the higher criticism, as expounded by dr. farrar, admits nearly all the bible difficulties that have been advanced by "infidels." let us recapitulate the most important. the bible is hopelessly at variance with science. it sometimes contradicts well-established history. many of its stories, taken literally, are obviously absurd. some of the actions it records with apparent approval are wicked or disgusting. a good deal of its language sins against common decency. several books were not written by the authors whose names they bear. others are, and must for ever remain, anonymous. the dates of composition of the various books are not what has been generally supposed. occasionally the true chronology differs from the received chronology by many centuries. to the great majority of readers the bible has never been known, and never can be known, except in translations. no translation can possibly be perfect. every translation of the bible is known to contain grave and numerous errors. even in the original hebrew and greek manuscripts there are thousands of various readings. in some cases the text is uncertain, in some cases interpolated, and in others irrecoverably impaired. the vowel points by which hebrew is now read are demonstrably a modern invention. even the discourses of jesus christ, in the new testament, are not reported with accuracy. the new testament writers seldom quote from the old testament exactly, but generally rely upon the greek translation called the septuagint.
sometimes they quote passages which are not in scripture at all. "out of 288 passages quoted from the old testament in the new," says dr. farrar, "there are but 53 which agree accurately with the original hebrew. in 76 the new testament differs both from the greek and the hebrew; and in 99 the new testament, the greek, and the hebrew are all variant."
on the face of it, then, the bible is doomed. a book of which all these things can be said, without the slightest fear of contradiction, must sooner or later be dropped as the word of god. it will be recognised as a human composition.
meanwhile, those who live by the bible, and are professionally interested in its "supremacy," as dr. farrar calls it, cast about a for means of giving it a fresh reputation. the old conception of it is fatally discredited; a new one may give it a fresh lease of life.
evidently there is only one direction open to the theological trimmers. they must start another theory of inspiration—one that will conserve the "sacred" character of the bible in spite of every difficulty that has been, or can be discovered.
the bible is no longer to be called the word of god. ruskin says, and dr. farrar seems to quote it approvingly, that "it is a grave heresy (or wilful source of division) to call any book, or collection of books, the word of god." ten pages later, however, we are told that the bible, as a whole, may be spoken of as the word of god, because it "contains words and messages of god to the human soul." this word "contains" is the magical spell by which dr. farrar seeks to dissipate all difficulties. he finds the expression in the church articles, in the book of homilies, and in the shorter catechism. but in order to see how illegitimate is dr. farrar's use of these authorities, let us take his extract from the last of them: "the word of god which is contained in the scriptures of the old and new testament is the only rule to direct us how we may enjoy and glorify him." is it not clear that the word "contained" is used here in its primary meaning? did not the writers mean that the word of god is included or comprehended in the old and new testament only, and is not to be found elsewhere? would they not have been shocked to hear a clergyman of the church of england say that some parts of the bible were not the word of god? if so, their use of the word "contain" lends no countenance to the use made of it by dr. farrar. and is it not a shallow trick upon our intelligence to argue that different persons, using the same word, necessarily mean the same thing? words are the money of fools, as hobbes said, but only the counters of wise men. we must get at the actual value of the thing which is symbolised. and the moment we do this, we see that dr. farrar's theory of the word of god is not the same as that of the gentlemen who drew up the shorter catechism. they would indeed have laughed at his "contains," and excommunicated and imprisoned him, and perhaps burnt him at the stake. it is not by torturing one poor word ten thousand ways that such wide differences can be reconciled.
passing by this ridiculous legerdemain, let us take dr. farrar's theory for what it is worth. the bible contains the word of god. but how are we to find it? what is the criterion by which we are to separate god's word from man's word? dr. farrar bids us use "the ordinary means of criticism and spiritual discernment." but such a vague generality is nothing but verbiage. what we want is the criterion. now the nearest approach to it in all dr. farrar's pages is the following:—
"is it not a plain and simple rule that anything in the bible which teaches, or is misinterpreted to teach, anything which is not in accordance with the love, the gentleness, the truthfulness of christ's gospel, is not god's word to us, however clearly it stands on the page of scripture?"
this is at best a negative criterion; and, on close examination, it turns out to be no criterion at all. the criterion, to be valid, must be external to the book itself. dr. farrar's criterion is internal. he picks out one part of the bible as the standard for judging all the rest. this is entirely arbitrary. moreover, it would soon be found impossible in practice. dr. farrar's criterion may be "plain," but it is not so "simple," except in the uncomplimentary sense of the word. for "christ's gospel," by which the rest of the bible is to be tried, is itself a very composite and self-contradictory thing. further, if all that agrees with christ's gospel is the word of god, is it not superfluous as being a mere repetition? dr. farrar would therefore bring the actual, valid word of god within the compass of the four gospels; dismissing all the rest, like the arabian caliph who commanded a whole library to be burnt on the ground that if the books differed from the koran they were pernicious, and if they agreed with it they were useless. nor is this all. dr. farrar admits that the discourses of jesus christ are not reported with accuracy. therefore, having made the gospels the criterion of the word of god in the rest of the bible, he would be obliged to select some special passages as the criterion of the word of god in the rest of the gospels. this is what shakespeare would call a world-without-end process.
candidly, it seems to us that if the bible is not the word of god, but only contains the word of god—that is to say, if it is partly god's word and partly man's word—the clergy of all denominations should unite in publishing a bible with the divine and human parts clearly specified by being printed in different types. and surely, if the bible is in any sense inspired, it should be possible, by a new and final act of inspiration, to settle this distinction for ever.
allowing the clergy to meditate this holy enterprise, we proceed to consider dr. farrar's theory of inspiration. of course he discards the old theory of verbal dictation; indeed, he calls it "irreverent," because it attributes to god what modern men of intelligence and good manners would be ashamed to own. he even quarrels with the very term inspiration as "vague," and says it would be "a boon if some less ambiguous word could be adopted." four theories, he says, have been entertained in the christian church. the first is the mechanical theory, which implies that the holy ghost dictated, and the inspired penmen were merely his amanuenses. the second is the dynamic, which recognises "the indefeasible guidance of the holy spirit." the third is that of illumination, which confines the divine guidance to matters of faith and doctrine. the fourth is that of general inspiration, which regards the holy spirit as influencing the writers in the same way as it influences "other noble and holy souls." this fourth theory is the one which dr. farrar himself affects. every pure and sweet influence upon the human soul, he says, is a heavenly inspiration. we owe to it "all that is best and greatest in philosophy, eloquence, and song." haydn said of his grandest chorus in the "creation": "not from me but from above it all has come!" "there is inspiration," says dr. farrar, "whenever the spirit of god makes itself heard in the heart of man." apparently—for we can never be quite sure of dr. farrar—the only superiority of the bible lies in the fact that "the voice of god" speaks to us "far more intensely" out of it than out of "any [other?] form of human speech."
such a theory of inspiration is too vague and universal. sooner than give up inspiration altogether dr. farrar is prepared to share it all round. but is not proving too much as bad as proving too little? if the bible is only inspired—where it is inspired—in the same sense as other books are inspired; if the difference is not one of kind, but simply of degree; then it is really idle to talk about its inspiration any longer. the word inspiration loses all its original meaning. it becomes a poetical expression, implying nothing supernatural, but merely the exaltation of natural powers and faculties. god is then behind the bible only as god is behind everything; and christianity, ceasing to be a special revelation, becomes only a certain form of theism.
this loose theory of general inspiration will doubtless serve the present turn of the clergy, who have to face a general and growing dissatisfaction with the bible. but it cannot live very long in a scientific age. it will be found out in time, like all the bible theories that preceded it. the first protestant dogma was the infallibility of scripture. that was exploded by modern science and textual criticism. then came the dogma of plenary inspiration, which had a comparatively short-lived existence, as it was only the old dogma of infallibility in disguise. next came the dogma of illumination, which may be said to have begun with coleridge and ended with maurice. finally, we have the dogma of general inspiration, which began nowhere and ends nowhere, which means anything or nothing, and which is a sort of "heads we win, tails you lose" theory in the hands of the clever expounders of the higher criticism.
behind the last, as well as the first, of all these theories of inspiration stands the fatal objection of thomas paine, that inspiration, to be real, must be personal. a man may be sure that god speaks to him, but how can he be sure that god has spoken to another man? he may think it possible or probable, but he can never be certain. what is revelation at first-hand, said paine, is only hearsay at second-hand. real inspiration, therefore, eventuates in mysticism. the inner light shines, the inner voice speaks; god holds personal communication with the individual soul. each believer carries what the author of hudibras calls "the dark lanthorn of the spirit," which "none see by but those who bear it." and the very multiplicity and diversity of the oracle's deliverances are a proof that in all of them man is speaking to himself. he questions his gods, and hears only the echo of his own voice.
