Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IX, Issue 436, 19 August 1881, Page 1

Current Topics

AT HOME AND ABROAD.

It appears that the matrimonial market is not a A BKTITAL mere figure of speech in that most enlightened of practice, all countries, England. Such a market really exists, and sales and purchases are energetically conducted there. It is, in fact a popular belief that it is lawful for a man to sell bis wife for whatever he may think her value and the belief is acted upon continually. The truth concerning this matter has been published in connection with a question put to the Home Secretary the other day by Mr. T. D. Sullivan, as to whether such a practice prevailed. Sir William Harcourt denied it to be the case, and treated the question, as a " an insnlt to the common sense of the House ;" but the newspapers have since shown most conclusively that his denial was totally unfounded. The Standard speaks as follows on the subject : " This afternoon Mr. T. D. Sullivan will ask the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a case tried before the Sheffield county court, in the course of which it appeared that a man had sold his wife for a quart of beer ; and whether the Government will take steps to remove the impression which seems to exist that the sale of wives is a legitimate transaction. In spite of the apparent absurdity of the suggestion, it is said to be really the case that such occurrences are less rare than is generally supposed. In the Potteries and the mining districts of England alone at least five cases have been recorded during the past four years, and doubtless several others have been passed by unnoticed. Those who have looked into the subject aver that sometimes the price of a wife pat up at auction runs as high as £40 and a supper, and at other times the market rules as low as a quartern of gin and a bull pup ; and we are further told that frequently the auction takes place in a public house, with the full consent of the parties most immediately concerned ; but occasionally, to give due solemnity to the proceedings, a halter is put around the wife's neck prior to her being knocked down to the highest bidder. The latter modut operandi is considered more binding, for the most singular feature in these revolting transactions is, that the seller, the ' chattel,' and the buyer all firmly believe that they are taking part in a strictly legal act of divorce and re-marriage. The ' Annual Register,' and works of a similar kind are studded with notices of such wife sales. For instance, in 1815, a nan held a regular auction in the market-place of Pontefract, offering his spouse at a minimum bidding of a shilling, and finally disposing of her for half a guinea. In 1820, a ' decent-looking man led his erring helpmate into the cattle market at Canterbury, and when the salesman declined to put her first on the block, hired a pen, and soon afterwards sold her to a townsman for five shillings. In 1834, another wife was disposed of in exactly the same manner at Birmingham, and in 1835, a woman who bad been sold for fifteen pounds, succeeded in defending her claim as the heiress to some property against the plea of her first husband's relatives that the marketplace sale constituted a legal divorce. In 1837, a man in the West Biding of Yorkshire was considered by his neighbours to have been very badly used when he received a month's hard labour for attempting to get rid of his wife in a mode which long custom bad led them to believe was perfectly legitimate ; and as late as 1858 a beersbop keeper at Little Horton, near Bradford, took advantage of this cheap substitute for the Divorce Court, and even went so far as to announce the sale beforehand by means of the villag« bellman. In 1859, a man at Dudley sold his spouse for sixpence ; and, not to enumerate many other cases, as recently as the year 1877 a wife was transferred for forty pounds, the articles of sales being drawn up at a solicitor's office, the money paid, and the wife handed over in the gravest possisible manner. The Nation gives in addition several other instances. In 1872, he says, the Western Times reported the sale of his wife by a man at Exeter for £50. In the same year the Liverpool Mercury recorded a similar sale at Preston, where, however, the sum bid for the woman was only two and sixpence. The London Weekly Despatch in 1875, reported the sale of a woman by her husband for four-pence, and half a gallon of beer was the price paid at a like

auction reported in the " 'verpool Post as having taken place at Warrington in 1876. The Jieffield Daily Telegraph of Jnne 2nd treats the question as follows :— " The answer given by Sir William Harcourt to Mr. T. D. Sullivan's question on Monday was severe, no doubt, but it was not severely accurate.' Mr. Sullivan, referring to the Sheffield wife-selling c»Be, asked the Home Secretary ' whether, having regard to the fact that sach sales are not uncommon in England, the right hon. gentleman would take such steps as may be in his power to remove the impression that appears to exist in some parts of England that the sale of wires is a legitimate transaction ? ' The answer given was that • no impression exists anywhere in England that the selling of wives is legitimate,' and that no such practice as wife selling exists. Of course it cannot be expected that a gentleman endowed with the peculiar idiosyncracies of the Home Secretary could in any way feel troubled when informed that the practice does exist, and that not only are wives sold, but exchanged like ordinary commodities and that the sales and exchanges are considered by many people to be strictly legal. If he was told that facts are against him he would in the fullness of his self-sufficiency coolly remark, 'So much the worse for the facts.' Facts, however, are against him, as he might easily ascertain if he would carefully peruse his daily paper. Scarcely a week passes without the particulars of the sale of a wife being chronicled. Last week not only had we the account of the man Moore purchasing in Sheffield a wife for a quart of beer, but a case of exchange of wives came before the magistrates of that great and glorious centre of Radical morality and enlightenment — Birmingham. A labourer named French acknowledged to the Bench that he had exchanged wires with a chimney-sweep named Timms. On the previous Saturday there appeared in a well-con-ducted weekly paper called the Accringtm Gaaette a circumstantial account of the exchange by two men of their businesses in which the question of the wives was involved. The men occupied shops close to Accrington — Accringtoa is the centre of the Marquis of Hartington's enlightened constituency — and one evening after they had put up the shutters they decided by guessing whether a penny came down | ' head or tail' to exchange shops, including, of course the contents of the shops. One of the men insisted that the exchange included the wives, and as the other refused to part with his wife and to take the wife of the other man, it was decided to settle the matter by ' law.' A few weeks ago a wife was sold at Bury, in Lancashire, for half-a-crown and a gallon of beer ; and in the valley of Bossendale, among an interesting class known as the ' Brownbacks' — sturdy, but semicivilised quarrymen — a gallon of beer has been regarded as a ' high quotation ' in the ' wife market,' and a woman who could command that quantity of beer and a shilling to boot was looked upon as decidedly < above par.' ... In 1862, at Selby, a man sold his wife at the market cross for a pint of ale. At Belper, on August 29 , 1873, it being a Saturday and market day, a woman was offered by public auction, while she stood with a halter round her neck. Instances might also be cited of wife-selling at Leicester, Leeds » Bradford, Burnley, and scores of other towns, sufficient to show that the Frenchman who stated that the buying and selling of wives was allowed by the law of England had some justification for the statement. We must, therefore, repeat that, notwithstanding Sir William Harcourt's answer to Mr. Sullivan, there does exist an impression among some of the lower classes that wife-selling is legitimate, and we think we have shown that the practice is unfortunately too frequently indulged in." Again, on the 10th June, the Sheffield Evening Star reported a case of wife-selling that had just taken place at Mexborough. There can be no question, then, but that not only the belief alluded to, but the practice as well prevails to a considerable extent, As to how the matter fits in with the boast of England's premier&hip amongst nations as to enlightenment and civilisation, and the right exercised by her Press to ridicule and condemn all that they find irregular elsewhere, we leave to our readers to judge. There are, however, those who might be inclined to say to the " missionary nation," " physician heal thyself."

Although there has been silence in the antieducation Catholic ranks of late with respect to the condition in spam. of educational matters in Spain, still, since there is no telling at what moment the time-honoured cry

of Spanißh ignorance may be repeated, we do not think it out of place to quote from a recent number of the Dullin Review the following facts and figures. The reviewer is commenting on an article which appeared in the Revue O&n&rale of November '80, published at Brussels. "In the Spain of to-day," he says, " few persons are unable to read and write ; in the northern and eastern provinces primary instruction is as advanced as in the most advanced nations of Europe. In the last decade of years the progress has been rapid : from 1870-78, 3000 new schools were opened, containing 200,000 scholars, and have added to the State burden an annual expenditure of 4,000,000 of francs. la 1878, Spain counted 29,038 primary schools, containing 1,632,288 children between five and twelve years of age — nearly ten per cent, of the population. All the 15,000 to 20,000 Gvardia Civil (police), and the 12,000 Customs officers, without exception, can read, write, count, ice. Nearly every soldier of engin«ers, artillery, and of the Service de Sante et <V administration can do the same ; and in every battalion of infantry and squadron of cavalry there is a school. The Spanish budget for public instruction was, for 1878, 26,000,000 of francs. Let it be remembered that since 1856, when other nations have enjoyed peace, Spain has been disturbed by civil wars, revolutions, and endless Cuban revolts. Again, in Spain, partly from local custom, partly from early precocity, a child over twelve years of age is rarely seen in a school ; more northern nations swell their statistics with children tip to fourteen and sixteen. There are few schools taught by priests or brothers — only 140 schools of the Padres Escolwpios ia all Spain, Primary instruction embraces Christian doctrine and Bible history, the three E's, grammar, elementary notions of agriculture, commerce ; and for girls, design and domestic economy, with, of course, needlework. The superior grades add geometry, design, surveying, history, geography, general notions of physics, and natural history. Each cure" gives religious instruction once a week. Popular libraries are integral parts of each public school. Primary instruction is obligatory in Spain, andi free to all poor children. There are normal schools for masters and mistresses in each province, and higher schools at Madrid, Barcelona, Seville, &c; for higher literary and scientific training of mistresses already certificated from the normal schools." As to the higher teaching, again, Spain compares most favourably with other countries of Europe. " The writer compares Spain with France, and shows that if Spain, e.g., was content to progress in point of higher teaching no more rapidly than does France, she would have in her universities as students of law only 2170, or 2270 if she were measured by the population and proportion of Germany. Actually, Spain has 6409 students in the faculties of law and 6817 in medicine — three times the proportion of students in France comparatively to the population of France."

The times are decidedly adverse to the right of WANTED private interpretation, and, in fact, to maintain THE such a right at all, under the present aspect of GENUINE affairs it seems to us that a man must be so soaked "word." in superstition, that is, a groundless belief which has grown with his growth, that nothing short of a miracle can open his eyes, and for private interpreters we know the age of miracles is past. Take for example the following passages written on the criticism of the Bible by Professor Robertson Smith, and judge how well they harmonise with the notion of a book given by God to be the sole guide of every individual, and the fountain from which he, whether ignorant or learned, should unaided draw for his spiritual needs. "Ancient books coming down to us from a period many centuries before the invention of printing have necessarily undergone many vicissitudes. Some of them are preserved only in imperfect copies made by some ignorant scribe of the dark ages. Others have been disfigured by editors who mixed up foreign matter with the original text. Very often an important book fell altogether out of sight for a long time, and whsn it came to light again all knowledge of its origin was gone ; for old books did not generally have title-pages and prefaces. They often lay in libraries with no note of the author's name save some words on a slip or tablet easily detached. And when such a roll was again brought into notice, with its title gone, some half-informed reader or copyist was very likely to give it a new title of his own devising, which was handed down thereafter as if it had been original. Or, again, the true meaning and purpose of a book often became obscure in tbe lapse of centuries, and led to false interpretations, Once more, antiquity has handed down to us many writings which are sheer foigeries, like some of the Apocryphal books, or the Sybilline oracles, or the famous Epistles of Phalaris, which formed the subject of Bentley's great critical essay. In all such cases the historical critic must destroy tlie received view in order to establish a true one. He must review doubtful titles, purge out interpolations, expose forgeries ; but he does so only to manifest the truth, and put the genuine remains of antiquity on their true footing. A book that is really old and really valuable has nothing to fear from the critic, whose labours can only put its -vvorth in a clearer light, and establish its authority on a surer batis. In a word, it is the business of the critic to trace back the

Steps by which any ancient book has been transmitted to us, to find where it came from and who wrote it, to examine the occasion of its composition, and search out every link that connects it with the history of the ancient world and with the personal life of the author. Now this is just what Protestant principles direct us to do with the several parts of the Bible. We have to go back step by step, and retrace the history of the sacred volume up to the first origin of each separate writing which it contains. In doing this we most use every light that can be brought- to hear on the subject. Every fact is welcome, whether it come from Jewish tradition, or from a comparison of MSS. and versions, or from an examination of the several books with one another and of each book in its own inner structure' It is not net- df ul in starting to lay down any fixed rules of procedure. The ordinary laws of evidence and good sense must be our guides* And these we must apply to the Bible just as we should do to any other ancient book. That is the only principle we have to lay down." The W ord, then, is after all " open " only to scholarship in its degree, and the " gates of hell " — corruption — have prevailed against it as well as against the Church ! " Where shall wisdom be found?"

The Saturday Review of June 11th has an article fbeethink- on the late M. littre in which we find the following ing by passage relative to the asserted change in the^ force. religious opinions of the famous savant, It wii!^ be seen from it how much reliance may be placed on the claim of French atheists that Littre's conversion was due to an enfeebled mind and unfair influence ; and also, that his firmness in the principles, supported by his writings, had been all along a matter of doubt to his followers. The Saturday Review has of course no sympathy for a conversion to Catholicism, " The usual idle and somewhat disgusting controversy (says the Review') about the religious opinions of the dead man at his death has been stirred up in Fiance, according to a had fashion revived from the last century. It is at least amusing to find that the very persons who charge his relations with superstitious conversion in extremis admit that in a former illness their own friends blockaded his sick room against the now victorious enemy. This odd method of maintaining thought in its freedom suggests St. Evremond's story of the generous philosopher, who was on the point of blowing his freethinking friend's brains out to save him from the disgrace of recanting. Whatever may be the case, which, of however great importance it may be to the person principally concerned, is one as to which curiosity from outsiders is absolutely impertinent, it may be repeated that no one ever kept more aloof from the type of the aggressive enemy of religion and of Christianity than M. Littre."

The other day we had occasion to allude to the another work of Catholic missionaries, and the effect procatholic duced by witnessing it even on the apostate enemies MISSIONARY, of the Catholic faith, we now find a further illustration of the nature of the men in question. It occurs in an account given by the San Francisco Monitor of an attempt made by certain hostile settlers to drive out of their country Father William, a Dominican missionary among the Indians. Father "William himself is the speaker, and the events narrated by him took place on his having, with his Indians, completed the erection of a church built with logs and brush. " After the church was completed," he says, " and while I was celebrating Mass, two white settlers, naned John Basso and Jonathan Lewis, attempted to ride into the building on horseback, but the door was too low, so they dismounted and interrupted the services. After my congregation dispersed they insulted me and ordered me to leave this place. I refused to do so until I had concluded my labours. They told some of the Indians that if I did not leave they would tie me up and take me away that night. The next day they ordered me to leave the place before noon, and threatened that if I refused to go they would take me away by force. This happened three years ago. They gave no reason why I should leave. I had concluded my work that afternoon, and started for Batchee Hootch, the San Joaquin District, in Fresno county. While on the way I saw a young Indian, not more than 22 yeais of age, lying under a tree and evidently dying of fever. I got off my horse, and after having given him the necessary instruction, and having obtained his consent, I baptised him. From there I went to Ranchena, where about 400 Indians were waiting for me. When I arrived I explained the principles of the Christian religion to them, and remained up around the camp-fire until late at night, answering the questions of the chiefs about God, and the future life, and so on. It was pretty late that night when I went to sleep, and I reposed in the open air on a pile of dry grass close by a blazing fire. I was very much fatigued, and I never had such a refreshing sleep before. In the morning they brought a bowl of acorn mush. I was very hungry and enjoyed the novel dish immensely. I arose at sunrise and proceeded to measure off the ground for a church. It was to be 100 feet | long by 50 wide, and was to be constructed of logs and brush. While I was so engaged with a couple of chiefs, five men drove up with

their faces blackened. I asked the Indians who they were, and they said they thought they were Mexican;*. Two of them were armed with rifles and three with revolvers. They drove right up to where I was working, and one of them said, addressing me, * Are you here yet?' This man had a rifle. The other, who was similarly armed, made a remark to the same purport, and I recognised them at once as Jonathan Lewis and John Basso. They ordered me to leave ivi mediately. ' Take jour horse and leave this moment.' they said. I asked them whether they owned the laud on which I proposed erecting the church, and they said tbey did. So, not knowing whether their statement was true or false, and not wishing to have any trouble, and possibly bloodshed, for the Indians were very much incensed, I consented to leave. The five men gave me a mustang, and ordered me to mount it and ride ahead of them. I did so, and we went up a trail in the foot hills. One of these men taunted me all the tray ; said that I was teaching superstition, and mocked at and ridiculed the different articles of faith believed in by Catholics. One of them got a twig and beat my horse to make it go faster. He was a rough riding animal, and I held him in with all my strength, complaining at the same time that they had given me a slow horse. It was very funny I assure you, but I did not think so at that time. The other three men, I ascertained afterwards, were hired by Basso and Lewis to assist them in driving me out of the country. One of these, who bad a revolver pointed at me, rode close behind me all the way, and probably with the intention of quieting my nerves, kept singing a song, the refrain of which was, ' Captain, where shall I send the bullet through V We rode along in this way for about ten miles, and when we came to a big tree Lewis got off his horse and said : ' it is only on account of our goodness of heart that you were not killed before this. If ever you come back again you will be hanged ou that tree.' That was in Green Valley. Lewis then rode off and left me with the other four. Tbey escorted me ten miles further on, and left. When they had gone I changed my course and returned. I went to the camp where I had been the day before, and the Indians manifested great joy on seeing me, because they had heard of my being spirited away. They were very angry at my treatment, but I advised them to keep quiet and to refrain from violence. I put on an Indian hat and coat, partly covered my face with a handkerchief, and otherwise disguised myself. Thus equipped, I started in the night-time with an Indian guide on horseback to the place from which I bad been spirited away, arriving there about midnight. As I approached I heard a great cry of lamentation among the Indians, and was informed that they were bewailing the death of the young Indian whom I had baptised on the roadside. They were rejoiced to see me, and built a large fire on the north bank of the San Joaquin River. I instructed and baptised 400 that night. They talked about killing the white men who had taken me away, and I had considerable difficulty in making them consent to remain quiet. At daylight I arrived at the tree on which my captors had promised I should be hanged if I returned, and I had quite a little laugh there to myself." Catholic missionaries, then, are men not easily frightened off the ground whereon it is their duty to abide,

Editors in New Zealand will hardly think of pro* journalism Tiding themselves with a supply of revolvers because PBOSTiTUrED. the Christchurch Bench dealt so lightly with the gentleman accused of assaulting the Editor of the Liberty newspaper. Editors generally, we should hope will, on the contrary, agree that were they themselves to pen anything like the paragraph published by the sheet in question a like snubbing would only be their just deserts, and that not merely in the interests of the parties immediately offended, but in those of the community at large, for the character of the community at large, is undoubtedly compromised by the publication of such matter as that alluded to. Meantime the conductors of " society journals" in New Zealand might with advantage to their skins learn a lesson from, the Editor of a " society journal " that some years ago U6ed to be vociferously cried through the streets of Dublin every Saturday, and may be still so cried for aught we can tell. It was named " Paddy Kelly's Budget," and was just such a paper as some of those we now find known as " society papers." It took liberties with the names and doings of private individuals, and published all kinds of ribaldry, but if anyone who chanced to read it, which no one of any decency ever cared to do twice, was at the trouble of looking for its editor, the scribbling rough in question could not be found. No one knew who he was, and so he escaped scot free. We throw out this as a suggestion which may be useful to the editors of "society journals "in New Zealand — a class of publications, however, which for its own sake Society should stamp out at once.

Whether does the following story, narrated by NOT quite the !■>;. Petersburg correspondent of the London credible. Times, reflect most on the cunning of the Kussian Jew or the stupidity of the Russian peasant 1 We confess, for our own part, that, notwithstanding the authority we find for it, we hold it to be of a doubtful nature, and hardly credible.

"As an example of the influence of the Jews among the ignorant Russian peasantry," says the correspondent, " the following characteristic story was told to me by a Jew, and is worth columns' of explanation : — A peasant goes to a Jew in an adjoining village and asks for the loan of a rouble to buy vodka. The Jew consents to lend the rouble, but requires security, and oilers to take the peasant's sheepskin coat in pawn. The peasant returns for his coat and gives it to the Jew in exchange for a rouble. The latter, however, lends the rouble on the security »f the sheepsbin only at the usual 100 per cent, interest, and tells the peasant that when he comes to claim his coat he must pay back the rouble lent and another rouble besides for the loan. This the peasant understands, and goes away with the rouble. Before he gets far away the Jew calls him back and says, ' What an idiot you are 1 Give me back now the rouble which. I have just given you, as you will only spend it all in drink, and you will then have only one rouble to pay me wken you come for your coat.' The peasant, completely taken in by this logic, gives back the rouble and goes home to his friends. When he has told them what he has done, some one exclaims, ' How is it that you bring nothing back ? You bring no money, no vodka, you still owe the Jew a rouble, and you have lost your coat.' The dull peasant scratches his head and replies, ' I really don't know myself how it has been done, but the Jew was perfectly right in bis calculation.'" The truth of this narration, we say, seems very doubtful, but if there be any truth in it, it can hardly be wondered at — however much it maj be deprecated — that rough measures should now and then be adopted against the Jews.

That Bible-reading in State schools is intended AN argument to be a genuine lesson in the " Evangelical " relifor 08 all. gion we have never had any doubt. It has, indeed, in some quarters been now and then attempted to soften the matter down by a pretence that it was merely intended to make a due recognition of Christianity broadly, io give a fitting place to a book written in the finest English, or to instruct the children in subjects that are of common mention. A passage, how* ever, from the speech of the Hon. Mr. Menzies as reported by Hansard, sets the matter beyond all controversy, and shows us clearly that what we are called upon to do is to support the " Evan* gelical " propaganda. The hon. gentleman's words, indeed, are the ordinary cant of the platform, and it is quite common to find illustrations of his argument given in those interesting compositions, the various books of " Evangelical" missions. Said he : " One honourable gentleman said the teacher must be a believer, otherwise the reading will be a delusion and a snare. On other occasions I have quoted the opinion expressed by a person very competent to judge, seeing that he was engaged in teaching, and knew what the results of Bible* reading were, and were likely to be. That opinion is that reading of the Bible as a daily lesson would result in a child storing up in his t mind Bible truths to fructify in after-life. I take it that that is a better authority than that of honourable members who say that reading of the Bible is of no avail. Who shall Bay so ? The issue does not rest with us. If we believe the truth, we should be careful to teach it to our children, and the result we muse leave to a Higher Power." This is all en regie, and brings the Legislative Council into close relationship with Exeter Hall, but it clearly makes it manifest that Catholics are to be taxed in order to enable our " Evangelical " friends in their own especial manner to cast their " bread upon the waters." If they believe the truth, most certainly they are bound to teach it to their children, as Dr. Menzies says, or even to teach what they believe to be the truth, but they are bound to teach it at their own expense, and can only with the utmost injustice compel people who do not believe with them to contribute towards having their parti* cular lesson taught. The injustice is added to when in compelling these people to aid in their teaching they prevent them from teaching the truth to their own children. Dr. Menzies' argument holds good for Catholics as well as " Evangelicals ;" we also are bound to teach the truth to our children, and the obligation to admit of our doing so rests equally upon the State with that of giving such a permission to " Evangelicals" — unless, indeed, the State is prepared to tell us that what we would teach is not the truth. No member of Parliament who is influenced by this argument in favour of our " Evangelical " fellow-colonists can refuse with justice to be also influenced by it in favour of Catholics ; and with this argument in view to refuse to acknowledge our claims to teach the truth to our children in the true way would be equivalent to an assertion that our teaching was false, and might with justice be prohibited altogether. Are our legislators prepared to tell us this ?

The Anglican Bishop of Melbourne, it would the appear, does not share the opinion that the Bevised accommodating Version has no effect upon doctrine. He, on the " wobd." contrary, is reported to have spoken on the subject as follows : " It had, he thought, a decided drift in the direction of obliterating some of the sterner features of the old translations. It contained a fuller statement of the spirituality of

our faith, of the universality of the love of God, and of the long-suf- j fering grace which will condemn no one until his moral probation is j fairly completed. There was besides, he gathered, a clearer exhibition of the symbolic character of those passages which describe the nature of future punishment, and the uncertainty of many of the expressions which describe its duration. It was, he thought, an augury of the brightest hope that the drift of the translation was in the same direction as the drift of all healthy change in modern thought." According to Dr. Moorhouse, then, the new translation has had a material effect upon the doctrine of everlasting punishment, and it is further suggestive of the effect of doctrine on the Bible to find that the Bishop considers it desirable and in nothing strange that the Word of God Bhould be so rendered as to keep pace with " all healthy change in modern thought." Modern thought, nevertheless, might have been supposed bound to accommodate itself to an unchanging and unchangeable Word of God. Let it, however, be credited by those who will, that the mountain, at length, has come to Mohammed. Meantime, we find, the utterances of many other divines upon the same subject and it is clear from the variety of the views expressed by them that they will continue to act by the Revised Version exactly as they have been accustomed to act by the Authorised Version — that is each one of them will make it conclusively establish whatever doctrine it may be that he chooses to uphold. The Bible, also, was made for man, not man for the Bible.