trial1 as a training-school in the virtues of modesty and humility1 to say nothing of justice and temperance4 ,the clergy are also invited by ,dr4 ,farrar to recognise the general diffusion of scepticism3-- ,in recent years much has been written under the assumption that ,christianity no longer deserves the dignity of a refutation2 or that1 at any rate1 the bases on which it rests have been seriously undermined4 ,the writings of freethinkers are widely disseminated among the working classes4 ,the ,church of ,christ has lost its hold on multitudes of men in our great cities4 ,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 artizans4 ,many of them have been persuaded to believe that the ,church is a hostile and organised hypocrisy4 ,this is a sad state of things1 and how is it to be met8 ,not by denouncing reason as a wild beast1 nor yet by relying on emotion and ceremonial1 for no religious system will be permanent which is not based on the convictions of the intellect4 ,dr4 ,farrar recommends a different policy4 ,he has frequently observed that the objections urged against ,christianity are aimed at dogmas which are no part of ,christian faith1 or are in no wise essential to its integrity4 ,even men of science have been led astray by objections based on travesties of its real tenets4 ,one of these false opinions is that which maintains the supposed inerrancy and supernatural infallibility of every book1 sentence1 and word of the ,holy ,bible4 ,this is the principal point to be dealt with2 it is here that we must make an adjustment4 ,nine-tenths of the case of sceptics is made up of attacks on the ,bible1 and the only way to answer them is to show that they misunderstand it1 and that what they demolish is not ,christianity1 but a mummy elaborately painted in its semblance1 or a scarecrow set up in its guise4 ,it is no part of the ,christian faith1 ,dr4 ,farrar says1 to maintain that every word of the ,bible was dictated supernaturally1 or is equally valuable1 or free from all error1 or on the loftiest levels of morality1 as finally revealed4 ,such a view of the ,bible has been popularly expressed by divines1 but they really did not mean it1 and it never formed any part of the ,catholic creed of ,christendom4 ,the doctrine of everlasting punishment is another of these delusions4 ,there is such a thing as future punishment1 but it is not everlasting--it is only eternal4 ,in the same way1 the ,bible is the ,word of ,god1 but it is not infallible--it is only inspired4 ,and what that means we shall see as we proceed4 ,,ii4 ,,the ,,bible ,,canon ,the first chapter of ,dean ,farrar's book deals with the ,bible ,canon4 ,after another slap at the poor benighted ,christians who still hold that every word of ,scripture is supernaturally dictated and infallibly true1 ,dr4 ,farrar remarks that the ,bible is not a single nor even a homogeneous book4 ,strictly speaking1 it is not a book1 but a library2 and1 as is pointed out later on1 it is the remains of a much larger collection which has mostly perished4 ,the ,canon of the ,old ,testament was arrived at by slow and uncertain degrees4 ,the common assertion1 that it was fixed by ,ezra and the so-called ,great ,synagogue in the fifth century before ,christ1 is in direct opposition to the facts4 ,it was not really settled until seventy years after the birth of ,christ1 when the ,rabbis met at ,jamnia1 and decided in favor of our present thirty-nine books4 ,according to ,dr4 ,farrar1 there was no special influence from heaven in the determination of the ,canon4 ,it was a work which ,god left to the ordinary influences of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,let us see then how these influences operated on the last and most critical occasion4 ,the gathering at ,jamnia1 says ,dr4 ,farrar1 was a tumultuous assemblage1 and in the faction fights of the ,rabbinic parties blood was shed by their scholars4 ,hence the decision was regarded as irrevocable and sealed by blood4 ,such are the ordinary influences of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,its extraordinary influences may be easily imagined4 ,their history is written in blood and fire in every country in ,christendom4 ,dr4 ,farrar allows that the ,canon of the ,new ,testament was formed in the same gradual and tentative way4 ,many ,gospels1 ,epistles1 and ,apocalypses were current in the first two centuries4 ,some of them were quoted as sacred books and read aloud in ,christian churches4 ,seven1 at least1 of the books which are now canonical were then disputed--namely1 the ,second ,epistle of ,st4 ,peter1 the ,second and ,third ,epistles of ,st4 ,john1 the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 the ,epistles of ,st4 ,james and ,st4 ,jude1 and the ,book of ,revelation4 ,the ,canon was formally and officially settled by the ,council of ,laodicea 7a4d4 #cfc71 and the two ,councils of ,carthage 7a4d4 #cig and #dai71 the decrees of which were sanctioned by the ,trullian ,council 7a4d4 #fib71 nearly seven hundred years after ,christ4 ,dr4 ,farrar holds1 however1 that these ,councils merely registered the general agreement of the ,christian ,church4 ,the real test of canonicity is not the decision of ,councils1 which may and do err1 but the verifying faculty of the ,christian consciousness4 ,dr4 ,farrar's argument1 if it means anything at all1 implies that while ,councils may err1 consisting as they do of fallible men1 this ,christian consciousness is really infallible4 ,but as this ,christian consciousness only exists1 after all1 in individual ,christians1 however numerous they may be1 or through however many centuries they may be continued1 it is difficult to see how the greatest multitude of fallibilities can make up one infallibility4 ,and unless it can1 it is also difficult to see how ,dr4 ,farrar can have an infallible ,canon4 ,he disclaims the authority of the ,church1 on which ,catholics rely2 indeed1 he says it can hardly be said that the whole ,church has pronounced any opinion on the ,canon at all4 ,what really happened is perhaps unconsciously admitted by ,dr4 ,farrar in a rather simple footnote4 ,books were judged1 he says1 by the congruity of their contents with the general ,christian conviction4 ,precisely so2 the books did not decide the doctrine1 but the doctrine decided the fate of the books4 ,and how was the doctrine decided8 ,by fierce controversy1 by forgery and sophistication1 by partisan struggles1 and finally1 after the adhesion of ,constantine1 by faction fights that involved the loss of myriads 7some say millions7 of lives4 ,not the slightest attempt is made by ,dr4 ,farrar to meet the difficulty of his position2 indeed1 he seems unaware that the difficulty exists4 ,all he sees is the difficulty of the positions taken up by the ,catholics and the early ,protestants4 ,it never occurs to him that he has only shifted from one difficulty to another4 ,the ,catholics rely upon the living voice of ,god in the ,church4 ,that covers everything1 like the sky2 and is perfectly satisfactory1 if you can only accept it4 ,the early ,protestants repudiated the authority of the ,church1 at least as represented by the ,pope and ,councils2 but they acknowledged the authority of the primitive ,church4 ,they were shrewd enough to see that what cannot possibly rest on mere reason must rest somewhere on authority2 so they admitted as much as was sufficient to cover the ,scriptures and the ,creeds1 and refused to go a step farther4 ,dr4 ,farrar breaks away from both parties1 and what is the result8 ,he talks about the ,canon of the ,new ,testament being formed by the exercise of enlightened reason1 but he lays down no criterion by which reason can decide whether a book is inspired or not1 or so specially inspired as to require a place in the ,canon4 ,the verifying faculty of the ,christian consciousness is one of those comfortable phrases1 like the blessed word ,mesopotamia1 which are designed to save the pains of accuracy and the trouble of definite thought4 ,what light does it really shed upon the following questions8 ,why is the ,protestant ,canon different from the ,catholic ,canon8 ,is it owing to some inexplicable difference in the verifying faculty of the ,christian consciousness in the two cases2 and by what test shall we decide when the ,christian consciousness delivers two contradictory verdicts8 ,why is the book of ,ecclesiastes in the ,canon1 while the book of ,ecclesiasticus is 7by the ,protestants7 relegated to the ,apocrypha8 ,why is the book of ,esther in the ,canon1 and the book of ,judith in the ,apocrypha8 ,why is the book of ,jonah in the ,canon1 and the book of ,tobit in the ,apocrypha8 ,why is the book of ,proverbs in the ,canon1 and the book of the ,wisdom of ,solomon in the ,apocrypha8 ,these are questions which the early ,protestants answered in their way1 but we defy ,dr4 ,farrar to answer them at all4 ,let us follow ,dr4 ,farrar into his second chapter4 ,he states1 truly enough1 that both the ,old and the ,new ,testaments represent the selected and fragmentary remains of an extensive literature4 ,many books referred to in the ,old ,testament are lost4 ,some of the canonical books are anonymous2 we do not know who wrote them4 ,others bear the names of men by whom they could not have been composed4 ,the ,pentateuch is a work of composite structure1 which has been edited and re-edited several times4 ,the ,psalms are a collection of sacred poems in five separate books of very various antiquity4 ,the ,proverbs consist of four or five different collections4 ,the ,new ,testament is a selection from the voluminous ,christian literature of the earliest centuries4 ,many ,gospels were already in existence when ,st4 ,luke prepared his own4 ,it is all but certain1 ,dr4 ,farrar says1 that ,st4 ,paul1 and probable that the other ,apostles1 must have written many letters which are no longer preserved4 ,that is to say1 some letters actually written by ,st4 ,paul were allowed to perish1 while others not written by him were allowed to bear his name1 and were placed as his in the ,new ,testament ,canon6 ,there are passages in the ,gospels that are known to be interpolations2 for instance1 the story of the ,woman taken in ,adultery4 ,this story is exquisite and supremely valuable1 but it is bracketed in the ,revised ,version as of doubtful genuineness4 ,such passages are eliminated because they do not meet the standard of modern critical requirements4 ,o sancta simplicitas6 ,is there any reason1 in the natural sense of that word1 for believing that ,john the ,apostle wrote the rest of the ,fourth ,gospel1 any more than he wrote this rejected story8 ,dr4 ,farrar strains at gnats and swallows camels1 and prides himself on his discrimination4 ,his references to ,justin ,martyr and ,papias seem less than ingenuous4 ,it is not true that ,justin ,martyr freely uses the ,gospels4 ,dr4 ,farrar admits that he does not name them4 ,saying that he used them is quietly assuming that they existed4 ,all that ,justin ,martyr does1 as a matter of fact1 is to cite sayings ascribed to ,jesus1 but not in one single case does he cite a saying of ,jesus in exactly the form in which it appears in the ,four ,gospels4 ,supposing that he wrote freely1 and had ever so bad a memory1 and never took the trouble to refer to the originals1 it is simply inconceivable that he should never be right4 ,now and then he must have deviated into accuracy4 ,and the fact that he never does is plain proof that he had not our ,gospels before him4 ,nor does ,papias mention the ,gospels4 ,he mentions only two1 ,matthew and ,mark1 and he says that ,matthew was written in ,hebrew1 ,now1 the earliest date at which ,papias can be fixed is a4d4 #adj4 ,this is chosen by ,dr4 ,farrar1 and we will let it pass unchallenged4 ,and what follows8 ,why this1 that no ,christian writer before a4d4 #adj betrays that he has so much as heard of any ,gospel1 and even then but two are known instead of four1 and one of these is most certainly not the ,gospel which opens the ,new ,testament4 ,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 ,rationalist4 ,an excellent summary of this writer's demonstrations appears in the late ,matthew ,arnold's ,god and the ,bible3-- ,he seems to have looked out and brought together1 to the best of his powers1 every extant passage in which1 between the year #gj and the year #agj of our era1 a writer might be supposed to be quoting one of our ,four ,gospels4 ,and it turns out that there is constantly the same sort of variation from our ,gospels1 a variation inexplicable in men quoting from a real ,canon1 and quite unlike what is found in men quoting from our ,four ,gospels later on4 ,it may be said that the ,old ,testament1 too1 is often quoted loosely4 ,true2 but it is also quoted exactly2 and long passages of it are thus quoted4 ,it would be nothing that our canonical ,gospels were often quoted loosely1 if long passages from them1 or if passages1 say1 of even two or three verses1 were sometimes quoted exactly4 ,but from writers before ,irenaeus not one such passage can be produced so quoted4 ,and the author of ,supernatural ,religion by bringing all the alleged quotations forward1 has proved it499 ,now what is the exact value of these demonstrations8 ,we will give it in ,mr4 ,arnold's words3 ,there is no evidence of the establishment of our ,four ,gospels as a ,gospel-,canon1 or even of their existence as they now finally stand at all1 before the last quarter of the second century4 ,not only is there no evidence of the orthodox theory1 but1 as ,mr4 ,arnold says1 the great weight of evidence is against it4 ,dr4 ,giles--another ignored writer1 although a clergyman of the ,church of ,england--had said and proved the very same thing in his ,christian ,records2 and had appended the following significant declaration3-- ,there is positive proof1 in the writings of the first ages of ,christianity1 that the same question as to the age and authorship of the books of the ,new ,testament was even then agitated1 and if it was then set at rest1 this was done1 not by a deliberate sentence of the judge1 but by burning all the evidence on which one side of the controversy was supported19999 99 ,arnold1 ,god and the ,bible1 pp4 #bbb-c4 9999 ,dr4 ,giles1 ,christian ,records1 p4 #aj4 ,it is probable that ,dr4 ,farrar is well aware that our ,four ,gospels cannot be traced beyond the second half of the second century--that is1 considerably more than a century after the alleged date of the death of ,christ4 ,but he shrinks from a frank admission of the fact1 and leaves the reader to find it out for himself4 ,instead of making this important and1 as some think1 damning admission1 ,dr4 ,farrar continues his remarks on the ,bible ,canon4 ,that thirty-six books are accepted on the authority of the ,church simply means1 he tells us1 that they are accepted by the general consensus of ,christians4 ,the whole ,church1 as such1 has hardly pronounced an opinion on the subject4 ,the ,churchmen who voted at ,laodicea and ,carthage exercised no independent judgment1 and their critical knowledge was elementary4 ,nor was the decision of the ,council of ,trent any real improvement4 ,dr4 ,farrar approves the reply of the ,reformed ,churches1 that any man may reject books claiming to be ,holy ,scripture if he do not feel the evidence of their contents4 ,but this is to make every man a judge1 not only of what the ,bible means1 but also of what it should contain4 ,each unfettered ,christian may therefore make up a ,bible for himself2 which is simply chaos come again4 ,what then is the way of escape from this grotesque confusion8 ,dr4 ,farrar indicates it with a crooked finger3-- ,the decision as to what books are or are not to be regarded as true ,scripture1 though we believe it to be wise and right1 depends on no infallible decision4 ,it must satisfy the scientific and critical as well as the spiritual requirements of each age4 ,this reduces the ,bible ,canon to a perpetual transformation scene4 ,it is a tacit confession that the ,protestant ,bible is an arbitrary collection of questionable documents2 that it has nothing to plead for itself but common usage2 that its very contents1 as well as their interpretation1 are liable to change2 in short1 that if the ,catholic stands upon the rock of implicit faith1 and defies all dangers by closing his eyes and clutching the reassuring hand of his ,holy ,mother ,church1 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 criticism1 and finally to slush by a downflow from the lofty reservoir of pure reason499 99 ,it would be a pity to omit an amusing instance of the contemptuous dogmatism of ,christian divines when they had the field to themselves4 ,dr4 ,william ,whitaker1 a famous learned writer on the side of the ,reformation in ,england1 in his ,disputation with two of the foremost ,jesuits1 ,bellarmine and ,stapleton1 wrote as follows3--,jerome1 in the ,proem of his ,commentaries on ,daniel1 relates that ,porphyry the philosopher wrote a volume against the book of our prophet ,daniel1 and affirmed that what is now extant under the name of ,daniel was not published by the ancient prophet1 but by some later ,daniel1 who lived in the times of ,antiochus ,epiphanes4 ,but we need not regard what the impious ,porphyry may have written1 who mocked at all the scriptures and religion itself4 ,well1 this opinion of the blasphemous ,porphyry1 whose writings were burnt by the ,christian ,church1 is now accepted by the ,higher ,critics4 ,canon ,driver1 for instance1 admits that the ,book of ,daniel is not the work of ,daniel1 that it could not have been written earlier than #cjj ,b4,c41 and that it is at least probable that it was composed under the persecution of ,antiochus ,epiphanes1 ,b4,c4 #afh or #afg 7,introduction to the ,literature of the ,old ,testament1 p4 #dfg74 ,this involves that the fulfilled prophecies of ,daniel were written after the events4 ,,iii4 ,,the ,,bible ,,and ,,science ,having examined ,dean ,farrar's observations on the ,bible ,canon1 and seen that it is a more or less arbitrary selection from ,hebrew and early ,christian literature1 many of the books being anonymous1 while others bear the names of authors who did not write them1 and most of them being much later compositions than orthodoxy supposes2 we now take a leap forward to his twelfth chapter to see what he has to say on the subject of the ,bible and ,science4 ,his first object is to drive home to his co-religionists the mischief of adhering to the old doctrine of ,bible infallibility4 ,consequently he does not mince matters in dealing with the difficulties of the literal theory of inspiration4 ,writers like ,gaussen contend that the ,bible is a perfect authority in matters of science4 ,mr4 ,gladstone argues that ,moses supernaturally anticipated the teachings of modern evolution1 and that the inspired fishermen of ,galilee1 notably ,st4 ,peter1 no less supernaturally anticipated all that modern astronomy teaches as to the final destiny of our planet4 ,dr4 ,farrar declines to follow them in this perilous path4 ,he does not walk in the opposite direction1 for that would lead him among the infidels4 ,he strikes off at right angles1 and takes the line that the ,bible was never intended to teach science1 or anything else but religion4 ,he quotes with approval the saying of ,archbishop ,sumner1 that the ,scriptures have never revealed a scientific truth4 ,he maintains that the writers of ,scripture had only a natural knowledge of exact science2 and that was precious little1 and was indeed rather ignorance than knowledge1 as they belonged to the most unscientific of all nations in the most unscientific of all ages4 ,it is now understood by competent inquirers1 he says1 that geology is ,god's revelation to us of one set of truths1 and ,genesis of quite another4 ,nature1 he says1 is a book which contains a revelation of ,god in one sphere1 and ,scripture a book which contains a revelation of him in another4 ,both books have often been misread1 but no truth revealed in the one can be irreconcilable with any truth revealed in the other4 ,this1 however1 is a mere truism2 for one truth cannot be irreconcilable with another truth4 ,dr4 ,farrar's statement sounds imposing and consolatory1 but when you look into its meaning you see it is only a pulpit platitude4 ,but before we proceed to criticise ,dr4 ,farrar's position1 let us glance at his attack upon the literalists4 ,he charges them with having opposed and persecuted every modern science1 and with having manufactured the most absurd scientific theories from the text of the ,bible2 the said theories being not only ludicrous1 but irreconcilably opposed to each other4 ,lactantius1 with the ,bible in his hand1 ridiculed the rotundity of the earth4 ,roger ,bacon and ,galileo were imprisoned and tortured for teaching true science instead of the false science of the ,church4 ,john ,wesley declared the ,copernican astronomy to be in opposition to ,scripture4 ,thomas ,burnet's ,sacred ,theory of the ,earth1 founded upon the ,bible1 was assailed by ,william ,whiston1 who based a different ,sacred ,theory upon the very same book4 ,buffon1 the great ,french scientist1 was compelled by the ,sorbonne to recant1 and to abandon everything in his writings that was contrary to the narrative of ,moses4 ,even when ,god 7that is to say ,dr4 ,simpson7 gave to the world the priceless boon of anaesthetics1 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 ,eve4 ,catholic and ,protestant have alike pitted the ,bible against ,science1 and both have been ignominiously beaten4 ,but this is not all4 ,the theologians have been disgraced as well as defeated4 ,with respect to the ,buffon case1 for instance1 ,dr4 ,farrar writes as follows3-- ,the line now taken by apologists is very different from that of previous centuries1 and less honest4 ,it declares that ,genesis and geology are in exact accord4 ,it no longer refuses to believe the facts of nature1 but instead of this it boldly sophisticates the facts of ,scripture4 ,john ,stuart ,mill said that every new truth passes through three phases of reception4 ,at first1 it is declared to be false and dangerous2 secondly1 it is discovered that there is something to be said for it2 lastly1 its opponents turn round and declare we said so all along4 ,dr4 ,farrar dots all the i's in ,mill's statement4 ,he asserts that religious teachers first say of every scientific discovery1 ,it is blasphemous and contrary to ,scripture4 ,next they say1 ,there is nothing in ,scripture which absolutely contradicts it4 ,finally they say1 ,it is distinctly revealed in ,scripture itself4 ,dr4 ,farrar puts the historic case against orthodoxy--which1 of course1 is not ,christianity6--in the following fashion3-- ,the history of most modern sciences has been as follows4 ,its discoverers have been proscribed1 anathematised1 and1 in every possible instance1 silenced or persecuted2 yet before a generation has passed the champions of a spurious orthodoxy have had to confess that their interpretations were erroneous2 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 facts4 ,even in the comparatively recent case of ,darwin this was perfectly true4 ,dr4 ,farrar1 who preached ,darwin's funeral sermon in ,westminster ,abbey1 says that he endured the fury of pulpits and ,church ,congresses4 ,he did so with quiet dignity2 not an angry word escaped him4 ,yet before ,darwin's death not only was the scientific world converted1 but leading theologians said that1 if ,darwinism were proved to be true1 there was nothing in it contrary to the creeds of the ,catholic faith4 ,darwin never answered the clergy4 ,he had better work to do4 ,all he did was to smile at them4 ,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 ditto4 ,he understood that when science is victorious it will always have clerical patronage4 ,had he been able to do it1 he would have smiled1 in that beautiful benevolent way of his1 at ,dr4 ,farrar's funeral sermon4 ,the worthy ,dean thought they had got ,darwin at last2 and the grand old philosopher might have said1 ,why yes1 my corpse6 ,so much for ,dr4 ,farrar's impeachment of orthodoxy and its doctrine of plenary inspiration4 ,let us now examine his own position1 and see whether it is logical as well as convenient4 ,take the first chapter of ,genesis4 ,it is not a scientific revelation1 though it seems to be4 ,whoever wrote it had only the science of his time4 ,nevertheless1 it is of transcendent value1 according to ,dr4 ,farrar4 ,its true and deep object1 he says1 was to set right an erring world in the supremely important knowledge that there was one ,god and ,father of us all1 the ,creator of heaven and earth1 a ,god who saw all things which he has made1 and pronounced them to be very good4 ,this is very pretty in its way2 but how absurd it is in the light of the fact that the ,hebrew creation story is all borrowed6 ,while the ,jews were desert nomads1 long before the concoction of their sacred scriptures the doctrine of a ,creator of heaven and earth was known in ,india and in ,egypt1 not to recite a list of other nations4 ,if this is all the first chapter of ,genesis teaches1 we may well exclaim1 ,thank you for nothing6 ,it is a curious revelation which only discloses what is familiar4 ,had the ,bible never been written1 had the ,jews never existed1 the true and deep object of the first chapter of ,genesis would have been quite as well subserved4 ,wherever the ,christian missionaries have gone they have found the creation story in front of them4 ,wherever they took it they were carrying coals to ,newcastle4 ,we venture to suggest that if ,dr4 ,farrar thinks that all things ,god has made are very good1 there are many persons who do not share his opinion4 ,it would be idle to read that text to a sailor pursued by a shark4 ,we could multiply this instance a thousandfold2 but why give a list of all the predatory and parasitical creatures on this planet1 from human tyrants and despoilers down to cholera microbes8 ,dr4 ,farrar may reply that everything ends in mystery1 that we must have faith1 that it is our interest as well as our duty to believe4 ,but that is exactly what the ,catholic ,church says1 and ,dr4 ,farrar laughs it to scorn4 ,the truth is1 that all theology is ultimately a matter of faith2 and the quarrel about more or less is a domestic difference4 ,the greater difference is between ,faith and ,reason4 ,this was clearly seen by ,cardinal ,newman1 who pointed out that every mystery of the ,roman ,catholic faith is matched by a mystery in ,protestant theology4 ,finally1 we have to remark that ,dr4 ,farrar overlooks a very important point in this controversy4 ,having argued that the ,bible was not intended to teach science1 and has not in fact helped the world to a single scientific discovery2 having also admitted that the ,bible has all along been used to hinder the progress of natural knowledge1 and to justify the persecution of honest investigators2 he seems to imagine that there is no more to be said4 ,but there is much more to be said4 ,we forbear to press the objection that ,omniscience was very curiously employed in entangling a religious revelation with scientific blunders1 which would necessarily retard the progress of scientific truth1 and therefore of human civilisation4 ,what we wish to emphasise is less open to the retort that ,omniscience is beyond our finite judgment4 ,we desire to urge that the ,bible is not simply non-scientific4 ,it is anti-scientific4 ,let us take1 for instance1 the story of the creation and fall of man4 ,even if it be not taken literally1 but allegorically1 it is thoroughly antagonistic to the teachings of ,evolution4 ,at the very least it implies that man is something special and unique1 whereas he is included in the general scheme of biology1 and is but the paragon of animals4 ,get rid of the actual garden and the actual tree of knowledge1 as ,dr4 ,farrar does1 and there still remains the fact that the fall of man is a falsehood1 and the ascent of man a verity4 ,the allegory does not correspond to the essential truth of man's history2 and in spite of all the flattering rhetoric with which ,dr4 ,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 fruit4 ,an act is really not vicious because it is prohibited1 or virtuous because it conforms to the dictates of authority4 ,when man attains to intellectual maturity he smiles at the ethical trick which was played upon his youthful ignorance4 ,it is not sufficient to tell him that he must do this1 and must not do that4 ,he requires a reason4 ,his intelligence must go hand in hand with his emotions4 ,it is this union1 indeed1 which constitutes what we call conscience4 ,the truth is that the ,bible is steeped in superstition and supernaturalism4 ,its cosmogony1 its conception of man's origin and position in the universe1 its infantile legends1 its miracles and magic1 its theory of madness and disease1 its doctrine of the external efficacy of prayer1 its idea that man's words and wishes avail to change the sweep of universal forces and the operation of their immutable laws3 all this is in direct opposition to the letter and spirit of ,science4 ,the special pleading of clergymen like ,dr4 ,farrar may afford a temporary relief to trembling ,christians1 and keep them for a further term in the fold of faith2 but it will never make the slightest impression upon sceptics1 unless it fills them with contemptuous pity for a number of clever men who are obliged1 for personal reasons1 to practise the lowest arts of sophistry4 ,,iv4 ,,miracles ,,and ,,witchcraft ,dr4 ,farrar1 as we have seen1 holds that the ,bible is not a revelation in science4 ,the inspired writers were1 in such matters1 left to their natural knowledge4 ,the ,holy ,spirit taught them that ,god made the world and all which it inhabits2 but how it was made they only conjectured4 ,the truth1 in this respect1 was left to the discovery of later ages4 ,this is a pretty and convenient theory1 but it does not provide for every difficulty in the relationship between science and the ,bible4 ,there still remain the questions of miracles and witchcraft4 ,dr4 ,farrar does not discuss these questions thoroughly4 ,he only ventures a few observations4 ,in his opinion1 the two miracles of the ,creation and the ,incarnation include the credibility of all other miracles4 ,we agree with him4 ,admit creation out of nothing1 and you need not be astonished at the transformation of water into wine4 ,admit the birth of a boy from a virgin mother1 and you need not raise physiological objections to the story of a man being safely entertained for three days in a whale's intestines4 ,it is absurd to strain at gnats after swallowing camels4 ,for this reason we are unable to understand ,dr4 ,farrar's fastidiousness4 ,he is ready to believe that some miracles are mistaken metaphors1 that some were due to the action of unnoticed or ill-understood natural causes1 and that others were providential occurrences instead of supernatural events4 ,all this1 however1 is but a concession to the sceptical spirit4 ,it is throwing out the children to the wolves4 ,it may stop their pursuit for a little while1 but they will come on again1 and flesh their jaws upon the parents4 ,a mixed criterion of true miracles is laid down by ,dr4 ,farrar4 ,they must be 7#a7 adequately attested1 and 7#b7 wrought for adequate ends1 and 7#c7 in accordance with the revealed laws of ,god's immediate dealings with man4 ,the second and third conditions are too fanciful for discussion4 ,they are1 in fact1 entirely subjective4 ,the first condition is the only one which can be applied with decisive accuracy4 ,the miracles must be adequately attested4 ,but was it not ,david ,hume who declared that in all history there is not a single miracle attested in this manner8 ,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 responsibility8 ,it is easy enough to sneer at ,hume4 ,it is just as easy to answer what he never said4 ,what the apologists of ,christianity have to do is to take a single miracle of their faith and show that it rests upon adequate evidence4 ,anything short of this is intellectual thimble-rigging4 ,dr4 ,farrar does not face this dreadful task4 ,he treats us1 instead1 to some personal observations on the ,fall1 the ,tower of ,babel1 ,balaam's ass1 ,joshua's arrest of the sun and moon1 and ,jonah's submarine excursion4 ,let us examine these observations4 ,no ,christian1 says ,dr4 ,farrar1 is called upon to believe in an actual ,garden of ,eden and an actual talking serpent4 ,christians have believed in these things by the million4 ,but that was before the clergy invented the ,higher ,criticism to disarm infidelity4 ,they know better now4 ,the story of the ,fall is false as a narrative4 ,it is true as a vivid pictorial representation of the origin and growth of sin in the human heart4 ,all the literature of the world has failed to set forth anything comparable to it in insight4 ,therefore it is inspired4 ,how hollow this sounds when we recollect that the ,hebrew story of the ,fall was borrowed from the ,persian mythology6 ,how much hollower when we consider it as it stands1 stripped of the veil of fancy and divested of the glamor of association6 ,the insight of the inspired writer could only represent ,god as the landlord of an orchard1 and man as a being with a taste for forbidden apples4 ,the philosopheme1 as ,dr4 ,farrar grandiosely styles it1 is so absurd in its native nakedness that ,rabbis and other divines have suspected a carnal mystery behind the apples1 in order to give the sin of ,adam and ,eve a darker vein of sensuality499 99 ,we cannot elaborate this point in a publication which is intended for general reading4 ,suffice it to say that one famous commentator suggests that ,eve was seduced by an ape4 ,nor is this all4 ,the very idea of a ,fall is inconsistent with ,evolution4 ,the true ,garden of ,eden lies not behind us1 but before us4 ,the true ,paradise is not the earth as ,god made it for man1 but the earth as man is making it for himself4 ,the ,bible teaches the descent of man4 ,science teaches the ascent of man4 ,and the two theories are the antipodes of each other1 not only in physical history1 but in every moral and spiritual implication4 ,with regard to the story of the tower of ,babel1 we must not regard it as an inspired account of the origin of the diversity of human language4 ,that is what it appears to be upon the face of it4 ,but philology has exploded this childish legend1 and a new meaning must be read into it4 ,according to ,dr4 ,farrar1 it is a symbolic way of expressing the truth that ,god breaks up into separate nationalities the tyrannous organisation of cruel despotisms4 ,now we venture to say that there is not a suggestion of this in the text4 ,and the truth which ,dr4 ,farrar reads into it so arbitrarily is a phenomenon of modern times4 ,nationality is a great force at present1 but in ancient days the only power that could bind tribes together in one polity was a military despotism4 ,from the point of view of evolution1 both conquest and slavery were inevitable steps in the progress of civilisation4 ,it is really nothing against the ancient ,jews1 for instance1 that they fought like devils and made slaves of their enemies4 ,it was the fashion of the time4 ,the mischief comes in when we are told that their proceedings were under the sanction and control of ,god4 ,dr4 ,farrar next tackles the story of ,balaam1 which is another theme for ignorant ridicule4 ,it is astonishing how sublime these ,bible wonders become in the light of the ,higher ,criticism4 ,a talking ass sounds like an echo of the ,arabian ,nights4 ,but the author himself never intended you to believe it4 ,dr4 ,farrar is quite sure of that4 ,you must forget the ass1 and fix your attention on ,balaam4 ,then you perceive that the story is rich in almost unrivalled elements of moral edification4 ,that is to say1 you perceive it if you borrow ,dr4 ,farrar's spectacles4 ,but if you look with your own naked eyes you see that ass in the foreground of the picture1 with outstretched neck and open jaws1 holding forth to an astonished universe4 ,with regard to ,joshua's supreme miracle1 ,dr4 ,farrar avows his unbelief4 ,a battle ode got mistaken for actual history4 ,he who chooses1 says ,dr4 ,farrar1 may believe that the most fundamental laws of the universe were arrested to enable ,joshua to slaughter a few more hundred fugitives2 and he who chooses may believe that nothing of the kind ever entered into the mind of the narrator4 ,you pay your money and take your choice4 ,shape the old wax nose as you please4 ,believe what you like1 and disbelieve what you like--and swear the author disbelieved it too4 ,nor must the story of ,jonah be taken literally4 ,regard the moral1 and forget its fishy setting4 ,jesus ,christ1 indeed1 referred to ,jonah's sojourn in the whale's belly as typical of his own sojourn in the heart of the earth4 ,but referring to a story is no proof of any belief in its truth4 ,not in the ,bible4 ,jesus ,christ also said1 ,remember ,lot's wife4 ,but of course he did not believe the story literally4 ,he used it for his own purpose4 ,for the rest1 he did not wish to unsettle men's minds by throwing doubt on such a time-honored narrative2 besides1 the time had not arrived to explain the chemical composition of rock-salt4 ,witchcraft is a more serious matter4 ,the ,bible plainly says1 ,thou shalt not suffer a witch to live4 ,this text sealed the doom of millions of old women4 ,it is the bloodiest text in all literature4 ,the ,jews believed in witchcraft1 and the law against witches found its way into their sacred ,scriptures4 ,sir ,matthew ,hale1 a great ,english judge and a good man1 sentenced witches to be burnt in #affe1 and said that he made no doubt at all that there were witches1 for the ,scriptures had affirmed so much4 ,wesley1 a century later1 said that to give up witchcraft was to give up the ,bible4 ,dr4 ,farrar sets down these facts honestly4 ,he is also eloquent in reprobation of the cruelty inflicted on millions of witches in the ,middle ,ages4 ,but he denies that the ,bible is responsible for those infamies4 ,witches in the ,bible may not mean witches1 but nefarious impostors4 ,good old wax nose again6 ,moreover1 that ancient ,jewish law was not binding upon ,christians1 and to make it so was a gross misuse of the ,bible4 ,but how on earth could the ,christians use it in any other way8 ,the time came when men outgrew the superstition of witchcraft4 ,before that time they killed witches on ,bible authority4 ,dr4 ,farrar himself1 had he lived then1 would have done the same4 ,living in a more enlightened age1 he says that former ,christians acted wrongly1 and in fact diabolically4 ,but what of the book which misled them8 ,what of the book which1 if it did not mislead them by design1 harmonised so completely with their ignorant prejudices1 and gave such a pious color to their unspeakable brutalities8 ,nor is this by any means the last word upon the subject4 ,the witchcraft of the ,old ,testament has its counterpart in the demoniacal possession of the ,new ,testament4 ,both are aspects of one and the same superstition4 ,the ,bible is responsible for the cruel slaughter of millions of alleged witches4 ,it is also responsible for the prolonged treatment of lunatics as possessed4 ,the methods of science are now adopted in civilised countries4 ,hysterical women are no longer tortured as witches4 ,lunatics are no longer chained and beaten as persons inhabited by devils4 ,kindness and common sense have taken the place of cruelty and superstition4 ,this change was brought about1 not through the ,bible1 but in spite of it4 ,sir ,matthew ,hale and ,john ,wesley were at least honest4 ,they were too sincere to deny the plain teaching of the ,bible4 ,dr4 ,farrar represents a more enlightened1 but a more hypocritical1 form of ,christianity4 ,he sneers at reconcilers like ,mr4 ,gladstone1 who try to bolster up the ,creation story as a scientific revelation4 ,but is he not a reconciler himself in regard to miracles8 ,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 history8 ,v4 ,,the ,,bible ,,and ,,freethought ,the ,bible may well be called the persecutor's text-book4 ,it is difficult1 if not impossible1 to find in all its pages a single text in favor of real freedom of thought4 ,dr4 ,farrar champions what he calls true ,christianity1 to which he declares that all persecution is entirely alien4 ,this true ,christianity appears to depend upon the spirit of ,christ1 and seems to have little or no relation to the letter of ,scripture4 ,but what is the actual fact1 when we view it in the light of history8 ,in one of his lucid intervals of mere common sense1 ,dr4 ,farrar makes an important admission with regard to the worse than ,armenian atrocities of the ,jewish policy of extermination in ,palestine4 ,those atrocities of cruelty and lust are said to have been ordered by ,god1 but ,dr4 ,farrar says that on this point the ,jews were mistaken4 ,they thought they were doing ,god a service1 but they thought so ignorantly4 ,and how was their ignorance corrected8 ,not by a special monition from heaven1 but by the ordinary progress and elevation of the human mind4 ,it required1 ,dr4 ,farrar says1 but the softening influence of time and civilisation to obliterate in the best minds those fierce misconceptions4 ,precisely so4 ,and is it anything but the softening influence of time and civilisation that makes ,christians like ,dr4 ,farrar ashamed of the bloody deeds of their co-religionists2 which bloody deeds1 by the way1 have always been justified by appeals to the teachings of the ,bible8 ,let there be no mistake on this point4 ,dr4 ,farrar himself does not scruple to write of the deep damnation of deeds of deceit and sanguinary ferocity committed in the name of ,holy ,writ4 ,in some of their deadliest sins against the human race1 he further says1 corrupted and cruel ,churches have ever been most lavish in their appeals to ,scripture4 ,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 opinions1 and that this was defended by ,old ,testament examples1 and also by some texts from the ,new ,testament4 ,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 executioners4 ,now1 what has ,dr4 ,farrar to urge per contra8 ,simply this3 that the early ,christians pleaded for toleration4 ,force1 they said1 is hateful to ,god4 ,it is no part of religion1 said ,tertullian1 to compel religion4 ,but suppose all this be admitted--and there is much to be said by way of qualification--what does it amount to8 ,the early ,christians were in a minority4 ,they did not yet command the sword of the magistrate4 ,they could not persecute except by holding no fellowship with unbelievers1 by shaking off the dust of their feet against those who rejected their ,gospel1 and by other harmless though detestable exhibitions of bigotry4 ,they had to plead for their own existence1 and in doing so they were obliged to appeal to the principle of general toleration4 ,but the moment they triumphed1 under ,constantine1 they began to flout the very principle to which they had formerly appealed4 ,the humility of their weakness was more than equalled by the pride of their power4 ,and what was the result8 ,from ,augustine's days down to those of ,luther1 ,dr4 ,farrar says1 scarcely one voice was raised in favor1 ,i will not say of tolerance1 but even of abstaining from fire and bloodshed in support of enforced uniformity4 ,dr4 ,farrar denounces in creditable language the frightful butcheries of ,alva in the ,netherlands1 for which the ,pope presented him with a jewelled sword bearing a pious inscription4 ,he is properly horrified at the massacre of ,st4 ,bartholomew1 in honor of which ,pope ,gregory ,,xiii4 struck a triumphant medal1 and went in procession to sing a ,te ,deum to ,god1 while the cannon thundered from the ,castle of ,st4 ,angelo and bonfires blazed in the streets of ,rome4 ,he is bitter against the ,church of ,rome for its vast shedding of innocent blood4 ,he reminds us that the infamous ,holy ,inquisition is still toasted by ,catholic professors at ,madrid2 and that intolerance1 having lost its power1 has not lost its virulence1 nor ceased to justify its burning hatred by ,scripture quotations4 ,and he cites ,manning's successor at ,westminster1 the truculent ,cardinal ,vaughan1 as declaring with perfect approval that the ,catholic ,church has never spared the knife1 when necessary1 to cut off rebels against her faith and authority4 ,but let it not be imagined that all the guilt of persecution rested upon the ,church of ,rome4 ,protestantism persecuted as freely as the ,papacy4 ,that heretics should be put down1 and if necessary killed1 was a principle common to both ,churches4 ,the question in dispute was1 ,which were the heretics8 ,this is so incontestable that we need not fortify it with ,protestant quotations and ,protestant examples4 ,it is not true1 as ,dr4 ,farrar alleges1 that ,luther boldly proclaimed that thoughts are toll-free1 if it is meant that he condemned persecution4 ,thoughts were toll-free against ,romish exactions2 that was what ,luther meant4 ,he held as strongly as any ,papist that those who denied one essential doctrine of ,christianity should be punished by the magistrates4 ,he declared that reason always led to unbelief4 ,he besought the ,protestant princes to uphold the faith by every means in their power4 ,and when the serfs rebelled1 thinking that the freedom the ,reformers talked about was to become a reality1 it was ,luther who wrote against them with unsurpassable ferocity1 and advised that they should be slaughtered like mad dogs4 ,dr4 ,farrar rather judiciously refrains from mentioning ,calvin in this connection1 but in another part of the volume he refers to the great ,genevian reformer in a somewhat gingerly manner4 ,when the sins of ,catholics have to be condemned he is quite dithyrambic2 but when he has to censure the sins of ,protestants he displays a most touching tenderness4 ,nothing could well be worse than the mixture of religious bigotry1 personal spleen1 and low duplicity1 with which ,calvin hunted ,servetus to his fiery doom4 ,dr4 ,farrar sympathetically describes this vile act as an error4 ,he tries to satisfy his conscience1 afterwards1 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 race4 ,dr4 ,farrar's treatment of this subject is superficial4 ,it is not a ,bible text here or there which is the real basis of persecution4 ,we advise him to read ,george ,eliot's review of ,lecky's ,history of ,rationalism4 ,he will then see that persecution is founded upon the fatal doctrine of salvation by faith4 ,this doctrine makes the heretic more noxious than a serpent4 ,a serpent poisons the body1 a heretic poisons the soul4 ,if it be true that his teaching may draw souls to hell1 human welfare demands his extermination4 ,dr4 ,farrar does not disclaim this doctrine1 and if he fails to act upon it he only betrays an amiable inconsistency4 ,his heart is better than his head4 ,dr4 ,farrar1 like other ,protestants1 talks about the right of private judgment4 ,but this is only fine and futile verbiage1 unless he admits the sinlessness of intellectual error4 ,if judgment depends on the will1 it is through the will amenable to motives2 consequently1 the way to pro-mote correct opinions is to promise rewards and threaten punishments4 ,but if judgment does not depend on the will2 if it is necessarily determined by the laws of reason and evidence2 then it is an absurdity to bribe and intimidate4 ,now there is no third alternative4 ,one of these two theories must be right1 and the other must be wrong4 ,dr4 ,farrar is logically bound to take his choice4 ,if he believes that judgment depends on the will1 he has no right to denounce persecution4 ,if he believes that judgment does not depend on the will1 he has no right to censure the most absolute freethought4 ,there are but two camps--the camp of ,faith and the camp of ,reason4 ,dr4 ,farrar belongs to the former4 ,but he does not find his position comfortable4 ,he casts a longing eye on the other camp4 ,he wants to be in both4 ,he therefore tries to form an alliance between them1 if not to amalgamate them under one banner4 ,reason1 said ,bishop ,butler1 is the only faculty wherewith we can judge of anything1 even of revelation itself4 ,dr4 ,farrar quotes this statement with approval4 ,he quotes similar sentences from other ,protestant writers4 ,then he turns upon the ,roman ,church for keeping the ,bible out of the hands of the people1 and denounces it for this with ultra-,protestant vigor4 ,he imagines that this is a vindication of ,protestantism1 at any rate relatively1 as a champion of reason in opposition to blind faith and absolute authority4 ,but private judgment and free judgment are not identical4 ,when the ,protestant puts an open ,bible into your hands1 and tells you to read it and judge of it for yourself1 he is acting like a ,freethinker2 but when he proceeds to say that if you do not find it to be a divine book1 and believe all its teaching about ,god1 and ,jesus ,christ1 and the ,holy ,ghost1 and heaven and hell1 you will infallibly be damned1 he is acting like a ,papist4 ,his right of private judgment1 at the finish1 always means the right to differ from him on trivial points1 and the duty of agreeing with him on every point which he chooses to regard as essential4 ,if this is denied by ,dr4 ,farrar1 let him honestly answer this question--,is a ,freethinker who has examined the ,bible1 and rejected it as a divine revelation1 liable to any sort of penalty for his disbelief8 ,the answer to this question will decide whether ,dr4 ,farrar is really maintaining the rights of reason1 or is merely maintaining the ,protestant theory of faith against that of the ,catholics1 and standing up for the authority of the ,book instead of the authority of the ,church4 ,meanwhile we venture to suggest that the ,bible texts referred to by ,dr4 ,farrar1 as requiring us to exercise the right of private judgment1 are very little to the point4 ,the spirit of man is the candle of the ,lord is a pretty text1 but it does not seem to have much bearing on the issue4 ,try the spirits is all right in its way2 but what if you find that all the spirits are illusions8 ,prove all things is good1 but it must be taken with the context4 ,jesus indeed is reported to have said1 ,why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right8 ,but he is also reported to have said1 ,he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved1 and he that believeth not shall be damned4 ,by a judicious selection of texts you can prove anything from the ,bible1 and disprove anything--as ,catholics have often reminded ,protestants4 ,to pick out passages that to some extent are favorable to a certain view1 and to ignore much stronger passages that are clearly opposed to it1 may be an exercise of private judgment1 and may satisfy the conscience of neo-,protestants of the school of ,dr4 ,farrar2 but it invites a contemptuous smile from ,freethinkers who believe that ,reason ought not to suffer such a prostitution4 ,we have to point out1 finally1 that ,protestantism1 with its open ,bible1 has everywhere maintained laws against blasphemy and heresy4 ,the laws against heresy have fallen into desuetude in ,england1 but while they lasted they were simply ferocious4 ,we heard the late ,lord ,coleridge say from his seat in the ,court of ,queen's ,bench1 as ,lord ,chief ,justice1 that the ,protestant laws against ,roman ,catholics1 particularly in ,ireland1 where they were executed with remorseless ferocity1 are without a parallel in the history of the world4 ,catholicism1 however1 is no longer under a ban4 ,even the ,jews have been admitted to equal rights with their fellow citizens4 ,but laws still remain in existence1 and are occasionally put into operation1 against blasphemers4 ,according to the language of common law indictments1 it is a crime to bring the ,holy ,scripture or the ,christian ,religion into disbelief and contempt4 ,it is true that many ,christians are ready to profess a certain aversion to such laws1 but they make no effort to repeal them4 ,many others contend that blasphemy is a question of manner1 that the feelings of ,christians should be protected1 and that while men should not be punished for being ,freethinkers1 they should be punished for wounding orthodox susceptibilities4 ,it is not proposed1 however1 that any limitations of taste or temper should be imposed upon ,christian controversialists2 and this contention may therefore be regarded as a subterfuge of bigotry4 ,on the whole1 it may be said that ,catholics without the ,bible1 and ,protestants with the ,bible1 persecute unbelief to the full extent of their opportunities2 and it is only as toleration grows from other roots1 and is nourished by other causes1 that the ,bibliolaters find out subtle interpretations of simple texts in favor of the prevailing tendency4 ,,vi4 ,,morals ,,and ,,manners ,dr4 ,farrar takes the position that the ,bible is not homogeneous in its morality4 ,there is a higher and a lower2 and1 to adopt the fine but paradoxical metaphor of ,milton1 within the lowest deep a lower deep still opens its dreadful abyss of crime and brutality4 ,the same admission is made by ,professor ,bruce199 of the ,free ,church of ,scotland2 but this gentleman is more subtle than ,dr4 ,farrar1 and tries to save the reputation of the ,bible by a notable piece of cauistical special-pleading4 ,he does not allow1 though he does not expressly deny1 that the ,bible contains any immorality4 ,what he does is to draw a distinction between high morality and low morality4 ,immorality is sinning against your conscience4 ,high morality is acting right up to its noblest dictates4 ,low morality is conduct in honest conformity to the low standard of a conscience but half-enlightened4 ,when the prophetess ,deborah sings triumphantly over the infamous exploit of ,jael1 who invited the fugitive ,sisera into her tent1 and assassinated him while he slept in the confidence of her hospitality1 we must not say that either of these precious females was guilty of immorality4 ,they were simply carrying out a low morality4 ,and the same applies to ,deborah's exclamation3 ,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 themselves4 ,such conduct would be highly improper now1 but it was all right then2 at least it was as right as they knew2 and we must not judge the actors by later ethical standards4 ,so says ,professor ,bruce1 and it would be true enough if the ,bible were not put forward as a divine book1 or if it ever reprehended the infamies of ,god's chosen people4 ,but it does nothing of the kind2 it mentions ,jael and ,deborah in terms of absolute approval4 99 ,christian ,apologetics1 p4 #cji4 ,dr4 ,farrar severely denounces the ,jewish wars of extermination in ,palestine1 regardless of the fact--which is as true as any other religious fact in the ,bible--that these atrocities were expressly commanded by ,jehovah4 ,divines have defended the massacre of the ,midianites1 for instance1 and the appropriation of their unmarried women2 but ,dr4 ,farrar calls their arguments miserable pleas1 and adds that if such guilty and horrible doings were recorded without blame1 it only shows that the moral views of the desert tribes on such subjects were in this respect very rudimentary4 ,these desert tribes were the chosen people of ,god2 their prophets spoke under divine inspiration2 yet even ,jeremiah1 in denouncing ,moab1 cries3 ,cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood4 ,according to ,dr4 ,farrar1 this proves how slow was the development of the religious consciousness of mankind4 ,but how did it happen that the ,jews1 with all the advantage of special inspiration1 were just as slow in this respect as any other nation in the world's history8 ,what is the use of inspiration if it does not appreciably quicken the natural development of the human conscience8 ,many of the ,bible heroes are fit for a distinguished place in the ,newgate ,calendar4 ,dr4 ,farrar himself cannot stomach some details in the lives of ,abraham1 ,jacob1 ,jephthah1 and ,david4 ,still1 he urges that the use made of them in the sceptical propaganda is often illegitimate4 ,these worthies were not faultless4 ,it is their general faithfulness which is rightly held up to admiration as our example4 ,faithfulness to what8 ,simply to their own greed and ambition1 first of all1 and secondly to the dominance of their tribal god ,jehovah1 who by such instruments triumphed over his rival dieties1 and became at last the sole ,lord ,god of ,israel4 ,dr4 ,farrar allows no palliating plea for the cursing ,psalms4 ,he cites a few of the very worst passages1 black with hatred and red with blood1 and asks3 ,can the casuistry be anything but gross which would palm off such passages as the very utterance of ,god8 ,moses was a great lawgiver and a great prophet1 but ,dr4 ,farrar will not defend the divinity of passages so morally indefensible as that1 for instance1 which gives the slave-owner impunity in killing his slave1 provided he does not slay him on the spot1 but beats him so that he dies in a day or two4 ,nor is there divinity in the order to the ,jews to refrain from eating bad meat1 but to sell it to the ,gentiles4 ,neither is there divinity in the order 7,deut4 xxi4 #aj-ad7 to take a wife for a month on trial4 ,these things are parts of an ostensibly divine code1 but lawgivers and people were alike mistaken4 ,inspiration did not guide them aright1 but somehow or other it enables ,dr4 ,farrar to correct their blunders three thousand years afterwards2 which is merely saying1 after all1 that inspiration does not pioneer but follow the march of human progress4 ,during the reign of ,david a dreadful incident occurred4 ,there had been a three years' famine1 and ,david inquired of the ,lord4 ,the answer was1 ,blood upon ,saul and upon his house6 ,seven of ,saul's sons were hung up unto the ,lord1 and the famine was stopped4 ,dr4 ,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 victims8 ,but he does not give the answer2 and it either means this or it means nothing at all4 ,in the same way1 the story of ,jephthah1 who offered his daughter as a burnt-offering to the ,lord1 takes such an immolation for granted as a religious act of perfect propriety4 ,jephthah is mentioned as a hero of faith in the ,new ,testament1 and no hint is given that he acted wrongly in sacrificing his daughter on the altar of ,jehovah4 ,we have said enough on this subject to give the reader a fair idea of ,dr4 ,farrar's position4 ,let us now pass from ,bible morals to ,bible manners4 ,the ,bible1 says ,dr4 ,farrar1 is assailed on the ground that it contains coarse and unedifying stories4 ,take the story of ,lot and his daughters1 to say nothing of the bestial attempt on the angels in ,sodom4 ,could anything be more repulsive8 ,is there any excuse for putting such abominable feculence into the hands of children8 ,after a lot of talk about it1 and about1 ,dr4 ,farrar offers us the following most sapient observation3 ,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 ,ammon4 ,but what does this mean8 ,the ,moabites and ,ammonites1 according to the ,bible1 were hereditary enemies of the ,jews1 and it was impossible to exterminate them4 ,they were evidently near of kin to the chosen people4 ,now1 if these two facts are put together1 it is easy to see the purpose of this story of ,lot and his daughters4 ,the ,jews traced their own descent1 in a perfectly honorable way1 from ,abraham and his legitimate wife ,sarah1 who are doubtless legendary characters4 ,on the other hand1 they traced the descent of the ,moabites and ,ammonites1 their cousins and enemies1 through the no less legendary ,lot and his two daughters1 thus throwing the aspersion of incest upon the cradle of both those races4 ,this is the adequate and satisfactory explanation of the story4 ,it is an exhibition of dirty and unscrupulous hatred2 and1 as such1 it is a curious fragment of the ,word of ,god4 ,take next what ,dr4 ,farrar calls the pathetic story of ,hosea1 the prophet who was ordered by ,god to marry a prostitute--not to use the more downright language of the ,english ,bible4 ,dr4 ,farrar suggests that there is some doubt as to the meaning of the original4 ,hosea's wife may have turned out a baggage after the nuptials1 instead of being one before4 ,it was the anguish caused by her infidelity1 he says1 that first woke ,hosea to the sense of ,israel's infidelity to ,jehovah4 ,and read in the light of this modern criticism the story of ,hosea is in the highest degree pure and noble4 ,how pretty6 ,all that remains for ,dr4 ,farrar to do is to explain away as equally pure and noble the imagery of ,ezekiel in reference to ,aholah and ,aholibah4 ,there is no reason why modern criticism in the hands of gentlemen like ,dr4 ,farrar should not transform ,priapus into a ,sunday-school teacher4 ,not only are there very gross stories in the ,bible1 many of which are too beastly to dwell upon1 but its language is often gratuitously disgusting4 ,and every scholar knows that the ,hebrew text is sometimes far more purple than our ,english version4 ,dr4 ,farrar admits that if the exact meaning of certain passages were understood1 they could not be read without a blush4 ,happily1 he says1 they are disguised by the euphemisms of translations4 ,that is to say1 the inspired ,bible writers1 or penmen of the ,holy ,ghost1 as old divines called them1 were often indecent and sometimes positively obscene4 ,dr4 ,farrar's explanation is1 that ancient and ,eastern readers were not easily shocked1 and that our modern sensibility is of recent growth4 ,but this proves again that inspiration is in no sense the cause of progress1 and does not anticipate it in the slightest degree4 ,,vii4 ,,political ,,and ,,social ,,progress ,the ,bible1 ,dr4 ,farrar says1 is inextricably mingled with all that is greatest in human history4 ,this is a fair specimen of his roystering style4 ,we presume he has contracted it through long years of preaching from the coward's castle of the pulpit1 where a man can exaggerate as much as he pleases without the slightest fear of contradiction4 ,dr4 ,farrar does not say that the ,bible is mixed up with much of the greatest in human history2 no1 it must be mixed up with all the greatest--which is a transparent falsehood and a no less transparent absurdity4 ,what did ,greece and ,rome owe to the ,bible8 ,absolutely nothing4 ,there is no evidence that they were acquainted with any part of the ,old ,testament1 and ,greece had become a mere name before a line of the ,new ,testament was written4 ,some of the greatest things in the world were done and said by the heathen4 ,greek philosophy1 ,greek literature1 ,greek art1 are imperishable4 ,roman jurisprudence and ,roman government are the basis of every civilised polity4 ,plutarch's heroes are all ,pagans1 and let ,dr4 ,farrar match them if he can in the history of ,christendom4 ,dr4 ,farrar calls the ,bible the statesman's manual1 but he judiciously refrains from showing that statesmen ever act upon its teaching2 indeed1 he spends a great deal of time in showing that they ought not to act upon its teaching1 unless they carefully avoid the obvious letter1 and allow themselves to be influenced by the recondite spirit4 ,for instance1 it is perfectly clear that the ,bible does not contain a single word against slavery2 it is also perfectly clear to all who possess a tincture of scholarship that many of its references to slavery are fraudulently translated4 ,servants obey your masters really means ,slaves obey your owners4 ,moreover1 the ,bible contains precise regulations of slavery4 ,god did not tell the ,jews that holding slaves was infamous1 that man could never have honest property in human flesh and blood4 ,he allowed them to buy and sell ,gentiles at their pleasure4 ,he permitted them to enslave their own countrymen for a period of seven years1 and in certain cases for ever4 ,even in the ,new ,testament we find ,st ,paul sending back a runaway slave to his master4 ,true1 he sent with the slave a touching letter to the slave-owner1 but sending him back at all was giving a sanction to the institution4 ,dr4 ,farrar admits that ,american pulpits rang with incessant ,scriptural defences of slavery4 ,he quotes from a ,southern bishop1 who described slavery as a curse and a blight1 yet declared it to be recognised by the ,bible1 so that every man has a right to his own slaves1 provided they are not treated with unnecessary cruelty4 ,dr4 ,farrar asks whether there was ever a stranger utterance on the lips of a ,christian bishop4 ,he calls this distorting the ,bible4 ,but he does not prove the distortion4 ,he calmly assumes it4 ,he cannot deny the existence of all those slavery texts in the ,bible4 ,all he can do is to say that what was relatively excusable among the ,jews is at present execrable1 and is now absolutely and for ever wrong4 ,very good2 but how was that discovered8 ,not by reading the ,bible4 ,the ,jews read the ,bible1 the early ,christians read the ,bible1 just as well as ,dr4 ,farrar1 but they did not find that it condemned slavery4 ,dr4 ,farrar lives in a later age1 in the light of a higher civilisation4 ,he therefore reads into the ,bible whatever it ought to contain as the word of ,god4 ,he does not scruple to override explicit texts by more or less arbitrary deductions from vague maxims and ejaculations4 ,he pretends that the spirit of the ,bible in some way wrought the abolition of slavery4 ,but every well-informed student is aware that the abolition of slavery depended upon economical conditions4 ,we outgrow slavery by advancing beyond it in the process of industrial development1 and when we have outgrown it we regard it with abhorrence4 ,when the institution is in the way of being supplanted by a higher form of productive labor1 the moral revolt against it begins1 growing in strength and intensity as the economical change approaches its climax4 ,it was natural that the anti-slavery movement in ,america should take place in the ,northern ,states1 where the conditions favourable to slavery did not exist as they did in the ,southern ,states4 ,we may be pardoned for supposing that if ,dr4 ,farrar's lot had been cast in a ,southern ,state he would have defended slavery as a ,bible institution4 ,he is preaching now after its abolition1 when denunciation of it is cheap and easy1 and is no particular credit to the preacher's religion4 ,while slavery existed in ,america1 it was at first justified by the ,bible in all parts of the ,union4 ,northern abolitionists at last found that the ,bible did not teach slavery after all2 but this did not alter the view of the ,southern slaveholders and the ,southern ,churches4 ,here again we see the force of the ,catholic taunt that ,protestants can prove anything1 and disprove anything1 by appealing to texts in such a composite book as the ,bible4 ,here again we also see that the ,bible never instigates any step in the march of human improvement4 ,dr4 ,farrar waxes eloquent1 after his special fashion1 over the glories of ,england in the age of ,elizabeth4 ,he attributes them all to the open ,bible1 which was then placed in the hands of the people4 ,of course they had nothing to do with the new astronomy1 the discovery of ,america1 and the invention of printing6 ,such paltry causes as these cannot enter into competition with the might and majesty of the ,bible6 ,still1 we may venture to remind ,dr4 ,farrar that these ,englishmen of the ,elizabethan age1 with the open ,bible in their hands1 went and started the ,african slave trade4 ,evidently they did not read in it then1 as ,dr4 ,farrar does now1 any condemnation of that horrible business4 ,they worked it for all it was worth4 ,england1 with the open ,bible in its hand1 continued to do so for another two hundred years4 ,one of the chief centres of the slave trade was the pious city of ,bristol4 ,it grew rich on the abominable traffic4 ,slavery has been abolished1 but the old odor of piety still clings to the city of ,bristol4 ,its merchants fattened on the slave trade with the open ,bible in their hands4 ,they now subscribe to missionary societies to convert the blacks1 and they still stick to the open ,bible4 ,it was good for upholding black slavery1 and it is still good for upholding white slavery4 ,all that we have said about slavery applies in its degree to polygamy4 ,both institutions are sanctioned by the ,bible1 and the pleas of the ,higher ,criticism in relation to the one are just as hollow as they are in relation to the other4 ,we may go farther and say that the ,bible is very far from being woman's best friend1 as it is often represented4 ,it starts by making her the ,devil's first customer1 and the introducer of sin and death2 it continues to hold her as inferior and subject to man1 lumping her in the tenth commandment with the house1 the ox1 and the ass1 as the man's property2 and1 finally1 in the ,new ,testament1 it expressly tells her that her duty is to be silent and submissive1 for the husband is the head of the wife as ,christ is the head of the ,church4 ,we need not follow ,dr4 ,farrar in his rhapsodical references to the various achievements of the ,bible4 ,we may remark1 however1 that his reference to ,japan is singularly unhappy4 ,that country has accepted the leading ideas of ,western civilisation1 but it has not accepted ,christianity4 ,nor is ,dr4 ,farrar well advised in laying so much stress on the ,pilgrim ,fathers4 ,he says that they had a preference for the pure1 unadulterated lessons of the ,bible4 ,perhaps they had4 ,but what were those lessons as illustrated by their actions8 ,certainly intolerance was one of them4 ,they had no conception of religious liberty4 ,the ,pilgrim ,fathers1 as ,sir ,walter ,besant remarks in his little book on ,the ,rise of the ,empire1 believed that everybody should think as they themselves thought4 ,had they achieved their own way1 they would have sent ,laud himself1 and all who thought like him1 across the ocean with the greatest alacrity4 ,they also believed in witchcraft1 probably because ,dr4 ,farrar was not at hand to explain that the ,bible did not mean what it said2 and they tortured and burnt witches with remarkable gusto4 ,it would also be a waste of time to correct all ,dr4 ,farrar's statements about the influence of the ,bible in other directions4 ,we will take a single illustration of his fantastical method4 ,he tells us that the ,bible inspired the pictures of ,fra ,angelico and ,raphael1 the music of ,handel and ,mendelssohn4 ,perhaps he will tell us whether it inspired ,raphael's picture of the ,fornarina1 and why it did not inspire the music of ,beethoven and ,wagner4 ,both those great composers1 as a matter of fact1 were infidels4 ,nothing could be more absurd than orthodox talk about the ,bible inspiring great poets1 artists1 and musicians4 ,men of genius are inspired by nature4 ,their inspiration is born with them4 ,it cannot be made2 it can only be utilised4 ,all that religions have done is to employ the genius they could not create4 ,every religion has done this in turn4 ,the genius was there always as a natural endowment4 ,it existed before all the world's religions1 and it will outlive them4 ,,viii4 ,,inspiration ,the ,higher ,criticism1 as expounded by ,dr4 ,farrar1 admits nearly all the ,bible difficulties that have been advanced by infidels4 ,let us recapitulate the most important4 ,the ,bible is hopelessly at variance with science4 ,it sometimes contradicts well-established history4 ,many of its stories1 taken literally1 are obviously absurd4 ,some of the actions it records with apparent approval are wicked or disgusting4 ,a good deal of its language sins against common decency4 ,several books were not written by the authors whose names they bear4 ,others are1 and must for ever remain1 anonymous4 ,the dates of composition of the various books are not what has been generally supposed4 ,occasionally the true chronology differs from the received chronology by many centuries4 ,to the great majority of readers the ,bible has never been known1 and never can be known1 except in translations4 ,no translation can possibly be perfect4 ,every translation of the ,bible is known to contain grave and numerous errors4 ,even in the original ,hebrew and ,greek manuscripts there are thousands of various readings4 ,in some cases the text is uncertain1 in some cases interpolated1 and in others irrecoverably impaired4 ,the vowel points by which ,hebrew is now read are demonstrably a modern invention4 ,even the discourses of ,jesus ,christ1 in the ,new ,testament1 are not reported with accuracy4 ,the ,new ,testament writers seldom quote from the ,old ,testament exactly1 but generally rely upon the ,greek translation called the ,septuagint4 ,sometimes they quote passages which are not in ,scripture at all4 ,out of #bhh passages quoted from the ,old ,testament in the ,new1 says ,dr4 ,farrar1 there are but #ec which agree accurately with the original ,hebrew4 ,in #gf the ,new ,testament differs both from the ,greek and the ,hebrew2 and in #ii the ,new ,testament1 the ,greek1 and the ,hebrew are all variant4 ,on the face of it1 then1 the ,bible is doomed4 ,a book of which all these things can be said1 without the slightest fear of contradiction1 must sooner or later be dropped as the ,word of ,god4 ,it will be recognised as a human composition4 ,meanwhile1 those who live by the ,bible1 and are professionally interested in its supremacy1 as ,dr4 ,farrar calls it1 cast about a for means of giving it a fresh reputation4 ,the old conception of it is fatally discredited2 a new one may give it a fresh lease of life4 ,evidently there is only one direction open to the theological trimmers4 ,they must start another theory of inspiration--one that will conserve the sacred character of the ,bible in spite of every difficulty that has been1 or can be discovered4 ,the ,bible is no longer to be called the ,word of ,god4 ,ruskin says1 and ,dr4 ,farrar seems to quote it approvingly1 that it is a grave heresy 7or wilful source of division7 to call any book1 or collection of books1 the ,word of ,god4 ,ten pages later1 however1 we are told that the ,bible1 as a whole1 may be spoken of as the ,word of ,god1 because it contains words and messages of ,god to the human soul4 ,this word contains is the magical spell by which ,dr4 ,farrar seeks to dissipate all difficulties4 ,he finds the expression in the ,church ,articles1 in the ,book of ,homilies1 and in the ,shorter ,catechism4 ,but in order to see how illegitimate is ,dr4 ,farrar's use of these authorities1 let us take his extract from the last of them3 ,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 ,him4 ,is it not clear that the word contained is used here in its primary meaning8 ,did not the writers mean that the ,word of ,god is included or comprehended in the ,old and ,new ,testament only1 and is not to be found elsewhere8 ,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 ,god8 ,if so1 their use of the word contain lends no countenance to the use made of it by ,dr4 ,farrar4 ,and is it not a shallow trick upon our intelligence to argue that different persons1 using the same word1 necessarily mean the same thing8 ,words are the money of fools1 as ,hobbes said1 but only the counters of wise men4 ,we must get at the actual value of the thing which is symbolised4 ,and the moment we do this1 we see that ,dr4 ,farrar's theory of the ,word of ,god is not the same as that of the gentlemen who drew up the ,shorter ,catechism4 ,they would indeed have laughed at his contains1 and excommunicated and imprisoned him1 and perhaps burnt him at the stake4 ,it is not by torturing one poor word ten thousand ways that such wide differences can be reconciled4 ,passing by this ridiculous legerdemain1 let us take ,dr4 ,farrar's theory for what it is worth4 ,the ,bible contains the ,word of ,god4 ,but how are we to find it8 ,what is the criterion by which we are to separate ,god's word from man's word8 ,dr4 ,farrar bids us use the ordinary means of criticism and spiritual discernment4 ,but such a vague generality is nothing but verbiage4 ,what we want is the criterion4 ,now the nearest approach to it in all ,dr4 ,farrar's pages is the following3-- ,is it not a plain and simple rule that anything in the ,bible which teaches1 or is misinterpreted to teach1 anything which is not in accordance with the love1 the gentleness1 the truthfulness of ,christ's ,gospel1 is not ,god's word to us1 however clearly it stands on the page of ,scripture8 ,this is at best a negative criterion2 and1 on close examination1 it turns out to be no criterion at all4 ,the criterion1 to be valid1 must be external to the book itself4 ,dr4 ,farrar's criterion is internal4 ,he picks out one part of the ,bible as the standard for judging all the rest4 ,this is entirely arbitrary4 ,moreover1 it would soon be found impossible in practice4 ,dr4 ,farrar's criterion may be plain1 but it is not so simple1 except in the uncomplimentary sense of the word4 ,for ,christ's ,gospel1 by which the rest of the ,bible is to be tried1 is itself a very composite and self-contradictory thing4 ,further1 if all that agrees with ,christ's ,gospel is the ,word of ,god1 is it not superfluous as being a mere repetition8 ,dr4 ,farrar would therefore bring the actual1 valid ,word of ,god within the compass of the ,four ,gospels2 dismissing all the rest1 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 pernicious1 and if they agreed with it they were useless4 ,nor is this all4 ,dr4 ,farrar admits that the discourses of ,jesus ,christ are not reported with accuracy4 ,therefore1 having made the ,gospels the criterion of the ,word of ,god in the rest of the ,bible1 he would be obliged to select some special passages as the criterion of the ,word of ,god in the rest of the ,gospels4 ,this is what ,shakespeare would call a world-without-end process4 ,candidly1 it seems to us that if the ,bible is not the ,word of ,god1 but only contains the ,word of ,god--that is to say1 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 types4 ,and surely1 if the ,bible is in any sense inspired1 it should be possible1 by a new and final act of inspiration1 to settle this distinction for ever4 ,allowing the clergy to meditate this holy enterprise1 we proceed to consider ,dr4 ,farrar's theory of inspiration4 ,of course he discards the old theory of verbal dictation2 indeed1 he calls it irreverent1 because it attributes to ,god what modern men of intelligence and good manners would be ashamed to own4 ,he even quarrels with the very term inspiration as vague1 and says it would be a boon if some less ambiguous word could be adopted4 ,four theories1 he says1 have been entertained in the ,christian ,church4 ,the first is the mechanical theory1 which implies that the ,holy ,ghost dictated1 and the inspired penmen were merely his amanuenses4 ,the second is the dynamic1 which recognises the indefeasible guidance of the ,holy ,spirit4 ,the third is that of illumination1 which confines the divine guidance to matters of faith and doctrine4 ,the fourth is that of general inspiration1 which regards the ,holy ,spirit as influencing the writers in the same way as it influences other noble and holy souls4 ,this fourth theory is the one which ,dr4 ,farrar himself affects4 ,every pure and sweet influence upon the human soul1 he says1 is a heavenly inspiration4 ,we owe to it all that is best and greatest in philosophy1 eloquence1 and song4 ,haydn said of his grandest chorus in the ,creation3 ,not from me but from above it all has come6 ,there is inspiration1 says ,dr4 ,farrar1 whenever the spirit of ,god makes itself heard in the heart of man4 ,apparently--for we can never be quite sure of ,dr4 ,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 other8 form of human speech4 ,such a theory of inspiration is too vague and universal4 ,sooner than give up inspiration altogether ,dr4 ,farrar is prepared to share it all round4 ,but is not proving too much as bad as proving too little8 ,if the ,bible is only inspired--where it is inspired--in the same sense as other books are inspired2 if the difference is not one of kind1 but simply of degree2 then it is really idle to talk about its inspiration any longer4 ,the word inspiration loses all its original meaning4 ,it becomes a poetical expression1 implying nothing supernatural1 but merely the exaltation of natural powers and faculties4 ,god is then behind the ,bible only as ,god is behind everything2 and ,christianity1 ceasing to be a special revelation1 becomes only a certain form of ,theism4 ,this loose theory of general inspiration will doubtless serve the present turn of the clergy1 who have to face a general and growing dissatisfaction with the ,bible4 ,but it cannot live very long in a scientific age4 ,it will be found out in time1 like all the ,bible theories that preceded it4 ,the first ,protestant dogma was the infallibility of ,scripture4 ,that was exploded by modern science and textual criticism4 ,then came the dogma of plenary inspiration1 which had a comparatively short-lived existence1 as it was only the old dogma of infallibility in disguise4 ,next came the dogma of illumination1 which may be said to have begun with ,coleridge and ended with ,maurice4 ,finally1 we have the dogma of general inspiration1 which began nowhere and ends nowhere1 which means anything or nothing1 and which is a sort of heads we win1 tails you lose theory in the hands of the clever expounders of the ,higher ,criticism4 ,behind the last1 as well as the first1 of all these theories of inspiration stands the fatal objection of ,thomas ,paine1 that inspiration1 to be real1 must be personal4 ,a man may be sure that ,god speaks to him1 but how can he be sure that ,god has spoken to another man8 ,he may think it possible or probable1 but he can never be certain4 ,what is revelation at first-hand1 said ,paine1 is only hearsay at second-hand4 ,real inspiration1 therefore1 eventuates in mysticism4 ,the inner light shines1 the inner voice speaks2 ,god holds personal communication with the individual soul4 ,each believer carries what the author of ,hudibras calls the dark lanthorn of the spirit1 which none see by but those who bear it4 ,and the very multiplicity and diversity of the oracle's deliverances are a proof that in all of them man is speaking to himself4 ,he questions his gods1 and hears only the echo of his own voice4 ,,ix4 ,,the ,,testimony ,,of ,,jesus ,some of the teaching of the ,higher ,criticism as to the authorship and credibility of the ,old ,testament is1 on the face of it1 contrary to the plain language of ,jesus ,christ himself in the ,gospels4 ,moses1 for instance1 is no longer considered as the author of the ,pentateuch4 ,canon ,driver1 who is perhaps the chief scholar of this movement in the ,church of ,england1 as ,dean ,farrar is perhaps its chief rhetorician1 locates the composition of the book of ,deuteronomy in the period between ,isaiah and ,jeremiah4 ,throughout the book1 he observes1 the writer introduces ,moses in the third person1 and puts speeches in his mouth which of course he never uttered4 ,but in framing discourses appropriate to ,moses' situation6 he was not guilty of forgery1 for he was doing nothing inconsistent with the literary usages of his age and people4 ,that is to say1 everybody did it1 and this writer was no worse than his contemporaries--which is probably true4 ,but passing by the question of casuistry here involved1 we repeat that the ,mosaic authorship of the ,pentateuch is entirely abandoned4 ,dr4 ,farrar is quite as emphatic as ,dr4 ,driver on this point4 ,he denies that there is any proof of the existence of a collected ,pentateuch earlier than the days of ,ezra 7b4c4 #ddd 7--a thousand years after the time of ,moses4 ,he points out that the salient features of the so-called ,mosaic ,law1 such as the ,passover1 the ,sabbatical year1 and the ,day of ,atonement1 are not to be traced in the old historical books or in the earlier prophets4 ,nor does he scruple to assert that the ,pentateuch is a work of composite structure1 which has been edited and re-edited several times1 and contains successive strata of legislation4 ,in the ,new ,testament1 however1 ,moses is repeatedly spoken of as the author of the ,pentateuch499 ,not to multiply texts1 for in such a case one is as good as a thousand1 we will take a decisive passage in the fourth ,gospel3-- 99 ,matthew xix4 #g1 #h2 ,mark x4 #c1 #d2 xii4 #bf2 ,luke xvi4 #bi-ca2 ,luke xx4 #cg2 ,john v4 #de1 #df2 vii4 #ai1 #bb1 #bc4 ,do not think that ,i will accuse you to the ,father4 ,there is one that accuseth you1 even ,moses1 in whom ye trust4 ,for had ye believed ,moses1 ye would have believed me3 for he wrote of me4 ,but if ye believe not his writings1 how shall ye believe my words8 7,john v4 #de-dg74 ,the speaker in this instance is ,christ himself4 ,it is he1 and not the evangelist1 who speaks of the writings of ,moses1 and declares that ,moses wrote of me4 ,now let us turn to the book of ,psalms1 which has been well called the ,hymn ,book of the ,second ,temple4 ,according to ,dr4 ,farrar1 they are a collection of sacred poems in five separate books of very various antiquity4 ,canon ,driver points out that they are mostly posterior to the prophetical writings4 ,when the ,psalms1 he says1 are compared with the prophets1 the latter seem to show1 on the whole1 the greater originality2 the psalmists1 in other words1 follow the prophets1 appropriating and applying the truths which the prophets proclaimed4 ,very few of the ,psalms are earlier than the seventh century before ,christ4 ,dr4 ,driver affirms this with tolerable confidence4 ,dr4 ,farrar says that some may mount to an epoch earlier than ,david's1 but this is mere conjecture4 ,the more cautious ,dr4 ,driver will not commit himself further than a verdict of non liquet2 that is to say1 there is no proof that ,david did not write one or two of the ,psalms1 and no evidence that he did4 ,his name was associated with the collection1 in the same way as the name of ,solomon was associated with the ,proverbs4 ,nevertheless it is ,david who is referred to by ,jesus as the author of the hundred-and-tenth ,psalm499 ,but this ,psalm is one of those which are allowed to belong to a much later period4 ,jesus quoted it as ,david's1 but ,professor ,sanday says it seems difficult to believe it really came from him9999--which is as strong an expression as a ,christian divine could be expected to permit himself in a case of such delicacy4 99 ,matthew xxii4 #dc-de2 ,mark xii4 #cf1 #cg2 ,luke xx4 #db-dd4 9999 ,professor ,w4 ,sanday1 ,bampton ,lectures on ,inspiration1 p4 #dji4 ,canon ,gore1 with this utterance of ,jesus right before him1 still more emphatically denies that this ,psalm was1 or could have been1 composed by ,david4 ,see his ,bampton ,lectures on ,the ,incarnation of the ,son of ,god1 p4 #aig4 ,we have already seen that the book of ,daniel was not written by the prophet ,daniel1 but by some unknown author hundreds of years later1 probably in the second century before ,christ4 ,upon this subject ,professor ,sanday takes precisely the same view as ,canon ,driver4 ,he says that this is the critical view and has won the day4 ,all the facts support the supposition that the book was written in the second century b4c41 and not in the sixth4 ,the real author1 he says1 is unknown1 and the name of ,daniel is only assumed4 ,he was writing1 not a history1 but a homily1 to encourage his brethren at the time of the ,maccabean struggle4 ,to this purpose of his1 ,professor ,sanday says1 there were features in the traditional story of ,daniel which appeared to lend themselves2 and so he took that story and worked it up in the way which seemed to him most effective4 ,jesus ,christ1 however1 held the orthodox view of his own time1 and spoke of ,daniel as the actual author of this book 7,matthew xxiv4 #ae74 ,but this1 ,professor ,sanday observes1 it is right to say1 is only in one ,gospel1 where the mention of ,daniel may be an insertion of the ,evangelist's4 ,such conjectural shifts are ,christian critics reduced to in their effort to minimise difficulties2 as though reducing the mistakes of ,jesus in any way saved his infallibility4 ,we will now turn to some portions of the ,old ,testament narrative which the ,higher ,criticism regards as legendary1 but which ,jesus regarded as strictly historical4 ,one of these is the story of the ,flood4 ,no one of any standing is now prepared to defend this story1 at least as we find it in the book of ,genesis4 ,a few orthodox scientists1 like ,sir ,james ,w4 ,dawson1 pour out copious talk about tremendous floods in former geological ages2 but what has this to do with the ,bible narrative of a universal deluge which occurred some four thousand five hundred years ago8 ,the ,higher ,critics have the impatience of ,freethinkers with such intellectual charlatanry4 ,they regard the story of the ,flood as a ,jewish legend1 which was not even original1 but borrowed from the superstitions of ,babylon4 ,yet the opinion of ,jesus ,christ seems to have been very different4 ,here are his own words3-- ,but as the days of ,noe were1 so shall also the coming of the ,son of ,man be4 ,for as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking1 marrying and giving in marriage1 until the day that ,noe entered into the ark1 and knew not until the flood came1 and took them all away1 so shall also the coming of the ,son of man be 7,matthew xxiv4 #cg-ci74 ,jesus ,christ appears to have believed1 like the disciples he was addressing1 like all the rest of his countrymen1 and like nearly all ,christians until very recently1 that the ,flood was an historical occurrence1 that ,noah and his family were saved in the ark1 and that all the other inhabitants of the world were drowned4 ,another story which the ,higher ,criticism dismisses as legendary is that of ,jonah4 ,the book in which it is related was1 of course1 not written by ,jonah1 the son of ,amittai1 of whom we read in #b ,kings xiv4 #be1 and who lived in the reign of ,jeroboam ,,ii4 ,it cannot1 as ,dr4 ,driver says1 have been written until long after the lifetime of ,jonah himself4 ,its probable date is the fifth century before ,christ4 ,dr4 ,driver says it is not strictly historical --that is to say1 the events recorded in it never happened4 ,jonah was not really entertained for three days in a whale's belly1 nor did his preaching convert the whole city of ,nineveh4 ,the writer's purpose was didactic2 he wished to rebuke the exclusiveness of his own people1 and to teach them that ,god's care extended1 at least occasionally1 to other nations as well as the ,jews4 ,some critics1 such as ,cheyne and ,wright1 regard the story as allegorical2 ,jonah standing for ,israel1 the whale for ,babylon1 and the vomiting up of the prophet for the return of the ,jews from exile4 ,dr4 ,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 ,jonah4 ,he adds that there is not the faintest trace of his mission or its results amid the masses of ,assyrian inscriptions4 ,even the writer of the book of ,jonah1 according to ,dr4 ,farrar1 attached no importance to its supernatural incidents1 which only belong to the allegorical form of the story4 ,so much for the ,higher ,critics2 and now let us hear ,jesus ,christ3-- ,an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign2 and there shall no sign be given to it1 but the sign of the prophet ,jonas3 ,for as ,jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly2 so shall the ,son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth4 ,the men of ,nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation1 and shall condemn it3 because they repented at the preaching of ,jonas2 and behold a greater than ,jonas is here 7,matthew xii4 #ci-da74 ,this utterance of ,jesus is also reported in ,luke 7xi4 #bi-cb71 but with an important variation1 the reference to ,jonah in the whale's belly being entirely omitted4 ,this variation is seized upon by ,dr4 ,farrar4 ,the fishy reference1 he says1 occurs in ,matthew alone1 and it may represent a comment or marginal note by the ,evangelist1 or of some other ,christian teacher4 ,this1 however1 is an arbitrary supposition1 which everyone is free to repudiate2 and ,dr4 ,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 history4 ,but this is not the question at issue4 ,the real question is1 did ,jesus ,christ believe the story of ,jonah and the whale8 ,if he did not1 it must be admitted that he had a most unfortunate way of expressing himself4 ,no educated ,christian in the present age believes the story of ,lot's wife being changed into a pillar of rock salt1 although ,josephus pretended that he had seen it1 and many travellers and pilgrims have searched for it as a sacred relic4 ,jesus ,christ1 however1 gave great prominence to this salted lady4 ,remember ,lot's wife is a verse by itself in the ,protestant ,bible 7,luke xvii4 #cb74 ,jesus also refers to the rain of fire and brimstone by which ,sodom was destroyed4 ,here then1 upon the face of it1 we have ,jesus ,christ's testimony to three documents as having been written by men who did not write them1 and to the historical character of three incidents which are purely fabulous4 ,now the ,higher ,criticism must be wrong1 or else ,jesus ,christ was mistaken2 in other words1 he was not infallible1 and therefore not ,god4 ,but the ,higher ,critics declare that they are not wrong2 they also declare that ,jesus ,christ was not mistaken4 ,let us see how they try to save their own accuracy and his infallibility4 ,we must remark1 in passing1 that some of these critics hint1 without exactly asserting1 that ,jesus may have been mistaken4 ,dr4 ,farrar bids us remember that by the very fact of taking our nature upon him ,christ voluntarily submitted himself to human limitations4 ,there were some things which1 as a man1 he did not know4 ,yes1 but he was also ,god2 and the conjunction of knowledge and ignorance in one person1 and with respect to a single subject1 would dissolve the unity of the ,god-man1 which is a dogma of ,christian theology4 ,moreover1 as ,canon ,liddon argued1 it is not so much a question of ,christ's omniscience as a question of his infallibility4 ,supposing there were some matters1 such as the date of the day of judgment1 of which he was ignorant2 he might confess his ignorance or remain silent1 and no harm would accrue to anyone2 but if he spoke upon any matter1 and was mistaken through want of knowledge1 he would become a propagator of error2 and this would not only destroy the doctrine of his deity1 but very seriously impair his authority as a teacher1 and cause everything he said to be open to the gravest suspicion4 ,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 ,dr4 ,farrar's own language4 ,dr4 ,sanday seems a little attracted by this explanation4 ,he reminds us that1 whatever views ,jesus himself entertained as to the ,scriptures of the ,old ,testament1 his views have come down to us through the medium of persons who shared the erroneous ideas that were then current on the subject4 ,we must be prepared1 he says1 for the possibility that ,christ's sayings in regard to it have not been reported with absolute accuracy4 ,but after all not much allowance should be made for this2 which means1 we suspect1 that the worthy ,professor saw the dreadful peril of pursuing this vein of observation1 and desisted from it before he had said enough to cause serious mischief4 ,the more astute ,higher ,critics avoid such dangers4 ,they resort to a theory that combines mystery and plausibility1 by which they hope to satisfy believers on both sides of their natures4 ,dr4 ,farrar tells us that ,christ1 to become a man1 emptied himself of his glory2 and that this examination involved the necessity of speaking as a man to men4 ,this position is perhaps best expressed by ,canon ,gore3-- ,it is contrary to his whole method to reveal his ,godhead by any anticipations of natural knowledge4 ,the ,incarnation was a self-emptying of ,god to reveal himself under conditions of human nature1 and from the human point of view4 ,we are able to draw a distinction between what he revealed and what he used444444,now when he speaks of the 'sun rising' he is using ordinary human knowledge4 ,thus he does not reveal his eternity by statements as to what had happened in the past1 or was to happen in the future1 outside the ken of existing history4 ,he made his ,godhead gradually manifest by his attitude towards men and things about him1 by his moral and spiritual claims1 by his expressed relation to his father1 not by any miraculous exemptions of himself from the conditions of natural knowledge in its own proper province4 ,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 ,incarnation1 by bringing to bear the unveiled omniscience of the ,godhead1 to anticipate or foreclose a development of natural knowledge499 ,this would perhaps be sublime if it were only intelligible4 ,we are not surprised at ,dr4 ,driver's turning away from the metaphysics of this theory4 ,his mind is cast in a more sober and practical mould4 ,it is enough for him that the aim of ,christ's teaching was a religious one2 that he naturally accepted1 as the basis of his teaching1 the opinions respecting the ,old ,testament that were current around him2 that he did not raise issues for which the time was not yet ripe1 and which1 had they been raised1 would have interfered seriously with the paramount purpose of his life49999 99 ,rev4 ,charles ,gore1 ,lux ,mundi 7seventh edition71 pp4 #cfj1 #cfa4 9999 ,introduction1 ,preface1 xix4 ,this is excellently said4 ,it is just what ,paley might have written in present-day circumstances4 ,but it contains no note of the supernatural4 ,it deals with ,jesus as a mere man1 who did not disclose all the information he possessed1 but sometimes veiled his knowledge for temporary reasons4 ,it leaves his ,godhead in the background4 ,it does not recognise how easy it was for ,omnipotence to act differently4 ,and when the ,higher ,criticism points out that the human mind could1 in the course of time1 free itself from errors as to the authorship and credibility of the ,old ,testament1 it forgets that ,jesus ,christ1 by accommodating himself to those errors1 perpetuated them4 ,his authority was appealed to for centuries--it is appealed to now--in favor of falsehood4 ,nor is this falsehood trivial and innocuous4 ,it has been extremely harmful4 ,it has fostered a wrong view of the ,bible1 it has prolonged the reign of superstition1 and thus hindered the growth of true civilisation4 ,this is an impeachment of the moral character of ,jesus4 ,it is a confession that he served a temporary object at the expense of the permanent interests of humanity4 ,we feel constrained1 therefore1 to admit the force of the words of ,canon ,liddon3-- ,we have lived to hear men proclaim the legendary and immoral character of considerable portions of those ,old ,testament scriptures1 upon which our ,lord has set the seal of his infallible authority4 ,and yet1 side by side with this rejection of ,scriptures so deliberately sanctioned by ,christ1 there is an unwillingness which1 illogical as it is1 we must sincerely welcome1 to profess any explicit rejection of the ,church's belief in ,christ's divinity4 ,hence arises the endeavour to intercept a conclusion1 which might otherwise have seemed so plain as to make arguments in its favor an intellectual impertinence4 ,hence a series of singular refinements1 by which ,christ is presented to the modern world as really ,divine1 yet as subject to fatal error2 as ,founder of the true religion1 yet as the credulous patron of a volume replete with worthless legends2 as the highest ,teacher and ,leader of humanity1 yet withal as the ignorant victim of the prejudices and follies of an unenlightened age499 99 ,canon ,h4 ,p4 ,liddon1 ,the ,divinity of ,christ 7fourteenth edition71 p4 #dfb4 ,canon ,gore devotes several pages of his ,bampton ,lectures to this subject1 but he does not fairly answer the straightforward objections raised by ,canon ,liddon4 ,dealing with the references of ,jesus to the ,mosaic authorship of the ,pentateuch1 and to ,jonah's three days' entombment in the whale's belly1 and with the argument that this endorsement by ,jesus binds us to receive these narratives as simple history1 he blandly declares1 ,to this argument ,i do not think that we need yield4 ,of course not4 ,there is no need to yield to anything you do not like2 for this is a free country1 at least to ,christians4 ,but what is the logical conclusion8 ,that is the point to be decided4 ,canon ,gore does not face it2 he merely expresses a personal disinclination4 ,subsequently he pleads that a heavy burden should not be laid on sensitive consciences1 and that men should not be asked to accept as matter of revelation what seems to them an improbable literary theory4 ,but this again is a personal appeal4 ,these men must be left to attend to their own consciences4 ,they have no right to demand a suppression of truth1 or a perversion of logic1 for their particular advantage4 ,when a candid reader has finished all that the ,higher ,criticism has to say on this matter1 we believe he will be filled with a sense of its insincerity4 ,it never strikes a note of triumph1 or even a note of conviction4 ,it is timid1 furtive1 and apologetic2 and shelters itself against reason by plunging into mystery4 ,in place of all the difficulties it removes it sets up a colossal one of its own manufacture2 the difficulty1 to wit1 of conceiving that ,god himself lent a sanction to grave and far-reaching error as to his own ,word2 or what would inevitably be regarded as a sanction1 and would necessarily delay for many hundreds of years the discovery and reception of the truth4 ,the ,higher ,criticism1 in short1 has supplied a new argument against the deity of ,jesus ,christ4 ,x4 ,,the ,,bible ,,and ,,the ,,church ,,of ,,england ,dr4 ,farrar's book has naturally given offence to the more orthodox ,christians4 ,clergymen like ,father ,ignatius stigmatise him1 and indeed all clerical exponents of the ,higher ,criticism1 as wolves in sheeps' clothing1 who eat the ,church's meat and do the work of infidelity4 ,we are not surprised1 therefore1 that some reassurance has been deemed necessary2 nor astonished that it took the form of a popular announcement in the newspapers4 ,some months ago--to be accurate1 it was in ,september--the following paragraph went the round of the press3-- ,dean ,farrar and the ,scriptures4--,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 7referring to his works as a confirmation of the statement71 and observed that1 if such a grave assertion were allowed to be propagated without contradiction1 the young and the ignorant might be deceived by it4 ,the ,dean1 who is at present staying in ,yorkshire1 replied as follows3 ',the statement to which you refer is ignorant nonsense4 ,the doctrine of the ,church of ,england about ,holy ,scripture is stated in her ,sixth and ,seventh4 ,articles1 and that doctrine ,i most heartily accept4 ,this strikes us as a rather paltry evasion4 ,the ,sixth and ,seventh ,articles of the ,church of ,england do not state the full ,christian belief as to the ,bible1 but only the ,protestant belief as against that of the ,church of ,rome4 ,they emphasise two points1 and two points only3 first1 that the ,scriptures contain all that is necessary to salvation1 so that no man is at the ,pope's mercy for a seat in heaven2 second1 that fourteen books of the ,roman ,catholic ,bible are apocryphal1 and cannot be used to establish any doctrine4 ,the general ,christian view of the ,bible1 common to ,catholics and ,protestants1 is taken for granted1 as it had not then been brought into controversy4 ,there is one word in the ,sixth ,article1 however1 which may be commended to ,dr4 ,farrar's attention4 ,the last clause explains what is meant by ,holy ,scripture1 and runs as follows3--,in the name of the holy ,scripture we do understand those ,canonical ,books of the ,old and ,new ,testament1 of whose authority was never any doubt in the ,church4 ,now1 unless ,dr4 ,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 terms4 ,he does not believe1 for instance1 in the authority of the book of ,jonah2 on the contrary1 he believes that ,jonah did not write it1 and that it is not history1 but romance1 from beginning to end4 ,if this is believing in the ,bible1 then ,atheistic lecturers believe in it as well as ,dr4 ,farrar4 ,he does not believe that ,jonah spent three days in a whale's belly--nor do they2 he does not believe that ,jonah's deep-sea adventure was a prefigurement of the burial of ,jesus ,christ--nor do they2 he does not believe that the ,jonah story is any the truer because ,jesus ,christ really or apparently believed it--nor do they2 he simply believes that the story's moral is a good one1 as far as it represents people who are not ,jews as entitled to consideration--and so do they4 ,substantially there is not the smallest difference between them4 ,the only discernible difference is a hypothetical one4 ,dr4 ,farrar claims that the book of ,jonah is inspired4 ,but he also claims that everything good and true--that is1 everything worth reading--is inspired4 ,very well then1 the ,atheist may reply1 ,i agree with you still1 in substance4 ,the only point in dispute between us is whether there is a ,god who interferes with the natural course of things1 either in the external world or in the human mind4 ,but on your definition of the word inspired1 this makes no particular difference to any one book or collection of books4 ,and unless you alter 7and narrow7 your theory of inspiration1 our difference begins outside1 not inside1 the library--and is1 in brief1 not practical1 but metaphysical4 ,but let us return to ,dr4 ,farrar's method of proving his sufficient orthodoxy2 and let us tell him that if he will only pursue it far enough1 he may get rid of the ,bible altogether4 ,suppose we take ,pearson's classic ,exposition of the ,creed1 and open it at his address to the ,reader4 ,in the second paragraph he writes as follows3--,the ,creed1 without controversy1 is a brief comprehension of the objects of our ,christian faith1 and is generally taken to contain all things necessary to be believed4 ,now this ,creed does not mention the ,bible at all4 ,a heathen might read it1 and never infer from it that there was such a thing as the ,scriptures in existence4 ,what then is to prevent ,dr4 ,farrar1 or some more audacious clergyman1 from saying that he does not believe in the ,bible1 as it is nowhere laid down as necessary to be believed2 but that his orthodoxy is nevertheless unimpeachable1 because he most heartily accepts the ,catholic and ,apostolic ,creed which is without controversy an accurate compendium of the ,christian faith1 and which1 being prescribed in the ,prayer ,book1 is of course binding--and is alone binding--on every loyal son of the ,church of ,england8 ,dr4 ,farrar claims1 as a clergyman1 what he calls a ,christian liberty in dealing with the ,bible2 although1 if ,god has indeed spoken in the ,bible1 it is difficult to see what liberty a ,christian can have but that of absolute belief and obedience4 ,in a lengthy footnote of his volume which we have been criticising1 he refers to the famous ,essays and ,reviews ,case1 and the decisions of the judges in the ,court of ,arches and in the ,privy ,council4 ,dr4 ,lushington laid it down that3 ,provided the ,articles and ,formularies are not contravened1 the law lays down no limits of construction1 no rule of interpretation1 of the ,scriptures4 ,lord ,westbury declared that the ,sixth ,article of the ,church of ,england was based upon the revelations of the ,holy ,spirit1 and therefore the ,bible might be denominated holy and be said to be the ,word of ,god2 but this was not distinctly predicated of every statement and representation contained in every part of the ,old and ,new ,testaments4 ,the framers of the ,articles1 ,lord ,westbury added1 have not used the word 'inspiration' as applied to the ,holy ,scriptures1 nor have they laid down anything as to the nature1 extent1 or limits of that operation of the ,holy ,spirit4 ,according to this sapient judgment1 which perhaps is very good law1 and covers all possible developments of the ,higher ,criticism1 every member of the ,church of ,england is bound to regard the ,bible as containing the revelations of the ,holy ,spirit1 but is not bound to regard it as a work of inspiration4 ,a judge1 with his legal spectacles on1 is notoriously able to discriminate subtleties where laymen see only what is plain2 and clergymen may take advantage of his preternatural sagacity1 without being able in the long run to impose upon the common sense of the people1 who will always look upon revelation and inspiration as interchangeable terms4 ,it is quite natural that ,dr4 ,farrar should wish to get rid of this word inspiration1 since it can no longer be defined without danger4 ,but we must remind him that1 if it does not occur in the ,church ,articles1 it certainly does occur in the ,bible4 ,all scripture1 ,paul said1 is given by inspiration of ,god499 99 ,timothy iii4 #af4 ,and as the ,new ,testament was not then in existence1 ,paul of course referred to the ,old ,testament4 ,this was the holy scriptures which ,timothy had known from a child4 ,and ,peter is1 if possible1 more definite than ,paul4 ,he speaks of the more sure word of prophecy1 surer than the very voice heard by the three disciples on the mount of transfiguration4 ,this prophecy of the scripture he declares to be never of any private interpretation--which means1 according to the commentators1 that it did not spring from any knowledge or personal conjecture in the prophet4 ,finally1 he clinches his exposition by affirming that holy men of ,god spake as they were moved by the ,holy ,ghost499 99 #b ,peter i4 #ai-ba4 ,we quote this epistle as ,peter's1 because it passes as his in the ,new ,testament1 not because it was really his writing4 ,according to the ,sixth ,article of the ,church of ,england1 both these epistles1 bearing the names of ,paul and ,peter1 are among the books of whose authority was never any doubt in the ,church4 ,dr4 ,farrar is therefore bound by them in logic and honor4 ,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 ,testament4 ,as a clergyman of the ,church of ,england1 he assumes an unwarrantable freedom2 a freedom which is no more sanctioned by her ,articles than it is by the letter or spirit of the ,scriptures4 ,he departs entirely from the primitive and real position of ,protestantism2 namely1 that the ,bible is the absolute standard of faith and practice1 and that1 wherever it is dark or dubious1 it must be interpreted by itself4 ,he treads the via media of compromise and irrationality2 neither going over to ,rome1 which claims to be inspired1 like the ,bible1 and to be the vehicle of the living voice of ,god for the infallible interpretation of the written revelation--nor going over to ,rationalism1 which regards the ,catholic ,church as but a human institution1 and the ,bible as but a human composition4 ,believe that ,god has spoken1 according to the words of ,paul and ,peter1 and the ,catholic theory is the only satisfactory one2 disbelieve it1 and there is no logical alternative but the most thoroughgoing ,rationalism4 ,,xi4 ,,an ,,oriental ,,book ,dr4 ,farrar stumbles1 on one occasion1 against the true theory of the ,bible4 ,having to furnish an excuse1 if not a justification1 for the outrageous crudity of a good deal of its language1 he reminds us that decorum changes with time and place4 ,the rigid external modesty and propriety of modern and ,english literature1 he observes1 is disgusted and offended by statements which gave no such shock to ancient and ,eastern readers4 ,and he adds that ,the plain-spokenness of ,orientals involved no necessary offence against abstract morality4 ,this is true enough1 but the argument should be developed4 ,what is urged in extenuation of the grossness of the ,scripture is really applicable all round--to its mythology1 its legends1 its religion1 its philosophy1 its ethics1 and its poetry4 ,the ,bible is an oriental book4 ,and this one statement1 when properly understood1 gives us the true key to its interpretation1 the real criterion of its character1 and the just measure of its value4 ,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 ,english4 ,even the expounders of the ,higher ,criticism1 in our own country1 read it first in their mother tongue2 and although they afterwards read it in the original ,greek1 and sometimes in the original ,hebrew1 they are under the witchery of early impressions1 and their apologetics are almost entirely founded upon the vernacular ,bible4 ,thus they lose sight1 and their readers never catch a glimpse1 of the predominant element1 the governing factor1 of the problem4 ,all the ,bibles in the world1 like all the religions in the world1 came from the ,east4 ,not one of them1 as ,max ,mueller remarks1 has been conceived1 composed1 or written down in ,europe499 99 ,max ,mueller1 ,natural ,religion1 p4 #ech4 ,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 world2 but ,bunyan's originality was artistic and not religious2 he absorbed the ,puritanism of his age1 and reproduced it in the form of a magnificent allegory4 ,religious originality does not belong to the ,western mind1 which is too scientific and practical4 ,every one of the fashionable crazes that spring up from time to time1 and have their day and give place to a successor1 is merely a garment from the old wardrobe of superstition4 ,this is true of ,theosophy1 for instance2 all its doctrines1 ideas1 and jargon being borrowed from ,india4 ,there are five countries only1 ,max ,mueller says1 which have been the birthplace of ,sacred ,books3 7#a7 ,india1 7#b7 ,persia1 7#c7 ,china1 7#d7 ,palestine1 7#e7 ,arabia4 ,all come from the ,east1 and all have a generic and historic resemblance4 ,not one of them was written by the founder of its religion4 ,moses did not write the ,pentateuch1 ,christ did not write a line of the ,new ,testament1 ,mohammed did not write the ,koran1 ,zoroaster did not write the ,avesta1 the ,buddhist ,scriptures were not written by ,buddha1 and the ,vedic hymns are far more ancient than writing in ,india4 ,all these ,sacred ,books embody the accepted beliefs of whole peoples2 all of them are canonical and authoritative2 all contain very much the same ethical groundwork1 in the form of elementary moral prohibitions2 all of them are held to be of divine character2 all of them become a kind of fetish1 which is worshipped and obeyed at the expense of the free spirit of man1 who is told not to be wise above what is written4 ,ecclesiastical or kingly authority has generally given these books their final form and character4 ,their establishment takes place in open daylight1 but their origin is more or less shrouded in mystery4 ,it is curious1 ,max ,mueller says1 that wherever we have sacred books1 they represent to us the oldest language of the country4 ,it is so in ,india1 it is the same in ,persia1 in ,china1 in ,palestine1 and very nearly so in ,arabia499 ,according to ,max ,mueller1 the ,veda was referred to in ,india fifteen hundred years before ,christ4 ,consequently it precedes by many centuries even the earliest parts of the ,bible3-- ,the ,vedic hymns come to us as a collection of sacred poetry1 belonging to certain ancient families1 and afterwards united in one collection1 called the ,rig-veda-samhita4 ,the names of the poets1 handed down by tradition1 are in most cases purely imaginary names4 ,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 only1 but every syllable1 every letter1 every accent1 had been communicated to half-divine and half-human prophets by ,brahma1 so that the slightest mistake in pronunciation1 even to the pronunciation of an accent1 would destroy the charm and efficacy of these ancient prayers49999 99 ,natural ,religion1 p4 #bie4 9999 ,max ,mueller1 ibid1 p4 #eeh4 ,with a slight variation of language1 to suit the special circumstances1 nearly all this would apply to the ,bible4 ,christianity1 like ,brahmanism1 like ,buddhism1 like ,mohammedanism1 is a book religion4 ,it is ,god-given1 or revealed1 and its ,bible has been elevated to a position of infallibility1 above the reach of human reason1 precisely like the ,bibles of other oriental faiths4 ,this sanctification of every thought and word and letter is declared by ,max ,mueller to have been the death-blow given to the ,vedic religion1 destroying its power of growth and change4 ,a similar observation is made by ,sir ,william ,muir respecting the petrified gospel of the ,koran3-- ,from the stiff and rigid shroud in which it is thus swathed1 the religion of ,mohammed cannot emerge4 ,it has no plastic power beyond that exercised in its earliest days4 ,hardened now and inelastic1 it can neither adapt itself nor yet shape its votaries1 nor even suffer them to shape themselves1 to the varying circumstances1 the wants and developments of mankind499 ,how curious it is1 after reading this strong passage1 to come across a diametrically opposite one in the work of another eminent writer on the same subject4 ,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 win49999 ,historically1 it is perfectly certain that ,mohammedanism has been found compatible with a high degree of civilisation4 ,many instances might be given1 but a single one is sufficient4 ,the ,mohammedan civilisation in ,spain was far superior to the ,christian civilisation which1 after terrible bloodshed and enormous destruction1 was established upon its ruins4 ,the truth is1 that religions always change when they must change1 and never otherwise4 ,when the necessity arises1 learned divines will always be found to make the requisite accommodations4 ,this1 indeed1 is the explanation of the labors of ,dr4 ,farrar and other exponents of the ,higher ,criticism4 ,they are simply accommodating ,christianity1 and the ,bible with it1 to the serious changes that have taken place in educated opinion and sentiment1 in consequence of the development of physical science1 the progress of historical criticism1 and the growth of moral culture4 ,all the truth in ,sir ,william ,muir's impeachment of ,mohammedanism is no less applicable to ,christianity4 ,the ,bible1 like the ,koran1 and like every other revelation1 stereotyped old ideas1 and gave them a factitious longevity4 ,dr4 ,farrar himself not only admits1 but contends1 that the ,bible has been invoked against every advance in science1 politics1 and sociology4 ,what more could be said of the ,koran or any other sacred book8 99 ,sir ,william ,muir1 ,rise and ,decline of ,islam1 pp4 #dj1 #da4 9999 ,t4 ,w4 ,arnold1 ,the ,preaching of ,islam4 ,bring any oriental religion into ,europe1 and it must change or perish4 ,christianity is not true1 as ,mr4 ,gladstone and so many orthodox apologists have argued1 because the ,christian nations are at the top of civilisation4 ,the ,caucasian mind led the world before the advent of ,christianity1 and it is doing the same now4 ,christians are apt to forget that ,greece and ,italy are in ,europe1 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 written4 ,keep any oriental religion in the ,east1 however1 and there is no saying how long it will last unaltered4 ,do not travellers talk of the unchanging ,east8 ,the civilisation of ,china is almost what it was thousands of years ago4 ,syrian life to-day is like a picture from the ,bible4 ,and the old ,orient1 as ,flaubert said1 is the land of religions2 and where ,asia looks upon ,europe1 and the communication between them began of yore1 you may sample all the faiths of antiquity4 ,flaubert remarked that the assemblage of all the old religions in ,syria was something incredible2 it was enough to study for centuries499 99 ,flaubert1 ,correspondence1 vol4 i41 p4 #cdd4 ,asia spawned forth all the great religions1 and produced all the great revelations4 ,arabia is in ,africa1 but the ,arabs are not ,africans2 they belong to the ,semitic race1 like the ,jews1 and the ,koran embodies ,jewish and other ,semitic traditions4 ,the ,bible1 then1 is an oriental book1 an ,asiatic book1 in spite of the ,greek elements which are incorporated in the ,new ,testament1 notably in the fourth ,gospel4 ,it has never been in harmony with the real life of the ,west4 ,when it has dominated the life of a particular locality1 for a certain period1 the result has been something typically non-,european2 as in the case of ,scotland under the despotism of the ,kirk1 whose spiritual slaves prompted ,heine's epigram that the ,presbyterian ,scotchman was a ,jew1 born in the north1 who ate pork4 ,modern civilisation is mainly a return to the spirit of secular progress which inspired the immortal achievements of ,greece and ,rome4 ,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 world4 ,the modern man1 reformed and regenerated by knowledge1 looks across it1 and recognises on the opposite ridge1 in the far-shining cities and stately porticoes1 in the art1 politics1 and science of antiquity1 many more ties of kinship and sympathy than in the mighty concave between1 wherein dwell his ,christian ancestry1 in the dim light of scholasticism and theology499 99 ,james ,cotter ,morison1 ,the ,service of ,man1 p4 #agh4 ,well1 if we once fully recognise the ,bible as an oriental book1 we are on the road to its complete comprehension4 ,its grossness of speech1 its gratuitous reference to animal functions1 its designation of males by their sexual attributes even on the most serious occasions1 its religious observances in connection with pregnancy and birth1 its very rite of circumcision2 all this1 and much more1 becomes perfectly intelligible4 ,it is in keeping with all we know of the ideas1 practices1 and language of the ,east4 ,moreover1 we perceive why it is that similarities to the theology1 the poetry1 and the ethics of the ,bible have been so liberally disclosed by the progress of oriental studies4 ,the ,bible1 being brought from the ,east1 has to be carried back there to be properly understood4 ,it is true that ,christian divines have offered their own explanation of these similarities4 ,at first they declared them to be ,satanic anticipations1 devilish pre-mockeries1 of ,god's own truth4 ,then they declared them to be confused echoes of the oracles of ,jehovah4 ,finally1 they declare them to be evidences of the fact that1 although ,god chose the ,jewish race as the medium of his special revelation1 he also revealed himself partially to other nations4 ,but these explanations are alike fantastic4 ,they rest upon no ground of history or evolution4 ,the real explanation is that the ,bible is one of the many sacred books of the ,east4 ,its differences from the rest are not of kind1 but of degree2 and any superiority that may be claimed for it must henceforth be argued upon this basis4 ,this oriental ,bible is at utter variance with the vital beliefs1 the political and social tendencies1 and the ethical aspirations1 of the present age4 ,science has destroyed its naive supernaturalism2 reason has placed its personal ,god--the magnified1 non-natural man--in his own niche in the world's ,pantheon2 philosophy has carried us far beyond its primitive conceptions of human society2 our morality has outgrown its hardness and insularity1 however we may still appreciate its finer ejaculations2 even the most pious ,christians1 with the exception of a few peculiar people1 only pay a hypocritical homage to its clearest injunctions2 and the higher development of decency and propriety makes us turn from its crude expressions with a growing sense of disgust1 while the progress of humanity fills us more and more with a loathing of its frightful wars and ruthless massacres1 its tales of barbaric cruelty1 and its crowning infamy of an everlasting hell4 ,,xii4 ,,fictitious ,,supremacy ,there are two remarkable characteristics of present-day apologies for ,christianity3 one is extravagant laudation of ,jesus as man and teacher1 the other is extravagant laudation of the ,bible as ethics and literature4 ,both these characteristics are really signs of the decadence of positive faith4 ,anyone who sincerely believed in the deity of ,jesus would shrink from praising his human virtues4 ,to such a person it would savor strongly of impertinence4 ,nor would anyone who really believed the ,bible to be the ,word of ,god make it the subject of meaner panegyrics4 ,it seems ridiculous to argue that ,god wrote with unusual power and sublimity1 and is actually the very first of known authors4 ,but this is what ,dr4 ,farrar does1 essentially1 in the last six chapters of his volume4 ,no wonder1 therefore1 that all the vices of his style are displayed in the accomplishment of this extraordinary task4 ,he has to make several quotations from great or distinguished writers1 but he catches no literary infection from them4 ,one of these quotations is from brave old ,george ,fox4 ,i saw1 the great ,quaker wrote1 that there was an ocean of darkness and death2 but an infinite ocean of ,light and ,love flowed over the ocean of ,darkness2 and in that ,i saw the infinite love of ,god4 ,this is magnificent writing4 ,it has vision1 force1 and simplicity4 ,in its way it could hardly be beaten4 ,and how poor in comparison is the turgid pulpit rhetoric of ,dr4 ,farrar6 ,we are told by this wordy defender of the faith that the ,christian ,scriptures are the ,supreme ,bible of ,humanity--as though1 if it be the ,word of ,god1 it could be anything less4 ,our attention is called to its unique transcendence--which is a penny-a-lining pleonasm4 ,we are informed that it has triumphed with ease over the assaults of its enemies--which is a remarkably modest assertion1 especially in view of the fact that the enemies of the ,bible were1 for fifteen hundred years1 generally subdued by persecution1 imprisonment1 torture1 assassination1 and the burning of their writings4 ,we are further informed that the ,bible commands the reverence1 guides the thoughts1 educates the souls1 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 ,christians1 not to be too precise about the real ones1 do not amount to more than a fourth of the world's inhabitants4 ,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 word1 in the sense that it was 7professedly7 written under divine inspiration4 ,this is absurd enough1 but it is nothing to the rapturous eulogy of the ,bible which follows it4 ,all the best and brightest ,english verse not some1 mark1 but all61 from the poems of ,chaucer to the plays of ,shakespeare in their noblest parts1 are echoes of its lessons2 and from ,cowper to ,wordsworth1 ,dr4 ,farrar says1 from ,coleridge to ,tennyson1 the greatest of our poets have drawn from its pages their loftiest wisdom4 ,really1 one is tempted to ask whether such stuff as this is possible in any other country than ,england1 or perhaps ,america2 and whether1 even in ,england or ,america1 it is possible outside churches1 chapels1 and ,sunday-schools4 ,sixty pages later--,dr4 ,farrar could not sober down in that long interval--he declares that ,it was the ,bible which created the prose literature of ,england4 ,now if this were true it would not serve ,dr4 ,farrar's ostensible purpose4 ,it would not prove that the ,bible is a divine revelation4 ,it would only prove the historical--that is to say1 the largely accidental--importance of the ,authorised ,version of the ,bible in the development of ,english literature4 ,but this declaration of ,dr4 ,farrar's is not true4 ,the ,authorised ,version did not initiate1 it rather closed1 a period of our literary history4 ,the ,english of the translators in their ,preface is vastly different from the ,english of their translation4 ,indeed1 they were rather collators than translators4 ,they took the older versions as the basis of their work1 they altered as little as possible1 and the alterations they did make were strictly in harmony with the time-honored style of those older versions1 a style which was even then very archaic4 ,dr4 ,marsh1 himself a devout ,christian1 contends that the dialect of this translation was not1 at the time of the revision1 or1 indeed1 at any other period1 the actual current book-language nor the colloquial speech of the ,english people4 ,he maintains that it was a consecrated diction which had been gradually built up from the time of ,wycliffe499 ,its language was not the language of ,chaucer's prose1 nor even of ,wycliffe's own prose1 any more than it was the language of ,bacon's or ,shakespeare's1 or even that of divines like ,hooker4 ,the ,authorised ,version is indeed a monument of ,english1 but of special ,english4 ,it has always stood aside from the main development of ,english prose4 ,of course it has exercised a considerable influence1 but that influence has been chiefly indirect4 ,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 development1 to which the language and style of the ,english ,bible have contributed infinitely less than is generally assumed4 ,with the single exception of ,bunyan's masterpiece1 which stands apart and alone1 it is difficult to name a first-class prose competition that was greatly indebted to our ,authorised ,version4 ,even the divines disregarded it as a literary model1 and perhaps most conspicuously so in the seventeenth century1 immediately after its publication4 99 ,george ,p4 ,marsh1 ,lectures on the ,english ,language 7,murray71 pp4 #dda1 #dde4 ,dr4 ,farrar is entirely wrong in declaring that the ,bible created the prose literature of ,england4 ,even if he only means that ,english prose was vastly profited by the religious literature which followed upon the heels of the ,reformation1 it is easy to reply that this literature was mainly controversial and never remarkable for the higher graces and dexterities4 ,for those virtues1 prior to the time of ,taylor and ,south1 we must turn to secular and even to profane compositions2 a fact which is well known to every real student of ,english literature4 ,the next device of ,dr4 ,farrar's advocacy would be astounding if one did not know the muddle-headed public for whom he writes4 ,he devotes a monstrous number of pages to the citing of a cloud of witnesses to the glory and supremacy of the ,holy ,scriptures1 beginning with the great ,john ,henry ,newman and winding up with the notorious ,hall ,caine4 ,sandwiched between these dissimilar witnesses are ,heine1 ,goethe1 ,rousseau1 ,wesley1 ,emerson1 ,carlyle1 ,huxley1 ,arnold1 ,ruskin1 and a host of others4 ,most of them were ,christians1 and afford a partisan testimony which is not very valuable4 ,in any case1 there is no real argument in a list of names4 ,when a man is being tried on a definite charge1 it is idle to recite a catalogue of his distinguished friends4 ,witnesses to character are only heard in mitigation of sentence after the jury has returned a verdict of ,guilty4 ,perhaps this fact had its influence on ,dr4 ,farrar's mind2 at any rate1 he calls his cloud of witnesses when he has ended all he had to say in the form of argument4 ,these witnesses1 moreover1 are jumbled together without the slightest discrimination4 ,let us take a few illustrations to show the futility of ,dr4 ,farrar's method4 ,john ,wesley cried ,give me the book of ,god6 ,here is knowledge enough for me4 ,let me be a man of one book4 ,yes1 and ,john ,wesley believed in witchcraft1 and honestly declared that to throw over witchcraft was to throw over the ,bible4 ,he had1 also1 his own way of proving the divine inspiration of the ,holy ,scriptures4 ,he wrote a ,clear and ,concise ,demonstration1 from which we take the following extract3-- ,i beg leave to propose a short1 clear1 and strong argument to prove the divine inspiration of the ,holy ,scriptures4 ,the ,bible must be the invention either of good men or angels1 bad men or devils1 or of ,god4 7#a7 ,it could not be the invention of good men or angels2 for they neither would nor could make a book1 and tell lies all the time they were writing it1 saying1 ',thus saith the ,lord1' when it was their own invention4 7#b7 ,it could not be the invention of bad men or devils2 for they would not make a book which commands all duty1 forbids all sin1 and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity4 7#c7 ,therefore1 ,i draw this conclusion1 that the ,bible must be given by divine inspiration499 99 ,john ,wesley's ,works 7#ahfe71 vol4 xi41 pp4 #dfd-dfe4 ,could anything be more childish than this ridiculous play upon the word invention1 and this absurd supposition that good men and bad men are two sharp divisions of the human species8 ,we know that all men are mixtures1 and that honest men may be mistaken1 and tell falsehoods without lying4 ,we are therefore able to measure the value of ,john ,wesley's demonstration that the ,bible is inspired4 ,john ,ruskin thanks his mother for daily reading the ,bible with him in his childhood1 and daily making him learn a part of it by heart4 ,this is seized upon by ,dr4 ,farrar1 who places it in his list of testimonies4 ,but it might have been wise--it would certainly have been honest--to tell the reader how ,ruskin views the ,bible4 ,this great writer has formulated four theories of the ,bible1 the third of which he has declared to be for the last half-century the theory of the soundest scholars and thinkers in ,europe4 ,and what is this theory8 ,here it is in ,ruskin's own words3-- ,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 world2 that they are only trustworthy as expressions of the enthusiastic visions or beliefs of earnest men oppressed by the world's darkness1 and have no more authoritative claim on our faith than the religious speculations and histories of the ,egyptians1 ,greeks1 ,persians1 and ,indians2 but are1 in common with all these1 to be reverently studied1 as containing a portion1 divinely appointed1 of the best wisdom which the human intellect1 earnestly seeking for help from ,god1 has hitherto been able to gather between birth and death499 99 ,time and ,tide1 pp4 #dh1 #di4 ,it should be noted that the ,letters in this pregnant little volume were written by ,ruskin as far back as #ahfg4 ,surely this is a very different view of the ,bible from the one which is presented by ,dr4 ,farrar4 ,setting aside a little religious phraseology1 a ,freethinker might endorse ,ruskin's theory of the ,bible4 ,everything is substantially granted to the ,freethinker when it is admitted that the ,bible has no authoritative claim on our faith4 ,whatever truth and beauty it contains may then be thankfully accepted4 ,professor ,huxley's famous eulogy of the ,bible1 as a book to be read in ,board ,schools1 is made the most of by ,dr4 ,farrar4 ,he must have winced1 however1 at ,huxley's reference to what a sensible teacher would eliminate as not desirable for children to occupy themselves with4 ,he was not sensitive enough to wince at the statement that even the noble ,stoic1 ,marcus ,antoninus1 is too high and refined for an ordinary child--which is virtually a testimonial in his favor for grown-up men and women4 ,dr4 ,farrar crows lustily over what he calls ,professor ,huxley's testimony to the unique glory of the ,scriptures4 ,it is perhaps well for him that ,huxley is incapable of resenting this misrepresentation4 ,still1 it must be admitted that on this occasion1 as on one or two others1 ,huxley did gratuitously play into the hands of the enemy4 ,he might have known the kind of use they would make of his graceful concessions4 ,dr4 ,farrar had not the honesty to tell his readers that ,huxley had the most sovereign contempt for his theory of the ,bible4 ,the great ,agnostic held1 for instance1 that belief in a demonic world is inculcated throughout the ,new ,testament1 and that this belief is totally devoid of foundation4 ,he declared that ,inspiration1 in the school of the ,higher ,criticism1 is deprived of its old intelligible sense1 and is watered down into a mystification4 ,he laughed at the miracles of the ,gospels1 and made great fun of the story of the bedevilled ,gadarean swine4 ,he held that religion and morality have really no necessary connection1 and sneered at the supernaturalists--gentlemen like ,dr4 ,farrar--who took to patronising morality when they saw its importance1 and have ever since tried to persuade mankind that the existence of ethics is bound up with that of supernaturalism499 ,to accept a testimonial from such a writer is abject on the part of a clergyman defending the inspiration of the ,bible2 and to parade it is simply contemptible4 ,more than fifty years ago1 when this petty trick of ,christian apologetics was coming into vogue1 it was rebuked by ,newman1 who disdained as unworthy the practice of boasting of the admissions of infidels concerning the beauty or utility of the ,christian system1 as though1 he added with fine sarcasm1 it were a great thing for a divine gift to obtain praise for human excellence49999 99 ,huxley1 ,science and ,christian ,tradition1 pp4 xv41 #be1 #ed1 etc4 9999 ,john ,henry ,newman1 ,university ,sermons1 p4 #ga4 ,dr4 ,farrar's citation of ,matthew ,arnold is open to the same kind of criticism4 ,he retained but little faith in the miraculous1 we are told1 and his creed was anything but orthodox4 ,but is it fair to suggest that ,arnold had any creed at all8 ,he rejected the idea of a personal ,god1 he regarded ,jesus as a merely human teacher1 and it is evident from his books and his published correspondence that he had no belief in personal immortality4 ,as for his faith in the miraculous1 it was not little1 with or without the but2 it was a minus quantity4 ,he positively disbelieved in the miraculous4 ,it was a part of his plain message to the ,churches that the reign of the ,bible miracles was doomed1 that they were all fairy tales1 and that1 if the fate of the ,bible was bound up with theirs1 the ,bible was doomed too4 ,arnold said all this when he was living1 and it is useless for ,dr4 ,farrar to disguise the fact1 or to minimise it by artful phrases4 ,we commend to his attention--would that we could commend it to the attention of his readers6--the following passage from a letter of ,arnold's to ,sir ,mountstuart ,grant ,duff1 dated ,july #bb1 #ahhb3-- ,the central fact of the situation always remains to me this3 that whereas the basis of things amidst all chance and change has even in ,europe generally been for ever so long supernatural ,christianity1 and far more so in ,england than in ,europe generally1 this basis is certainly going--going amidst the full consciousness of the continentals that it is going1 and amidst the provincial unconsciousness of the ,english that it is going499 99 ,matthew ,arnold1 ,letters1 vol4 ii41 p4 #bja4 ,considering what ,arnold's views really were1 is it of any use to make the statement of rather doubtful accuracy that the ,bible was his chief and constant study8 ,is it not misleading to talk of his intense reverence and admiration for the ,sacred ,books8 ,he did not regard them as sacred4 ,he studied and valued the ,bible as literature1 not as revelation2 and it is monstrous to cite him as a witness in favor of the ,bible as it is represented in the school of ,dr4 ,farrar4 ,we need not waste time over ,dr4 ,farrar's banal remark that ,livingstone1 ,stanley1 and the ,bible together have caused the extension of the ,british protectorate over #agj1jjj square miles in a certain part of ,africa4 ,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 ,societies4 ,such evidences are only fit for the street-corner4 ,only a low-minded1 commercial-sodden ,christian could imagine that the multiplication of copies of a book is any sort of testimony to its intrinsic truth and value2 and in this particular case the demand is a forced one1 depending on the incessant stimulus of the supply4 ,another argument of ,dr4 ,farrar's for the supremacy of the ,bible is based upon the history of ,christian martyrdoms4 ,he gives several instances of ,christians1 old and young1 rich and poor1 high-placed and humble1 who have died for their faith1 and entered the dark river and its still waters with a smile upon their faces4 ,he attributes their fortitude to trust in the promises of the ,bible4 ,but he does not tell us how it proves the truth of the ,bible either as history or as revelation4 ,millions of ,jews have died at the hands of ,christian bigots1 and their heroism amidst torture and massacre has never been exceeded in human annals4 ,does this prove that the ,new ,testament is not a revelation1 and that ,jesus ,christ was not ,god8 ,men of other faiths have faced death with sublime courage4 ,does this prove that their beliefs were accurate8 ,mohammedans are notoriously ready to die for their religion2 the ,mohammedan dervishes in the ,soudan never quailed before the most murderous storm of shell and bullets2 they fell in thousands at ,omdurman1 and the ,khalifa's standard-bearer1 when all around him were slain1 stood upright under the holy flag1 with a smile of defiance on his face1 which never left it until he sank shot-riddled upon the heap of his dead comrades4 ,does this prove that the ,koran is the ,word of ,god8 ,the orthodox argument seems to be this3 if a ,christian dies for the ,bible1 that proves it to be a divine book2 if a devotee of any other faith dies for his ,sacred ,scripture4 ,that proves nothing--unless it be the obstinacy of wrong opinions4 ,there is something intensely comical in the seriousness with which ,dr4 ,farrar relates the martyrdom of ,christians who were put to death by other ,christians4 ,he does not see that all he gains on one side is lost on the other1 that ,christian persecution balances ,christian fortitude1 and that nothing is left to the credit of his account4 ,he devotes a whole page to the murder of ,margaret ,lachlan and ,margaret ,wilson by brutal and tyrannous bigots at ,wigton in #afgg4 ,these two women were ,covenanting ,christians1 and their murderers were ,episcopalian ,christians4 ,they died singing psalms which their murderers believed to be the word of ,god4 ,it is difficult to see what advantage the ,bible derives from this incident4 ,one may be interested by the reminder that ,oliver ,cromwell quoted two verses from the hundred and seventeenth ,psalm after his victory at ,dunbar2 but one may remember on one's own account that ,david ,leslie1 the defeated ,scots general1 was as devout a ,christian and ,bible-reader as ,oliver ,cromwell1 and that his piety was stimulated by the presence in his camp of a whole congregation of ,presbyterian ministers4 ,altogether it is a pity that ,dr4 ,farrar picks his illustrations in this one-eyed fashion4 ,he forgets that other people may have two eyes1 and see on both sides of them4 ,he almost invites the sarcasm that the one-eyed man is only a leader amongst the blind4 ,the real secret of whatever supremacy belongs to the ,bible is to be sought in a different direction4 ,it was long ago remarked by a ,french ,freethinker1 in a work attributed to ,boulanger1 but really written by ,d',holbach1 that education and authority were the two great pillars of the ,christian revelation4 ,if a body of men in possession of power1 and able to like advantage of the credulity of mankind1 were to find their interest concerned in doing so1 they would make men believe at the end of a few centuries that the adventures of ,don ,quixote are perfectly true1 and that the prophecies of ,nostrodamus have been inspired by ,god himself4 ,by dint of glosses1 of commentaries1 and of allegories1 it is easy to discover and to prove what one pleases2 however glaring an imposture may be1 it can be made at last1 by the aid of time1 cunning1 and power1 to pass for truth which no one must doubt4 ,deceivers who are obstinate1 and who are supported by public authority1 can make ignorant people1 who are always credulous1 believe anything1 especially if they can persuade them that there is merit in not noticing inconsistencies1 contradictions1 and palpable absurdities1 and that there is danger in making use of their reason499 99 ,examen ,critique de ,st4 ,paul1 c4 #c4 ,abolish all the ,churches that exist for the purpose of preaching up the ,bible as a divine revelation2 destroy all the clerical corporations that live and operate upon this basis2 take away1 at least1 the public revenues and special privileges they enjoy2 deprive them of the patronage of the legislature and the government2 remove their ,holy ,scriptures from the public schools1 where they are retained in defiance of the principles of civil and religious liberty2 let little children no longer be suborned in favor of the supernatural claims of this book before they are able to judge for themselves2 let the ,bible take its own chance with the rest of the world's literature2 and then1 and not till then1 can its natural supremacy be established4 ,but the clergy know that such an experiment would be absolutely fatal to their pretensions4 ,they dare not accept a fair field and no favor4 ,they know in their heart of hearts that they are serving a lie4 ,their dishonesty is apparent at every turn4 ,dr4 ,farrar calls upon ,england to cling to her open ,bible4 ,well1 the ,peculiar ,people do so4 ,they read the open ,bible1 they follow its teaching as closely as possible1 they obey the commandments of ,jesus ,christ4 ,and what is the result8 ,they are cast into prison like felons4 ,one of them is suffering that pain and indignity at the present moment4 ,a good husband1 a good father1 a good neighbor1 a good citizen1 he has committed the crime of practically believing what ,dr4 ,farrar and the rest of the clergy facetiously preach--namely1 that the ,bible is the ,book of ,god1 and the divine rule of faith and conduct4 ,for this crime he is imprisoned under the verdict of a ,christian jury and the sentence of a ,christian judge2 and not a single ,christian minister raises his voice against this infamous spectacle4 ,christianity is now only an organised hypocrisy4 ,it subsists upon an inherited fund of power1 wealth1 and reputation4 ,even the clergy have no vital belief in the inspiration of the ,bible4 ,it is merely the charter under which they trade4 ,it is a source of oracular texts for their ambiguous sermons4 ,it is lauded and adored1 and neglected and defied4 ,to bring it into disbelief and contempt by argument and ridicule is a misdemeanor2 to bring it into disbelief and contempt by acting upon it is a felony4 ,the only safe course is that adopted by the clergy1 who neither believe it nor disbelieve it1 but use it as it serves their occasions2 and as long as it answers their ends it will remain the ,book of ,god4 ,let us not be misunderstood4 ,we are far from desiring to engage in a crusade against the ,bible as a collection of ancient literature4 ,we are neither called upon nor disposed to deny its real merits1 however they are exaggerated in religious circles4 ,it undoubtedly contains some fine poetry1 occasional pathos1 and more frequent sublimity4 ,its style has nearly always the charm of simplicity4 ,all this may be allowed without playing into the hands of the super-naturalists4 ,further than this we need not go4 ,in our opinion1 it is absurd to place the ,bible at the top of human compositions4 ,more than sixty writers are alleged to have contributed to its production1 but the whole mass of them do not rival the magnificent and fecund genius of ,shakespeare4 ,above all1 they have no wit or humour1 in which ,shakespeare abounds2 and wit and humor belong to the higher development of intellect and emotion4 ,no1 the ,bible is not the unapproachable masterpiece which it is declared to be by its fanatical devotees4 ,but whatever its intrinsic merits may prove to be1 in the light of long and free appreciation1 the ,bible cannot be accepted as a revelation from ,god without wilful self-delusion on the part of educated men and women4 ,if ,god had a message for his children1 he would at least make it clear2 but this revelation needs another revelation to explain it1 and creeds and commentaries are the symbols of its obscurity4 ,god's message would tell us what we could not otherwise learn1 but there is no such information in the ,bible4 ,god would apprise us of what he specially desired us to remember1 and would not mix it confusedly with a tremendous mass of alien matter4 ,god would not puzzle us2 he would enlighten us4 ,he would make his communication so clear that a wayfaring man1 though a fool1 could understand it2 whereas1 if the ,bible be his communication1 no wayfaring man1 unless he is a fool1 pretends to understand it4 ,god would not clog his message with myths1 legends1 mysteries1 absurdities1 falsehoods1 and filth2 and leave us to extricate it with endless labor and perpetual uncertainty4 ,the so-called ,higher ,criticism is therefore as absurd as the old ,orthodoxy in calling the ,bible a work of inspiration4 ,its exponents affirm that ,god has left us to our own knowledge and reason in regard to every other subject but religion and morality4 ,they are ,evolutionists in part4 ,but the principle of ,evolution must be applied over the whole field4 ,everything is natural1 and happens under the universal law of causation4 ,there are no miracles1 and there never were any except in ignorant imaginations4 ,but the death of miracles is the death of inspiration4 ,the triumph of science involves the ruin of every supernatural system4 ,revelation is necessarily miraculous1 and when the belief in miracles expires the death-knell rings for every ,book of ,god4 ,we are then left to the discipline of culture4 ,and what is culture8 ,it is steeping our minds in the wisest and loveliest thoughts of all the ages4 ,and each of us may thus make his own ,bible for himself--a true ,bible of ,humanity4