The Divine Law’s True Origin, Why Scripture Is Called Sacred and God’s Word, and Its Preservation Insofar as It Contains God’s Word

Those who look upon the Bible as a message sent down by God from Heaven to men, will doubtless cry out that I have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost because I have asserted that the Word of God is faulty, mutilated, tampered with, and inconsistent; that we possess it only in fragments, and that the original of the covenant which God made with the Jews has been lost. However, I have no doubt that a little reflection will cause them to desist from their uproar: for not only reason but the expressed opinions of prophets and apostles openly proclaim that God's eternal Word and covenant, no less than true religion, is Divinely inscribed in human hearts, that is, in the human mind, and that this is the true original of God's covenant, stamped with His own seal, namely, the idea of Himself, as it were, with the image of His Godhood.

Some people regard the Bible as a message God sent down from Heaven to humanity. They will doubtless cry out that I have sinned against the Holy Ghost because of what I have asserted. I have said that the Word of God is flawed, mutilated, tampered with, and inconsistent. I have said that we possess only fragments of it. And I have said that the original covenant God made with the Jews has been lost. However, I have no doubt that a little reflection will quiet their outcry. Both reason and the stated views of prophets and apostles openly proclaim that God’s eternal Word and covenant are divinely written in human hearts. The same is true of genuine religion. By human hearts, I mean the human mind. This is the true original of God’s covenant, stamped with his own seal: the idea of himself. This idea is, so to speak, the image of his divinity.

Religion was imparted to the early Hebrews as a law written down, because they were at that time in the condition of children, but afterwards Moses (Deut. xxx:6) and Jeremiah (xxxi:33) predicted a time coming when the Lord should write His law in their hearts. Thus only the Jews, and amongst them chiefly the Sadducees, struggled for the law written on tablets; least of all need those who bear it inscribed on their hearts join in the contest. Those, therefore, who reflect, will find nothing in what I have written repugnant either to the Word of God or to true religion and faith, or calculated to weaken either one or the other: contrariwise, they will see that I have strengthened religion, as I showed at the end of Chapter X.; indeed, had it not been so, I should certainly have decided to hold my peace, nay, I would even have asserted as a way out of all difficulties that the Bible contains the most profound hidden mysteries; however, as this doctrine has given rise to gross superstition and other pernicious results spoken of at the beginning of Chapter V., I have thought such a course unnecessary, especially as religion stands in no need of superstitious adornments, but is, on the contrary, deprived by such trappings of some of her splendour.

Religion was given to the early Hebrews as a written law because they were then like children. But later Moses (Deut. 30:6) and Jeremiah (31:33) predicted a time when the Lord would write his law in their hearts. Thus only the Jews, and chiefly the Sadducees among them, fought for the law written on tablets. Those who carry the law in their hearts have the least reason to join that struggle. Thoughtful readers, therefore, will find nothing I have written contrary to the Word of God or to true religion and faith. Nor will they find anything intended to weaken either. On the contrary, they will see that I have strengthened religion, as I showed at the end of Chapter X. Indeed, if I had not strengthened religion, I would certainly have decided to remain silent. I would even have claimed that the Bible contains the deepest hidden mysteries as a way around every difficulty. But this doctrine has produced gross superstition and the other harmful results discussed at the beginning of Chapter V. I have therefore thought it unnecessary to take that course, especially since religion needs no superstitious decorations. On the contrary, such trappings rob religion of some of its splendor.

Still, it will be said, though the law of God is written in the heart, the Bible is none the less the Word of God, and it is no more lawful to say of Scripture than of God's Word that it is mutilated and corrupted. I fear that such objectors are too anxious to be pious, and that they are in danger of turning religion into superstition, and worshipping paper and ink in place of God's Word.

Still, some will object that although God's law is written in the heart, the Bible remains the Word of God. They will say that calling Scripture damaged and corrupted is no more acceptable than saying the same about God's Word. I fear these critics are too eager to be pious. They risk turning religion into superstition and worshipping paper and ink instead of God's Word.

I am certified of thus much: I have said nothing unworthy of Scripture or God's Word, and I have made no assertions which I could not prove by most plain argument to be true. I can, therefore, rest assured that I have advanced nothing which is impious or even savours of impiety.

I am certain of this: I have said nothing unworthy of Scripture or God's Word. I have made no claims I could not prove true through clear reasoning. So I can rest assured that I have said nothing irreverent toward God, or even hinting at such irreverence.

I confess that some profane men, to whom religion is a burden, may, from what I have said, assume a licence to sin, and without any reason, at the simple dictates of their lusts conclude that Scripture is everywhere faulty and falsified, and that therefore its authority is null; but such men are beyond the reach of help, for nothing, as the proverb has it, can be said so rightly that it cannot be twisted into wrong. Those who wish to give rein to their lusts are at no loss for an excuse, nor were those men of old who possessed the original Scriptures, the ark of the covenant, nay, the prophets and apostles in person among them, any better than the people of to-day. Human nature, Jew as well as Gentile, has always been the same, and in every age virtue has been exceedingly rare.

I admit that some irreligious people who find religion a burden may take my words as permission to sin. With no reason beyond their own desires, they may conclude that Scripture is faulty and falsified throughout. They may therefore conclude that Scripture has no authority. But such people are beyond help. As the proverb says, nothing can be said so rightly that it cannot be twisted into something wrong. People who want to give free rein to their desires never lack an excuse. Nor were people in ancient times any better than people today. They had the original Scriptures, the ark of the covenant, and even the prophets and apostles themselves among them. Human nature has always been the same, among Jews and Gentiles alike. And in every age, virtue has been extremely rare.

Nevertheless, to remove every scruple, I will here show in what sense the Bible or any inanimate thing should be called sacred and Divine; also wherein the law of God consists, and how it cannot be contained in a certain number of books; and, lastly, I will show that Scripture, in so far as it teaches what is necessary for obedience and salvation, cannot have been corrupted. From these considerations everyone will be able to judge that I have neither said anything against the Word of God nor given any foothold to impiety.

Nevertheless, to remove every doubt, I will explain in what sense the Bible or any lifeless thing can be called sacred and divine. I will also explain what God’s law consists of and why no fixed number of books can contain it. Finally, I will show that Scripture cannot have been corrupted in its teachings essential to obedience and salvation. From these explanations, everyone will be able to judge that I have said nothing against the Word of God. They will also see that I have given no support to impiety.

A thing is called sacred and Divine when it is designed for promoting piety, and continues sacred so long as it is religiously used: if the users cease to be pious, the thing ceases to be sacred: if it be turned to base uses, that which was formerly sacred becomes unclean and profane. For instance, a certain spot was named by the patriarch Jacob the house of God, because he worshipped God there revealed to him: by the prophets the same spot was called the house of iniquity (see Amos v:5, and Hosea x:5), because the Israelites were wont, at the instigation of Jeroboam, to sacrifice there to idols. Another example puts the matter in the plainest light. Words gain their meaning solely from their usage, and if they are arranged according to their accepted signification so as to move those who read them to devotion, they will become sacred, and the book so written will be sacred also. But if their usage afterwards dies out so that the words have no meaning, or the book becomes utterly neglected, whether from unworthy motives, or because it is no longer needed, then the words and the book will lose both their use and their sanctity: lastly, if these same words be otherwise arranged, or if their customary meaning becomes perverted into its opposite, then both the words and the book containing them become, instead of sacred, impure and profane.

A thing is called sacred and divine when it is intended to promote piety. It remains sacred as long as it is used religiously. If those using it cease to be pious, the thing ceases to be sacred. If it is put to degrading uses, what was once sacred becomes unclean and profane. For example, the patriarch Jacob named a certain place the house of God. He did so because he worshipped God there, where God had revealed himself to him. The prophets called the same place the house of iniquity (see Amos 5:5 and Hosea 10:5). They did so because the Israelites, at Jeroboam’s urging, regularly sacrificed to idols there. Another example makes the point perfectly clear. Words gain their meaning only from their use. If words are arranged according to their accepted meanings to inspire devotion in readers, those words become sacred. The book written with those words becomes sacred too. But suppose that usage later dies out, so that the words no longer have meaning. Or suppose the book is completely neglected, whether for unworthy reasons or because it is no longer needed. Then the words and the book lose both their usefulness and their sacredness. Finally, suppose those same words are arranged differently, or their usual meaning is twisted into its opposite. Then both the words and the book containing them become impure and profane instead of sacred.

From this it follows that nothing is in itself absolutely sacred, or profane, and unclean, apart from the mind, but only relatively thereto. Thus much is clear from many passages in the Bible. Jeremiah (to select one case out of many) says (chap. vii:4), that the Jews of his time were wrong in calling Solomon's Temple, the Temple of God, for, as he goes on to say in the same chapter, God's name would only be given to the Temple so long as it was frequented by men who worshipped Him, and defended justice, but that, if it became the resort of murderers, thieves, idolaters, and other wicked persons, it would be turned into a den of malefactors.

It follows that nothing is absolutely sacred, profane, or unclean in itself, apart from the mind. Things have these qualities only in relation to the mind. Many passages in the Bible make this clear. Jeremiah (7:4) provides one example among many. He says the Jews of his time were wrong to call Solomon's Temple the Temple of God. As he explains later in the same chapter, the Temple would bear God's name only under certain conditions. Those who gathered there had to worship God and uphold justice. But if the Temple became a gathering place for murderers, thieves, idolaters, and other wicked people, it would become a den of criminals.

Scripture, curiously enough, nowhere tells us what became of the Ark of the Covenant, though there is no doubt that it was destroyed, or burnt together with the Temple; yet there was nothing which the Hebrews considered more sacred, or held in greater reverence. Thus Scripture is sacred, and its words Divine so long as it stirs mankind to devotion towards God: but if it be utterly neglected, as it formerly was by the Jews, it becomes nothing but paper and ink, and is left to be desecrated or corrupted: still, though Scripture be thus corrupted or destroyed, we must not say that the Word of God has suffered in like manner, else we shall be like the Jews, who said that the Temple which would then be the Temple of God had perished in the flames. Jeremiah tells us this in respect to the law, for he thus chides the ungodly of his time, "Wherefore, say you we are masters, and the law of the Lord is with us? Surely it has been given in vain, it is in vain that the pen of the scribes" (has been made) - that is, you say falsely that the Scripture is in your power, and that you possess the law of God; for ye have made it of none effect.

Curiously, Scripture nowhere tells us what became of the Ark of the Covenant. Yet there is no doubt that the Ark was destroyed or burned along with the Temple. Nothing was more sacred to the Hebrews, and they held nothing in greater reverence. So Scripture is sacred, and its words divine, as long as Scripture moves people to devotion toward God. But if Scripture is completely neglected, as it once was by the Jews, it becomes nothing but paper and ink. It is then left open to desecration or corruption. Still, even if Scripture is corrupted or destroyed, we must not say that the Word of God has suffered likewise. Otherwise, we would be like the Jews who said that the Temple of God had perished in the flames. They meant that the building would still have been God's Temple when it burned. Jeremiah tells us the same about the law when he rebukes the ungodly people of his time: "Why do you say we are masters, and the law of the Lord is with us? Surely it has been given in vain. The scribes' pen (has been made) in vain." In other words, you falsely claim that Scripture is in your power and that you possess God's law. For you have made that law ineffective.

So also, when Moses broke the first tables of the law, he did not by any means cast the Word of God from his hands in anger and shatter it - such an action would be inconceivable, either of Moses or of God's Word - he only broke the tables of stone, which, though they had before been holy from containing the covenant wherewith the Jews had bound themselves in obedience to God, had entirely lost their sanctity when the covenant had been violated by the worship of the calf, and were, therefore, as liable to perish as the ark of the covenant. It is thus scarcely to be wondered at, that the original documents of Moses are no longer extant, nor that the books we possess met with the fate we have described, when we consider that the true original of the Divine covenant, the most sacred object of all, has totally perished.

Likewise, when Moses broke the first tablets of the law, he was certainly not angrily throwing down and shattering the Word of God. Such an act would be inconceivable, both for Moses to commit and for God's Word to suffer. He broke only the stone tablets. These tablets had once been holy because they contained the covenant binding the Jews to obey God. But the tablets had lost all their holiness when the Jews broke the covenant by worshipping the calf. The tablets were therefore as subject to destruction as the ark of the covenant. So it is hardly surprising that Moses' original writings no longer exist, or that our books suffered the fate already described. After all, the original record of the Divine covenant, the most sacred object of all, has been completely destroyed.

Let them cease, therefore, who accuse us of impiety, inasmuch as we have said nothing against the Word of God, neither have we corrupted it, but let them keep their anger, if they would wreak it justly, for the ancients whose malice desecrated the Ark, the Temple, and the Law of God, and all that was held sacred, subjecting them to corruption. Furthermore, if, according to the saying of the Apostle in 2 Cor. iii:3, they possessed "the Epistle of Christ, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart," let them cease to worship the letter, and be so anxious concerning it.

So let those who accuse us of impiety stop, because we have said nothing against the Word of God. Nor have we corrupted it. If our accusers want to direct their anger justly, let them turn it instead against the people of ancient times. Their malice desecrated the Ark, the Temple, the Law of God, and all that was held sacred, exposing them to corruption. Furthermore, suppose our accusers possessed, as the Apostle says in 2 Cor. iii:3, "the letter of Christ, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets, but on the living tablets of the heart." If so, let them stop worshipping the written letter and being so anxious about it.

I think I have now sufficiently shown in what respect Scripture should be accounted sacred and Divine; we may now see what should rightly be understood by the expression, the Word of the Lord; debar (the Hebrew original) signifies word, speech, command, and thing. The causes for which a thing is in Hebrew said to be of God, or is referred to Him, have been already detailed in Chap. I., and we can therefrom easily gather what meaning Scripture attaches to the phrases, the word, the speech, the command, or the thing of God. I need not, therefore, repeat what I there said, nor what was shown under the third head in the chapter on miracles. It is enough to mention the repetition for the better understanding of what I am about to say - viz., that the Word of the Lord when it has reference to anyone but God Himself, signifies that Divine law treated of in Chap. IV.; in other words, religion, universal and catholic to the whole human race, as Isaiah describes it (chap. i:10), teaching that the true way of life consists, not in ceremonies, but in charity, and a true heart, and calling it indifferently God's Law and God's Word.

I think I have now shown sufficiently in what sense Scripture should be considered sacred and divine. We can now consider what the expression, the Word of the Lord, should properly mean. The Hebrew word debar means word, speech, command, and thing. In Chapter I, I explained why something is said in Hebrew to be of God or is attributed to him. From those explanations, we can easily understand what Scripture means by the word, speech, command, or thing of God. So I need not repeat those explanations, or what I showed in the third section of the chapter on miracles. To help clarify what follows, I need only repeat this point. When the Word of the Lord refers to anyone other than God himself, it means the divine law discussed in Chapter IV. In other words, it means religion that is universal and common to the whole human race. Isaiah describes this religion in chapter 1:10. He teaches that the true way of life consists not in ceremonies, but in charity and a sincere heart. He calls this religion both God's Law and God's Word, without distinction.

The expression is also used metaphorically for the order of nature and destiny (which, indeed, actually depend and follow from the eternal mandate of the Divine nature), and especially for such parts of such order as were foreseen by the prophets, for the prophets did not perceive future events as the result of natural causes, but as the fiats and decrees of God. Lastly, it is employed for the command of any prophet, in so far as he had perceived it by his peculiar faculty or prophetic gift, and not by the natural light of reason; this use springs chiefly from the usual prophetic conception of God as a legislator, which we remarked in Chap. IV. There are, then, three causes for the Bible's being called the Word of God: because it teaches true religion, of which God is the eternal Founder; because it narrates predictions of future events as though they were decrees of God; because its actual authors generally perceived things not by their ordinary natural faculties, but by a power peculiar to themselves, and introduced these things perceived, as told them by God.

The expression is also used metaphorically for the order of nature and destiny. Indeed, that order depends on and follows from the eternal command of the divine nature. The expression applies especially to those parts of that order foreseen by the prophets. For the prophets did not see future events as results of natural causes, but as God's commands and decrees. Finally, the expression is used for a prophet's command insofar as he perceived it through his special ability or prophetic gift. Such a command came not through the natural light of reason. This use arises chiefly from the prophets' usual conception of God as a lawgiver, as we noted in Chap. IV. There are, then, three reasons why the Bible is called the Word of God. First, because it teaches true religion, of which God is the eternal founder. Second, because it presents predictions of future events as though those events were decrees of God. Third, because its actual authors generally perceived things not through their ordinary natural abilities, but through a power unique to them. They presented what they perceived through that power as things God had told them.

Although Scripture contains much that is merely historical and can be perceived by natural reason, yet its name is acquired from its chief subject matter.

Scripture contains much that is simply history and can be understood through natural reason. But Scripture takes its name from its main subject.

We can thus easily see how God can be said to be the Author of the Bible: it is because of the true religion therein contained, and not because He wished to communicate to men a certain number of books. We can also learn from hence the reason for the division into Old and New Testament. It was made because the prophets who preached religion before Christ, preached it as a national law in virtue of the covenant entered into under Moses; while the Apostles who came after Christ, preached it to all men as a universal religion solely in virtue of Christ's Passion: the cause for the division is not that the two parts are different in doctrine, nor that they were written as originals of the covenant, nor, lastly, that the catholic religion (which is in entire harmony with our nature) was new except in relation to those who had not known it: "it was in the world," as John the Evangelist says, "and the world knew it not."

We can thus easily see why God can be called the Author of the Bible. It is because the Bible contains true religion, not because he wanted to give humanity a certain number of books. This also explains the division into Old and New Testament. Before Christ, the prophets preached religion as a national law, based on the covenant made under Moses. After Christ, the Apostles preached religion to all people as a universal religion, based solely on Christ's Passion. The division does not mean that the two parts differ in doctrine. Nor does it mean that they were written as original documents of the covenant. Finally, the division does not mean that universal religion was new, except to those who had not known it. This religion is entirely in harmony with our nature. As John the Evangelist says, "it was in the world," and "the world knew it not."

Thus, even if we had fewer books of the Old and New Testament than we have, we should still not be deprived of the Word of God (which, as we have said, is identical with true religion), even as we do not now hold ourselves to be deprived of it, though we lack many cardinal writings such as the Book of the Law, which was religiously guarded in the Temple as the original of the Covenant, also the Book of Wars, the Book of Chronicles, and many others, from whence the extant Old Testament was taken and compiled. The above conclusion may be supported by many reasons.

Thus, even if we had fewer books of the Old and New Testament, we would still have the Word of God. As we have said, the Word of God is the same as true religion. Just so, we do not now consider ourselves deprived of the Word of God, though we lack many essential writings. These include the Book of the Law, reverently guarded in the Temple as the original text of the Covenant. They also include the Book of Wars, the Book of Chronicles, and many others. The surviving Old Testament was drawn and compiled from these writings. Many reasons can support this conclusion.

I. Because the books of both Testaments were not written by express command at one place for all ages, but are a fortuitous collection of the works of men, writing each as his period and disposition dictated. So much is clearly shown by the call of the prophets who were bade to admonish the ungodly of their time, and also by the Apostolic Epistles.

I. Because the books of both Testaments were not written by explicit command in one place for all ages. Instead, they are a chance collection of works by men, each writing as his times and temperament led him. The calling of the prophets clearly shows this: the prophets were told to warn the ungodly of their time. The Apostolic Epistles also clearly show this.

II. Because it is one thing to understand the meaning of Scripture and the prophets, and quite another thing to understand the meaning of God, or the actual truth. This follows from what we said in Chap. II. We showed, in Chap. VI., that it applied to historic narratives, and to miracles: but it by no means applies to questions concerning true religion and virtue.

II. Because understanding the meaning of Scripture and the prophets is one thing. Understanding what God means, or the actual truth, is quite another. This distinction follows from what we said in Chapter II. In Chapter VI, we showed that this distinction applies to historical narratives and miracles. But it does not apply at all to questions about true religion and virtue.

III. Because the books of the Old Testament were selected from many, and were collected and sanctioned by a council of the Pharisees, as we showed in Chap. X. The books of the New Testament were also chosen from many by councils which rejected as spurious other books held sacred by many. But these councils, both Pharisee and Christian, were not composed of prophets, but only of learned men and teachers. Still, we must grant that they were guided in their choice by a regard for the Word of God; and they must, therefore, have known what the law of God was.

III. Because the books of the Old Testament were selected from many others. A council of the Pharisees collected and approved these books, as we showed in Chapter X. Councils also chose the books of the New Testament from many others. These councils rejected as false other books that many people considered sacred. But neither the Pharisee nor the Christian councils consisted of prophets, only scholars and teachers. Still, we must grant that respect for the Word of God guided these councils in their choices. So the councils must have known what the law of God was.

IV. Because the Apostles wrote not as prophets, but as teachers (see last Chapter), and chose whatever method they thought best adapted for those whom they addressed: and consequently, there are many things in the Epistles (as we showed at the end of the last Chapter) which are not necessary to salvation.

IV. Because the Apostles wrote as teachers, not as prophets (see the previous Chapter), they chose whatever methods they thought best suited their readers. Consequently, many things in the Epistles are not necessary for salvation (as we showed at the end of the previous Chapter).

V. Lastly, because there are four Evangelists in the New Testament, and it is scarcely credible that God can have designed to narrate the life of Christ four times over, and to communicate it thus to mankind. For though there are some details related in one Gospel which are not in another, and one often helps us to understand another, we cannot thence conclude that all that is set down is of vital importance to us, and that God chose the four Evangelists in order that the life of Christ might be better understood; for each one preached his Gospel in a separate locality, each wrote it down as he preached it, in simple language, in order that the history of Christ might be clearly told, not with any view of explaining his fellow-Evangelists.

V. Lastly, there are four Evangelists in the New Testament. It is hardly believable that God intended to tell Christ’s life four times over and communicate it to humanity that way. Some details appear in one Gospel but not another, and one Gospel often helps us understand another. But we cannot therefore conclude that everything recorded is vitally important to us. Nor can we conclude that God chose the four Evangelists so that Christ’s life could be better understood. For each Evangelist preached his Gospel in a different place. Each wrote his Gospel as he preached it, in simple language, so that Christ’s story could be clearly told. None wrote with the aim of explaining the other Evangelists.

If there are some passages which can be better, and more easily understood by comparing the various versions, they are the result of chance, and are not numerous: their continuance in obscurity would have impaired neither the clearness of the narrative nor the blessedness of mankind.

If comparing different versions makes some passages clearer and easier to understand, that is due to chance. Such passages are few. Even if those passages had remained obscure, neither the narrative’s clarity nor humanity’s blessedness would have suffered.

We have now shown that Scripture can only be called the Word of God in so far as it affects religion, or the Divine law; we must now point out that, in respect to these questions, it is neither faulty, tampered with, nor corrupt. By faulty, tampered with, and corrupt, I here mean written so incorrectly, that the meaning cannot be arrived at by a study of the language, nor from the authority of Scripture. I will not go to such lengths as to say that the Bible, in so far as it contains the Divine law, has always preserved the same vowel-points, the same letters, or the same words (I leave this to be proved by the Massoretes and other worshippers of the letter), I only, maintain that the meaning by which alone an utterance is entitled to be called Divine, has come down to us uncorrupted, even though the original wording may have been more often changed than we suppose. Such alterations, as I have said above, detract nothing from the Divinity of the Bible, for the Bible would have been no less Divine had it been written in different words or a different language. That the Divine law has in this sense come down to us uncorrupted, is an assertion which admits of no dispute. For from the Bible itself we learn, without the smallest difficulty or ambiguity, that its cardinal precept is: To love God above all things, and one's neighbour as one's self. This cannot be a spurious passage, nor due to a hasty and mistaken scribe, for if the Bible had ever put forth a different doctrine it would have had to change the whole of its teaching, for this is the corner-stone of religion, without which the whole fabric would fall headlong to the ground. The Bible would not be the work we have been examining, but something quite different.

We have now shown that Scripture can be called the Word of God only insofar as it concerns religion, or Divine law. We must now show that, in these matters, Scripture is neither faulty, tampered with, nor corrupt. By these terms, I mean written so incorrectly that its meaning cannot be recovered through studying its language or through Scripture’s own authority. I will not claim that the Bible’s teaching of Divine law has always retained the same vowel-points, letters, or words. I leave that claim for the Massoretes and other worshippers of the letter to prove. I maintain only that the meaning has reached us uncorrupted, though the original wording may have changed more often than we suppose. Only that meaning entitles a statement to be called Divine. As I said above, such changes take nothing away from the Bible’s Divine character. The Bible would have been no less Divine if written in different words or a different language. There can be no dispute that Divine law has reached us uncorrupted in this sense. For the Bible itself teaches us, without the slightest difficulty or ambiguity, that its central command is: Love God above all things, and your neighbour as yourself. This command cannot be a false addition or the result of a hurried and mistaken scribe. For if the Bible had ever taught a different doctrine, its entire teaching would have had to change. This command is the cornerstone of religion. Without it, the whole structure would come crashing down. The Bible would not be the work we have been examining, but something entirely different.

We remain, then, unshaken in our belief that this has always been the doctrine of Scripture, and, consequently, that no error sufficient to vitiate it can have crept in without being instantly, observed by all; nor can anyone have succeeded in tampering with it and escaped the discovery of his malice.

We remain firmly convinced, then, that this has always been the teaching of Scripture. So no error serious enough to undermine that teaching could have slipped in without everyone noticing it immediately. Nor could anyone have tampered with that teaching without their malicious intent being discovered.

As this corner-stone is intact, we must perforce admit the same of whatever other passages are indisputably dependent on it, and are also fundamental, as, for instance, that a God exists, that He foresees all things, that He is Almighty, that by His decree the good prosper and the wicked come to naught, and, finally, that our salvation depends solely on His grace.

Since this cornerstone remains intact, we must accept that other fundamental passages unquestionably dependent on it remain intact too. These include the claims that God exists, that he foresees all things, and that he is almighty. They also include the claim that, by his decree, the good prosper and the wicked come to nothing. Finally, they include the claim that our salvation depends solely on his grace.

These are doctrines which Scripture plainly teaches throughout, and which it is bound to teach, else all the rest would be empty and baseless; nor can we be less positive about other moral doctrines, which plainly are built upon this universal foundation - for instance, to uphold justice, to aid the weak, to do no murder, to covet no man's goods, &c. Precepts, I repeat, such as these, human malice and the lapse of ages are alike powerless to destroy, for if any part of them perished, its loss would immediately be supplied from the fundamental principle, especially the doctrine of charity, which is everywhere in both Testaments extolled above all others. Moreover, though it be true that there is no conceivable crime so heinous that it has never been committed, still there is no one who would attempt in excuse for his crimes to destroy the law, or introduce an impious doctrine in the place of what is eternal and salutary; men's nature is so constituted that everyone (be he king or subject) who has committed a base action, tries to deck out his conduct with spurious excuses, till he seems to have done nothing but what is just and right.

These are doctrines that Scripture clearly teaches throughout, and that Scripture must teach. Otherwise, all the rest would be empty and groundless. We can be no less certain about other moral teachings clearly built on this universal foundation. These include upholding justice, helping the weak, not committing murder, not coveting anyone’s possessions, and so on. I repeat, neither human malice nor the passage of time can destroy such commands. For if any part of these commands were lost, the fundamental principle would immediately supply what was missing. This is especially true of the teaching of charity, praised above all others throughout both Testaments. Moreover, although no conceivable crime is so terrible that it has never been committed, no one would seek to excuse their crimes by destroying the law. Nor would anyone replace what is eternal and beneficial with a godless doctrine to excuse their crimes. Human nature is such that everyone who commits a shameful act, whether king or subject, offers false excuses. They dress up their conduct until they seem to have done only what is just and right.

We may conclude, therefore, that the whole Divine law, as taught by Scripture, has come down to us uncorrupted. Besides this there are certain facts which we may be sure have been transmitted in good faith. For instance, the main facts of Hebrew history, which were perfectly well known to everyone. The Jewish people were accustomed in former times to chant the ancient history of their nation in psalms. The main facts, also, of Christ's life and passion were immediately spread abroad through the whole Roman empire. It is therefore scarcely credible, unless nearly everybody consented thereto, which we cannot suppose, that successive generations have handed down the broad outline of the Gospel narrative otherwise than as they received it.

We may therefore conclude that the whole Divine law, as taught by Scripture, has reached us uncorrupted. There are also certain facts that we can be sure have been passed down in good faith. These include the main facts of Hebrew history, which everyone knew very well. In earlier times, the Jewish people used to sing their nation's ancient history in psalms. The main facts of Christ's life and suffering were also immediately spread throughout the Roman empire. It is therefore hard to believe that successive generations passed down the Gospel's broad outline differently from how they received it. Such a change would have required nearly everyone's agreement, and we cannot suppose that nearly everyone agreed.

Whatsoever, therefore, is spurious or faulty can only have reference to details - some circumstances in one or the other history or prophecy designed to stir the people to greater devotion; or in some miracle, with a view of confounding philosophers; or, lastly, in speculative matters after they had become mixed up with religion, so that some individual might prop up his own inventions with a pretext of Divine authority. But such matters have little to do with salvation, whether they be corrupted little or much, as I will show in detail in the next chapter, though I think the question sufficiently plain from what I have said already, especially in Chapter II.

Therefore, anything false or flawed can only concern details. These may be circumstances in a particular history or prophecy intended to inspire greater devotion among the people. Or they may concern a miracle intended to confound philosophers. Finally, they may concern speculative ideas after those ideas became mixed with religion. Such mixing allowed individuals to support their own inventions by claiming divine authority. But such matters have little to do with salvation, whether they have been corrupted a little or a lot. I will explain this in detail in the next chapter. Still, I think what I have already said makes the point clear enough, especially in Chapter II.