Examination of the authenticity of the Pentateuch as the Protestant criterion.—­Spurious character of those books.

For Science the criterion of truth is to be found in the revelations of Nature:  for the Protestant, it is in the Scriptures; for the Catholic, in an infallible Pope.

“What is truth?” was the passionate demand of a Roman procurator on one of the most momentous occasions in history.  And the Divine Person who stood before him, to whom the interrogation was addressed, made no reply—­unless, indeed, silence contained the reply.

Often and vainly had that demand been made before—­often and vainly has it been made since.  No one has yet given a satisfactory answer.

When, at the dawn of science in Greece, the ancient religion was disappearing like a mist at sunrise, the pious and thoughtful men of that country were thrown into a condition of intellectual despair.  Anaxagoras plaintively exclaims, “Nothing can be known, nothing can be learned, nothing can be certain, sense is limited, intellect is weak, life is short.”  Xenophanes tells us that it is impossible for us to be certain even when we utter the truth.  Parmenides declares that the very constitution of man prevents him from ascertaining absolute truth.  Empedocles affirms that all philosophical and religious systems must be unreliable, because we have no criterion by which to test them.  Democritus asserts that even things that are true cannot impart certainty to us; that the final result of human inquiry is the discovery that man is incapable of absolute knowledge; that, even if the truth be in his possession, he cannot be certain of it.  Pyrrho bids us reflect on the necessity of suspending our judgment of things, since we have no criterion of truth; so deep a distrust did he impart to his followers, that they were in the habit of saying, “We assert nothing; no, not even that we assert nothing.”  Epicurus taught his disciples that truth can never be determined by reason.  Arcesilaus, denying both intellectual and sensuous knowledge, publicly avowed that he knew nothing, not even his own ignorance!  The general conclusion to which Greek philosophy came was this—­that, in view of the contradiction of the evidence of the senses, we cannot distinguish the true from the false; and such is the imperfection of reason, that we cannot affirm the correctness of any philosophical deduction.

It might be supposed that a revelation from God to man would come with such force and clearness as to settle all uncertainties and overwhelm all opposition.  A Greek philosopher, less despairing than others, had ventured to affirm that the coexistence of two forms of faith, both claiming to be revealed by the omnipotent God, proves that neither of them is true.  But let us remember that it is difficult for men to come to the, same conclusion as regards even material and visible things, unless they stand at the same point of view.  If discord and distrust were the condition of philosophy three hundred years before the birth of Christ, discord and distrust were the condition of religion three hundred years after his death.  This is what Hilary, the Bishop of Poictiers, in his well-known passage written about the time of the Nicene Council, says: