Having thus changed my church relations, and feeling that I had a greater field of usefulness open to me, my zeal for efficiency and success increased. I had a sincere and consuming desire to "save men's souls." And believing my creed to be as infallible as the Bible upon which it was based, I studied to make myself efficient and able in its defense. By following the ordinary methods of interpretation, I soon found no trouble in doing this. Does the reader inquire here what are the "ordinary methods of interpretation"? Taking a chapter, or verse, or paragraph of the Bible here and there, thru the whole book, from Genesis to Revelation, and weaving them together as a connected whole, regardless of whether there is any natural connection between them or not; then disposing of all contradictory passages as either "figurative,"—with unlimited latitude on the interpretation of the "figures,"—or as pertaining to those "great and mysterious, unknowable things of God's divine revelation,"—mysteries too great for man to know! This method of interpretation is the common practice, to a greater or less extent, of every church in Christendom that accepts the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible, and looks to it as its sole and final source of authority in religion. There is not a creed in Christendom today, and never has been, that cannot be supported and proved to be conclusively correct from the Bible by this method of interpretation. By the same method the Bible can be made the defense—and it often has been—of war, murder, slavery, polygamy, adultery, and the foulest crimes known to humanity, and these all made the divine institutions of God. And these are exactly the leading methods of interpretation of the Bible that are being followed today, and have been since Christianity first began to divide into sects and parties.
But this is a digression. While I recognized some merit in nearly all the creeds, I firmly believed mine the best. My faith in, and devotion to the Methodist Church had become so intense that I believed the sum total of all theological knowledge was concentrated and embodied in John Wesley. There could be no more progress, no more discovery. It was a finished science, and John Wesley finished it. There are thousands who still think so, even to this day! I looked back over history to the days of apostolic purity, followed the trend of theological thought in its decline into error and superstition, thru the dark ages, to the first glimmer of light in Wickliffe, followed by Huss, until the flame of the Reformation sprang up in Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, followed by Knox and Arminius; but Wesley was the end of knowledge, and wisdom died with him.
Yes, I was soon able to defend and prove my creed to the satisfaction of myself and my superiors. But now I wanted to go further. I wanted toprovetheproof. As I grew older and my mind broadened I desired to drink deeper from the fountains of knowledge. I started out with the best materials available to me to make a critical study of the Bible. Up to this time I had studied the Bible only superficially. I had accepted it as truth, as divine, as inspired, as infallible, except the doubts of my school days before described, and these I had long since cast aside. I had studied the Bible as the great mass of Christians study it today—to support and defend preconceived opinions, most of which I had inherited. Now I was to seek for basic principles. I wanted to know just who wrote each book of the Bible, when he wrote it and why, and just what the specific proofs were as to these facts and of its divine inspiration.
In looking back over the period of years that have since intervened, I am still unable to perceive any selfish, egotistical motive in these my ambitions. My unquenchable thirst for knowledge was inspired solely by my desire to increase my efficiency in that vocation to which I sincerely believed I was divinely called.
I never had the opportunity of taking a Divinity Course in a Divinity School. But both the great branches of the Methodist Church require all its ministers, before final ordination, to take a prescribed course of study, somewhat after the correspondence method, covering four years,—and longer if necessary to cover the full prescribed course,—that is practically equal to the curriculum of the average Divinity School, minus the advantages of class room instruction and class lectures. It was this course of study that I pursued, prescribed by the bishops of the M. E. Church. And it was here in these orthodox books, prescribed by the bishops of my church as necessary for me, not only to read, but to study, learn and digest, to fully equip me for the ministry, that I learned the lessons that completely upset my faith, and finally led me to abandon the church and religion entirely! I might add that it was perhaps as much what Ifailedto learn from these books, things that I was looking for and could not find because it was not in them, that led me to this course, as it was from the affirmative facts I did learn.
Up to this time, and long afterwards, I had never read a book that might be called at all liberal in theology, much less anything of a sceptical character. In fact I had read nothing, outside of school text books, except such books as were authoritatively published by some Baptist or Methodist publishing house. Robert G. Ingersoll was then at the height of his fame, and I would not even read a political speech of his, because he was an "infidel." The strange anomaly of the whole thing is that I was led, or rather driven, clear out of the church into practical agnosticism thru and by my earnest and intense efforts to more strongly fortify and establish myself in my preconceived beliefs about the Bible and religion. This will appear more fully as we proceed.
First of all, all orthodox Christianity is based upon the doctrine that the Bible is the supernaturally inspired, infallible word of God. Upon this Bible as the sole authority, every doctrine, creed, dogma and ecclesiastical practice is based. Take away this doctrine of Biblical infallibility, and orthodoxy crumbles to dust. As long as it is held to be infallible truth, every creed in Christendom can find abundant material in it to prove every point it claims. Every one knows that among the many Christian denominations which fully agree with each other the Bible is an infallible revelation from God; yet the doctrines and conclusions they deduce from it are as diametrically opposed to each other as midnight and noon.
As I have already said, I never had any doubt, up to this time, of the divine inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, except a very slight one about the method of inspiration, which I have already detailed of my student days. As a Methodist I had become fairly proficient in my ability to defend every detail of my church doctrine. I could repeat almost every passage of scripture from Genesis to Revelation in support of each of the Twenty-five Articles. My only trouble was when I would occasionally run across some sceptic who would question my authority,—the Bible. Of course I would tell him the Bible was the word of God; and he would demand proof, "detailed facts," in support of my assertion. While perfectly satisfied in my own mind, these "detailed facts" were not in my possession. But now I was going to get them.
In the last year of my conference course of study, one of the books prescribed was "Harman's Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures." Dr. Harman was Professor of Greek and Hebrew in Dickinson College. I was told that in this book I would find "completely detailed, uncontrovertible proofs of the divine authenticity, inspiration, and infallible truth of the Bible." This was just what I had long been looking for, and just how I found it will soon appear.
The first one-third of this book of 770 pages is devoted to proving the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, its inspiration and infallible truth. On the subject of inspiration generally the author follows theidealrather than theverbaltheory. His theory of thenecessityof inspiration is based upon the idea that the Bible contains records that could not otherwise have been known at the time they were written; for example, the account of Creation "must have been divinely revealed to Moses, as he could not otherwise have known it." Theextentof inspiration he limits to those matters that were "not otherwise known" to the writers. Things of which they had personal knowledge were therefore not the subjects of inspiration. For example, the advice of Jethro, concerning the division in the burdens of the government, wasnotinspired, because Moses got it directly from the mouth of Jethro himself. Nevertheless the author was "divinely guided" in writing of matters of his personal knowledge, in order that the "sacred record" might be preserved from error. As to theproofsof inspiration, I quote verbatim: "The inspiration of the Bible is evident from its sublime doctrines concerning God, the purity of its moral precepts, and from the wonderful fulfillment of its prophecies." When I read this I confess I felt a little disappointed. I had understood this before. I wanted something more specific, material, tangible.
Then follows a lengthy treatise on the Hebrew language, the original characters in which the Pentateuch was written, without vowels or punctuation marks; how it was preserved by copying from generation to generation; how errors crept into various copies; an account of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint; how these all differ the one from the other in many details; of the ancient manuscripts that are still extant, and how these all differ more or less from each other,—not in anything fundamental, but in many minor details; and finally winds up with the statement that "the original text is uncertain"!
This was all new to me. I had naturally supposed that not only the original text was divinely inspired and infallibly correct, but that by some sort of divine supervision, it had been so preserved and kept down thru the ages. And now I was not only disappointed, but alarmed. I wondered what would come next. And I soon learned.
Before this I had never discovered, nor had any one pointed them out to me, the many discrepancies and contradictions in the early Biblical records,—the two stories of creation, the two accounts of the flood that are so intricately woven together, the changes in the law in Deuteronomy from those in Exodus and Leviticus; and others. My simple, blind faith had completely obscured all these until now. It is true the author pointed them out only to explain or reconcile them. But in practically every instance, the explanation failed to explain, or reconcile, and was only an apology or an excuse; and I was left with a clear vision of the discrepancy, and with no adequate explanation. The differences between some parts of the law, as recorded in Deuteronomy and in the earlier books, was explained as a "progressive development according to the changing conditions and needs of the Hebrews." From a purely human viewpoint, I considered this explanation satisfactory. But from that of "divine revelation," I wondered why God did not reveal it correctly at the first; or why he found it necessary to change his own law.
Concerning the ritual law of the tabernacle and the priesthood, the author confesses that, in all probability, Moses was educated at Heliopolis, in Egypt, for the Egyptian priesthood, and was therefore perfectly familiar with all the priestly regulations of the religion of Egypt; and thatthe tabernacle service, its priesthood, their dress, sacred utensils, etc., were doubtless all patterned after Egyptian models, but devoted to Jehovah instead of the gods of Egypt; and he cites this as a proof of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
And in support of this view, he quotes the opinion of the Abbé Victor Ancessi! And I had always been taught that the tabernacle, the priesthood, and all that pertained to both, were divinely revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai! "According to the pattern shown thee in the mount."
Then on the question of interpolations, our author confesses that there are many of them in the Pentateuch, most of them showing that they belong to a much later age than Moses; yet he denies that any of them are material, or in any way change the original meaning or sense of the text.
Thus I went thru over 250 pages, devoted, not so much to the questions of divine inspiration and supernatural revelation, as these seemed to be very largely taken for granted; but to the defense of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch upon which seemed to hinge the whole question of its authenticity and infallible authority. As the author puts it, "If the Pentateuch was not written by Moses it is a forgery." To do this he quotes quite elaborately from the higher critics, Bauer, Davidson, Bleek, Ewald, Kuenen, Wellhausen, and others, for the ostensible purpose of answering and refuting them.
Now I had, up to this time, never read a line of such Biblical criticism, except that quoted by this author. Naturally, I not only had no sympathy with it, but was strongly prejudiced against it. But I could not fail to note that the refutations and explanations of my author very often failed to either refute or explain.
To sum the whole thing up, when I had gone thus far, I could not avoid the impression that from the standpoint of logical argument, based upon anyknown facts, the whole thing was a failure. It was simply a continued series of apologetics; in legal parlance, a sort of "confession and avoidance." I began in the firmbeliefthat Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and that he was divinely inspired in doing it. I expected to find the definite proofs that this was true. When I got thru I didn't know who wrote it. I was equally certain the author I was reading didn't know; and I doubted if any one else did. I felt the incipient doubts of my school days returning, only in much larger volume and greater force. If the reader will pardon the phrase: "I felt myself slipping."
Then followed a study of the authorship, origin, character, and purpose of the remaining canonical books of the Old Testament. These may all be grouped into two or three divisions. Of the historical books of Joshua, Judges, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings and First and Second Chronicles, I found to my surprise, that nobody knows who wrote any of them; nor anything definite about the time, or circumstances under which they were written. Joshua was merelybelievedto have been written not later than twenty-five years after the death of Joshua, by some person or persons who were personally familiar with the events therein narrated. As the book is clearly divided into two distinct parts, the first ending with the twelfth chapter and the second beginning with the thirteenth, it issupposedthat it was written by Eleazar and Phinehas. But this is admitted to be mere conjecture.
The Book of Judges is placed after that of Joshua, because it takes up the narrative where Joshua closes. It is assumed that itmust have been writtensometime before the close of David's reign. "Respecting the Authorship of Judges, nothing is known." The date of both books of Samuel—originally one book—is wholly unknown, as is also that of the Kings and Chronicles. It is conjectured from internal evidence, that Chronicles wasprobablycompiled by Ezra, from Samuel, Kings, and possibly other documents, sometime after the return from the exile.
As to the Book of Ezra, it was shown that it is probably one of the most authentic books of the Old Testament, and written by the man whose name it bears. Nehemiah was also placed in the thoroly authentic class, with the admission that about one-fourth of the total contents of the book, appearing in the middle of it, isvery probablyan interpolation by a later, and unknown author. But this, he insists, does not detract from the divine inspiration and authenticity of the book as a whole.
Ruth and Esther also belong to the class of the unknown. Nobody knows who wrote either, nor when, nor where. Ruth is placed "probably sometime during the reign of David." Esther is much later; in fact it is one of the latest books in the Old Testament Canon, from which it was long excluded because the name of God nowhere appears in it. The historical events narrated in it are admitted to be of very doubtful authenticity, as they are nowhere else mentioned in the Bible, and are wholly unknown to secular history; and such events, if they occurred at all, were of such transcendent importance to the Jewish nation, that mention of them in the Chronicles, or by some of the prophets, could hardly have been omitted. But our author gets around all these difficulties by the Feast of Purim. He insists that such a memorial as this, that has been and still is celebrated annually by the Jews in all parts of the world, "since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary," could not possibly have originated in a mere fiction, and been perpetuated so long. Therefore, the Book of Esther must be true, and divinely inspired!
When I had read thus far, in spite of my former simple faith in the divine inspiration and infallible truth of the Bible, I found myself clearly on the toboggan; and I was deeply disturbed in mind. I was studying a thoroly orthodox author, a distinguished professor in one of our leading colleges, whose book was approved by the bishops of my church; a book clearly written for the purpose of defending the traditional position of the church concerning the Bible, on almost every page of which that I had thus far read, I found a series of apologetics rather than arguments; with constant admissions of the world's total ignorance of the origin, authorship and date of most of the books of the Bible thus far reviewed. I began to wonder, if this was what I was getting from such a source, inspired by such a motive, what might I expect from a Biblical scholar and critic who was in search only of abstract truth, with no preconceived opinions to support or defend? I felt an incipient revolution brewing in my mind. But I was yet to learn more.
Concerning the poetical books, I found that the Book of Job was not written by Job; that nobody knows who wrote it, nor when nor where. I found that conjecture by different scholars placed it all the way from "before Moses" to after the exile. Nobody knows whether it purports to record, in poetic form, a series of actual historic facts and events; or whether it is merely a dramatic allegory, entirely fictitious, or founded upon some substratum of fact. We do not know who Job was, whether a Hebrew, an Arab, or Chaldean;—nor just where "the land of Uz" was.
Concerning the Psalms, which I had always been taught were written by David, "the sweet singer of Israel," I found to be the Jewish hymn book, compiled by an unknown hand, or hands, at an unknown date; but in its present form, perhaps as late as the third century B.C.; that the authorship of very few of them is known; that David wrote but few of them, if any; but that they were written by various authors, mostly unknown, ranging all the way from the time of Moses to that of Ezra, or later; that collections and revisions were probably made from time to time as new compositions appeared; until its present form was attained.
I found that the "Book of Proverbs" was not written by Solomon, but that it was probably compiled in the time of King Hezekiah, by unknown persons. However, our author insists that most of the proverbs in the collection are Solomonic in origin; and therefore we may very correctly speak of the collection as the "Proverbs of Solomon."
The Book of Ecclesiastes, from the superscription in Chapter I, verses 1 and 12, always attributed to Solomon, I found was not written by Solomon, at all, nor until more than five hundred years after his death. Our author concedes it to be the "latest book of the Canon"; that it could not have been written before Malachi, and possibly much later, and who wrote it, nobody knows.
Likewise I found that the "Song of Solomon" was not written by Solomon, nor by anyone else until centuries after his death; and nobody knows who wrote it, nor what its real meaning or purport is, whether fact or fiction, spiritual or sensual. It is admitted that its real meaning and purport is the most obscure and mysterious of any book in the Old Testament, yet, as it is in the Bible it must be the divinely inspired, infallible word of God! So our author thinks.
Coming now to the Prophetic Books, I learned from our author that the Book of Isaiah, as it now appears, is a collection and compilation of various writings of this great prophet, written piece-meal over a period of some fifty years, and after his death collected and arranged in its present form by some unknown hand; and that the present arrangement was made without any reference to the chronological order of the original writings, or the subject matter treated. He admits the radical difference in style, manner and subject matter of the two parts of this book, upon which modern critics have based their theory of two Isaiahs, one living before and the other during the captivity, and reconciles these discrepancies by asserting the power of God to miraculously change the literary style of his servants at will.
About the same thing is said of the Book of Jeremiah what was said of Isaiah; that it is a collection of the writings of the prophet, made after his death, by some unknown person, but more probably by Baruch; and that like Isaiah the contents of this book are arranged without reference to their chronological order. Great differences are admitted to exist between the Hebrew and Septuagint versions of this book, which our author does not try to explain or reconcile. He frankly admits that the last chapter of this book, which is identical with 2 Kings xxiv, 18, and xxv, was added by a later, and unknown hand.
The Book of Ezekiel is treated briefly and considered one of the most authentic and unquestioned of any book in the Canon. But the author devotes twenty-six pages to the Book of Daniel, almost entirely to prove that the book was written by the prophet of that name in Babylon, during the exile. He quotes elaborately from the critics who hold to a later date and a different author, and tries to refute them. About the only effect produced on my mind was that neither party knew anything definite about it; and of course my faith in the authenticity of the book was greatly weakened.
Coming to the Minor Prophets, twelve in number, the author holds that Hosea, Joel, Amos, Micah, Haggai, Zephaniah and Zechariah were well known prophets, concerning the date and authorship of whose books there is no grave doubt. Yet, he admits that there are manifest interpolations and additions to the Book of Zechariah. Of Nahum, Habakkuk, Malachi and Obadiah he admits that we know absolutely nothing, except what is written in their respective books, and the dates they were written can only be conjectured from their contents. Obadiah is composed of but one chapter of twenty-one verses, and almost identically the same thing is contained in Jeremiah xlix, 7-22. The identity is so great that our author assumes that one of them copied from the other, but which, he does not say. Of the Book of Jonah, he admits that it was not written by the prophet of that name mentioned in 2 Kings xiv, 25, nor for at least three hundred years after his time, notwithstanding he is evidently the same as that in the book. He insists, however, that no matter who wrote it, or when, the book is authentic and the story true; and as one of the principal proofs of this fact, he quotes Matt, xii, 39, 40.
Thus I finished the Old Testament, considerably shaken in faith; but as the Old Testament belonged to a long past dispensation, I considered it of little value anyway, and approached the study of the New with the hope that all difficulties would be removed and all doubts made clear. If the New Testament was truly inspired of God and infallibly true, what difference did it make if the Old was doubtful and uncertain? It was "out of date" anyway.
Our author begins his "Introduction to the Study of the New Testament" with an account of the language and characters in which most of it was originally written, as he did the Old. These were Greek Uncials, all capital letters, without any space divisions between the words, and neither accent nor punctuation marks; that from these original manuscripts, down to the invention of printing, all copies were made by hand copying. The oldest existing manuscripts were made in the fourth and fifth centuries of the Christian era, and no two of these are exactly alike. During the succeeding centuries several thousand manuscript copies of all or parts of the New Testament were made that are still extant,and no two exactly alike!
I also learned that there are still extant quite a number of ancient Versions of the New Testament, translated into different languages, all of which are more or less different from each other, not alone in the text,but in the books recognized as authentic and canonical.
Here the author gives a brief history of the formation of the New Testament Canon, which so surprised, and even startled me, that I must make some mention of it. (In his treatment of the Old Testament the author gives but a few pages to the formation of the Old Testament Canon.) In the fifth Article of Religion in the Methodist Discipline it says: "In the name of the Holy Scriptures we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testaments of whose authoritywas never any doubt in the Church." (Italics mine.) But here I was to learn that for over three hundred years there was more or less controversy, and sometimes very bitter, over what books of the New Testament were, or were not, authentic and authoritative; that as a matter of fact there never was complete agreement among the Church Fathers; and that there never was any authoritative declaration on the subject by any Church Council until the Council of Trent (Roman Catholic) in 1545, which included in its canon all of our present recognized books of both the Old and New Testaments, and in addition thereto, included as canonical the Old Testament Apocrypha, which is universally excluded from the Protestant Bibles.
As this work is designed, at least partly, to stimulate additional study in others it may be well to cite a few examples, as I learned them from this book, designed to prove conclusively the authenticity, divine inspiration and infallible truth of the Holy Scriptures.
The canon of Muratori, about A.D. 160, omits Hebrews, both epistles of Peter, James and Jude, as uncanonical, and expresses doubts as to the Revelation.
The Peshito Syriac, about A.D. 200, omits Second Peter, Jude, Second and Third John and Revelation.
The Latin Version Itala, about the middle of the second century, omits James and Second Peter.
The Version of Clemens, about A.D. 202, omits Second Peter, James, Second and Third John and Philemon.
That of Cyprian of Carthage, about A.D. 250, omits Hebrews, Second Peter, Second and Third John, and Jude.
Eusebius, the great church historian, about A.D. 340, disputes the authenticity of James, and omits Jude, Second Peter, second and Third John, and doubts the Revelation. He also gives a list of "Spurious writings" at that time, a number of which are still extant. (It was years after this before I saw The Apocryphal New Testament.)
Ambrose of Milan, late in the fourth century, rejects Hebrews, Second and Third John, Jude, James, and Philemon.
Chrysostom, of Antioch, about A.D. 400, omits Second Peter, Jude, Second and Third John, and Revelation.
Jerome, about A.D. 420, rejects Hebrews, doubts James and Jude, and attributes Second and Third John to John, a Presbyter of Ephesus, and not the Apostle John.
I have only cited the names of those whodid notaccept the present canon. That many of the Church Fathers, perhaps a majority of them, did accept it is not questioned. I have cited these instances—and not near all our author gives—to show that opinion on this subject was by no means unanimous in this early day; nor was all the intelligence, ability and character on one side. I quote it also to show that the teachings of my church concerning those books, that there "was never any doubt in the church" was not correct.
It must however be said in all fairness, according to our author, that from about the close of the second or the beginning of the third century, there was practical unanimity in the church as to the authenticity of all the books in our present New Testament except these seven: Hebrews, Jude, Second Peter, Second and Third John, James and Revelation. Over these the controversy continued until the Roman Hierarchy overshadowed the Church and suppressed all liberty of thought or expression.
We now come to the detailed study of the origin, authorship, date and character of the different books of the New Testament.
The first shock I got was learning that "The Gospel According to Matthew," was not written in its present form by the Apostle of that name. Nor is the author or date definitely known. The substance of a long article on the subject is to the effect that Matthew the Apostle, about A.D. 68, wrote an account of the doings and sayings of Jesus, in the Syro-Chaldee language, the vernacular of Palestine at the time, for the benefit of the Hebrew Christians. From this basis some later hand, unknown, translated into Greek, and elaborated it into substantially our present version. The earliest known Hebrew, or Syro-Chaldee version was that used by the Ebionites, which materially differed from our present Greek version; but which is the original and which the recession has never been settled. The early Ebionite version did not contain the first two chapters, giving the account of the miraculous birth; but our author insists that these were cut off from the original, rather than added on, tho nobody knows which.
Concerning the Gospel of Mark, he insists that it was also written as was the original of Matthew, before the destruction of Jerusalem, but after Matthew; that the material in it was learned from Peter, whose companion Mark was (how does this comport with divine inspiration?) as Mark was not an apostle and could not have known these facts at first hand. He admits the last twelve verses to be spurious and added by a later hand.
Concerning Luke he says that he derived his information from Paul (another case of doubtful inspiration), admits the date and place he wrote are unknown; admits the discrepancies between him and Matthew, in regard to the circumstances of the miraculous birth and the genealogy of Jesus—something I had never noticed before!—and undertakes to reconcile them. When I turned to the records and read them in this new light, his attempted reconciliation, to my mind, was an utter failure. Like every attempted reconciliation I have ever read since, it was done by "reading into the record," not only what was not there, but what was wholly inconsistent with the record that is there. If any candid reader will first read carefully the first two chapters of Matthew, noting all the details, and then likewise the first two chapters of Luke, he will see that they are wholly irreconcilable in their details. They agree in but two points: That Jesus was miraculously begotten, and born at Bethlehem. But in every detail of what went before and after, they are wholly at variance.
My belief in divine and infallible inspiration was here materially weakened. How could the Holy Spirit "inspire" in two different men, writing upon the same subject, such varying and irreconcilable accounts of the same event? Besides, our author had practically abandoned the idea of inspiration by attributing Mark's knowledge of the life of Jesus to Peter and Luke's to Paul. But, on the other hand, as I learned a little later, in all the writings attributed to Paul, there is not a single reference, even most remotely, to the miraculous birth of Jesus; but on the other hand there is much evidence in his writings to lead to the conclusion that he knew nothing about it. Then where did Luke get this information?
Concerning the Gospel according to John, our author devotes forty-eight pages to an effort to support its authorship in the Apostle John, and to try to reconcile it with the other Gospels. Like the differences between Matthew and Luke concerning the birth of Jesus, this was the first knowledge I had that there were any discrepancies between them, or that there was any doubt about its authorship. He quotes elaborately from the Church Fathers in its favor, as well as from the modern critics both for and against. He admits that chapter xxi is a later addition to the book, but insists that John wrote it himself, except the last two verses, which were "added by the church at Ephesus." He also admits that v, 2, 3, and viii, 1-11, are both spurious and added by a later and unknown hand.
When I had read it all I knew less about the authorship of the book than when I began. But the discrepancies between it and the synoptics loomed large and menacing. I will not go into details concerning these. The reader can easily see them for himself. But on the question of inspiration I was about at my wits' end. Here I was at the very vital part of the Christian religion, as I had been taught it and was trying to teach it to others. I have already told how I passed up the matter of the inspiration of the Old Testament as being of little importance under the Christian dispensation. And now every prop was falling from under me in regard to the inspiration of the New. If the very records of the life and teachings of the Christ himself, upon which the whole fabric of Christianity rested, were now shown to be discordant and irreconcilable in their contents, and some of them very doubtful in their authorship; with it the whole doctrine of a divine and infallible revelation would have to go.
I was dumfounded. Was it possible that all this upon which I had staked my whole life, and had been preaching for years, was a mere fiction? It seemed to be so, if the Bible was not divinely inspired, a true revelation from God, and infallibly correct. But how could itallbe true, when it told so many different and conflicting stories about the same thing? Was not God the very essence of truth? Then how could He miraculously reveal one thing to Matthew, another and entirely different one to Luke, and still another and different one to John, all about the same thing? And yet, that in many instances this was true, I could no longer doubt. Even tho these discrepancies might not go to the essence of Christianity as a system of religion; nor materially affect its fundamental doctrines; yet they did go to the very foundations upon which it was based,—a divine and infallible revelation from heaven. Take this away and orthodox Christianity is not left a leg to stand on; and I knew it.
But we will hurry on thru this subject. The authorship of the Acts of the Apostles was attributed without serious question to Luke. All the Epistles usually attributed to Paul are conceded to him by our author, except that to the Hebrews, while some critics reject the Pauline authorship of any of the Pastoral Epistles,—those to Timothy, Titus and Philemon. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is admitted to be unknown, and its date uncertain, tho it existed in the church quite early.
The Epistle of James is admitted to be doubtful; and especially as to which of several men of this name might have written it. It is admitted that it could not have been written by the Apostle James, as he was put to death at Jerusalem long before the epistle was known. As has already been seen, it was rejected by many of the Fathers; and even Martin Luther dubbed it "an epistle of straw."
First Peter is considered genuine, and written by the Apostle; but Second Peter is admitted to have been unknown in the church before the third century, and consequently spurious.
The First Epistle of John is believed by our author to have been written by the same hand that wrote the Fourth Gospel, the Apostle John. Second and Third John are admitted to be doubtful, probably written by some other John, and by later tradition, because of the identity of the names, attributed to the Apostle. Third John was unknown in the church before the third century.
The Epistle of Jude is admitted to be a mystery. Nobody knows even who Jude was, or what he was, or when the epistle was written. It was known to exist early in the second century. It was generally rejected by the early church, but somehow got into the canon.
The Book of Revelation is admitted to be the most mysterious book in the whole Bible. By whom and when written are both unknown. Tradition and its internal content is the only evidence that the Apostle John wrote it, and this would apply to any other John as well. It is evident that the same person did not write it and the Fourth Gospel. It was unknown in the church until near the middle of the second century; tho it bears internal evidence of having been written before the fall of Jerusalem. Most of the early Church Fathers rejected it, but it got into the canon;—and is therefore divinely inspired!
My study of "Harman's Introduction of the Study of the Holy Scriptures" was here finished. I have elaborated somewhat on these studies for two reasons: First, because the results that these studies produced in me, that I shall presently sum up, were the results of the whole, rather than any particular part of it, except those portions which I have already specially noted. Second, I desire to arouse a similar spirit of study and investigation in my readers; and I thus give this outline of study in detail, as a sort of basis from or upon which to work.
I have already indicated in part my feelings at this time. I summed the whole thing up briefly. The one great question around which it all hinged was this: If the authorship of the books of the greater portion of the Old Testament are wholly unknown, as well as the dates when they were written, and the same is true of several of the books of the New Testament, how are we to know these same books are divinely inspired, the infallible truth, the word of God? This is a fair question and a reasonable one.
I had set out in earnest and good faith to find the proofs of inspiration, in which I had always believed, and only found them wanting. Add to this the manifold discrepancies and direct contradictions which I now began to discover running thru the whole Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and I found them wholly irreconcilable with any idea of divine revelation and infallible truth.
I here recalled a small book I had read some years before on Inspiration,—the author I have forgotten,—but I remember the three leading reasons for the inspiration of the Bible which he gave, and which, with my limited knowledge at the time, seemed satisfactory. These were: Tradition, Necessity and Success. The tradition of the Jews as to the authenticity and inspiration of the books of the Old Testament: it was argued, that whatever may at this time be the limits of our knowledge concerning these books, the ancient Jewish Rabbisknewjust what they were, and if they had not every one been the word of God, these Rabbis would have known it, and they never would have been in the canon. The same doctrine of tradition was applied to the Church Fathers concerning the books of the New Testament. But I had here learned that these Church Fathers were by no means agreed as to these books. I began to see now that the same argument might be applied with equal force to the Vedas, the Zend Avesta, or the Koran.
The argument from necessity was based upon the assumption that man in his fallen and sinful state was by nature wholly unable to discover anything about God, or the means of his redemption. Therefore a divine revelation was necessary to meet man's needs in this case; and the Bible meets this necessity. Therefore the Bible is a divine revelation. But I here recalled that the only evidence we have of man's original perfection and fall is in the Bible itself; and that this line of argument must ultimately drive us back to the mereassumptionof the facts upon which this supposed "divine necessity" was based.
The argument based upon success was that Christ and Christianity were not only the fulfillment of Old Testament promise and prophecy; but that it never could have made the success in the world that it hasif it had not been of divine origin, the result of divine revelation. I was prepared at this time to look with some favor on the argument drawn from "promise and prophecy"; but if success was a true test I wondered if the same argument would not apply with equal force to Buddhism, with a third more followers than Christianity, or to Mohammedanism with half as many in a much shorter time.
These arguments could satisfy me no longer, in the light of the new facts I had learned. But I was not yet ready to give up religion and Christianity. I began to look for some new basis of interpretation. I asked myself the questions: May not Christianity be substantially true after all? Is not man a sinner? And as such does he not need a Savior? Does not Christianity meet this necessity? Is not the Bible after all, tho of purely human origin as I now conceived, a valuable book? May we not yet find much valuable truth in it, tho neither inspired nor infallible? May not the "great plan of salvation" be true after all? Is it not of vital importance to know? But if the Bible in which we find it cannot be relied upon infallibly,howare we to know?
In thus questioning myself I took into consideration my own personal experiences, those emotional impressions and manifestation which I had always been taught were the supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit on my life and consciousness. I could not deny them, nor get away from them. They were real. It was years later before I learned to interpret them from the scientific standpoint of psychology. I determined to take a new course—a course I had never taken before. I had heretofore taken my religion on authority. This authority had now failed. I determined to apply the test ofreason, with a firm conviction that in doing so God would guide me aright. "If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine."
I may say just here that I have never yet met a person who undertook to defend the "Christian System," or doctrine of sin and salvation, from the standpointof its own intrinsic reasonableness. The only manner in which reason has been applied to its defence is, that it isa reasonable deductionfrom thedivine revelationupon which it is based; which revelationmust be acceptedas true without question or equivocation. To doubt is to be damned. In fact, itsunreasonableness, from any natural human viewpoint, was quite freely admitted. But it was argued that man in his fallen state was quite incapable of perceiving, or understanding, any of the great mysteries of God. "Great is the mystery of Godliness" was often quoted to me; as well as, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," saith Jehovah. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." This was the court of last resort and must be accepted, and to ask further questions was to blaspheme.
Perhaps it may be well to give here a quotation which I came across years afterwards, as illustrating this process of reasoning from the assumed hypothesis of a divine and infallible revelation, thatmust be takenas the starting point. It is from Dr. Albert Barnes, a distinguished Presbyterian minister of Philadelphia, about the middle of the last century. I quote him because of his high character and representative position; and his dilemma is substantially the same with practically all others with whom I have conversed on the subject. Here is what he says:
"That the immortal mind should be allowed to jeopard its infinite welfare, and that trifles should be allowed to draw it away from God and virtue and heaven; that any should suffer forever,—lingering on in hopeless despair and rolling amidst infinite torments, without the possibility of alleviation and without end; that since Godcansave men, andwillsave a part, He has not purposed to saveall; that, on the supposition that the atonement is ample, and that the blood of Christ can cleanse from all and every sin, it is not in fact applied to all; that, in a word, a God who claims to be worthy of the confidence of the universe, and to be a being of infinite benevolence, should make such a world as this, full of sinners and sufferers; and that, when an atonement had been made, He did not saveallthe race, and put an end to sin and woe forever,—these, and kindred difficulties, meet the mind when we think on this great subject; and they meet us when we endeavor to urge our fellow-sinners to be reconciled to God, and to put confidence in him. On this ground they hesitate. These arereal, not imaginary difficulties. They are probably felt by every mind that has ever reflected on the subject; and they areunexplained, unmitigated, unremoved. I confess, for one, that I feel them more sensibly and powerfully the more I look at them, and the longer I live. I do not understand these facts; and I make no advances towards understanding them. I do not know that I have a ray of light on the subject, which I had not when the subject first flashed across my soul.
"I have read, to some extent, what wise and good men have written; I have looked at their theories and explanations; I have endeavored to weigh their arguments; for my whole soul pants for light and relief on these questions. But I get neither; and, in the distress and anguish of my own spirit, I confess that I see no light whatever, I see not one ray to disclose to me thereasonwhy sin came into the world, why the earth is strewed with the dying and the dead, and why man must suffer to all eternity.
"I have never yet seen a particle of light thrown on these subjects that has given a moment's ease to my tortured mind; but I confess, when I look on a world of sinners and sufferers, upon death-beds and graveyards, upon the world of woe, filled with hosts to suffer forever; when I see my parents, my friends, my family, my people, my fellow-citizens,—when I look upon a whole race, all involved in this sin and danger; and when I feel that God only can save them, and yet hedoes notdo it,—I am struck dumb. It is alldark, dark, darkto my soul, and I cannot disguise it."
I think the conclusions Dr. Barnes reached are about the only conclusions any honest, intelligentmancan reach, starting from his hypothesis, that a certain book is a divine and infallible revelation from God, which no one dare question, or go behind. But, as has been seen, this foundation had now entirely slipped from under me. My only course was to proceed just as tho no such book were known; or at least, that it was completely shorn of all claim to being a divine revelation, or infallible truth. I proposed to analyze every element that entered into the whole Christian system, creation, sin, redemption, atonement, salvation, immortality, heaven and hell, going back to original sources so far as possible, without any preconceived hypothesis whatever, in search of abstract truth. I felt that since God had left me without any conclusive and indisputable proofs of the truth of those things which I had always believed to be of the most supreme importance to mankind for time and eternity, that this supreme, distinguishing feature of man that lifts him above all known forms of creation could, and should be, appealed to as the final authority and last test in all things. And since reason was universally recognized as the court of last resort in all other things outside of religion, why should it not be applied to this also? I felt that if I thus honestly and sincerely followed the last and only light I had, that God could not be just and everlastingly damn me for some possible error in my conclusions. The process I followed and the results I reached will be told in the next chapter.