dr. farrar's book has naturally given offence to the more orthodox christians. clergymen like "father" ignatius stigmatise him, and indeed all clerical exponents of the higher criticism, as wolves in sheeps' clothing, who eat the church's meat and do the work of "infidelity." we are not surprised, therefore, that some reassurance has been deemed necessary; nor astonished that it took the form of a popular announcement in the newspapers. some months ago—to be accurate, it was in september—the following paragraph went the round of the press:—

"dean farrar and the scriptures.—a correspondent called the attention of dean farrar to the fact that atheistic lecturers are in the habit of affirming that he does not believe in the bible (referring to his works as a confirmation of the statement), and observed that, if such a grave assertion were allowed to be propagated without contradiction, the young and the ignorant might be deceived by it. the dean, who is at present staying in yorkshire, replied as follows: 'the statement to which you refer is ignorant nonsense. the doctrine of the church of england about holy scripture is stated in her sixth and seventh. articles, and that doctrine i most heartily accept."

this strikes us as a rather paltry evasion. the sixth and seventh articles of the church of england do not state the full christian belief as to the bible, but only the protestant belief as against that of the church of rome. they emphasise two points, and two points only: first, that the scriptures contain all that is necessary to salvation, so that no man is at the pope's mercy for a seat in heaven; second, that fourteen books of the roman catholic bible are apocryphal, and cannot be used to establish any doctrine. the general christian view of the bible, common to catholics and protestants, is taken for granted, as it had not then been brought into controversy. there is one word in the sixth article, however, which may be commended to dr. farrar's attention. the last clause explains what is meant by "holy scripture," and runs as follows:—"in the name of the holy scripture we do understand those canonical books of the old and new testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church." now, unless dr. farrar means to juggle with the word "authority"—and we do not doubt his capacity for doing so—it is idle for him to say that he believes in the bible according to these terms. he does not believe, for instance, in the "authority" of the book of jonah; on the contrary, he believes that jonah did not write it, and that it is not history, but romance, from beginning to end. if this is believing in the bible, then atheistic lecturers believe in it as well as dr. farrar. he does not believe that jonah spent three days in a whale's belly—nor do they; he does not believe that jonah's deep-sea adventure was a prefigurement of the burial of jesus christ—nor do they; he does not believe that the jonah story is any the truer because jesus christ really or apparently believed it—nor do they; he simply believes that the story's moral is a good one, as far as it represents people who are not jews as entitled to consideration—and so do they. substantially there is not the smallest difference between them. the only discernible difference is a hypothetical one. dr. farrar claims that the book of jonah is inspired. but he also claims that everything good and true—that is, everything worth reading—is inspired. "very well then," the atheist may reply, "i agree with you still, in substance. the only point in dispute between us is whether there is a god who interferes with the natural course of things, either in the external world or in the human mind. but on your definition of the word inspired, this makes no particular difference to any one book or collection of books. and unless you alter (and narrow) your theory of inspiration, our difference begins outside, not inside, the library—and is, in brief, not practical, but metaphysical."

but let us return to dr. farrar's method of proving his sufficient orthodoxy; and let us tell him that if he will only pursue it far enough, he may get rid of the bible altogether.

suppose we take pearson's classic exposition of the creed, and open it at his address "to the reader." in the second paragraph he writes as follows:—"the creed, without controversy, is a brief comprehension of the objects of our christian faith, and is generally taken to contain all things necessary to be believed." now this creed does not mention the bible at all. a heathen might read it, and never infer from it that there was such a thing as the scriptures in existence. what then is to prevent dr. farrar, or some more audacious clergyman, from saying that he does not believe in the bible, as it is nowhere laid down as necessary to be believed; but that his orthodoxy is nevertheless unimpeachable, because he "most heartily accepts" the catholic and apostolic creed which is "without controversy" an accurate compendium of the christian faith, and which, being prescribed in the prayer book, is of course binding—and is alone binding—on every loyal son of the church of england?

dr. farrar claims, as a clergyman, what he calls a "christian liberty" in dealing with the bible; although, if god has indeed spoken in the bible, it is difficult to see what liberty a christian can have but that of absolute belief and obedience. in a lengthy footnote of his volume which we have been criticising, he refers to the famous "essays and reviews case," and the decisions of the judges in the court of arches and in the privy council. dr. lushington laid it down that: "provided the articles and formularies are not contravened, the law lays down no limits of construction, no rule of interpretation, of the scriptures." lord westbury declared that the sixth article of the church of england was based upon "the revelations of the holy spirit," and therefore the bible might be denominated "holy" and be said to be "the word of god"; but this was not "distinctly predicated of every statement and representation contained in every part of the old and new testaments." "the framers of the articles," lord westbury added, "have not used the word 'inspiration' as applied to the holy scriptures, nor have they laid down anything as to the nature, extent, or limits of that operation of the holy spirit."

according to this sapient judgment, which perhaps is very good law, and covers all possible developments of the higher criticism, every member of the church of england is bound to regard the bible as containing "the revelations of the holy spirit," but is not bound to regard it as a work of "inspiration." a judge, with his legal spectacles on, is notoriously able to discriminate subtleties where laymen see only what is plain; and clergymen may take advantage of his preternatural sagacity, without being able in the long run to impose upon the common sense of the people, who will always look upon "revelation" and "inspiration" as interchangeable terms.

it is quite natural that dr. farrar should wish to get rid of this word "inspiration," since it can no longer be defined without danger. but we must remind him that, if it does not occur in the church articles, it certainly does occur in the bible. "all scripture," paul said, "is given by inspiration of god."*

* timothy iii. 16.

and as the new testament was not then in existence, paul of course referred to the old testament. this was the "holy scriptures" which timothy had "known from a child." and peter is, if possible, more definite than paul. he speaks of the "more sure word of prophecy," surer than the very voice heard by the three disciples on the mount of transfiguration. this "prophecy of the scripture" he declares to be never of "any private interpretation"—which means, according to the commentators, that it did not spring from any knowledge or personal conjecture in the prophet. finally, he clinches his exposition by affirming that "holy men of god spake as they were moved by the holy ghost."*

* 2 peter i. 19-21. we quote this epistle as peter's,

because it passes as his in the new testament, not because

it was really his writing.

according to the sixth article of the church of england, both these epistles, bearing the names of paul and peter, are among the books "of whose authority was never any doubt in the church." dr. farrar is therefore bound by them in logic and honor. he is not free to cast aside the biblical term of inspiration nor free to minimise as he pleases the "moving" influence of the holy ghost in either the new or the old testament. as a clergyman of the church of england, he assumes an unwarrantable freedom; a freedom which is no more sanctioned by her articles than it is by the letter or spirit of the scriptures. he departs entirely from the primitive and real position of protestantism; namely, that the bible is the absolute standard of faith and practice, and that, wherever it is dark or dubious, it must be interpreted by itself. he treads the via media of compromise and irrationality; neither going over to rome, which claims to be inspired, like the bible, and to be the vehicle of the living voice of god for the infallible interpretation of the written revelation—nor going over to rationalism, which regards the catholic church as but a human institution, and the bible as but a human composition. believe that god has spoken, according to the words of paul and peter, and the catholic theory is the only satisfactory one; disbelieve it, and there is no logical alternative but the most thoroughgoing rationalism.