328 
A few words more. On what grounds does the sceptic base 
his theory of the formation of the Scriptures ? Ours is definite, 
clear, intelligible. Right or wrong, we have something to say 
for it. But what is the sceptical theory ? Can the supposed 
originals be produced ? Have they been preserved, to show 
where the compiler exceeded, where he fell short of, his 
limits ? If Plutarch misrepresent Herodotus, if Andronicus 
misunderstand Aristotle, if Theophylact misapprehend St. 
Chrysostom, or if the Targums distort or add to the Scripture, 
we can at once compare the later with the earlier, and show 
the error : but where are the originals of the Scriptures ? 
Have they perished ? On our view, they have been allowed 
to disappear, the Divine sanction being bestowed on those 
parts only which are incorporated in what we hold to be the 
Divine narrative ; but on the sceptical ground, we may fairly 
ask, where are they ? If they have had the same chance in 
the struggle for existence (one involuntarily uses Darwinian 
phrases) as the alleged Scriptures, how is it that they are not 
forthcoming; that all of them have given way to a set of 
compilations based upon them, and misrepresenting them ? It 
is surely more credulous to believe in the existence of originals 
now not forthcoming, than to maintain that the books we 
have are Divinely-protected originals. 
There is, however, another form which the objections of the 
sceptic take. He professes to compare the conclusions of 
science with the propositions and statements of Scripture, and 
to find them so entirely at variance, that no one whose mind 
is logically constituted, can accept the latter, but must sur- 
render them to the former. The Biblical cosmogony, he 
urges, is opposed to facts. The Biblical ethnology is incon- 
sistent with what we see to be the present condition of the 
world. Geology teaches us what we cannot reconcile with the 
Scriptural records. The Hebrew tradition is opposed to what 
we find by experience to be true. The sceptic, then, believes 
something. As I said at the beginning, his mind is not a 
vacuum, even on such high matter as the Being of God, the 
universe, and man. He believes the testimony of science. He 
acquiesces in the propositions of geologists, ethnologists, and 
his own experience, but rejects what others receive as coming 
from God. But whence came these propositions which he is 
willing to accept ? Does he not receive the most startling 
statements from his supposed science ? He accepts a cos- 
mogony, as difficult as and more incredible than that of the 
Bible. On what testimony ? He accepts a popular or a 
scientific ethnology ; but on what grounds ? He appeals to 
his own and others' experience ; but why is he at liberty to 
assume that this experience is true ? May he not err as well 
