Chapter 1 - The Scripture as a Source of Knowledge

Our method at least is a very simple one. It is to appeal to
Scripture freely, and in the first place, seeking to use it according
to its full value, in faith that it has the highest possible value; in
short, that upon whatever it may speak, it will give us, as the Word of
God must, truth without any mixture of error, truth that will bear the
utmost scrutiny, and stand every possible test. It would be a grand
thing, would it not, to have such a standard of appeal, if it could
only be proved that we have such! Yes, indeed, if it could be proved!
But has not Prof. Drummond told us, "The old ground of faith,
authority, is given up"? And is not this appeal considered by many as
only the refuge of weakness, a credulity which stultifies reason, and
would stop the onward march of scientific achievement, even if it did
not put Galileo once more into the hands of the inquisitors, and burn
Giordano Bruno at the stake? Of the last, there is perhaps no immediate
danger; but it is plain that, in opposition to the modern one, with all
its glory of brilliant discovery upon it, the method we are to pursue
will seem antiquated, worn out, with none of the vital energy of youth
in it, and one which has been losing ground for long continually in its
conflict with the scientific - "extinguished theologians" so it has
been told us "lying about the cradle of every science as the strangled
snakes beside that of Hercules." Happily for the theologians, it is
generally found that the precocious infants get to be of milder manners
after they have left the cradle, or no doubt the race would be extinct.

Is the old ground of faith, authority, given up? And have
people learnt, with Prof. Huxley, for justification by faith to
substitute justification by verification? Then, if the verification is
meant to be, as of course it should be, personal, it will go hard with
much that we have counted knowledge. How many have verified for
themselves the leading facts and principles of any one of the sciences?
And if, as Mr. Lewes says, and as we all know, "the psychological law
that we only see what interests us, and only assimilate what is adapted
to our condition, causes the mind to select its evidence," then what
hope is there of attaining truth by means of evidence gathered in this
way by those for whose power to see aright it is wholly impossible to
answer?

Says St. George Mivart: -
"Believers have been warned,
usque ad nauseam, that a wish to believe vitiates all their arguments.
But what weight can we attach to conclusions such as those, e.g., of
Prof. Huxley, who tells us, with regard to the doctrine of Evolution,
the position of complete and irreconcilable opposition which in his
opinion it occupies to the Church is 'one of its greatest merits in my
eyes.' A similar, though less striking, theological prejudice is also
exhibited by Mr. Darwin himself. He tells us himself, in his 'Descent
of Man,' that in his 'Origin of Species' his first object was 'to show
that species had not been separately created;' and he consoles himself
for admitted error by the reflection that 'I have at least, as I hope,
done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate
creations.' "

If others, then, are to verify for us what certainly we cannot
all verify for ourselves, what is this but the bringing back again of
"authority" for the mass, and the establishment of a board of directors
only instead of Scripture, - Huxley and Darwin instead of Peter and
Paul? But why, then, the refusal on the one hand of what they contend
for on the other? Is it even sincere? Nay, does not the special use of
this doctrine of verification appear as something "one of whose
greatest merits" is that it shuts off even inquiry about heaven or hell
or a future life, things which, in the way contended for, nobody can
verify?

Every one that cares may know that Prof. Huxley puts inquiries
of this kind on the same level with "lunar politics," and that to make
the little corner of the world in which one lives a little less
miserable and ignorant, as his duty is, "it is necessary to be fully
possessed of only two beliefs: the first, that the order of nature is
ascertainable by our faculties to an extent which is practically
unlimited; the second, that our volition counts for something as a
condition of the cause of events. Each of these beliefs," he says, "can
be verified experimentally, as often as we like to try." Beyond ibis,
he conceives we have but the Maya of the Buddhist - illusion. And a
writer in the Westminster Review generalizes this as the conviction of
the scientific man, of whom he says, "Above all things, he is silent in
the presence of truths (or falsehoods) which he has ascertained to be
beyond his reach. And he commands equally, in respect of these, silence
on all others of mankind."

Thus it is very clear how a board
of such directors would extinguish the theologians. And the very
ignorance as to all that it imports man most to know, and of what in
general he craves most to know, that very ignorance which pleads so
strongly for the need (and so the fact) of revelation, is made the
all-sufficient argument against it. The learned scientists of the
agnostic school - in plain English, the school of ignorance - know, by
reason of their own ignorance, that while all other instincts are
provided for, this one, as strong as any, has and can have no provision
made for it. And the One whom they have decreed to be the Unknowable,
by that very decree they declare they know so well as to know that He
cannot (or will not) reveal Himself to man! For if He be the Unknown,
they cannot even pronounce Him the Unknowable; and if He is not the
Unknown, then the Unknowable He cannot be.

But are faith and
verification really, then, so far asunder? Is there no possibility of
reconciliation between the two? Must the most absolute faith even be
credulity, or can there be no verification of authority itself, so as
to justify the simplest faith in it? How, then, are we to verify the
board of directors, though indeed we are ready to confess that an
enigma most insoluble to the most thinking man? But in the case of
revelation, if it be possible to verify this as the word of God, will
any one say that God is to be trusted only so far as we can verify His
word as true, - that is, not so much as one would trust a man of the
most ordinary repute for veracity?

Scripture does surely not
refuse to submit itself (in this manner) to verification, - nay, it
appeals to it. Who can be so credulous as to believe that it requires
"blind" faith, or would be honoured by it, who that has ever read it -
aye, and who that knows whereof he speaks would dare to affirm that its
principal proof even is (according to Mr. Huxley's sneer,) that its
"verity is testified by portents and wonders," when its solemn
attestation is, that if men "believe not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead"?

Scripture
itself is in fact one of the very greatest "portents and wonders" to
those who will give it that patient and reverent examination which its
claim demands. And for this it offers itself, not merely to the trained
man of science, or to the man with abundant means and leisure to
investigate. Its gospel is preached to the poor. Like the light which
is its emblem, it shines as directly down upon the rustic as on the
philosopher. "Light is come into the world," says He who brought it.
And the conviction of. light is something simple and immediate for
those who have eyes to see. It is not the result of a long process of
reasoning, where the chain is no stronger than its weakest link, but of
a true verification, by the illumination of what it shines on: "that
which doth make manifest is light." (Eph. v. 13.)

Grant this,
and who will protest against its authority, or deny its absoluteness?
Is not light for the man of science, as for the peasant, authoritative?
And here is that in which men of all colour, caste, and social standing
rejoice together. Light, true and beneficent autocrat as it is, is at
the same time - the greatest leveller: one of those free gifts of God
which in their common diffusion would proclaim all men His offspring;
one of those silent witnesses against the pretension of agnostic
imbecility which, as it proclaims darkness to be light, would quench
the true light in darkness. How thankful beyond expression may we be to
escape the board of directors, and receive our light from heaven rather
than from the "Sufficient Number of Competent Observers" Gas Company
advertised by Prof. Drummond! Yes, note it, ye natural observers, ye
disciples of physical science, here is a law of nature, something in
which we "stand face to face with truth, solid and unchangeable," a
veritable "spiritual law in the natural world" - all the light of the
world is from heaven.

Test it, as much as you will; put it to
use, and it will light up every thing it shines on. Do not fear that it
will leave you timidly groping in the dark, still less put out your
eyes that you may see the better. There never was a book more fully
submitting itself to investigation, never a book that so looked you in
the face while speaking to you, never one with the marks upon it of
such absolute truthfulness. Simply and unadulterated, the priestcraft
with which men would confound it dares not use it for its evil
purposes. -The man who does use it truly and reverently may be trusted
as true and reverent. Mark out on your map of the world the regions of
what even the agnostic would call the fullest light, and you will mark
out the regions of an open Bible. And this is mere trite commonplace,
thank God: that is to say, every one is witness that the light shines!

We
are not, however, studying Scripture evidences: we are merely pointing
out their nature. The evidence will come when we have to show the light
that Scripture throws upon nature. But it is wise to move step by step
here, planting each firmly before we take another. Every step is
contested, not only from without, but, alas, also from within
professing Christianity itself; and to move surely we must move slowly.
Nature is above all that which many professed believers are yet very
chary in admitting to be even very accurately represented in Scripture,
and if so, of course we need not expect any light upon it from this
source. The man of science is met half-way by the concessions of the
theologian, who thinks to save the centre of his battle by handing over
his right wing to the enemy. No wonder if even an infant science should
"extinguish" such defenders. We would gladly aid it even to accomplish
this, assured that it would be an immense good if Christians were made
to realize the only possible conditions of successful conflict. By all
means let Hercules extinguish the "snakes," though that is Huxley's
comparison, not ours, for we do not in the least insinuate falsehood or
treachery in the men who do this, although it is certain they are
playing Satan's game.

What is it to attribute inaccuracy to Scripture, but to say we
must no longer speak of it as the Word of God? Satan "is a liar, and
the father of it." God is no more "a man that He should lie," than He
is "the son of man, that He should repent." And this applies equally to
all subjects He could no more give me false physics than false
arguments - untrue statements as to sun or moon or firmament, than as
to Christ or to salvation Once admit a possibility of error, though it
be infinitesimal, it must shake conviction as to the whole. And the
Lord Himself puts His reliability as a Teacher precisely on this
ground. "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how
shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?" Take away the truth
of Scripture in matters in which it can be tested, how shall we
accredit it in those where it cannot be tested? "He that is faithful in
that which is least is faithful also in much; and he that is unjust in
the least is unjust also in much." Such are the moral principles of the
Author of Christianity; and by these we are entirely willing that it
should be judged. For with the Word of God what may be pleaded for man
may not be pleaded. Man is fallible and ignorant, where yet he may be
honest and true; but we cannot plead a mistake of the Omniscient, and
call him who makes the mistake omniscient any longer.

Of
course it will be said that. all this depends upon certain views of
inspiration, and (some will think) views in our day sufficiently
disproved. It pleased God to take up men as instruments to declare His
truth, and inspiration guarded them at most only with regard to their
special subject. It did not make them competent as men of science, or
in ways irrelevant to this. And as to the last, it may be fully
granted. Nor would any proficiency in science have enabled Moses to
write the first chapter of Genesis, - a table of contents, as it may be
shown to be, of the whole Bible. Yet he writes as one thoroughly at
home in his subject, with an ease and confidence, yet a most natural
simplicity, which, without labouring to do so, impresses one with the
assurance of absolute truthfulness. Taking it at its full worth, as far
even as known, natural fact and spiritual type, as it is, combined, one
would not hesitate to rest the whole argument as to the truth of
Scripture upon the proof in that first page of it alone.

Yet no doubt Moses knew as little of what fullness of meaning
is contained in these words of his as the prophets did of their
prophecies, which Peter witnesses they had to search in order to find
in them the assurance of things beyond their utmost searchings:
"Searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was
in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of
Christ, and the glories that should follow; unto whom it was revealed
that not unto themselves but unto us they did minister the things which
are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto
you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels
desire to look into."

Here, assuredly, were men not merely
doing the best they could, but better than they knew, things which were
consciously beyond themselves, and worthy of angels' occupation; and
this, though spoken directly of prophecy, shows how "holy men of God
spake as they were moved of the Holy Ghost." And why should it be
confined to prophecy? Historical events, if we may believe the apostle,
things that "happened unto" Israel, "happened unto them for types, and
are written for our admonition"- so that these also as types are
prophetic! And why should this be confined to prophecy? Who shall
presume to draw the line between what was necessary and what
unnecessary, in the divine design for us, so as to be able to say, Here
absolute truth had to be insured, and here men could be left to their
unassisted wisdom? The purpose of Scripture is larger and more various
than we can divine; and who can affirm even that such and such facts of
science may not be necessary to be revealed in order to its full
accomplishment? Is it not humbler to inquire what God has told us, than
to speculate upon what He means to teach us? If nature be in any way
His lesson-book for us, why should it not be part of His design to help
us to read its lessons? Nay, would we not in fact expect this, and
would not this modify to a large extent the conclusion (or assumption)
that Scripture was not intended to teach us science?

"Which
things we speak," says the apostle, "not in the words which man s
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." Even here it is
asserted that there is no claim of verbal inspiration. It has been
said, "The term here is logos, which denotes rather propositions than
mere 'words.' " But suppose this so, if propositions are (all of them)
by the Holy Ghost, do the words have nothing to do with the
propositions, would not the words used be those best suited to define
the propositions?


But the citations of the story of Melchisedek, which we find in the
epistle to the Hebrews, carry us far beyond this, and show the extent
to which it is to be taken. Here the very omissions of the history are
insisted on as having significance, as well as what is actually stated,
and the whole argument is a pregnant instance of that use of the
microscope in Scripture which is quite as brilliant in result as it is
known to be in natural science. "For this Melchisedek, king of Salem,
priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the
slaughter of the kings, and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave the
tenth part of all, first, being by interpretation, 'king of
righteousness,' and then after that, king of Salem, that is, 'king of
peace, without father, without mother, without descent, having neither
beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God,
abideth a priest continually." (Chap. vii. 1-3.) Now it is evident that
the main force of the interpretation depends upon the points which I
have emphasized, and it should be as evident that these points depend
upon what we should be apt to call mere gaps in the record. It has been
indeed supposed by some, from the statements made by the apostle, that
Melchisedek was the Son of God Himself; but this the very words, "made
like unto the Son of God forbid.

Here, along with the interpretation of the gaps, we have that
of the names, and the order of the names, and the whole woven into
precise argument as to the doctrine of Christ's priesthood.

It
is plain, then, that, according to this, he who wrote the history of
Genesis has been guided by a wisdom far beyond his own, and in matters
of minute detail, in such a case as we might have imagined could not
have required it. Who shall decide, then, in any case that it did not?
Another instance, in which we have the authority of the Lord Himself,
is perhaps however even more decisive; for here no type is in question,
but the simple use of a term - a very strong term, we should be apt to
say, - for the judges in Israel, whom the eighty. second psalm calls
"gods" as representing God: "I have said, ye are gods." In the tenth
chapter of John's gospel the Lord quotes this to the Jews: "Is it not
written in your law, I said, ye are gods?" and then founds upon it an
appeal, "If He called them gods unto whom the word of God came" and
then adds His seal to the absolute authority of that from which he
quotes "And Scripture cannot be broken."

Surely nothing can be more positive, nothing wider in reach
than this: "Scripture" - not merely this or that passage, specially
guided or guarded, because of special importance, but Scripture, as
Scripture, - "Scripture cannot be broken." Is it then the statement
that "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is," or any other, however insignificant it may seem to us, if
Scripture makes it, then its truth is guaranteed - " Scripture cannot
be broken."

Difficulties of course may be pressed, nor is this
the place to examine them. Solve a hundred today, another hundred may
be found for solution tomorrow. As to what principle of science is it
pretended that all difficulties are removed, and who waits for this
before he thinks of certainty? How much less does the Word of God need
to wait for this, a requirement which would destroy the possibility of
certainty as to any thing whatever.

That "Scripture cannot be
broken" is the divine axiom with which we set out, and in this way what
a field for examination does it present to us. True, we have had it in
our hands for eighteen centuries, yet how fresh is it to-day and how
little exhausted! in some directions how little even explored, and
certainly in few less than that which we propose, in dependence upon
the Spirit of God, the only sufficient Teacher, now to explore.
Throughout we desire to take the attitude and possess the spirit of
learners while we do so, and so to proceed step by step, patiently
acquiring what we may, and owning the gaps in our knowledge where they
exist.