Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-09-27
OPENING DISCOURSE
CONTINUED from Third Page.)

CONTINUED from Third Page)
In some sense. true We could not call it
revelation, If we did not assign to God, in
come sense. its authorship; and how could
It oblige the people to receive 1t as their
supreme rule of faith and duty, if it did
not authenticate itself the very word
of God to man?
what, then, do we mean when say
that we believe in the unity of the Holy
Scriptures. or that accept them as one
book? That do say this we all know
1t is implied i'll all our treatment of Them
as well as in the name by which we most
often describe them. Their units were. in
deed, written at different times and are in
various literary forms: and sharp line
separates the elder writings from the later
Yet the sayings of St. Augustine that the
New Testament lies hidden in the Old. the
Old lies open in the New: and that If we
distinguish the times the Scriptures VIII
agree have commended themselves to the
Judgment Of the church. AS to what this
unity is. all the great divisions of the Cath
Ollie Church are agreed The ecumenical
creeds of the Patristic and the detailed con-
fessions of the Reformation periods alike
witness that the unity of Scripture is pre-
cisely this: that it contains a system of
supernatural truth concerning God and man
and the relations between them. and that
this system of truth. as 1t lies open in the
New Testament is implicit in the Old
Maintenance of Unity.
''Now, how are we to maintain this unity
of Scripture. If we accept the new critical
view of the Old Testament which posits, as
underlying the whole volume as at last
compiled, a series of documents of which
the several religious tendencies in con-
fict? Or how are to assert the unity of
the Old and New Testaments, if we con-
cede that the Messianc idea, which domi-
mates the New Testament is derived not
from the prophets of the Old Testament
but from their prophetic utterances mis-
takenly interpreted by the eXtra-canonical
apocdlypt1c writers? Or how, finally, shall
we hold to this unity, if accept the con-
clusion that the Nicene theology is not
yielded by the Bible. but is the product of
Greek thought modifying. or rather revolu-
tionizing the primitive Christianity which
was little more than system of practical
ethics Joined to the worship of Jesus? | do
not desire to be polemical. But these ques-
lions must be considered by US as organ
fzed churches. We cannot escape them
Then, there is the truth of the Bible
Need L say that, since these Reformed
churches have been organized on the basis
that Holy Scripture is the supreme and
tnfallible rule of faith and duty, we should
be denying the fundamental principle by
which We exist. if we did not hold to the
truthfulness of the Bible? 1t must be trust
worthy in our view. or it will be impossi-
BILE for us to conceive of it as the judge
III religious controversy. And that this
question may be before US in a concrete
way, l will select a striking example from
the reconstructed history of Israel which
the modern criticism almost unanimously
assures us is made necessary by the literary
study of the Old Testament The taber-
nacie, which is described at length and
With such careful attention to details in
the book of Exodus. we are told by the
author of that book. was actually con-
structed by the appointment of Moses dur
ing the wandering in the Wilderness and
was intended to be. and really was the
shrine of the sacrifices of the Levitical law
Nhich was given by Moses at the same
period.
If 1t Never Existed.
Now, what if I should be compelled to
reach the conclusion that the tabernacle.
so described was not ordered to be built
by Moses; that In point of fact it was
never built at all; that it is only an imagi-
native reconstruction of the temple of Solo
mon, and that the story of its construction
was fabricated during the exile in the in
terest of the prieStly program of that late
period, and was intended to provide inagi-
Iatively shrine of the Mosaic age for the
Ievitical sacrifices. which said in the
Pentateuch to have been prescribed by
Moses, but with which Moses had no more
to do than he had to do with the building
of the tabernacle. which was never built
at all? What. l say, if ] should be COM
PEELED to reach this conclusion? In what
sense could / say that 1 held to the truth
fulness OF the Old Testament? Could | hold
10 it in any sense? For the problem, you
perceive, is not the mere problem of con-
structing a dogmatic definition of inspira-
ton. Here is the narrative of the organza-
ton of the cultus of Israel at the beginning
Of its national life. 1t is the very narrative
which dominates the whole succeeding his
Tory OF Israel as it lies the face of the Old
Testament. That whole history is thus re-
constructed in a way which il is tame to call
revolutionary. And since the reconstruc-
ton has been made and defended with the
greatest frankness, how help with
equal and reciprocal frankness asking the
question: But what in this reconstruction
OF history, becomes of the truth, the
truthfulness. or the trustworthiness of the
Old Testament?
Inspiration of the Bible.
Then. the Divine inspira ton of the Bible
Is affirmed in all our confessions. That
this means, in some sense, the inbreathing
OF the Divine mind into the texture of
Holy Scripture all are agreed. Nor shall we
be less unanimous in our consent that the
end of the inbreathing is not to give US
scientific history; but to give to Holy Scrip
ture a religious quality. and to make the
Bible infallible in the sphere of faith and
duty. And We're Christianity a rel gion I'M
related to human history, it We're easy TO
conceive of its sacred books as thoroughly
infalible in their religious teachings and
vet erroneous in their historical narrative.
But this is not Christianity as understood
by the reformed churches, or as embodied
III the ecumenical creetis. Is there doc
trine of the faith which is not Implicated
in and inSeparable from events which oc-
CURED under the conditions of time and
space? The fall OF man, the incarnation,
the atonement the resurrection. the ascen-
sion the coming of the Holy Ghost; what
are these but historical events bound, if
taught at all. to be taught as history? Or
how are we to unite with Our brethren in
the Apostles Greed, if we do not assent to
its statement of the historic events. that
Jesus Christ our Lord was conceived of
the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius plate. was cruel
fed dead and buried and was raised again
the third day? 7 do not see how II is pos
sibIc, however closely We confne the mis-
sion IF inspiration to securing the religious
infaIlihiIity of the Bible. to exclude the
biblical history. And if We include biblical
history at all. We may well ask those who
exclude d portion Of the history as not wit
messed to by inspiration to formulate the
law of exclusion.
And there Is that self-evidencng quality
of Holy Scripture. in virtue of which 1t
ClIiges its acceptance by those TO whom 1t
Is given. OF course. We shall al say that
what precisely is evidenced is not immedl-
at-ly the history. but those doctrines. like
tie love of God and The forgiveness of sin,
which can become elements of individual
experience. But to evidence these Is medi-