CHAPTER III

THE BIBLE

WE come now to the first of the two great sources of specifically Christian doctrine. Whatever position may be assigned to the Bible in the sacred literature of the world, for Christians of every school it occupies a unique place in their experience and regard. In some way it has helped to form our highest religious thought; and it is necessary to frame a doctrine which will describe its proper function as a source of spiritual truth.

We must start with an examination of the traditional view. The dogma of the Catholic Church, as contained in the decree of the Council of Trent,1 is not perfectly clear. It says that the 'truth and discipline' of the gospel are contained in written books and unwritten traditions,' and that 'one God is the author of both' the Old and the New Testament. The immediate object of the latter statement is to place the two Testaments on a par as regards their inspiration; but if it be understood strictly, it implies the absolute infallibility of the Scriptures. This, accordingly, has been generally accepted by Catholics. Some few Catholic theologians have, indeed, maintained that the Scriptures may err in minimis-i.e., in small matters of historical detail, which in no way affect faith or morals. Nor in doing so do they contradict any express definition of Pope or council, though such an opinion has never obtained any currency in the

1 Sessio quarta.

Church.' It may be that the definition is not explicit because the infallibility of Scripture was not in question. The decree includes the Old Testament Apocrypha in the sacred and canonical books, and says that these books are to be accepted as they are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition.'

The Vatican Council, which held four sessions, extending from 8 December, 1869, to 20 October, 1870, adopted, in its third session,2 an article which seems intended to remove all ambiguity from the Tridentine decree. After referring to the declaration of the previous Council respecting the canonical books, the article proceeds as follows:'But the Church holds these as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry alone, they were afterwards approved by its authority; nor merely for this reason, because they contain a revelation without error; but because, being written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and as such have been delivered to the Church itself.' An important clause is added, declaring that In matters of faith and morals, pertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of sacred Scripture which holy mother Church has held and holds, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures; and therefore it is not allowable for anyone to interpret sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or also contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers.' 3

The doctrine of the Church of England, being constructed in opposition to the Catholic doctrine of tradition, leaves the

1 Catholic Dictionary, by Addis and Arnold, 3rd ed., p. 80. 2 Cap. ii.

3 The recent Decree of the Roman Inquisition, approved and confirmed by Pope Pius X, condemns, among others, the following proposition :— Inspiratio divina non ita ad totam Scripturam Sacram extenditur, ut omnes et singulas eius partes ab omni errore praemuniat.' Thus the absolute infallibility of the Bible is affirmed.

kind and degree of Biblical inspiration quite undefined; and nevertheless there seems to be an underlying assumption that the Scriptures are infallible. The sixth Article, 'Of the Sufficiency of Holy Scripture for salvation,' runs thus :— "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation : so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.' Then follows a list of the books. Of the Apocrypha it is said, 'The other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.' It is evident that this Article was framed in order to make clear the points in which the Church of England differed from the Church of Rome. Accordingly no doctrine of inspiration is laid down; but it seems fully implied that the canonical Scriptures were to be regarded as at least an infallible source of doctrine, for it is in this sense that they are contrasted with the Apocrypha, and they are treated as the one source of every necessary article of the faith.

The Westminster Confession declares that God is the author' of holy Scripture, which is to be received because it is the word of God'; and it expresses an 'assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof.' It says that the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, were immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages. Here, then, the infallibility of the Bible is asserted without any qualification.

1

This, when we think of it, is a stupendous doctrine, and one which might well seem incapable of proof. But before. criticizing it, it may be useful to inquire how it ever arose.

1 Chapter I.

Its ultimate source must be found in the religious power of large portions of the Bible. The prophets spoke as men to whom the word of God came, laying it upon them to deliver even at the cost of their lives, a Divine message. The Law came as a series of commandments from God himself, enforcing on the people the requirements of Divine righteousness. The interpreters of such a law could not call it in question. Their function could not go beyond deciding on its meaning and application. For them it was necessarily an infallible code of morals; and when the books containing it were combined with the prophetical and other writings into a canon, it was natural that the religious veneration which was called forth by the grandest sections should be extended to the whole, and the Scriptures of the Old Testament be placed by themselves as a unique and sacred literature.1 From this to the belief in their infallibility was an easy step in an uncritical age, when the voice of prophets was silent, and men looked back through a haze of religious glory to an heroic age, in which God was closer to the human heart, and spoke to his servants as a man speaks to his friend. The tendency to such a belief receives striking illustration from the view which was taken of the LXX. The story which ascribed to it a miraculous correctness obtained ready credence, and even a thinker like Philo treats it as though it were verbally inspired. It is well known that there were difficulties in the way of this Jewish doctrine, and some passages in the Bible, if literally understood, fell far below the religion and intelligence of the time. These difficulties were evaded by the system of allegorical interpretation; and the more puerile any narrative appeared, the more certain it was that it must contain, for the initiated, some sublime philosophical truth.

From the Jews the doctrine of Biblical infallibility passed into Christianity. Christ himself appeals to the authority

1 See details and authorities in Schürer, Gesch. des jud. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi: dritte Aufl., ii. pp. 305 sqq.

of Scripture, but nevertheless he treats it with singular freedom. Both to him and to the greatest of his early followers religion was a thing of the spirit, not of the letter, and its greatest truths were written, not on the ancient tables of stone, but on the living tables of the heart.1 But the less spiritual minds were unable to enter into this view, and the Church at large Judaized to the extent of accepting the Old Testament as an infallible external authority, which, by the help of allegory, could be forced to support the views of the theologians. Then arose the need of an authoritative court of appeal in controversies with heretics, and the New Testament Canon was formed, and invested with the attribute of infallibility which belonged to the Old. There were indeed differences of opinion as to the precise nature and range of inspiration; but, speaking generally, the Scriptures were looked upon as an infallible standard of truth, from which there could be no appeal.2 The Greek Church, however, did not follow the Western in including the apocryphal writings of the Old Testament in the Canon, though it accepted them as useful for edification.

At the Reformation the Protestants not only retained. the traditional view of the Bible, but were led to emphasize it through their desire to return to primitive Christian truth, and their consequent insistence that the Bible was the sole rule of faith and practice. They were therefore distinguished from the Catholics by the following denials:-they did not acknowledge the authority of tradition; they did not include the Apocrypha in the Canon; they did not concede

1 See further particulars in my Hibbert Lectures.

2 The general opinion is well expressed by Augustine (Epistola xix): Ego enim fateor caritati tuae, solis eis Scripturarum libris, qui jam Canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum autorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam. Ac si aliquid in eis offendero litteris, quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud quam vel mendosum esse Codicem, vel interpretem non assecutum esse quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse, non ambigam.' I owe the reference to Wetstein, Animadv. V. 3.