THE CHURCH'S BOOKS.
For the purpose of these lectures, we will select two:--
(1) _The Bible_, the possession of the whole Church.
(2) _The Prayer Book_, the possession of the Church of England.
(1) THE BIBLE.
And notice: _first, the Church; then, the Bible_--first the Society,
then its Publications; first the Writers; then the Writings; first the
Messenger, then the Message; first the Agent, then the Agencies.
This is the Divine Order. Preaching, not writing, was the Apostolic
method. Oral teaching preceded the written word. Then, later on, lest
this oral teaching should be lost, forgotten, or misquoted, it was
gradually committed to {22} manuscript, and its "good tidings"
published in writing for the Church's children.
It is very important to remember this order ("first the Church, and
then the Bible"), because thousands of souls lived and died long before
the New Testament was written. The earliest books of the New Testament
(the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians) were not written
for twenty years after the Day of Pentecost; the earliest Gospel (St.
Mark) was not committed to writing before A.D. 65. And, even if the
Bible had been written earlier, few could have read it; and even then
few could have possessed it. It was a rare book, wholly out of reach
of "the people". The first Bible was not printed until 1445.
But, thank God, the Church, which wrote the book, could teach without
the book; and we may be sure that no single soul was lost for the want
of what it could not possess. "Without a Bible," says St. Irenaeus,
writing in the second century, "they received, from the Church,
teaching sufficient for the salvation of their souls."
Then, again, the Church alone could decide which books were, and which
books were not, "the Scriptures". How else could we know? The society
authorizes its publications. It affixes {23} its seal only to the
books it has issued. So with the Divine Society, the Church. It
affixes its seal to the books we now know as the Bible. How do we
know, for instance, that St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians are
part of the Bible, and that St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians is
not part of the Bible? Because, and only because, the Church has so
decided. If we had lived in the days of persecution it would have made
a considerable difference to us whether this or that sacred book was
included in the Christian Scriptures. Thus, when the early Christians
were ordered by Diocletian to "bring out their books," and either burn
them or die for them, it became a matter of vital importance to know
which these books were. Who could tell them this? Only the society
which published them, only the Church.
Again, the Church, and only the Church, is the final _interpreter_ of
the Bible--it is the "_witness_ and keeper of holy writ".[1] The
society which publishes a statement must be the final interpreter of
that statement. Probably no book ever published needed authoritative
interpretation more than the Bible. We call it "the book of {24}
peace"; it is in reality a book of war. No book has spread more
discord than the Bible. Every sect in the world quotes the Bible as
the source and justification of its existence. Men, equally learned,
devout, prayerful, deduce the most opposite conclusions from the very
same words. Two men, we will say, honestly and earnestly seek to know
what the Bible teaches about Baptismal Regeneration, or the Blessed
Sacrament. They have exactly the same _data_ to go upon, precisely the
same statements before them; yet, from the same premises, they will
deduce a diametrically opposite conclusion. Hence, party wrangling,
and sectarian bitterness; hence, the confusion of tongues, which has
changed our Zion into Babel. Indeed, as we all know, so sharp was the
contention in the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, that translations
of the Bible were actually forbidden by two local Church Councils.[2]
An interpreter is as much needed now, as in the days of the Ethiopian
Eunuch. "_How_ readest thou?"[3] is a question second only in {25}
importance (if, indeed, it is second) to "_What_ is written?" Upon
"how" we read, will very largely depend the value of "what" we read.
We go, then, to the Church to interpret the book which it gave us.
And notice--to say this, is not to disparage the Scriptures because we
exalt the Church. It is to put both Church and Scriptures in their
true, historical place. We do not disparage a publication because we
exalt the society which issues that publication; rather, we honour the
one by exalting the other. Thus, when we say that the creeds interpret
the Bible, we do not disparage the Bible because we exalt the creeds,
any more than we disparage the Church when we say that the Bible proves
the creeds. Take the "Virgin Birth," as a single illustration. Are we
to believe that our Blessed Lord was "born of the Virgin Mary"? Church
and Bible give the same reply. The Church taught it before the Bible
recorded it; the Bible recorded it because the Church taught it. For
us, as Churchmen, the matter is settled once and for all by the
Apostles' Creed. Here we have the official and authoritative teaching
of the Catholic Church, as proved by the New Testament; "born of the
Virgin Mary".
{26}
It is this Bible, the Church's Manual of doctrine and devotion, that we
are to think of.
We will think of it under five familiar names:--
(I) The Scriptures.
(II) The Bible.
(III) The Word of God.
(IV) Inspiration.
(V) Revelation.
(I) THE SCRIPTURES.
This was the earliest name by which the Bible was known--the name by
which it was called for the first 1200 years in Church history. It was
so named by the Latin Fathers in the fifth century, and it means, of
course, "The Writings". These "Scriptures," or "Writings," were not,
as the plural form of the word reminds us, one book, but many books,
afterwards gathered into one book.[4] They were a library of separate
books, called by St. Irenaeus "The Divine Library"--perhaps {27} the
best and most descriptive name the Bible ever had. This library
consists of sixty-six books, not all written at one period, or for one
age, but extending over a period of, at least, 1200 years.
The original copies of these writings, or Scriptures, have not yet been
discovered, though we have extant three very early copies of them,
written "by hand". These are known as the _Alexandrine_ manuscript (or
Codex), the _Vatican_ manuscript, and the _Sinaitic_ manuscript. Where
may they be found?
One, dating from the latter part of the fourth, or the early part of
the fifth century, is in the British Museum--a priceless treasure,
which comparatively few have taken the trouble to go and see. It is
known as the _Alexandrine_ manuscript, and was presented to Charles I
by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1628. It consists of four
volumes, three of which contain nearly all the Old Testament, and parts
of the Apocrypha, and a fourth, containing a large part of the New
Testament.
A second manuscript, dating from the fourth century, is in the Vatican
Library in Rome, and is, therefore, known as the _Vatican_ manuscript.
{28} It contains nearly the whole of both the Old and New Testaments,
and of the Apocrypha.
The third manuscript, dating also from the fourth century, is in the
Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. It was discovered by Prof.
Tischendorf, in 1859, in a basket of fragments, destined to be burned,
in the Monastery of St. Catherine on _Mount Sinai_; hence it is called
the _Sinaitic_ manuscript.
These are the three earliest MS. collections of the Bible as yet
discovered--and strange stories, of mystic beauty, and, it may be, of
weird persecution, they could tell if only they could speak. Other
manuscripts we have--copies of ancient manuscripts; versions of ancient
manuscripts; translations of ancient manuscripts; texts of ancient
manuscripts. So they come down the ages, till, at last, we reach our
own "Revised Version," probably the most accurate and trustworthy
version in existence.
"The Scriptures," or "the Writings," then, consist of many books, and
in this very fact, they tell their own tale--the tale of diversity in
unity. They were written for divers ages, divers intellects, divers
nations, in divers languages, by divers authors or compilers. They
were not all {29} written for the twentieth century, though they all
have a message for the twentieth century; they were not all written for
the English people, though they all have a truth for the English
people; they were not all written by the same hand, though the same
Hand guided all the writers. In, and through the Scriptures, "God, at
sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets"; and in, and through them, He "hath in these
last days, spoken unto us by His Son".[5]
Time passes, and these sixty-six books, written at different periods,
in different styles, in different dialects, are gathered together in
one book, called "The Book," or The Bible.
(II) THE BIBLE.
It was so named by the Greek Fathers in the thirteenth century,
hundreds of years after its earliest name, "The Scriptures". The word
is derived from the Greek _Biblia_, books, and originally meant the
Egyptian _papyrus_ (or _paper-reed_) from which paper was first made.
A "bible," then, was originally any book made of paper, and {30} the
name was afterwards given to the "Book of Books"--"_The Bible_".
Here, then, are sixty-six volumes bound together in one volume. This,
too, tells its own tale. If "The Scriptures," or scattered writings,
speak of diversity in unity, "The Bible," or collected writings, tells
of unity in diversity. Each separate book has its own most sacred
message, while one central, unifying thought dominates all--the
Incarnate Son of God. The Old Testament writings foretell His coming
("They are they which testify of me"[6]); the New Testament writings
proclaim His Advent ("The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us"[7]).
Thus, all the books become one book.
_Many the tongues,_
_The theme is one,_
_The glory of the Eternal Son._
Take away that central Figure, and both the background of the Old
Testament and the foreground of the New become dull, sunless,
colourless. Reinstate that central Figure, and book after book, roll
after roll, volume after volume, becomes bright, sunny, intelligible.
This it is which separates the Bible from every other book; this it is
which makes it the worthiest {31} of all books for reverent, prayerful
criticism; this it is which makes its words nuggets of gold, "dearer
unto me than thousands of gold and silver"; this it is which gives the
Bible its third name:--
(III) THE WORD OF GOD.
In what sense is the Bible the Word of God? Almost any answer must
hurt some, and almost every answer must disappoint others. For a time,
the "old school" and the "new school" must bear with each other,
neither counting itself "to have apprehended," but each pressing
forward to attain results.
In speaking of the Bible, we commonly meet with two extreme classes: on
the one hand, there are those who hold that every syllable is the Word
of God, and therefore outside all criticism; on the other hand, there
are those who hold that the Bible is no more the "Word of God" than any
other book, and may, therefore, be handled and criticized just like any
other book. In between these two extremes, there is another class,
which holds that the Bible is the Word of God, and that just because it
is the Word of God, it is--above all other books--an "open Bible," a
{32} book open for sacred study, devout debate, reverent criticism.
The first class holds that every one of the 925,877 words in the Bible
is as literally "God's Word" as if no human hand had written it. Thus,
Dean Burgon writes: "Every word of it, every chapter of it, every
syllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most
High.... Every syllable is just what it would have been ... _without
the intervention of any human agent_." This, of course, creates
hopeless difficulties. For instance, in the Authorized Version (to
take but one single version) there are obvious insertions, such as St.
Mark xvi. 9-20, which may not be "the Word of God" at all. There are
obvious misquotations, such as in the seven variations in St. Stephen's
speech.[8] There are obvious doubts about accurate translations, where
the marginal notes give alternative readings. There are obvious
mistakes by modern printers, as there were by ancient copyists.[9]
There are three versions of the Psalms now in use (the Authorized
Version, the Revised Version, and the Prayer-Book Version), all
differing {33} from each other. The translators of the Authorized
Version wish, they say, to make "_one more exact_ translation of the
Scriptures," and one-third of the translators of the Revised Version
constantly differs from the other two-thirds. Here, clearly, the human
agent is at work.
Then there are those who, perhaps from a natural reaction, deny that
any word in the Bible is in any special sense "the Word of God". But
this, too, creates hopeless difficulties, and satisfies no serious
student. If the Bible is, in no special sense, the Word of God, there
is absolutely no satisfactory explanation of its unique position and
career in history. It is a great fact which remains unaccounted for.
Moreover, no evidence exists which suggests that the writers who call
it the Word of God were either frauds or dupes, or that they were
deceived when they proclaimed "_God_ spake these words, and said"; or,
"Thus saith _the Lord_"; or, "The Revelation of _Jesus Christ_ by His
servant John". There must, upon the lowest ground, be a sense in which
it may be truly said that the Bible is the Word of God as no other book
is. This we may consider under the fourth name, Inspiration.
{34}
(IV) INSPIRATION.
What do we mean by the word? The Church has nowhere defined it, and we
are not tied to any one interpretation; but the Bible itself suggests a
possible meaning.
It is the Word of God heard through the voice of man.
Think of some such expression as: "_The Revelation of Jesus Christ
which God gave by His angel unto His servant John_" (Rev. i. 1). Here
two facts are stated: (1) The revelation is from Jesus Christ; (2) It
was given through a human agent--John. God gave it; man conveyed it.
Again: "_Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost_"
(2 Pet. i. 21). The Holy Ghost moved them; they spake: the speakers,
not the writings, were inspired. Again: "_As He spake by the mouth of
His holy Prophets_"[10] (St. Luke i. 70). He spake; but He spake
through the mouthpiece of the human agent. And once again, as the
Collect for the second Sunday in Advent tells us, it is the "_blessed
Lord Who (hast) caused all Holy Scriptures to be written_". God was
the initiating {35} cause of writings: man was the inspired writer.
Each messenger received the message, but each passed it on in his own
way. It was with each as it was with Haggai: "Then spake Haggai, the
_Lord's messenger_ in the _Lord's message_" (Haggai i. 13). The
message was Divine, though the messenger was human; the message was
infallible, though the messenger was fallible; the vessel was earthen,
though the contents were golden. In this unique sense, the Bible is
indeed "the Word of God". It is the "Word of God," delivered in the
words of man.
Thus, as Dr. Sanday puts it, the Bible is, at once, both human and
Divine; not less Divine because thoroughly human, and not less human
because essentially Divine. We need not necessarily parcel it out and
say such and such things are human and such and such things are Divine,
though there are instances in which we may do this, and the Scriptures
would justify us in so doing. There will be much in Holy Scripture
which is at once very human and very Divine. The two aspects are not
incompatible with each other; rather, they are intimately united. Look
at them in one light, and you will see the one; look at them in another
light, and you will see {36} the other. But the substance of that
which gives these different impressions is one and the same.
It is from no irreverence, but because of the over-towering importance
of the book, that the best scholars (devout, prayerful scholars, as
well as the reverse) have given the best of their lives to the study of
its text, its history, its writers, its contents.
Their criticism has, as we know, been classified under three heads:--
(1) Lower, or _textual_ criticism.
(2) Higher, or _documentary_ criticism.
(3) Historical, or _contemporary_ criticism.
_Lower criticism_ seeks for, and studies, the best and purest text
obtainable--the text nearest to the original, from which fresh
translations can be made.
_Higher criticism_ seeks for, and studies, documents: it deals with the
authenticity of different books, the date at which they were written,
the names of their authors.
_Historical criticism_ seeks for, and studies, _data_ relating to the
history of the times when each book was written, and the light thrown
upon that history by recent discoveries (e.g. in archaeology, and
excavations in Palestine).
{37}
No very definite results have yet been reached on many points of
criticism, and, on many of them, scholars have had again and again to
reverse their conclusions. We are still only _en route_, and are
learning more and more to possess our souls in patience, and to wait
awhile for anything in the nature of finality. Meanwhile, the living
substance is unshaken and untouched.
This living substance, entrusted to living men, is the revelation of
God to man, and leads us to our last selected name--Revelation.
(V) REVELATION.
The Bible is the revelation of the Blessed Trinity to man--of God the
Son, by God the Father, through God the Holy Ghost. It is the
revelation of God to man, and in man. First, it reveals God _to_
man--"pleased as Man with man to dwell". In it, God stands in front of
man, and, through the God-Man, shows him what God is like. It reveals
God as the "pattern on the mount," for man to copy on the plain. But
it does more than this: it reveals God _in_ man. So St. Paul writes:
"It pleased God to reveal His Son _in_ me";[11] and again, "God hath
{38} shined _in_ our hearts".[12] The Bible reveals to me that Jesus,
the revelation of the Father, through the Eternal Spirit, dwells in me,
as well as outside me. He is a power within, as well as a pattern
without.
Yet again. The Bible reveals God's purpose _for_ man. There is no
such other revelation of that purpose. You cannot deduce God's purpose
either in man's life, or in his twentieth century environment. It can
only be fully deduced from Revelation. Man may seem temporarily to
defeat God's purpose, to postpone its accomplishment; but Revelation
(and nothing but Revelation) proclaims that "the Word of the Lord
standeth sure," and that God's primal purpose is God's final purpose.
Lastly, the Bible is the revelation of a future state. Things begun
here will be completed there. As such, it gives man a hope on which to
build a belief, and a belief on which to found a hope.
We must believe,
For still we hope
That, in a world of larger scope,
What here is faithfully begun
Will be completed, not undone.
{39}
Thus, we may, perhaps, find in these five familiar names, brief
headings for leisure thoughts. In them, we see the _Scriptures_, or
many books, gathered together into one book called _The Book_. In this
book, we see the _Word of God_ delivered to men by men, and these men
_inspired_ by God to be the living _media_ of the _Revelation_ of God
to man.
Our next selected book will be the Church of England Prayer Book.
[1] Art. XX.
[2] The Council of Toulouse, 1229, and the Council of Trent, 1545-63.
[3] St. Luke x. 26,
[4] The first division of the Bible into _chapters_ is attributed
either to Cardinal Hugo, for convenience in compiling his Concordance
of the Vulgate (about 1240), or to Stephen Langton, Archbishop of
Canterbury (about 1228), to facilitate quotation. _Verses_ were
introduced into the New Testament by Robert Stephens, 1551. It is said
that he did the work on a journey from Paris to Lyons.
[5] Heb. i. 1, 2.
[6] St. John v. 39.
[7] St. John i. 14.
[8] Acts VII.
[9] The University Presses offer L1 1s. for every such hitherto
undiscovered inaccuracy brought to their notice.
[10] This is the Church's description of Inspiration in the Nicene
Creed: "Who spake by the Prophets".
[11] Gal. i. 15, 16.
[12] 2 Cor. iv. 6.
{40}