A BRIEF REVIEW OF A SERMON PREACHED BY REV. F. L. GOODSPEED.

My attention has been directed to a sermon by Rev. Frank L. Goodspeed, delivered before the San Francisco Presbyterian Ministerial Association, and published, by the request of that association, in the Pacific Presbyterian. I take it for granted therefore that it fairly represents the views now considered "sane and safe" by the body of men who minister to the spiritual needs of Presbyterians and others who choose to hear them in San Francisco. It is also fair to suppose the same of the majority of the preachers of that great and venerable denomination throughout America, if not throughout the world. It is therefore worthy of careful attention, as setting forth the present attitude of so many leaders of thought in the Protestant ranks on the important subject of the inspiration of the Bible.

Dr. Goodspeed would likely resent the imputation of being a destructive critic, or indeed of being in sympathy with that wing of the modern church. He is generally considered as being distinctly evangelical, and he is looked upon as one who believes that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Therefore his utterances may well claim our consideration, as those of a blatant opponent of the authority of the word of God would not.

The doctor states his position as to the Bible in the following easily understood terms :

" Plato said that the radiant light was the shadow of God. The highest forms of truth are similitudes
ideal images, parables, allegories, spiritual resemblances, moral dramas. Behind every symbol there shines a great truth. All truth is true, whether it be fact, or whether it be clothed in literary form and presented as ideal. Doubt has been cast upon the historic reality of some of the Old Testament characters. My object this morning is to show that it does not matter whether they are historical or not. Truth is truth. Their historicity does not affect one way or the other their value in conveying religious lessons. Around some of the Old Testament books rage the battles of the critics, while all the time there shines from these same books, between the discussions of writers conservative and writers radical, supernal and soul-stirring truth. Whether these stories are true in the sense of being literal facts is not, for the purpose of religion, relevant. Are they in accord with the universe as we know it, as ruled over by a righteous God? That is the question." (Italics are mine.)

Now all this sounds very fair, and will doubtless be subscribed to by many well-meaning people who will see in it an easy way out of the difficulties that have confronted them in regard to the divinity of the Scriptures. The position seems to be that the Bible is from God, inspired by Him, and in all things profitable, but that it is quite consistent to believe this and yet to suppose that many of the narratives and biographies contained therein are really not historical at all, or else are simply like the tales often handed to children, "founded on fact," but nevertheless with a great deal of fiction interwoven. As long as these tales present truthful ideals, and serve as an incentive to upright living and devotedness of heart, it can make little or no difference that they are not true as to fact. "Truth is true," says the doctor, '' whether it be fact, or whether it be clothed in literary form and presented as ideal."

In order that his meaning may be perfectly plain, he goes on to speak of doubtful and fictitious characters in mythology and the literature of fiction. It makes no difference whether William Tell ever lived or not, the Swiss have been inspired to deeds of patriotism by his supposed example. Homer's conception of Achilles (if indeed Homer himself was not merely an ideal for the spirit of Greek poetry) is the incarnation of the martial valor of the ancient Hellenes. And so with the creations of modern authors- the characters of Dickens, Thackeray, Hugo, etc. Apply this principle to Scripture, and we are told it need make no difference to a Christian's faith if it be found that the great characters of the Bible are also inventions. They stand for ideal truth, and the ideal is the important thing, not the means of directing attention to it. I purposely refrain here from using the doctor's language, in order to set forth the bald theory, untrammeled with the admittedly elegant phrases of the sermon in question.

Now in the application of all this we are told to consider first "the epic of Eden." Dr. Goodspeed will not commit himself to the view that the early chapters of Genesis are merely poetical and unhistorical. But he undertakes to show that even if this is the case, it has nothing to do with the "ideal truth" therein set forth. On the other hand, the bias of his mind is easy to discern. It is clear that he has swung a long way from the position that these chapters are literally true. It is the same with the story of Jonah, his next illustration. "The book of Jonah," he says, "is one of the divinest in the Bible." This itself sounds badly, for one who is supposed to believe that all the books of that volume are equally God-breathed. If that be so, what place is there for the comparison of one with another as to divine or divinest? " I do not say that the whale story is impossible-nothing is impossible with God," he tells us. "But that is not the point," he adds:" It does not matter whether it is literal history or not. It is fairly crowded with ideal truth." And then he goes on to apply it, and that with considerable intelligence as to its great moral lessons.

The third and last illustration is what he calls " The drama of Job." To the query, " Is Job literal history ?" he replies, " I do not know." But he suggests that "very likely at the foundation of the book there was a man by the name of Job, a personal, real, live man." On the other hand he will not, he says, contend for this. " It does not matter. The truth is all that matters." And so again the lesson is drawn that he has been pressing throughout the address.

This then fairly, I believe, represents the standpoint of the sermon I am desirous of considering. So without quoting more at length, I turn to consider the question, Does it matter ? Does it matter if the Bible characters are merely the creations of a poet's or a novelist's fancies ? Does it matter if the story of the creation, of the garden of Eden, of Job, Jonah, Abraham, Daniel, Samson, Moses, and all the other characters and events described in Scripture, are only imaginary ? Providing we can detect the "ideal truth" behind the narratives, does it matter if they are, as to fact, false and unreliable? Well, so far as I at least am concerned, it does matter, and that decidedly. For if the doctor's contention is correct, it leaves me with no light as to the future, and no hope as to the present. It leaves me without a Saviour, and bereft of the comfort of the Holy Spirit.

Is this too strong ? Then let me give my reasons for saying it. If the narratives of the Old Testament are only fables, then He whom I adore as my Saviour and own as my Lord stands convicted of false witness. If His witness is false, He could not be the Son of God; and if He is not the Son of God, then I am of all men most miserable, for on that I have hung my hopes for eternity. Again, believing in the deity of the Lord Jesus, relying on His omniscience, I have believed that He meant what He said when He promised another Comforter, even the Spirit of Truth. I have therefore accepted the New Testament as what it professes to be, the revelation of that Holy One who of old inspired the prophets, and now has in like manner guarded the New Testament writers from error. But if the statements of Dr. Goodspeed are correct, the testimony of Him whom I have supposed to be the Holy Ghost is not to be credited; therefore all must be a delusion, and for me at least there is no Holy Ghost, and thus I am left in darkness and doubt, like a shipwrecked mariner, with neither chart nor compass to give me any true conception of where I am or whither I am tending.

I have put the case in all its bald, blasphemous suggestion, that the real outcome of this Satanic theory propounded by Dr. Goodspeed may be readily seen and grasped by the souls of those who are affected.

Now for the proof of my assertions:The Lord Jesus, when here on earth, again and again authenticated the writings of the Old Testament. He spoke unhesitatingly of the Volume as true, and its characters as real. He tells us that Moses wrote of Him. Moses then was real, or Christ's witness is false! Abraham, He says, rejoiced to see His day. Does it matter then whether Abraham was a real character, or merely an ideal one ? To ask the question is to answer it. He speaks of Daniel the prophet, not Daniel the hero of a historical novel! And the record of Jonah He authenticates in language unmistakably clear, declaring that Jonah was three days and three nights in the fish's belly. Does it matter if he was not? It does matter, most positively ; for it convicts Him of either conniving at a falsehood, or of being ignorant of the facts. In either case I could never trust my eternal destiny to Him, after knowing of His unreliability as a witness. If He tells me of earthly things and I cannot believe Him, I dare not credit Him when He undertakes to tell me of heavenly things.

As to the testimony of the Holy Ghost, I notice only one instance; for if that be false, I need not another. He inspired the apostle Paul to write, concerning the stories of Israel in the early Bible records, "all these things happened." Did they, or did they not ? If they did not, you may as well take all the Bible away. It can be of no more value to my soul now, for it is only on a par with other great literary works, emanating from the minds of men, whose ideas may be sublime and grand, but who
differ one from another in a thousand things, and whose ipse dixit is no more to be relied on than my own.

The humble, reverent believer will have no difficulty as to whom to trust in the dilemma here presented. Without hesitancy he will accept the testimony of the Christ of God, and the authentication of the Holy Spirit, utterly spurning the unholy suggestions of any who, like Dr. Goodspeed, would by their good words and fair speeches rob us of the word of God, and offer instead only a handful of literary ideals. But it is to be feared his views will be the ruin of many who have never yet learned, or who are unlearning, that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. He it was who spoke all these words, every one weighed and measured out in such a way as to make known His mind and will perfectly.

I do not undertake to argue here for this truth. Others have done that well, and their writings are easy to obtain. Besides, I remember that He who spoke as never man spoke has given us to know that '' if they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."

For Dr. Goodspeed, and such as imbibe his poisoned sweetness, an awful awakening is yet to come. If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Satan is making every effort in these last days to overthrow all confidence in the Holy Scriptures as the revelation of the Holy Ghost to the souls of men. Doubtless, when the doctor preached this sermon, he thought he was helping to save men from giving up altogether any allegiance they ever had to the Scriptures. His cure, however, is no cure at all. It leaves the soul as truly without the inspired word of God as does the boldest Higher Criticism and the most open infidelity. May the Lord in grace keep His own from endorsing views so destructive of all true faith! H. A. I.