The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-03-10
- u @@@zA gz..,1A
'1f-Ell:1-i1]!4MZ[t|(-t!1|(1|i:li
The Bible rs Literature.

century. Such a book as this would ne
more have been possible in 1850 than &
flying machine. Henry Ward Beecher
who was as liberal a clergyman as wa:
to be found in the orthodox church. dareC
to present his most radical ideas only
in the form OF fiction, and not very gooC
fiction at that. His novel Norwood,
embodies some of them, and though at
the time of its appearance it was con
sidered somewhat unOrthodoX, it woulC
hardly stir ripple Of disapproval il
written by the most orthodox clergyman
today.
DR.. Abbott has written of the Bible as
literature. pure and simple, and endeav.
ored to show how it came into being, anC
why it owed its existence to the Hebrews
rather tEan to any other ancient race
in this he has succeeded very well, and
the book will be useful one to any per.
son busy in religious work. 1t may cause
some people to revolutionize their meth
DDS of studying the Bible, but when they
have thus transformed their ideas they
VIII ind themselves to have much more
useful working hypothesis than the old
theological potpourri of mysticism. lit
eral Interpretation, and laboriously
evolved dogma. In short, this writer has
used common sense, mixed with a gen
erous amount of scientific investigation
and understanding of the subject. and he
treats the Bible in a simple, natural, and
candid way, without demanding any
amazing amount of reverence or credul-
ity.
Most of us can remember when the
Bible was regarded as a collection of
texts, all of equal sacredness and author
fty, and misused accordingly DR.. Abbott
gives an amusing instance of this He
says:
"A Judge of the Supreme Court of
New York said in a legal decision:
we have the highest possible author
that man hath will he give for his
NE The next morning the New
YORK Herald commented on this opin-
ion substantially as follows: we
md that 1t was the devil who said:
SKIN for skin, yea, all that a man
hath VIII he give for his life Now we
know who it is that our Supreme
possible authority"
DR.. Abbott first discusses the Bible as
literature. then considers the probable
history of its creation, then takes up the
various books in turn, and in conclusion
devotes a chapter to what he considers
TO be the message of Israel to the world.
From beginning to end the book will be
interesting, especially TO those who have
not studied the subjects therein discussed
so thoroughly that what the author has
to say Will be an old story.
The contradictions in the biblical his
tory have been a fruitful source of con-
tention in and out of the church
Dogmatists have based upon them differ
ences in creed which have had tragic re-
suits; skeptics have considered them suf-
ficient reason for doubling the truth of all
religion. When the Bible is considered as
a human book, these differences manifest
ly become less important than when the
theory of literal inspiration has TO be
either accepted or rejected. On this point
DR.. Abbott has something to say, and
he has said it so well that it is worth re-
peating and considering:
Thinkers may be roughly divided
into two great types, one Of which
lays emphasis on truth, the other on
organization. The first. fixing IT'S at
tention on truth, forgets that to be
efficient in society truth must be en-
bodied; the second, fixing its atten-
ton on the mediaung organization,
forgets the truth which alone can
vitallze it. Men of the first type, hay
ing no objective standard, often make
a standard OF their own personal opin-
ions: Indifferent to the cooperation
of their fellow-men, and strenuous IN
their own opinion, they refuse to com
promise the latter TO gain the former;
and thus become irTeconcllaDles ana
impracticables. Men of the second
type, overestimating the force OF num-
bers . d of authority, and unueresu-
mating the force inherent IN moral
principles too readily yield principles
TO gain recruits. They may, indeed,
be quite ready to sacrifice self 10 TRUTH,
but they are too ready TO sacrifice
truth TO organization. Lacking
stan dard in themselves, they seek 1t
in <he body to which they have at
tached themselves. In philosophy the
first type Of man is always q moral
reformer. generally an independent,
often doctrinaire. His loyalty to his
own convictions is strong; his party
loyalty is slight. The second seeks
to carry moral reform only so far as
he can carry it through political or
ganiZation; he Is generally an oppor-
tunist; he sometimes degenerates into
what is called a machine politician
In religion the first has faith, but no
creed; he WOrships, but without
ritual; he is religious, but unchurchly.
When organization meant the Church
of Rome. he was a Protestant; when it
meant the Established Church, a uri-
tan, and when IL meant Congrega-
tionalisin a 'Come-outer.' The sec
ond Is always churchman, though he
may be a Roman churchman, an An
glican churchman, a Presbyterian
churchman, or Congregational
churchman. He is a defender Of creeds,
of the established order of the ancient
form. he will Tot carry reform so lar
IS to break with the traditions of the
rast or the recognized authorities of
his own ecclesiastical organization.
in the history Of the world the first is
interested in the progress OF ideas. the
second in the development Of institU-
lions. Is he a historian? The first
writes tho story Of popular life, the
second that of institutional life John
Richard Green, writing the history of
the English people. represents the first;
Lord Macaulay, measuring all events
by their relation to WING principles
and policies, or Lord Clarendon, meas
uring them by their relation to the
Royalist principles and policies, repre-
sents the 5econd."
This is not only a remarkably sane and
clear explanation of the contradictions
and peculiaritles of certain biblical
books, 1t is a fairly good hypothesis on
which to explain a good many human
differences OF one sort or another. and
cool down some hot-blooded condemna-
tions. Time was when it would have
been heresy to suggest that religion
might be a matter Of temperament; but
DR.. Abbott not only suggests it, he says It,
Again, in the chapter on THE Book OF
the Covenant" the author says:
The parallel between a nation and
an Individual is a very familiar one,
at least as old as Plato The nation
grows as the individual grows. Man
has been described as a bundle OF
habits. That is not quite an accurate
description. He inherits something
from his forefathers Then on that
inheritance he begins TO build char c.
ter. Action frequently repeated be-
comes habit; habit long continued
becomes a second nature: and this
h..