The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-12-18

nucleus of faet....It is imnossible now
to accept its 1.-THE Bible'sl mechan-
ical inspiration and guaranteed historical
and scientific correctneas."
Address at Rhyl, 1891.
PROF. WIN. Sunday,
of the university of Oxford, takes the
most conservative positions of any man of
his ability in the world of biblical scholar
ship. And yet some Of his assertions seem
startling beside the mild heresies for which
Profa. Briggs and Smith are being tried
here in progressive America. OF the Bible
in general, he says: Such a book (as tra-
ditional theology pictured the Bible to be),
it Ia urged, must at least be infallible. II
that were so. we should find it hard to con-
tend with the facts; for the sphere of it's
infallibility has been steadily narrowed.
It's text is not infallible, its grammar is
not infallible, it's science is not infallible,
and there is grave question whether its
history is altogether infallible. But to ar
gus thus is to take up . false position from
the outset"
The Oracles of God. 1880. In The same
book, on the subject of errors in history. he
says: Another instance of the same kind,
in which the Bible 10 at variance with a
contemporary monument. 10 in regard to
the revolt of Moab from Israel which, ac-
cofding to II. Kings, took place after, but
according to the Moabite atone before the
death of Ahab." or the text, he writes
freely as follows in tho Same admirable
volume: "Ihe Bible has not been exempt
cd from the fate of other books; it has been
copied. and in the process of copying its
text has been corrupted; it has been trans
mitted across centuries of declining knowl-
edge; 1t has passed through the hands of
soribes who were both ignorant and care
less, and whose ignorance and carelessness
have hardly lone SO much mischief as we'll
mentioned but misfortunate astempts at
onrrAnk;1vr ~ prNF AoxAo- 10 N Arvn E1n-
fender of the theory that the Apostle John
wrote the Fourth Gospel, a theory which is
constantly losing ground, and yet he makea,
like all great conservative scholars of the
present. some remarkable admissions: 1T
is coming to be allowed, even by those who
uphold the genuineness of tho Gospel. that
these have undergone some greater or loss
modification (the long ~discourses) in the
mind of the Apostle before they came to be
set down in writing The Expositor. No
vsmber, 1891. This conservative even goes
SO far rs to write: II have said already
ouracy of these disoourses." The Con-
temporary Review. October. 1891. That is
to say: The long discourses In the Fourth
Gospel are not precisely what Jesus himself
said.
In reference TO the foregoing testimonies,
let me say:
i. These are the recent statements of the
more conservative scholars of greatest
ability in Great Britain-men, clergymsn
az a rule, eminent in church and university.
2. A great many similar testimonies
might be given from men belonging to the
same general ~class-Profs. Daft, Plummer,
Whitehouse. Dawson, and Robertson
Smith, of Englnnd. and Profs. Iveraoh.
Bruce, Story and Charters, Of Scotland.
8. These men. whose words have
quoted, are deeply religious men. lovers of
the Bible, who feel shat only by an advo-
sacy of these more rational views can the
people be won 20 a truer appreciation and 4
more spiritual use OF the scriptures.
4. So far. these men, whose statements
/ have used, have not been brought to trial
for hsresy.
8. These facts show that men may &C.
cept tho conclusions of biblical science
without N injury to personal piety or the
general cause OF spiritual religion. These
new views of the Bible compel new uses of
it-not an abuse nor n disuse, but n new
use. On this topic ! shall speak next sum
day eve. j. IL. C%RooKnR.
Helena, Dec. 10.