p. 7Ladies and Gentlemen,—
Here we are again. I hope not without a disposition to be reasonable. Reason is greatly needed in the consideration of our topic. I undertook to say something about what we may call the self-evidence of the truth of the Bible histories. Evidence appeals to reason,
Let me begin with what no man will question—that there is a backbone of historic fact in Bible narrative. We have to deal with facts, not myths.
The land of Palestine yonder was nationally occupied by the Jewish race. It was so occupied, for a certain length of time. The occupation began in a certain way: was marked by events taking a certain shape, and ended from definite causes. Will any of you deny this much?
Very well, what is the history of the matter? It must have been a very palpable matter: for it has given us our national religion. It has given us p. 8 Christ as our leading tradition. It has given us our brightest historical characters. We have the Jews in our midst—The Bible in our hand—as pledges of the historic reality. Again, the question is,—What is the history of the matter? Ladies and Gentlemen, you ought not to be satisfied till you have attained to some rational theory of this—some theory founded on evidence, and rational in character. The matters involved are too momentous to allow of uncertainty. What I ask you to do is, to address your minds to the problem. Study it up. Do not rest till you are able to say—“The history of it is this: the history of it is that.” Do not be content till you are able to say, “It is a wonderfully successful fable, and I can shew you how,” or “It is a terribly serious and truthful story.”
In carrying out your study, you must begin with the Bible. Here is a history of the matter. It is written by Jews—admittedly. Who so likely to know the facts about the Jews, as Jews. Would you expect their enemies to know more? It was written by the best of the Jews. Who but the best would contend against evil and submit to death in consequence? Who greater than Moses and the Prophets? Who better than Christ, who equipped and sent the Apostles to speak and write? A history written by Jews, and the best of the Jews, must be worth studying in trying to master the problem of the history of the Jews: especially a history that has withstood the ravages of the time, and the hostility of evil men for centuries; and has floated through all the storms of time, and come safely down to our own age. There must be something intrinsically excellent in a book that has achieved such a commanding position, too, amongst nations, and that receives the commendations p. 9 of such minds as Gladstone, and Carlyle, Milton and Shakespeare. I say that, in asking you to hear the Bible before you decide the problem of Jewish history, I am asking you to concede the simplest claim of reason, and that to leave the Bible out of account would be to violate the most elementary principles of common sense.
Now then, my proposition is this: that as you read, you cannot help feeling that you are listening to the evidence of a true witness. There is a natural difference between truth and falsehood. There is something in the manner of a man who speaks the truth that you might not be able to describe, but which convinces you on natural principles that he is speaking the truth. So with a man who is romancing. There is the same difference between books, though it is necessarily not so easy to discern as in living witnesses. The style of the Bible is the style of truth. Read and see if it is not so. This is a very important point. It would matter very little in a book narrating things of no moment, such as details of travel, but in the case of the things recorded in the Bible, it is of the very first consequence to settle whether the tone of the record is the tone of truth, because the matters recorded are of a kind in which the truthfulness of the recorder is a guarantee of the truth of the things recorded. You will find yourself unable, on this head, to suggest any reason for supposing the things stated are not true. The only reason its enemies can allege is, the incredible character of many of the things recorded. But this in itself is an unsound reason: for, if manifestly truthful men tell you something that they allege on their own knowledge to be true, you are called upon to consider well before you allow the wonderfulness of the things they narrate p. 10 to be a reason for disbelieving what they say. When I first heard that the tramp of a fly’s foot could be heard by the microphone at a mile’s distance, I acted on the incredibility of the thing, and disbelieved, on the supposition that my informant had been imposed upon. But I afterwards found out that my informant was right, and that I, the unbeliever, was the fool in the case.
The self-manifest truthfulness of the Bible is a reason why you should treat with the greatest consideration the things it records. The wonderfulness of these things is certainly not a reason for their rejection. What else could we expect but wonderfulness in a book professing to record the doings of God? If the Bible came before us as a human book describing human performances, there might be some ground for objecting to the superhuman transactions with which it abounds: but, coming before us as a book written by the ordinance of God, and the inspiration of God, to record the sayings and doings of God “in sundry times and divers manners in times past,” the absence of wonderfulness would itself be a wonder, and a reason for doubting if it possessed the character it professed.
If there is no reason in the wonderfulness of Bible contents for doubting the Bible’s truthfulness, it will be hard to discover a reason in anything else. I will go further, Ladies and Gentlemen, and say, that a study of the Bible’s historical structure will shew that it cannot be otherwise than true. I will hope next time we meet, to try and make a beginning to shew you what I mean, in a line of argument that is not very common, but that is very obvious and powerful when thorough acquaintance imparts discernment.