{21}
CHAPTER II.
THE CHURCH"S BOOKS.
For the purpose of these lectures, we will select two:--
(1) _The Bible_, the possession of the whole Church.
(2) _The Prayer Book_, the possession of the Church of England.
(1) THE BIBLE.
And notice: _first, the Church; then, the Bible_--first the Society, then its Publications; first the Writers; then the Writings; first the Messenger, then the Message; first the Agent, then the Agencies.
This is the Divine Order. Preaching, not writing, was the Apostolic method. Oral teaching preceded the written word. Then, later on, lest this oral teaching should be lost, forgotten, or misquoted, it was gradually committed to {22} ma.n.u.script, and its "good tidings"
published in writing for the Church"s children.
It is very important to remember this order ("first the Church, and then the Bible"), because thousands of souls lived and died long before the New Testament was written. The earliest books of the New Testament (the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians) were not written for twenty years after the Day of Pentecost; the earliest Gospel (St.
Mark) was not committed to writing before A.D. 65. And, even if the Bible had been written earlier, few could have read it; and even then few could have possessed it. It was a rare book, wholly out of reach of "the people". The first Bible was not printed until 1445.
But, thank G.o.d, the Church, which wrote the book, could teach without the book; and we may be sure that no single soul was lost for the want of what it could not possess. "Without a Bible," says St. Irenaeus, writing in the second century, "they received, from the Church, teaching sufficient for the salvation of their souls."
Then, again, the Church alone could decide which books were, and which books were not, "the Scriptures". How else could we know? The society authorizes its publications. It affixes {23} its seal only to the books it has issued. So with the Divine Society, the Church. It affixes its seal to the books we now know as the Bible. How do we know, for instance, that St. Paul"s Epistles to the Corinthians are part of the Bible, and that St. Clement"s Epistle to the Corinthians is not part of the Bible? Because, and only because, the Church has so decided. If we had lived in the days of persecution it would have made a considerable difference to us whether this or that sacred book was included in the Christian Scriptures. Thus, when the early Christians were ordered by Diocletian to "bring out their books," and either burn them or die for them, it became a matter of vital importance to know which these books were. Who could tell them this? Only the society which published them, only the Church.
Again, the Church, and only the Church, is the final _interpreter_ of the Bible--it is the "_witness_ and keeper of holy writ".[1] The society which publishes a statement must be the final interpreter of that statement. Probably no book ever published needed authoritative interpretation more than the Bible. We call it "the book of {24} peace"; it is in reality a book of war. No book has spread more discord than the Bible. Every sect in the world quotes the Bible as the source and justification of its existence. Men, equally learned, devout, prayerful, deduce the most opposite conclusions from the very same words. Two men, we will say, honestly and earnestly seek to know what the Bible teaches about Baptismal Regeneration, or the Blessed Sacrament. They have exactly the same _data_ to go upon, precisely the same statements before them; yet, from the same premises, they will deduce a diametrically opposite conclusion. Hence, party wrangling, and sectarian bitterness; hence, the confusion of tongues, which has changed our Zion into Babel. Indeed, as we all know, so sharp was the contention in the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, that translations of the Bible were actually forbidden by two local Church Councils.[2]
An interpreter is as much needed now, as in the days of the Ethiopian Eunuch. "_How_ readest thou?"[3] is a question second only in {25} importance (if, indeed, it is second) to "_What_ is written?" Upon "how" we read, will very largely depend the value of "what" we read.
We go, then, to the Church to interpret the book which it gave us.
And notice--to say this, is not to disparage the Scriptures because we exalt the Church. It is to put both Church and Scriptures in their true, historical place. We do not disparage a publication because we exalt the society which issues that publication; rather, we honour the one by exalting the other. Thus, when we say that the creeds interpret the Bible, we do not disparage the Bible because we exalt the creeds, any more than we disparage the Church when we say that the Bible proves the creeds. Take the "Virgin Birth," as a single ill.u.s.tration. Are we to believe that our Blessed Lord was "born of the Virgin Mary"? Church and Bible give the same reply. The Church taught it before the Bible recorded it; the Bible recorded it because the Church taught it. For us, as Churchmen, the matter is settled once and for all by the Apostles" Creed. Here we have the official and authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church, as proved by the New Testament; "born of the Virgin Mary".
{26}
It is this Bible, the Church"s Manual of doctrine and devotion, that we are to think of.
We will think of it under five familiar names:--
(I) The Scriptures.
(II) The Bible.
(III) The Word of G.o.d.
(IV) Inspiration.
(V) Revelation.
(I) THE SCRIPTURES.
This was the earliest name by which the Bible was known--the name by which it was called for the first 1200 years in Church history. It was so named by the Latin Fathers in the fifth century, and it means, of course, "The Writings". These "Scriptures," or "Writings," were not, as the plural form of the word reminds us, one book, but many books, afterwards gathered into one book.[4] They were a library of separate books, called by St. Irenaeus "The Divine Library"--perhaps {27} the best and most descriptive name the Bible ever had. This library consists of sixty-six books, not all written at one period, or for one age, but extending over a period of, at least, 1200 years.
The original copies of these writings, or Scriptures, have not yet been discovered, though we have extant three very early copies of them, written "by hand". These are known as the _Alexandrine_ ma.n.u.script (or Codex), the _Vatican_ ma.n.u.script, and the _Sinaitic_ ma.n.u.script. Where may they be found?
One, dating from the latter part of the fourth, or the early part of the fifth century, is in the British Museum--a priceless treasure, which comparatively few have taken the trouble to go and see. It is known as the _Alexandrine_ ma.n.u.script, and was presented to Charles I by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1628. It consists of four volumes, three of which contain nearly all the Old Testament, and parts of the Apocrypha, and a fourth, containing a large part of the New Testament.
A second ma.n.u.script, dating from the fourth century, is in the Vatican Library in Rome, and is, therefore, known as the _Vatican_ ma.n.u.script.
{28} It contains nearly the whole of both the Old and New Testaments, and of the Apocrypha.
The third ma.n.u.script, dating also from the fourth century, is in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. It was discovered by Prof.
Tischendorf, in 1859, in a basket of fragments, destined to be burned, in the Monastery of St. Catherine on _Mount Sinai_; hence it is called the _Sinaitic_ ma.n.u.script.
These are the three earliest MS. collections of the Bible as yet discovered--and strange stories, of mystic beauty, and, it may be, of weird persecution, they could tell if only they could speak. Other ma.n.u.scripts we have--copies of ancient ma.n.u.scripts; versions of ancient ma.n.u.scripts; translations of ancient ma.n.u.scripts; texts of ancient ma.n.u.scripts. So they come down the ages, till, at last, we reach our own "Revised Version," probably the most accurate and trustworthy version in existence.
"The Scriptures," or "the Writings," then, consist of many books, and in this very fact, they tell their own tale--the tale of diversity in unity. They were written for divers ages, divers intellects, divers nations, in divers languages, by divers authors or compilers. They were not all {29} written for the twentieth century, though they all have a message for the twentieth century; they were not all written for the English people, though they all have a truth for the English people; they were not all written by the same hand, though the same Hand guided all the writers. In, and through the Scriptures, "G.o.d, at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets"; and in, and through them, He "hath in these last days, spoken unto us by His Son".[5]
Time pa.s.ses, and these sixty-six books, written at different periods, in different styles, in different dialects, are gathered together in one book, called "The Book," or The Bible.
(II) THE BIBLE.
It was so named by the Greek Fathers in the thirteenth century, hundreds of years after its earliest name, "The Scriptures". The word is derived from the Greek _Biblia_, books, and originally meant the Egyptian _papyrus_ (or _paper-reed_) from which paper was first made.
A "bible," then, was originally any book made of paper, and {30} the name was afterwards given to the "Book of Books"--"_The Bible_".
Here, then, are sixty-six volumes bound together in one volume. This, too, tells its own tale. If "The Scriptures," or scattered writings, speak of diversity in unity, "The Bible," or collected writings, tells of unity in diversity. Each separate book has its own most sacred message, while one central, unifying thought dominates all--the Incarnate Son of G.o.d. The Old Testament writings foretell His coming ("They are they which testify of me"[6]); the New Testament writings proclaim His Advent ("The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us"[7]).
Thus, all the books become one book.
_Many the tongues,_ _The theme is one,_ _The glory of the Eternal Son._
Take away that central Figure, and both the background of the Old Testament and the foreground of the New become dull, sunless, colourless. Reinstate that central Figure, and book after book, roll after roll, volume after volume, becomes bright, sunny, intelligible.
This it is which separates the Bible from every other book; this it is which makes it the worthiest {31} of all books for reverent, prayerful criticism; this it is which makes its words nuggets of gold, "dearer unto me than thousands of gold and silver"; this it is which gives the Bible its third name:--
(III) THE WORD OF G.o.d.
In what sense is the Bible the Word of G.o.d? Almost any answer must hurt some, and almost every answer must disappoint others. For a time, the "old school" and the "new school" must bear with each other, neither counting itself "to have apprehended," but each pressing forward to attain results.
In speaking of the Bible, we commonly meet with two extreme cla.s.ses: on the one hand, there are those who hold that every syllable is the Word of G.o.d, and therefore outside all criticism; on the other hand, there are those who hold that the Bible is no more the "Word of G.o.d" than any other book, and may, therefore, be handled and criticized just like any other book. In between these two extremes, there is another cla.s.s, which holds that the Bible is the Word of G.o.d, and that just because it is the Word of G.o.d, it is--above all other books--an "open Bible," a {32} book open for sacred study, devout debate, reverent criticism.
The first cla.s.s holds that every one of the 925,877 words in the Bible is as literally "G.o.d"s Word" as if no human hand had written it. Thus, Dean Burgon writes: "Every word of it, every chapter of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High.... Every syllable is just what it would have been ... _without the intervention of any human agent_." This, of course, creates hopeless difficulties. For instance, in the Authorized Version (to take but one single version) there are obvious insertions, such as St.
Mark xvi. 9-20, which may not be "the Word of G.o.d" at all. There are obvious misquotations, such as in the seven variations in St. Stephen"s speech.[8] There are obvious doubts about accurate translations, where the marginal notes give alternative readings. There are obvious mistakes by modern printers, as there were by ancient copyists.[9]
There are three versions of the Psalms now in use (the Authorized Version, the Revised Version, and the Prayer-Book Version), all differing {33} from each other. The translators of the Authorized Version wish, they say, to make "_one more exact_ translation of the Scriptures," and one-third of the translators of the Revised Version constantly differs from the other two-thirds. Here, clearly, the human agent is at work.