report that which an incarnation of the God of Truth
communicated to the world, then it surely is absurd to attend to
any other evidence touching matters about which he made any
clear statement, or the truth of which is distinctly implied by
his words. If the exact historical truth of the Gospels is an
axiom of Christianity, it is as just and right for a Christian
to say, Let us "close our ears against suggestions" of
scientific critics, as it is for the man of science to refuse to
waste his time upon circle-squarers and flat-earth fanatics.

It is commonly reported that the manifesto by which the Canon of
St. Paul's proclaims that he nails the colours of the straitest
Biblical infallibility to the mast of the ship ecclesiastical,
was put forth as a counterblast to "Lux Mundi"; and that the
passages which I have more particularly quoted are directed
against the essay on "The Holy Spirit and Inspiration" in that
collection of treatises by Anglican divines of high standing,
who must assuredly be acquitted of conscious "infidel"
proclivities. I fancy that rumour must, for once, be right, for
it is impossible to imagine a more direct and diametrical
contradiction than that between the passages from the sermon
cited above and those which follow:--


What is questioned is that our Lord's words foreclose certain
critical positions as to the character of Old Testament
literature. For example, does His use of Jonah's resurrection as
a type of His own, depend in any real degree upon whether
it is historical fact or allegory? ... Once more, our Lord uses
the time before the Flood, to illustrate the carelessness of men