Modern Skepticism: A Journey Through the Land of Doubt and Back Again Part 16

'There are a mult.i.tude of minute, and on the whole, as respects the substance of truth, not important questions and topics, which, like a fastened door, refuse to be opened by any key which learning has brought to them. It is better to let them stand closed than, like impatient mastiffs, after long barking in vain, to lie whining at the door, unable to enter, and unwilling to go away. _Life of Jesus, pp. 77-81._

The Rev. G. Rawlinson, in an able lecture in defence of the Bible, published by the CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY of London, acknowledges that there are matters of uncertainty in some parts of the Old Testament history, and says, 'The time allowed by the common version of the Bible for all the events which took place from the days of Noah, to the birth of Christ, and for all the changes by which the various races of men were formed, by which civilization and the arts were developed, etc., is less than 2,600 years. Now this is quite insufficient. How is this difficulty to be met? We answer; a special uncertainty attaches to the numbers in this case. They are given differently in the different ancient versions. The Samaritan version extends the time 650 years. The Septuagint extends it eight or nine hundred years. If more time still be thought wanting for the development of government, art, science, language, diversities of races, etc., I should not be afraid to grant that the original record of Scripture on this point may have been lost, and that the true chronology cannot now be ascertained. Nothing in ancient ma.n.u.scripts is so liable to corruption as the numbers. The original mode of writing them was by signs not very different from one another, and thus it happens that in almost all ancient works, the numbers are found to be deserving of very little reliance.'

But the errors and uncertainty with regard to numbers amount to nothing.

They do not affect the Bible as the great religious instructor of the world.

The sun has its spots, dark ones and large ones too; and the face of the moon is not all of equal brightness; but are the sun and the moon less useful on that account? Do they not answer the ends for which they were made, and are not those ends the most important and desirable imaginable? Cavillers might say, if the sun and moon were made to be lights of the earth, why are they not _all_ light, and why is not their light of the greatest brilliancy possible? But we too have a right to ask, Do they not give us light enough? And is not their light as brilliant as is desirable? Will the caviller prove that the sun and moon would be greater blessings if their light wore more intense, or more abundant? Men may have too much light as well as too little. If light exceeds a certain degree of intensity, it dazzles and blinds instead of enlightening. It is well to have a little warmth, but if the heat be increased beyond a certain point, it burns and consumes, instead of comforting and cheering.

The disposition of the caviller is anything but enviable, and if G.o.d were to take him at his word, his lot would be anything but comfortable.

Happy are they who accept G.o.d's gifts as He presents them, with thankfulness, and use them in His service faithfully, rejoicing and trusting in His infinite wisdom and love.

What a man wants in a book are instruction, impulse, strength, correction, regeneration, consolation, lessons fit to furnish him to every good work, something to give pleasure, supply exercise for his intellect, conscience, affections: and the Bible is all.

If G.o.d may employ an imperfect and fallible man to preach for him, allowing a portion of his imperfections to mingle with his message, why might He not employ an imperfect and fallible man to write for Him, allowing a portion of his imperfections to mingle with his writing?

The following is from the BISHOP OF LONDON.

'The vindication of the supernatural and authoritative character of the Bible has too often been embarra.s.sed by speculative theories not authorized by the statements of the Bible itself.'

'It is no reply to the essential claims of the Bible to be a supernatural revelation from G.o.d, to show that certain speculative theories concerning the manner and degree of its inspiration are untenable.'

From whose works the following quotation is made, we do not remember.

'The watchword of the Reformation was, 'The sufficiency of the Scriptures for salvation.'

'Definite theories of inspiration were seldom propounded till of late years.

'The Bible is a revelation of spiritual truth communicated chiefly in ill.u.s.trations and figurative language, and making use of the history, chronology, and other sciences of the age, as vehicles or helps. This principle will explain those seeming contradictions [to science] which result from the use of popular language, as when the sun and moon are said to stand still, or when the sun is said to go from one end of the heaven to the other, etc. It will also account for many actual errors in science, chronology, and history, should such be found to exist. The Scriptures were not intended to teach men these things, but to reveal what relates to our connection with moral law, and the spiritual world, and our salvation. In teaching these things, the writers availed themselves of the _popular_ language, and the current science and literature of the age in which they lived. As in the present day a man may be well instructed in Christian doctrine, and have the unction from the Holy One, while ignorant of the teachings of modern science, so likewise it was possible to those who first received religious truth and were commissioned to declare it. The presence of the Holy Spirit no more preserved men from errors in science in the one case than in the other.

One may as well seek to study surveying in a biography of Was.h.i.+ngton, as the details of geology or chronology in Genesis.

'The proper test to apply to the Gospels is, whether each gives us a picture of the life and ministry of Jesus that is self-consistent and consistent with the others; such as would be suitable to the use of believers.

'Many of the apparent contradictions of the Bible may be explained by the mistakes of transcribers, or in some other way equally natural; but, as the Bishop of London has well remarked, 'When laborious ingenuity has exerted itself to collect a whole store of such difficulties, supposing them to be real, what on earth does it signify? They may be left quietly to float away without our being able to solve them, if we bear in mind the acknowledged fact, that there is a human element in the Bible.'

'What if many of the numbers given in Exodus should, as Bishop Colenso a.s.serts, be inaccurate? What is to be gained by a.s.sertions or denials relative to matters which have for ever pa.s.sed out of the reach of our verification? And what if, here and there, a law should seem to us strange and unaccountable; an event difficult to comprehend; a statement to involve an apparent contradiction? What has all this to do with the essential _value_ of the Book. Absolutely nothing, unless thereby its [honesty] truthfulness can be set aside.

'If error were _cunningly interspersed_ with truth in the Bible, the case would be different. But it is _not_ so. The Book, as a whole, and as it stands, is wholesome and useful; each portion of it has its proper place, and is adequate to fulfil its appointed end. But everything in the Book does not take hold alike on the heart and conscience. It may be very interesting, as indeed it is, to trace on the map the various journeyings of St. Paul, or the wanderings of the children of Israel in the wilderness; to note a hundred designed coincidences, etc. Yet all this may be done without the slightest moral or spiritual benefit to the man who does it. And, of course, all this may be left undone by others without the slightest spiritual loss or disadvantage.'

The following may be our own.

The great thing is to use the Scriptures as a means of instruction in religious truth and Christian duty, and as a means of improvement in all moral excellence and Christian usefulness.

Set the doctrine of Scripture inspiration too high, and people, finding that the Scriptures do not come up to it, will conclude that the doctrine is false,--that the Scriptures are not inspired,--that they do not differ from other books,--that divine revelation is a fiction,--that religion is a delusion,--and that the true philosophy of life and of the universe is infidelity. And the Scriptures do _not_ come up to the doctrine of inspiration held by many. It is impossible they should. _No_ book written in human language _can_ come up to it. What they say an inspired book _must_ be, no book on earth ever was, and no book ever will be. And infidels see it, and are confirmed in their infidelity. And others see it and become infidels. And Christians argue with them and are overcome. And others are perplexed and bewildered, and obliged to close their eyes to facts, and though they cling to their belief, they are troubled with fears and misgivings as long as they live.

If men would be strong in the faith, and strong in its defence, they should accept nothing as part of their creed but what is strictly true.

There are pa.s.sages which speak of the sun smiting men by day, and there is one at least which speaks of the moon smiting men by night, and both, for any thing I know, may be literally true. But suppose it were proved that neither the sun nor the moon ever smites men, would my faith in Christianity, or in the divine inspiration of the Bible, be shaken thereby? Not at all. Nor would it destroy or weaken the effect of the pa.s.sages on my mind in which those allusions to the sun and moon occur.

I should still believe in the substantial truth of the pa.s.sages, namely, that, day and night, the good man is secure under the protection of G.o.d.

A man says that he has lately been under 'disastrous influences.'

Literally, the words disastrous influences mean the influences of unfriendly stars. But there are no unfriendly stars. Then why does he use such an expression? Because, though it does not now in its current meaning refer to the stars at all, it means calamitous, unfavorable, influences. I do not believe that the sun like a strong man runs a race: I believe its motion is only apparent,--that the _real_ motion is in the earth. But do I therefore question the divine inspiration of the Bible which uses that expression? Not at all; for the words are substantially true. And so in a hundred other cases.

And so in pa.s.sages of other kinds. It does not matter to me whether the account of creation in Genesis answers literally to the real processes revealed by Geology, or whether the account of the flood answers exactly to past facts. Both accounts are perfect as lessons of divine truth and duty, and that is enough.

Those who undertake to prove that every pa.s.sage of the Bible is literally true, must fail. If they _were_ all literally true, they would never have done. There are more difficult pa.s.sages, and more apparent little contradictions, than any man could go through in a life-time. I would no more undertake such a task than I would undertake to prove that every leaf, and every flower, and every seed, of every plant on earth is perfect, and that each is exactly like its fellows. G.o.d's honor and man's welfare are as much concerned in the one as in the other. They are concerned in neither. The leaves, the flowers, and the seeds of plants are right enough,--they are as perfect as they need to be,--and I ask no more. And the Bible is as perfect as it needs to be, and I am satisfied.

The following is abridged from a work ent.i.tled CHRISTIANITY AND OUR ERA, by the Rev. G. Gilfillan of Scotland.

Mr. Gilfillan speaks of it as a 'Generally admitted fact, that there is a human, as well as a divine element in Scripture,' and adds, 'that this should modify our judgment in considering perplexing discrepancies and minor objections. There are spots in the sun; there are bogs on the earth; and why should the perplexities in a book, which is a multifarious collection of poetico-theological and historical tracts, written in various ages, and subject, in their history, to many human vicissitudes, bewilder and appal us? The candid inquirer will be satisfied if, from the unity of spirit, the truth and simplicity of manner, the majesty of thought, the heavenliness of tone, and the various collateral and external proofs, he gathers a _general_ inspiration in the Bible, and the general truth of Christianity. Logical strictness, perfect historic accuracy, systematic arrangement, etc., could not be expected in a book of intuitions and bursts of inspiration; the authors of which seemed often the child-like organs of the power within. It seemed enough that there should be no wilful mis-statements, and no errors but those arising from the inevitable conditions to which all writings are liable. The skeptic who proceeds to peruse the Bible, expecting it everywhere to be conformable to the highest ideal standard--that there shall be nothing to perplex his understanding, to try his belief, or to offend his taste, will be disappointed, and will either give up his task, or go on in weariness and hesitation. On the other hand, if he be told to prepare for historical discrepancies, for staggering statements, for phrases more plain than elegant, and for sentences of inscrutable darkness, he will be far more likely to come to a satisfactory conclusion. And the apparent dark spots will only serve to increase the surrounding splendor. We therefore cry to the skeptic who purposes to explore the region of revelation; 'We promise you no pavement of gold; you will find your path an Alpine road, steep, rugged, with profound chasms below, and giddy precipices above, and thick mists often closing in around, but rewarding you by prospects of ineffable loveliness, by gleams of far-revealing light, and delighting you with a thousand unearthly pleasures. _Try_ this pa.s.s, with a sincere desire to come at truth, and with hope and courage in your hearts, and you will be richly rewarded, and the toils of the ascent will seem to you afterwards only a portion of your triumph.'

One writer gives the following definition of inspiration. 'A supernatural, divine influence on the sacred writers, by which they were qualified to communicate moral and religious truth with authority.'

This is tolerable.

Another writer says, 'It is a miraculous influence, by which men are enabled to receive and communicate divine truth.'

This too is tolerable, notwithstanding the word miraculous.

Another writer says, 'There has been a great diversity of opinions among the best men of all ages, as to the nature and extent of Bible inspiration.'

He might have added, that these opinions have generally been nothing more than opinions,--mere fancies, theories, framed without regard to facts.

Another writer says, 'It should be remembered, that the inspiration which breathes through the Book is not of a scientific, critical, or historical character, but exclusively religious.'

He means, that while inspiration makes the Bible all that is desirable as a teacher on religious matters, it does not, on other subjects, raise it above the views of the ages and places in which it was written. For he adds, 'The sacred record is not in every respect faultless. It is not free from literary, typographical, and other defects. Nature herself, where no one can deny the finger of G.o.d, has imperfections. The Book presents the same characteristics as the best and highest of G.o.d's other gifts, namely, not the outward symmetry of a finite and mechanical perfection, but the inward, elastic, and reproductive power of a divine life!'

The meaning of this latter vague and wordy sentence seems to be, that the inspiration of the Bible is such as to make it a powerful means of producing spiritual life,--real religion; but not such as to preserve it from little ordinary human errors and imperfections.

This writer represents Dr. Stowe as saying, 'Inspiration, according to the Bible, is just that measure of extraordinary Divine influence afforded to the sacred speakers and writers, which was necessary to secure the purpose intended, and no more.'

This too we can accept. It does not authorize us to expect of the Bible, or require us to prove with regard to it, any thing more, than that it is adapted to be the religious and moral instructor of mankind.

This same writer represents Dr. Robinson as saying, 'Whenever, and as far as, divine a.s.sistance was necessary, it was always afforded.' This too is tolerable.

One writer says, 'Divine inspiration cannot be claimed for the transcribers or translators of the original Scriptures.'

We think it can. We see no reason to doubt, but that many of the transcribers and translators of the Scriptures were as much under the influence of the Holy Spirit,--the spirit of love, and truth, and all goodness,--as the original writers. Our impression is, that the common version is as truly the work of divine inspiration, as any book on earth.

One writer says, 'The language of the whole Bible is that of appearances. In drawing ill.u.s.trations from nature, the writers could not have been understood, unless they had used figures and forms of speech based on nature as popularly understood. Hence the heavenly bodies are spoken of as revolving round the earth, the ant as storing up food in summer, and the earth as being immovable, all of which are now known to be contrary to [strict] truth.'

This writer, like some others, feeling as if he had gone too far in uttering words so true, contradicts them a few pages after, and makes a number of statements which remind one of what the Apostle says, about handling the word of G.o.d deceitfully. One would be tempted to charge him with 'cunning craftiness,' only his craft is not very cunning. When religious teachers act so unfaithfully, they have no right to complain if people lose all confidence in their honesty.

We grant, however, that the temptation to keep back the truth on this point is very strong, and we must not be hard on the timid ones. It is not always a fear of personal loss or suffering that keeps men from speaking freely on religious subjects, but a dread of lessening their usefulness, of hurting the minds of good though mistaken people, or of disturbing and injuring the Church.

But it is no use trying to cheat unbelievers. You cannot do it. They will find you out, and be all the more suspicious and skeptical in consequence. We must deal with them honestly; tell them nothing but what is true, and use no arguments but what are sound and unanswerable.

Advocates of Christianity have made numberless unbelievers by teaching erroneous doctrines, and by using weak and vicious arguments. The Christian should so speak and act, that it shall be impossible for any one ever to find him in the wrong.

The following is probably our own.