THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. [To THE EDITOR OF TILE
"SPECTATOR."] SIR,—Perhaps you will allow me space for a few words with reference to the article in your last issue on " The Bible and the Church." I hope I shall not be supposed to undervalue the Bible or unduly to exalt the Church, or be reckoned among those who are "opposed to Bible teaching" in our schools, if I doubt the wisdom of placing the Old Tes.tament
indiscriminately in the hands of the young without any word of explanation. I liave often wished we had what may be called a Child's Bible, consisting of such selected passages as are suitable for children, leaving the rest till they aro come to years of discretion. Is there. not sometimes an almost superstitious use of the Bible, akin to the " Sortes Biblicae," as with the pagans in their " Sortes Homericae " and " Sortes • Yirgilianae" ?
Are not some good people in danger of what, for want of a better word, we must call Bibliolatry ? They seem to overlook the question of the Scripture, " Understandest thou what thou readest ?" with its answering question, " How can I, except some man should guide me ?" Oar Lord in His reference to Daniel the Prophet says, "Let him that readeth understand." The term "Bible" itself is, strictly speaking, a misnomer. The word is not singular, it is plural, Ta 1343A.I.a. It is not one book, it is a whole library of books, written by different men, at different times, under different conditions. Our modern plan of binding the collected Scriptures together in one printed volume puts a some- what different complexion upon them from what was the case when they were simply so many several manuscripts put forth huudreds of ages apart. Surely this should be pointed out even to children. They ought not to be allowed to suppose every part within the two covers of the book to be of equal authority and value. To be taught the truth about the Bible will not lessen their reverence for the Bible. To be allowed to believe an error will, when they discover the truth, lessen their reverence for the teacher. In a code of laws we must expect to find matters which are not meant to be subjects of common conversation, or to be taught virginibus puerisque. We do not put the statute-book into the hands of our children. Milk for babes, strong meat for men. There were portions of the Old Testament Scriptures which the Jews were not allowed to read till they had reached years of discretion.
The Bible is indeed a holy book, and the Lord's Day is a holy day. One cannot value either too much. Rightly regarded and wisely used, they are an inestimable benefit. Yet there may be a superstitious, unwise, "injudicious" use, or rather misuse, of both. There is such a thing as Sabbatarianism, and there is such a thing as Bibliolatry. " Christianity," it has been said, "did not start as a volume' —I am, Sir, &c., G. J. COWLEY-BROWN.
9 Grosvenor Street, Edinburgh.
[Sensible men will, of course, agree with Canon Cowley- Brown. We never suggested that the Bible should be read or taught unintelligently or indiscriminately. The Bible- teaching which is carried out at this moment in all our schools, provided and voluntary, is necessarily discriminative.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
