p. 1Ladies and Gentlemen,—
I apologize for introducing this topic—I am ashamed to do so—ashamed for my own sake, ashamed for you, and ashamed for the age which should create a feeling that an apology is necessary. Why should I apologize? Is it because it is of no moment whether the Bible be true or not? Is it because it is a settled question that the Bible cannot possibly be true? You must be well aware it is neither one nor the other.
On the first point, the very least acquaintance with the Bible must shew you that nothing could so vitally affect our well-being as the truth of what is written in the Bible. Nothing else on earth comes near it. All other books, schemes, or topics are “done with” for us when we have filled up the threescore years and ten that we have to spend in the present state; but this Book deals with matters which, if true p. 2 take us forward into futurity, and give us connection with things and ages that will have no end.
On the second point you must be aware that so far from being a settled question in the negative sense, it is the mootest question in the intellectual realm, with a tendency more and more to settle itself in a powerful affirmative. Jean Paul Richter called the Bible “the problem of authorship.” You know what a problem is—a puzzle, a mystery, a thing hard to settle. Such a penetrating metaphysical thinker as Richter would not have ranked the question as a “problem” if it was quite so plainly a closed question as thousands of shallow minds in our day regard it. But he not only regarded it as “a problem,” but as “The problem of authorship,” that is, of all authorship: as much as to say, “Here is a book outside the range and category of all ordinary literary activity; what are we to make of it?” Every mind of intellectual power must share Richter’s feeling, which is the result of ability to make a due comparison between the ordinary literary efforts of man, and this weather-beaten volume which comes to us from hoary antiquity, dwarfing all human books by its majesty and purity, and refusing classification with ordinary feats of authorship, withstanding all the endeavours of hostility, however ingenious and diligent and learned.
Carlyle, too, you must be aware, is very cautious in his attitude towards this Book—Carlyle, hater of shams, and the volcanic thunderer against all kinds of quackery and imposture. Do you think he would have spared it if it had been quite the priestly imposture which some people find it so easy to think it, or at least profess to regard it? On the contrary, he called it the truest book that had ever been written, or something to that effect. (Mis. Essays.) No, p. 3 my friends, the question is far from being the closed question which some of you may be tempted to think it. In an important sense, it may be said to be a re-opened question: a question insisting more and more: a question settling more and more in the direction of a powerful and confident “YES.” A new element has come into its consideration. A new discovery has been made that has given the question a new and powerful impetus, and put a new face upon the whole controversy. Heretofore it has been taken for granted that the theology of the churches is the theology of the Bible. On this a new light has dawned which greatly simplifies and strengthens the contention for the Bible being what it professes to be.
Apology for introducing the topic is, in reality, out of place. At most it is but a concession to the taste and habit of the times, which perhaps are traceable to the rancorous days of ecclesiastical strife and persecution. Doubtless strong feelings are liable to be enlisted. This is due to the stupendous character of the issues involved. That all acerbity should be avoided and all sweetness cultivated is desirable; but that a vital question should be ignored for the sake of peace is not according to reason or good example. But peace need not be broken. We may have something more to say by-and-bye.