during the fierce controversy between the divines of the protestant reformation and those of the roman catholic church, the latter asserted that the former treated the bible—and treated it quite naturally—as a wax nose, which could be twisted into any shape and direction. those who championed the living voice of god in the church, against the dead letter of the written bible, were always prone to deride the consequences of private judgment when applied to such a large and heterogeneous volume as the christian scriptures. they contended that the bible is a misleading book when read by itself in the mere light of human reason; that any doctrine may be proved from it by a judicious selection of texts; and that christianity would break up into innumerable sects unless the church acted as the inspired interpreter of the inspired revelation. they argued, further, that the bible was really not what the protestants supposed it to be; and what they said on this point was a curious anticipation of a good deal of the so-called higher criticism.
both sides were right, and both sides were wrong, in this dispute. the protestants were right against the church; the catholics were right against the bible. it was reserved for rationalism to accept and harmonise the double truth, and to wage war against both infallibilities.
the bible is said to be inspired, but the man who reads it is not. the consequence is that he deduces from it a creed in harmony with his own taste, temper, fancy, and intelligence. he lays emphasis on what fits in with this creed, and slurs over all that is opposed to it. every one of the various and conflicting protestant sects is founded upon one and the same infallible book. "the bible teaches this," says one; "the bible teaches that," says another. and they are both right. the bible does teach the doctrines of all the sects. but do they not contradict each other? they do. what is the explanation, then? why this—the bible contradicts itself.
the self-contradictions of the bible have occasioned the writing of many "harmonies," in which it is sought to be proved that all the apparent discrepancies are most admirable agreements when they are properly understood. all that is requisite is to add a word here, and subtract a word there; to regard one and the same word as having several different meanings, and several different words as having one and the same meaning; and, above all things, to apply this method with a strong and earnest desire to find harmony everywhere, and a pious intention of giving the bible the benefit of the doubt in every case of perplexity.
this sort of jugglery, which would be derided and despised in the case of any other book, is now falling into discredit. most of the clergy are ashamed of it. they frankly own, since it can no longer be denied, that a more honest art of criticism is necessary to save the bible from general contempt.
but the "harmony" game is not the only one that is played out. all the "reconciliations" of the bible with science, history, morality, and common sense, are sharing the same fate. the higher clergy leave such exhibitions of perverted ingenuity to laymen like the late mr. gladstone. divines like canon driver see that this mental tight-rope dancing may cause astonishment, but will never produce conviction. they therefore recognise the difficulties, and seek for a more subtle and plausible method of removing them. they admit that moses and darwin are at variance with each other; that a great deal of bible "history" is legendary, and some of it distinctly false; that such stories as those of lot's wife and jonah's whale are decidedly incredible; that some passages of scripture are vulgar and brutal, and others detestably inhuman; and that it is positively useless to disguise the fact. yet they are naturally anxious to keep the bible on its old pedestal; and this can only be done by means of a new theory of inspiration. accordingly, these gentlemen tell us that the bible is not the word of god, but it contains the word of god. its writers were inspired, but their own natural faculties were not entirely suppressed by the divine spirit. sometimes the writer's spirit was predominant in the combination, and the composition was mainly that of an unregenerate son of adam. at other times the divine spirit was predominant, and the result was lofty religion and pure ethics. moreover, the sacred writers were only inspired in one direction. god gave them a lift, as it were, in spiritual matters; but in science and sociology he let them blunder along as they could.
the old wax nose is now receiving a decided new twist, and a considerable number of accomplished and clever divines are engaged in manipulating it. one of them is dean farrar, who has recently published a bulky volume on the bible: its meaning and supremacy, which we shall subject to a very careful criticism.
dean farrar's book contains nothing that is new to fairly well-read sceptics. it presents the commonplaces of modern biblical criticism, with a due regard to the interests of "the grand old book" and of "true" and "fundamental" christianity, which is probably no more than the particular form of christianity that is likely to weather the present storm of controversy. but although this book contains no startling novelties, it is of importance as the work of a dignitary of the church of england. it is also of value, inasmuch as it will be read by many persons who would shrink from strauss and thomas paine. it is well that someone should tell christians the truth, if not the whole truth, about the bible, and tell it them from within the fold of faith. his motive in doing so may be less a regard for truth itself than for the immediate interests of his own church; but the main thing is that he does it, and freethinkers may be glad even if they are not grateful.
dr. farrar's book has an introduction, and we propose to examine it first. he opens by telling the clergy that they ought not to pursue an "ostrich policy" in regard to religious difficulties; that they should not indulge in "vituperative phrases," nor assume a "disdainful infallibility"; that they do wrong in denouncing as "wicked," "blasphemous," or "dangerous" every conviction which differs from their own form of orthodoxy; and that they must not expect all that they choose to assert to be "accepted with humble acquiescence." no doubt this advice is quite necessary; and the fact that it is so shows the value of christianity, after eighteen centuries of trial, as a training-school in the virtues of modesty and humility, to say nothing of justice and temperance.
the clergy are also invited by dr. farrar to recognise the general diffusion of scepticism:—
"in recent years much has been written under the assumption that christianity no longer deserves the dignity of a refutation; or that, at any rate, the bases on which it rests have been seriously undermined. the writings of freethinkers are widely disseminated among the working classes. the church of christ has lost its hold on multitudes of men in our great cities. those of the clergy who are working in the crowded centres of english life can hardly be unaware of the extent to which scepticism exists among our artizans. many of them have been persuaded to believe that the church is a hostile and organised hypocrisy."
this is a sad state of things, and how is it to be met?
not by denouncing reason as a wild beast, nor yet by relying on emotion and ceremonial, for "no religious system will be permanent which is not based on the convictions of the intellect." dr. farrar recommends a different policy. he has "frequently observed that the objections urged against christianity are aimed at dogmas which are no part of christian faith, or are in no wise essential to its integrity." even men of science have been led astray by objections "based on travesties of its real tenets." one of these false opinions is that "which maintains the supposed inerrancy and supernatural infallibility of every book, sentence, and word of the holy bible." this is the principal point to be dealt with; it is here that we must make an adjustment. nine-tenths of the case of sceptics "is made up of attacks on the bible," and the only way to answer them is to show that they misunderstand it, and that what they demolish is not christianity, but "a mummy elaborately painted in its semblance," or "a scarecrow set up in its guise."
"it is no part of the christian faith," dr. farrar says, "to maintain that every word of the bible was dictated supernaturally, or is equally valuable, or free from all error, or on the loftiest levels of morality, as finally revealed." such a view of the bible has been popularly expressed by divines, but they really did not mean it, and it "never formed any part of the catholic creed of christendom." the doctrine of everlasting punishment is another of these delusions. there is such a thing as future punishment, but it is not everlasting—it is only eternal. in the same way, the bible is the word of god, but it is not infallible—it is only inspired. and what that means we shall see as we proceed.
