{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_31090/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_31090","id":"gutenberg_31090","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/31090","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Bible -- Inspiration","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sermons, English"],"text":"Produced by Colin Bell, Daniel J. Mount, Dave Morgan and\nthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttps://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n $Inspiration and Interpretation:$\n\n SEVEN SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD:\n WITH PRELIMINARY REMARKS:\n\n BEING AN ANSWER TO A VOLUME ENTITLED\n\n \"Essays and Reviews.\"\n\n BY THE\n REV. JOHN WILLIAM BURGON, M.A.,\n FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, AND SELECT PREACHER.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI CANNOT HOLD MY PEACE, BECAUSE THOU HAST HEARD, O MY SOUL,\nTHE SOUND OF THE TRUMPET, THE ALARM OF WAR.\n\n Oxford & London:\n J. H. and Jas. PARKER.\n 1861.\n\n $Printed by Messrs. Parker, Cornmarket, Oxford.$\n\n\n TO THE REVEREND\n\n WILLIAM SEWELL, D.D.,\n\n FELLOW OF EXETER COLLEGE: LATE PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE\n UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD; AND LATE WARDEN OF ST. PETER'S COLLEGE, RADLEY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMY DEAR FRIEND,\n\nLet me have the satisfaction of inscribing this volume to yourself. I\nknow of no one who has more faithfully devoted himself to the sacred\ncause of Christian Education: no one to whom those blessed Truths are\nmore precious, which of late have been so unscrupulously assailed, and\nwhich the ensuing pages are humbly designed to uphold in their integrity.\n\nAffectionately yours,\n\nJOHN W. BURGON.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n=DEI GAR KAI HAIRESEIS EN HYMIN EINAI, HINA HOI DOKIMOI PHANEROI GEN\u00d4NTAI\nEN HYMIN.=\n\nAc si diceret: Ob hoc h\u00e6rese\u00f4n non statim divinitus eradicantur\nauctores, ut probati manifesti fiant; id est, ut unusquisque quam tenax,\net fidelis, et fixus Catholic\u00e6 fidei sit amator, appareat. Et revera cum\nqu\u00e6que novitas ebullit, statim cernitur frumentorum gravitas, et levitas\npalearum: tunc sine magno molimine excutitur ab are\u00e2, quod nullo pondere\nintra aream tenebatur.--VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS, _Adversus H\u00e6reses_, \u00a7 20.\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nI am unwilling that this volume should go forth to the world without\nsome account of its origin and of its contents.\n\nI. Appointed last year, (without solicitation on his part,) to the\noffice of Select Preacher, the present writer was called upon at the\ncommencement of the October Term to address the University. His Sermon,\n(the first in the volume,) was simply intended to embody the advice\nwhich he had already orally given to every Undergraduate who had sought\ncounsel at his hands for many years past in Oxford; advice which, to say\nthe truth, he was almost weary of repeating. Nothing more weighty or\nmore apposite, at all events, presented itself, for an introductory\naddress: nor has a review of the current of religious opinion, either\nbefore or since, produced any change of opinion as to the importance of\nwhat was on that first occasion advocated.\n\nAnother, and another, and yet another preaching turn unexpectedly\npresented itself, in the course of the same Term; and the IInd, IIIrd,\nand IVth of the ensuing Sermons, (preached on alternate Sundays,) were\nthe result. The study of the Bible had been advocated in the first\nSermon; but it was urged from a hundred quarters that a considerable\namount of unbelief prevailed respecting that very Book for which it was\nevident that the preacher claimed entire perfection and absolute\nsupremacy. The singular fallacy of these last days, that Natural\nScience, in some unexplained manner, has already demolished,--or is\ninevitably destined to demolish[1],--the Book of Divine Revelation,\nappeared to be the fallacy which had emerged into most offensive\nprominence; and to this, he accordingly addressed himself.--It will not,\nsurely, be thought by any one who reads the IInd of these Sermons that\nits author is so weak as to look with jealousy on the progress of\nPhysical Science. His alarm does not arise from the cultivation of the\nnoblest study but one,--viz. the study of GOD'S Works; but from the\nprevalent _neglect of the noblest study of all_,--viz. _the study of\nGOD'S Word_. His quarrel is not with the Professors of Natural Science,\nbut with those who are mere _Pretenders_ to it. Moreover, he makes no\nsecret of his displeasure at the undue importance which has of late been\nclaimed for Natural Science; and which is sufficiently implied by the\nprevalent fashion of naming it without any distinguishing epithet,--as\n\"Science,\" absolutely: just as if _Theology_ were not a Science also[2]!\n\nIt is not necessary to speak particularly of the contents of the next\ntwo Sermons; except to say that the train of thought thus started\nconducted the author inevitably over ground which was already occupied\nin the public mind by a volume which had already obtained some\nnotoriety, and which has since become altogether infamous. Enough of the\ncontents of that unhappy production I had read to be convinced that in a\nliterary, certainly in a _Theological_ point of view, it was a most\nworthless performance; and I recognized with equal sorrow and alarm that\nit was but the matured expression of opinions which had been fostering\nfor years in certain quarters: opinions which, occasionally, had been\nventilated from the University pulpit; or which had been deliberately\nadvocated in print[3]; and which it was now hinted were formidably\nmaintained, and would be found hard to answer. Astonished, (not by any\nmeans for the first time in my life,) at the apathy which seemed to\nprevail on questions of such vital moment, I determined at all events\nnot to be a party to a craven silence; and denounced from the University\npulpit with hearty indignation that whole system of unbelief, (if system\nit can be called,) which has been growing up for years among us[4]; and\nwhich, I was and am convinced, must be openly met,--not silently ignored\nuntil the mischief becomes unmanageable: met, too, by building up men\nin THE TRUTH: above all, by giving Theological instruction to those who\nare destined to become Professors of Theological Science, and are about\nto undertake the cure of souls.... In this spirit, I asserted the\nopposite fundamental verities; and so, would have been content to\ndismiss the \"Essays and Reviews\" from my thoughts for ever.\n\nBut in the meantime, the respectability of the authors of that volume\nhad attracted to their work an increasing share of notice. An able\narticle in the 'Westminster Review' first aroused public attention. A\nstill abler in the 'Quarterly' awoke the Church to a sense of the\nenormity of the offence which had been committed. It was not that\n_danger_ was apprehended. There could be but one opinion as to the\nessential impotence of the attack. But the circumstances which aroused\npublic indignation were twofold. First,--Here was a _conspiracy_ against\nthe Faith. Seven Critics had _avowedly combined_ \"to illustrate the\nadvantage derivable to the cause of Religious and Moral Truth from a\nfree handling, in a becoming spirit, of\" what they were pleased to\ncharacterize as \"subjects peculiarly liable to suffer by the repetition\nof conventional language, and from traditional modes of treatment[5].\"\nThey prefixed to their joint labours the expression of a \"hope that\ntheir volume would be received as an attempt\" to do this. That their\nallusion was to the Creeds, Articles, Book of Common Prayer and\nAdministration of the Sacraments,--was obvious. Equally obvious was the\n_un_-becoming spirit, the arrogance and the hostility,--with which all\nthose sacred things were handled by those seven writers.\n\nSecondly,--\"Essays and Reviews\" attracted notice because six of its\nauthors were _Ministers of the Church of England_. Here were six\nClergymen openly making light of their sacred profession, and apparently\nworse than regardless of their Ordination vows. As an infidel but\ncertainly in this instance most truthful as well as able Reviewer,\nremarked concerning the work in question,--\"In their ordinary, if not\nplain sense, there has been discarded the Word of GOD, the Creation, the\nFall, the Redemption, Justification, Regeneration, and Salvation,\nMiracles, Inspiration, Prophecy, Heaven and Hell, Eternal punishment and\na Day of Judgment, Creeds, Liturgies, and Articles, the truth of Jewish\nHistory and of Gospel narrative; a sense of doubt thrown over even the\nIncarnation, the Resurrection, and Ascension, the Divinity of the Second\nPerson, and the personality of the Third. It may be that this is a\n_true_ view of Christianity; but we insist, in the name of common sense,\nthat it is a _new_ view. Surely it is waste of time to argue that it is\nagreeable to Scripture, and not contrary to the Canons[6]!\"\n\nThis twofold phenomenon, which has shocked the public conscience and\nperplexed common sense, has been _the sole_ cause of the amount of\nattention \"Essays and Reviews\" has excited. Laymen might have combined\nto produce this volume, almost unheeded. An obscure Clergyman might\npossibly have published any one of these seven papers; and with a rebuke\nfor his immorality or his insolence, he would probably have been\nunnoticed by the world. But here is a combination of Doctors of\nDivinity; Professors; Fellows, nay Heads of Colleges; Instructors of\nEngland's Youth; Teachers of Religion; Chaplains to Royal and noble\npersonages!\n\nThe Jesuitical notice prefixed to the book, (deprecating the idea that\nits authors should be held responsible, except severally for their\nseveral articles,) completed the scandal. As if seven men, each armed\nwith his own appropriate weapon of violence, breaking into a house, and\nspreading ruin around them, could \"readily be understood,\" (to quote\ntheir own language,) to incur each a limited responsibility!... Charity\ndoubtless would have rejoiced to spread her mantle over any one or more\nof the number, \"who, on seeing the extravagantly vicious manner in which\nsome of his associates had performed their part, had openly declared his\ndisgust and abhorrence of such unfaithfulness, and had withdrawn his\nname[7],\"--with some expression of sorrow for the irreparable mischief\nwhich he had actively helped to occasion. But long before _nine_\neditions of \"Essays and Reviews\" had appeared, it became apparent that\neach of the living authors, (for one, alas, has already gone to his\naccount!) has made himself responsible for the _whole_ work[8]. Nay,\nthere are some of the number who make no secret of their satisfaction\nat what has happened; and seem desirous only that their volume should\nobtain a yet wider circulation[9].\n\n\"Essays and Reviews,\" as already stated, with the turn of the year,\nexperienced a vast increase of notoriety. The entire Bench of Bishops\ncondemned the book; and both Houses of Convocation endorsed the\nEpiscopal censure. A very careful perusal of the volume became\nnecessary; and it proved to be infinitely weaker in point of ability,\ninfinitely more fatal in point of intention, than could have been\nsuspected from the known respectability and position of its authors. A\nclamour also arose for a Reply to these Seven Champions,--not exactly of\nChristendom. \"You _condemn_: but why do you not _reply_?\"--became quite\na popular form of reproach.\n\nIt was useless to urge, in private, such considerations as the\nfollowing:--To reply to a volume of 433 pages, each of which contains a\nfallacy or a falsity,--while some pages are packed full of both,--is a\nserious undertaking.--Besides, the book _has been_ replied to already;\nfor there is scarcely an objection urged within its pages which was not\nbetter urged, and effectually disposed of, in the last century. Nay,\nevery good Review of \"Essays and Reviews\" has _answered_ the book: for\nwhat signify the details, if the fundamental lie has been detected, and\nunrelentingly exposed? The man who plants his heel on the serpent's\nhead, and refuses to withdraw it, can afford to disregard the tortuous\nwrithings of the long supple body.--Again. These attacks are seven. Must\nseven men _with_ \"concert and comparison,\"--with leisure and inclination\ntoo,--be procured to _demolish_ this flimsy compound of dogmatism and\nunbelief? to disperse these cloudy doubts, and to analyse and repel\nthese many ambiguous statements?--Once more. A fool can assert, and in a\nmoment, that 'There is no GOD.' But it requires a wise man to refute the\nlie; and his refutation will probably demand a volume.--I say, it was in\nvain to urge such considerations as these. \"Why does no one _reply_ to\nthese 'Essays and Reviews?'\" was asked,--till, I apprehend, pens enough\nhave been unsheathed to do the work effectually.\n\nIt struck me, in the meantime, that I should be employing myself not\nunprofitably at such a juncture, if (laying aside all other work for a\nmonth or two) I were to attempt a short reply to the volume in\nquestion, myself; and to combine it with the publication of the Sermons\nI had already preached; and which I had the comfort of learning had not\nonly been favourably received by some of those who heard them, but had\nattracted some slight notice outside the University also. Accordingly,\nwith not a little reluctance, in the month of February I began. The\n_Destructive_ part of the argument, I determined to address to the\nyounger members of my own College,--men with whom I live in daily\nintimacy, and on terms of private friendship; and whom, above all, I\ndesired to protect against the influence of that \"moral poison,\" (as the\nBishop of Exeter describes it,) of which the world has lately heard so\nmuch. The _Constructive_ part of the argument, I resolved to complete as\nopportunities might offer, in my Sermons. One such opportunity presented\nitself early in Lent; of which I availed myself to establish some\nfundamental truths relative to the Interpretation of Holy Writ[10]. By\nfavour of the Vice Chancellor, the promise of yet another preaching turn\nwas obtained. It appeared best to avail myself of the opportunity to\nconsider the chief objections which have been brought against the Bible\nfrom the _marvellous_ character of some of its contents[11]. An\nUniversity Sermon preached exactly ten years ago, (on the Doctrine of\nAccommodation,) supplied an important link in the argument.... Thus the\nunscientific shape in which the present volume appears, is explained;\nand its want of exact method is accounted for. Let me add, that but for\nthe forward state of what I like to regard as the _Constructive_ part\nof the present volume,--(and which I am not without a humble hope will\nsecure for the rest a more than ephemeral interest,)--I should have been\nslow indeed to undertake the distasteful task of answering a work of\nwhich I have long since been heartily weary.\n\nII. And now, for a few words on the general question which has called\nout these \"Sermons\" and \"Preliminary Remarks.\"\n\nAt the root of the whole mischief of these last days lies _disbelief in\nthe Bible_ as _the Word of GOD_. This is the fundamental error.\nDangerous enough is it to the moral and intellectual nature of Man, when\nthe authority of the Church is doubted: or rather, this is _the first_\ndownward step. Not to believe that Christ bequeathed to His Church a\nDivine form of polity: not to believe that He set officers over His\nKingdom, of which He is Himself the sole invisible Head: not to believe\nthat He invested His Apostles with authority to delegate to others the\nCommission He had Himself conveyed to them; and that, by virtue of such\ntransmitted powers, the Church has authority in the Ministration of\nGOD'S Word and Sacraments: not to believe that He vouchsafed to His\nChurch extraordinary guidance at the first, and that He vouchsafes to\nHis Church effectual guidance still:--an utter want of faith in the\nChurch and her Ordinances, is the first step, I repeat, in a soul's\ndownward progress.\n\nNext comes an impatience of Creeds. It has been falsely asserted by an\nEssayist and Reviewer that \"Constantine inaugurated the principle of\ndoctrinal limitation[12];\" by which is meant that definitions of Faith\ndate from the Council of Nic\u00e6a, A.D. 325: the truth being that the\nfamous Oecumenical Council which was then held did but rule the\nconsubstantiality of the SON with the FATHER: whereas elaborate Creeds\nexist of a far earlier date; as all are aware. Creeds indeed are coeval\nwith Christianity itself[13]. What need to add that when the decree of\nthe first Oecumenical Council concerning the true faith in the\nadorable Trinity has been set at nought, all other decisions of the\nChurch are disregarded also?\n\nThat marvellous concrete fact, the Bible,--has next to be encountered.\nUnmethodical as it seems to be, the Bible arrests a man in his impatient\ncourse with many a significant History,--many an unmanageable precept.\nMuch of its contents, it is true, are of such a nature that they may be\nglossed over,--explained away,--ignored,--set aside. The reading is\ndoubtful: or there are two opinions, (perhaps twenty,) concerning it: or\nthe language may be figurative: or the words are not to be pressed too\nclosely: or a perverse logic may pretend to find in it agreeable\nconfirmation, instead of stern reproof. Not a few places there are,\nhowever, which defy any such handling; stubborn rocks which refuse to\nyield a single trace of the wished-for vegetation, in return for the\nmost determined husbandry. Nothing of the kind ever will or can be made\nto germinate upon them. They are absolutely unmanageable, and hopelessly\nin the way of the man who is determined to cast off restraint,--whether\nspiritual, intellectual, or moral. He is for being lawless; or at\nleast, without law: but _the Bible_ is unmistakably _an external Law_,\nand is opposed to him. The Bible is his enemy, and the Bible claims to\nbe Divine.... What need to state that to deny the Inspiration of the\nBible, and to undermine its authority, and to explain away its\nstatements, becomes the next object of the unbeliever? It is precisely\nat this stage of his downward progress that public attention is excited,\nand public indignation aroused. The Church, (like its Divine Author,)\nmay be outraged, and few will be found to remonstrate. The Creeds may be\nassailed, (especially \"one unhappy Creed!\"), and it is hinted that these\nare speculative matters, on which none should pronounce too\ndogmatically. But (thank GOD!) Englishmen yet love their Bible; and\nCommon Sense is able to see that an uninspired Bible is _no Bible at\nall_. At the assault upon the Bible, therefore, as I said, an indignant\noutcry is raised,--as _now_.\n\nSystematically to cope with such irreverence, such entire ignorance\nrather of all the questions at issue, from the pulpit, would be clearly\nimpracticable. Men require to be taught \"which be the first principles.\"\nThey require to be educated in Divinity. And thus we come back to the\nfontal source of all the mischief of our own Day. We, in Oxford, give no\nsystematic training to our Candidates for Holy Orders. We do not even\nattempt it. Nay, incredible to relate, _we do not give them any training\nat all_. And the fatal consequences of this omission are to be seen on\nevery side. A youth no sooner gets through \"the Schools,\" and graduates\nin Arts, than he inquires for a Curacy. During the three months, perhaps\nsix, of interval, he makes himself sufficiently acquainted with the\nAlphabet of Divinity to enable him to satisfy the very modest\nrequirements of the Bishop's examination; after which he finds himself\nat once actively engaged in the Bishopric of souls and the profession of\nTheology. It is probable that the realities of the Ministerial calling,\nand the eminently practical nature of such an one's daily life, will\nkeep _this_ man from error. Not so his--more, shall I say, or\nless?--fortunate fellow-student; who, by hard self-relying labour,\nhaving obtained distinction in the Schools, finds himself in the\nenjoyment of a fellowship, and straightway engages in the work of\ntuition. This man, whose fellowship is his \"title\" for orders, studies\nDivinity, or neglects it, at pleasure: and if he studies it, he studies\nit in his own way. He has read a little of heathen Ethics with great\ncare; or he has trained himself to the exactness of mathematical\ninference. With the purest idiom of ancient Greece he has also made\nhimself very familiar. He is besides a Master of Arts. What need to add\nthat such an one is not therefore a Master of _Divinity_? possesses no\nqualification which authorizes him to dogmatize about any one department\nof _Theological Science_?\n\nThe plain truth is, (and it is really better to speak plainly,)--the\nplain truth is, that the offensive Sermons one sometimes hears from the\nUniversity pulpit,--the offensive Essays and Reviews which have lately\noccasioned so much public scandal,--are the work of men who discuss that\nwhich they do not understand; profess that which they were never, at\nany time of their life, taught. Their method of handling a text is\naltogether unique and extraordinary. Their remarks concerning Divine\nthings are even puerile. Their very citations of Scripture are\nincorrect. Their cool affectation of superiority of knowledge, their\nclaim to intellectual power, would be laughable, were the subject less\nsolemn and important. Speculations so feeble that they sound like the\ncries of an infant in the dark, are insinuated to be the sublime views\nof a bold and original thinker, who _\"has by a Divine help been enabled\nto plant his foot somewhere beyond the waves of Time!\"_--Doubts so badly\nexpressed that they read like the confused utterance of one in his\nsleep, claim to be regarded as the legacy of one who is about to\n_\"depart hence before the natural term, worn out with intellectual\ntoil[14]!\"_ ... In a word,--Men who have never been taught and trained,\nbut have grown up in a miserable self-evolved system of their\nown,--(with a little of Hegel, and a little of Schleiermacher, and a\nlittle of Strauss,)--cannot _but_ trouble the peace of the Church. They\ndeny her authority. (They are not aware of her claims.) They cavil at\nher Creeds. (They are not acquainted with their history.) They doubt the\nauthenticity of the very Bible. (They know wondrous little about\nit.)--How did the Bible attain its actual shape? They cannot tell. How\nhas it been guarded? They are careless to inquire. How does it come to\nus as 'the Bible,'--_the_ Book of all books? It is best not to discuss a\nquestion which must infallibly bring forward _the Church_ as \"a witness\nand a keeper of Holy Writ[15].\" Men are even impatient to publish their\nprivate prejudice that it is to be interpreted like any other book; that\nit is inspired in no other sense than Sophocles and Plato. \"The\nprinciple of private judgment,\" (it is said,) \"puts Conscience between\nus and the Bible, making Conscience _the supreme interpreter[16]_.\"\n\"Hence,\" it is said, \"we use the Bible,--some consciously, some\nunconsciously,--not to override, but to evoke the voice of Conscience.\"\n(p. 44.) \"The Book of this Law,\" (as Hooker phrases it,) is dethroned;\nand Man usurps the vacant seat, and becomes a Law unto himself! GOD\nHimself is dethroned, in effect; and Man becomes his own god.\n\nTo cope systematically with all this from the University pulpit, as\nalready remarked, is plainly impossible. The preacher must take up the\nquestion at some definite stage, and arrest the false teachers _there_.\n\"That wicked,\"--or rather \"THE LAWLESS ONE,\" (=ho anomos=, as he is\ncalled in 2 Thess. ii. 8,)--must be bound, hand and foot, _somewhere_ in\nhis career of lawlessness; and in these Sermons _the threshold of the\nBible_ has been chosen as the place for the conflict. My life for his\nlife. I will slay or be slain on the very portal of Holy Scripture. With\nthe young, you begin at the beginning,--\"the Creed, the LORD'S Prayer,\nthe Ten Commandments;\" and they must be further instructed in the Church\nCatechism. But the foundation cannot be laid afresh with the full-grown.\nIt is idle to talk about the authority of _the Church_ to men who do not\nbelieve in the Bible. It is useless to dispute about Creeds with men\nwho know nothing of the origin and history of Christianity. Reserving\nthe _true_ method of teaching for those who alone are capable of being\ntaught, we are constrained to argue with men of full age about _the\nInspiration and Interpretation of the Bible_.--If in the ensuing Sermons\nthe principles handled are so very elementary, it is because the\navailable limits were so very narrow,--while the field over which\nUnbelief has spread itself, is so very broad.\n\nIII. When a few words have been added concerning the manner in which I\nhave executed my task, this Preface shall be brought to a close.--If the\nstyle of the present SERMONS,--considering the auditory, and above all\nconsidering the subject,--shall be thought by competent judges not\nsufficiently dignified in parts, I will bow to their decision without\nremonstrance. Everybody can divine the defence which would be set up;\nbut perhaps it may not be quite a valid defence. A man feels strongly\nand warmly; writes fast and freely; is determined to be clearly\nunderstood: is weary of the dignified conventionalities under which\nScepticism loves to conceal itself when it comes abroad. Perhaps some\nexpressions which may be permitted in delivery, ought to be remodelled\nwhen a Sermon is sent to the press.\n\nBut with regard to the ensuing PRELIMINARY REMARKS, I shall not so\neasily be persuaded to think that I am mistaken as to the style in which\nEssayists and Reviewers are to be dealt with[17]. Some respectable\npersons, I doubt not, will think my treatment of them harsh and\nuncharitable. I invite them to consider that we do not expect blasphemy\nfrom Ministers of the Gospel,--irreligion from the teachers of\nyouth,--infidelity from the Professor's chair: nor are we called upon to\ntolerate it either. I have the misfortune to concur entirely with the\nverdict pronounced by the Bishop of Exeter on the subject of 'Essays and\nReviews.' Let those who feel little jealousy for GOD'S honour measure\nout in grains their censure of a volume, the confessed tendency of which\nis to sap the foundation of Faith, and to introduce irreligion with a\nflood-tide. Such shall not, at all events, be _my_ method. Private\nregard, if it is to weigh largely with him who stands up for GOD'S\nTruth, should first have weighed a little with those by whom it has been\nmost grievously outraged. It may suit these Authors to wrap up their\nshameful meaning in a cloud of words; but their Reviewer avails himself\nof that Christian liberty to which they themselves so systematically lay\nclaim, mercilessly to uncover their baseness, and uncompromisingly to\ndenounce it. If I may declare my mind freely, punctilious courtesy in\ndealing with such opinions, becomes a species of treason against Him\nafter whose Name we are called, and whom we profess to serve. Seven men\nmay combine to handle the things of GOD, it seems, in the most\noutrageous manner; while _themselves_ are to be the objects of\nconsideration, tenderness, respect! I cannot see their title to any\nconsideration at all.\n\nIt will be found, it is hoped, that when these writers have the courage\nto descend to argument, _there_ I have gladly met them on their own\nground, and sought to refute them: but _to reason_ is no part of their\nplan. Unsupported dicta on every subject on which they treat: doubts\npromiscuously insinuated, but never once openly and honestly maintained:\ncool assumptions of intellectual superiority for themselves and their\ninfidel allies: contemptuous allusions to the names which the\nrespectable part of mankind agrees to hold in honour: foul imputations\nagainst the honesty of the Clergy:--_this_ is all their method! The\nfavourite _cant_ of these writers is, that no one should shrink from\nfree discussion, or fear the results of Criticism. Why then do not they\nthemselves criticize? Why do not _they_ reason? Charity herself after\nweighing these Essays carefully has no alternative but to assume that\nthe Authors either have not the courage, or that they lack the ability,\nto descend to a free discussion, and risk all on a stand-up fight. A\nkind of guerilla warfare: half a dozen arrows, and a hasty retreat:\n_such_ is their mode of attack! But this method, though it may occasion\nannoyance, is quite unworthy of an honest inquirer, and never can be\ndecisive of anything. It is the cowardly expedient of men who shrink\nfrom scrutiny, and dread exposure. Nothing so easy, for example, as to\nrepeat the old commonplace about \"irreconcileable discrepancies\" in the\n\"Synoptical Gospels:\" but why, instead, are we not told, _which these\nirreconcileable discrepancies are_? For my own part, I freely renew in\nthis place the challenge I gave in my IIIrd Sermon[18]. Let any one of\nthese Gentlemen publicly and definitely lay his finger on one or more\nof these contradictory statements in the Gospels, during term-time; and\nwithin a week I hereby undertake publicly to refute him in the Divinity\nSchool of this University: and our peers shall be our judges.\n\nGentlemen who come abroad in the fashion above described, have no right\nto complain if they encounter rough usage on the road. When Critics are\nclamorous for the \"free handling\" of Divine Truth, they must not be\nsurprised to find themselves freely handled too. If free discussion is\nto be the order of the day, then let there be free discussion of \"Essays\nand Reviews,\" _as well as of_ THE BIBLE. Six Clergymen of the Church of\nEngland who enter upon a crusade against the Faith of the Church of\nEngland must not be astonished if they are looked upon in the light of\nimmoral characters, and treated as such. Accordingly, I have handled\n_them_ just as freely as _they_ have handled the Prophets, Apostles, and\nEvangelists of CHRIST.\n\nI cannot therefore pretend to offer anything in extenuation of the style\nin which I have examined the statements of these Essayists and\nReviewers. Perfectly sensible as I am of the gracefulness of highly\ncourteous language in controversial writing, I will not so far violate\nmy own conviction of what is right as to bandy compliments on such an\noccasion as _this_. This is no literary misunderstanding, or I could\nhave been amicable enough: no private or personal matter, or I could\nhave flung it from me with unconcern. No other than an attempt to\ndestroy Man's dearest hopes, is this infamous book: no other than an\ninsult, the grossest imaginable, offered to the Majesty of Heaven; an\nattack, the more foul because it is so insidious, against the\nEverlasting Gospel of JESUS CHRIST. In such a cause I will _not_ so far\ngive in to the smooth fashion of a supple and indifferent age, as to pay\nthese seven writers a single compliment which they will care to accept.\nThe most foolish composition of the seven is Dr. Temple's; the most\nmischievous is Professor Jowett's: but the germ of the last Essay is\ncontained in the first; the foolishness of the first Essay is abundantly\nshared by the last: while the evidence of correspondence of sentiment\nbetween the two writers is unmistakable. The most unphilosophical Essay,\n(where _all_ are unphilosophical,) is Professor Powell's: the most\ninsolent, Dr. Williams': the most immoral, Mr. Wilson's: the most\nshallow, Mr. Goodwin's; the most irrelevant, Mr. Pattison's. Not one of\nthese writers shews himself capable of recognizing the true logical\nresult of his own opinions: of drawing from his own premisses their one\ninevitable issue. Not one of them has had the manliness to _speak out_,\nand to _say plainly_ what he means. They seem to deny the Divinity of\nCHRIST, and the Personality of the HOLY GHOST: but how reluctant is a\nreader to believe that they really _mean_ it! Quite inevitable is it\nthat these clerical critics must choose between two alternatives. Either\nthey hold opinions which make it impossible that they should retain\nOrders in the Church of England, and yet be honest men; or they have\nexpressed themselves with such culpable inaccuracy and ambiguity, as\nshews that they are altogether incompetent to handle the Science of\nTheology.--Gladly would one give them the benefit of a third\nalternative: but I see not that any remains.\n\nIf it should be thought strange that one thinking so meanly of 'Essays\nand Reviews' should have produced a yet larger volume in reply to them,\nit must suffice to point out that the refutation of a fallacy is almost\nof necessity the ampler writing.--Or again, if it be remarked that by\nfar the largest part of what I have written is directed against the\nhundred pages of Professor Jowett, the explanation is still obvious. For\nnot only does that concluding Essay of his bring to a terribly practical\nissue the speculative doubts and difficulties which had been started by\nall his predecessors; (namely, doubts as to (1) the relation in which\nthe Bible stands to Man;--(2) the nature of Prophecy;--(3) the reality\nof Miracles;--(4) the worth of Creeds and formularies;--(5) the\nauthenticity of Genesis;--(6) the basis on which Revelation is by the\nChurch of England supposed to rest;)--by proposing that we should\nhenceforth regard the Bible as a book _no otherwise inspired than\nSophocles and Plato_:--not only does Professor Jowett's essay discharge\nthis fatal office; but his style is somewhat peculiar; and what he says,\ncannot always be effectually disposed of by a few words. Let me explain.\n\nThere is a certain form of fallacy of statement in which this\nGentleman's writings abound, which calls aloud for notice and signal\nreprobation. He has a marvellous aptitude, (one would fain hope through\nsome intellectual infirmity,) of connecting together in the same\nsentence two or three clauses; one or two of which shall be true as\nHeaven, while the other is false as Hell. The reply to such a sentence\nis impossible, without many words,--far more than Mr. Jowett's sentences\ncommonly deserve.--Sometimes he strings together several heads of\nthought; of which enumeration the kindest thing which can be said is\nthat it betrays an utter want of intellectual perspective. To unravel\neven a part of this tangled web so as to expose its argumentative\nworthlessness, soon fills a page.... But there is another kind of\nfallacy which the same gentleman wields with immense effect, and in the\nuse of which he is a great master; which, because it was absolutely\nimpossible to handle it fitly in the proper place, shall be briefly\nadverted to, here. I proceed to describe it not without indignation; for\nI am profoundly struck by the intellectual perversity, not to say the\nmoral obliquity, which has so entirely made this vile instrument its\nown.\n\nThe fallacy then is of this nature. When Professor Jowett would put\nforth something especially deserving of reprehension,--some sentiment or\nopinion which he either knows, or ought to know, that the whole Church\nwill resent with unqualified abhorrence,--he assumes a plaintive manner,\nand puts himself into an interesting attitude; sometimes even folds his\nhands, as if in prayer. He then begins by (1) throwing out a remark of\nreal beauty, and so conciliating for himself an indulgent hearing; or\n(2) he goes off on some Moral question, and so defeats attention; or\n(3) he delivers himself of some undeniable truth, and so disarms\ncensure; or (4) he says something of an entirely equivocal kind, and so\nleaves his reader at fault. Candour, of course, gives him the benefit of\nthe doubt. It is not till the sentence is well advanced, or till it is\nexamined by the fatal light of its context, that one is shewn what the\nambiguous writer really was intending. A cloven foot appears at last;\nbut it is instantly withdrawn, with a shuffle; and you experience a\nscowl or a sneer, as the case may be, for your extreme unkindness in\ninquiring whether it was not a cloven foot you saw?... Meanwhile, the\nlearned Professor has gone off _in alia omnia_, with a look of\nearnestness which challenges respect, and a vagueness of diction which\nat once discourages pursuit and defeats inquiry. The fish invariably\nends by disappearing in a cloud of his own ink.\n\nIt shall suffice to have said thus much. These pages must now be\nsuffered to go forth; not without a hearty aspiration that a blessing\nmay attend them from Him _sine Quo nihil est validum, nihil sanctum_;\nand that what was intended for the strength and help of those who want\nhelping and strengthening, (I am thinking particularly of what has been\noffered on the subject of Inspiration,) may not prove misleading or\nperplexing to any.\n\n_Oriel, June 24th, 1861._\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] The reader is invited to refer to the passages cited in the present\nvolume, at pp. lxxxvii. and lxxxviii.\n\n[2] See p. 47 to p. 50. Also Appendix (B.)\n\n[3] In illustration of what is meant, may be particularized a highly\nobjectionable Sermon which Dr. Temple preached before the University\nsome years ago, and which occasioned no small offence to many who heard\nit,--as all in Oxford well remember. It was almost as unsound as the\nsame writer's Essay \"On the Education of the World,\" which, to the best\nof my remembrance, it strongly resembled.--A printed Sermon by Dr.\nTemple may also be referred to, \"preached on Act-Sunday, July 1, 1860,\nbefore the University of Oxford, during the Meeting of the British\nAssociation,\" entitled _\"The present Relations of Science to\nReligion.\"_--Professor Jowett's handling of the Doctrine of the\nAtonement, needs only to be referred to.\n\n[4] Page 80 to 82.\n\n[5] \"To the Reader,\" prefixed to _Essays and Reviews_.\n\n[6] 'Neo-Christianity' in the _Westminster Review_, No. 36.--How true is\nwhat follows:--\"The Bible is one; and it is too late now to propose to\ndivide it. We shall only point out that the _moral value of the Gospel\nteaching becomes suspicious_ when the whole miraculous element is\ndiscarded.\n\n\"We certainly do think that the Gospels assert a miraculous Incarnation,\nResurrection, and Ascension; and that the Epistles teach Original Sin,\nand a vicarious Sacrifice. If this be doubted by our authors, it is\nsufficient for us to say that such is the impression they have created\non all ages of Christians.\"\n\n\"We desire that if the Bible, or any part of it be retained as Holy\nWrit, it be defended as a miraculous gift to Man, and not by distorting\nthe principles of modern Science. Let the Essayists be assured that\nthere exists _no middle course_; that there is no Inspiration more than\nis natural, yet not supernatural; _no Theology which can abandon its\ndoctrines and retain its authority_.\"\n\nLastly, with what sickening and almost Satanic power, does the same\nwriter invite the Essayists and Reviewers to make shipwreck of their\nsouls in the following terrible passage. And yet, who sees not that _on\ntheir principles_ absolute and professed unbelief is _inevitable_? He\nsays:--\"How long shall this last? Until men have the courage to bury\ntheir dead convictions out of sight, and the greater courage to form\nnew. All honour to these writers for the boldness with which they have,\nat great risk, urged their opinions. _But what is wanted is strength_\nnot merely to face the world, but _to face one's own conclusions_. We\nknow the cost. It must be endured. Let each who has thought and felt for\nhimself, ask himself first what he _does not_ believe, and then, if wise\nor needful, avow it. Next let him ask himself what he _does_ believe,\nand pursue it to its true and full conclusions. Neither loose\naccommodation nor sonorous principles will long give them rest. It is of\nas little use to surrender the more glaring contradictions of Science as\nit is to evaporate discredited doctrine into a few vague precepts. That\nend will not be attained by our authors by subliming Religion into an\nemotion, and making an armistice with Science. It will not be obtained\nby any unreal adaptation; _nor by this, which is, of all recent\nadaptations_, at once the most able, the most earnest, and _the most\nsuicidal_.\"\n\n[7] The Bishop of Exeter to Dr. Temple.\n\n[8] The Bishop of Manchester exactly expressed the general opinion, when\nhe said,--\"Nor will I for a single moment, however my personal feelings\nmight interfere, conceal my deliberate conviction that every partner in\nthat work is equally guilty.\"--(_Guardian_, Ap. 10, 1861, p. 341.) But\nthe most faithful language of all came from the Bishop of Exeter in his\ncrushing reply to an inquiry put to him by Dr. Temple. \"I avow that I\nhold every one of the seven persons acting together for such an object\nto be alike responsible for the several acts of every individual among\nthem in executing their avowed common purpose.\"\n\n[9] A letter from Dr. Rowland Williams, which has appeared in the\nnewspapers, contains the following language with reference to the\nAmerican reprint of \"Essays and Reviews:\"--\"I confess myself personally\ngratified that my own work, and that of my far more distinguished\ncoadjutors, with whom it is sufficient honour for me to be included in\nthe same volume, should have obtained the honour of a reprint in another\nhemisphere. Still more would I hail the circumstance as an auspicious\ntoken of the sympathy which should prevail between kindred nations, as\nregards subjects of the highest import, and as a sign of the prospects\nof Christian freedom beyond the Atlantic....\n\n\"I have not yet discovered any community or individual possessing the\nright to cast the first stone at those who interpret the Bible in\nfreedom, and who subordinate its letter to its spirit, or its parts to\nits whole. Even if Holy Scripture were, as is popularly fancied, the\nfoundation,--and not, as I believe, the expression and the memorial,--of\nReligious Truth in man, it would be absurd to render it honours\nessentially different from those which it claims for itself, or to make\nit a master, where it claims only to be a servant.\"\n\n[10] Serm. V.\n\n[11] See Sermon VII.\n\n[12] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 166.\n\n[13] See p. clxxvii. to p. clxxxiii.\n\n[14] Mr. Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 433.\n\n[15] Article XX.\n\n[16] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 45.\n\n[17] It should perhaps be stated that the edition of \"Essays and\nReviews\" which I have employed is _the Third_ (1860.)\n\n[18] pp. 72-3.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS.\n\n\n DEDICATION.\n\n PREFACE.  I. Some account of the present Volume.\n\n          II. Growth of irreligious Opinion.\n\n         III. 'Essayists and Reviewers' to be as 'freely-handled'\n              as the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles of\n              CHRIST.\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON \"ESSAYS AND REVIEWS.\"                         PAGE\n\n   I. Examination of the contribution of Rev. F. Temple, D.D.          ii\n\n  II.                  Rev. Rowland Williams, D.D.                    xxx\n\n III.                  Rev. Professor Baden Powell, M.A.             xlvi\n\n  IV.                  Rev. H. B. Wilson, M.A.                       lxiv\n\n   V.                  C. W. Goodwin, M.A.                         lxxxvi\n\n  VI.                  Rev. Mark Pattison, B.D.                      cxii\n\n VII.                  Rev. Professor Jowett, M.A.                 cxxxix\n\n  In what sense Mr. Jowett's fundamental principle, (that\n    \"Scripture is to be interpreted like any other book,\") may\n    be cheerfully accepted                                            cxl\n\n  Mr. Jowett's main assertion that \"Scripture has one and only\n    one true meaning,\" shewn to be founded on his assumption\n    that the Bible is _uninspired_,--\"like any other book\"          cxlii\n\n  1. Eight Characteristics of the Bible enumerated, which shew\n    that it is _unlike_ \"any other book\"                               cl\n\n  But the distinctive characteristic of the Bible, is, that _it\n    professes to be the work of the HOLY GHOST_                       clx\n\n  Mr. Jowett's syllogism corrected, in consequence                  clxii\n\n  2. Mr. Jowett's proposal accepted, that we should \"Interpret\n    Scripture from itself.\" Notion of _Interpretation_ obtained\n    from the volume of _Inspiration_                                clxii\n\n  3. In addition to the testimony of Scripture, we have to\n    consider the testimony of Antiquity                             clxix\n\n  Remarks on primitive Patristic Interpretation                      clxx\n\n  This part of the subject misunderstood by Mr. Jowett            clxxiii\n\n  Remarks on primitive Tradition.--The Creeds, the records of\n    Primitive Christianity                                        clxxvii\n\n  This part of the subject also misunderstood by Mr. Jowett        clxxix\n\n  4. Examination of some of Mr. Jowett's reasons for rejecting\n    that method of Interpretation which has been (=1=)\n    Established by our LORD; (=2=) Employed by His Apostles;\n    (=3=) Universally adopted by the primitive Church; and (=4=)\n    Accepted by the most learned and judicious of modern\n    Commentators                                                  clxxxvi\n\n  The peroration of Mr. Jowett's Essay examined and commented on     ccvi\n\n  Retrospect of the entire subject                                  ccxvi\n\n  Conclusion                                                      ccxxvii\n\n\nSERMON I.\n\n  ST. JOHN vi. 68. _LORD, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the\n    words of Eternal Life._\n\n  THE STUDY OF THE BIBLE RECOMMENDED; AND A METHOD OF STUDYING\n    IT DESCRIBED.\n\n  The Gospel, as a written message, meets with the same\n    reception at the hands of the World now, as in the days of\n    the Son of Man                                                      1\n\n  Some points of analogy between the Written and the Incarnate\n    WORD                                                                2\n\n  Difficulties and seeming contradictions in the Gospel                 3\n\n  Unattractive aspect.--Union of the Human and Divine                   4\n\n  The Bible is generally little read.--Its preciousness                 6\n\n  The age unlearned as well as unfaithful                               7\n\n  Want of preparation for the Ministry.--The question of\n    preparation narrowed to the duty of studying the Bible              8\n\n  Conditions of successful Study:--a fixed time for reading the\n    Bible, and a fixed quantity to be read                              9\n\n  Vigilance, and independent inquiry                                   10\n\n  Consecutive reading.--The first chapter of Genesis                   11\n\n  Nothing to be skipped.--Result of such a method                      12\n\n  The Bible is to be read, not in the same manner, but with at\n    least the same attention, as a merely human work                   13\n\n  A caution                                                            14\n\n  Men not competent to make their own Religion out of the Bible        16\n\n  The advantages of such a study of the Bible as has been here\n    recommended, explained                                             17\n\n\nSERMON II.\n\n  HEBREWS xi. 3. _Through Faith, we understand that the worlds\n    were framed by the Word of GOD._\n\n  NATURAL SCIENCE AND THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.\n\n  Special act of Faith assigned to ourselves in Hebrews xi.            23\n\n  The first Chapter of Genesis considered: Verse 1                     24\n\n  Province of Geology                                                  26\n\n  The Work of the First Day                                            28\n\n  --------------- Second and the Third Day                             29\n\n  --------------- Fourth and the Fifth Day                             30\n\n  --------------- Sixth Day                                            31\n\n  The Mosaic History of the Creation true                              33\n\n  Objections considered                                                34\n\n  Speech ascribed to GOD                                               35\n\n  Adam's knowledge                                                     36\n\n  The first pair.--The days of Creation real days                      37\n\n  Objections of pretenders to Natural Science                          39\n\n  The plea that the Bible is not a scientific book                     40\n\n  The historical truth of the Bible insisted upon                      44\n\n  Natural Science not undervalued                                      46\n\n  The term \"Science\" not to be opposed to \"Theology\"                   47\n\n  Theology the Queen of Sciences                                       48\n\n\nSERMON III.\n\n  2 TIM. iii. 16. _All Scripture is given by inspiration of\n    GOD._\n\n  INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE.--GOSPEL DIFFICULTIES.--THE WORD OF\n    GOD INFALLIBLE.--OTHER SCIENCES SUBORDINATE TO THEOLOGICAL\n    SCIENCE.\n\n  The meaning of 2 Tim. iii. 16                                        53\n\n  St. Paul nowhere disclaims Inspiration                               54\n\n  Holy Scripture is attributed in Scripture to the HOLY GHOST          56\n\n  Forms of unbelief concerning Inspiration                             57\n\n  Impertinence of the modern way of speaking of the Evangelists        60\n\n  Supposed inaccuracies, slips of memory, misstatements                61\n\n  The Gospels not _four_ but _One_                                     62\n\n  A principle laid down for the reconcilement of all Gospel\n    difficulties                                                       63\n\n  Illustration from a supposed case of testimony                       64\n\n  Computation of the hours in St. John's Gospel                        66\n\n  The accounts of the blind man restored to sight at Jericho,\n    harmonized                                                         67\n\n  Characteristics of an Inspired narrative                             68\n\n  The mention of \"Jeremy the prophet,\" and of Cyrenius,\n    considered                                                         70\n\n  Faultlessness of the Gospel                                          72\n\n  Absurdity of the common allegations against it                       73\n\n  The absolute Infallibility of Scripture maintained                   74\n\n  Every syllable of Holy Scripture inspired                            75\n\n  The nature of Inspiration illustrated                                76\n\n  Theology, the noblest of the Sciences                                79\n\n  Insubordination in these last days of Physical Science               80\n\n  The infidel spirit of the Age, protested against                     81\n\n  Theological Science can never be called upon to give way\n    before Physical Science                                            83\n\n  Relations of Morals to Theology                                      84\n\n  Conscience and the Moral Sense have been informed afresh by\n    Revelation                                                         87\n\n\nSERMON IV.\n\n  ST. JOHN xvii. 17. _Thy Word is Truth._\n\n  THE PLENARY INSPIRATION OF EVERY PART OF THE BIBLE, VINDICATED\n    AND EXPLAINED.--NATURE OF INSPIRATION.--THE TEXT OF\n    SCRIPTURE.\n\n  Cavils against the Bible                                             92\n\n  Absolute infallibility of every 'jot' and every 'tittle' of\n    Holy Scripture                                                     94\n\n  The popular view of Inspiration stated                               95\n\n  No middle state between Inspiration and non-inspiration              96\n\n  The popular theory applied and tested                                96\n\n  A different view of the nature and office of Inspiration\n    stated                                                            100\n\n  Inspiration still the same, however diverse the subject-matter      102\n\n  What is meant by 'a Prophet'                                        104\n\n  The message still GOD'S, whatever its nature may be                 106\n\n  Note of Inspiration in the Historical Books of the Bible            108\n\n  The Title on the Cross                                              109\n\n  Remonstrance                                                        110\n\n  Theories of Inspiration to be rejected                              115\n\n  Remarks on the nature of Inspiration                                116\n\n  Proof that men generally hold that _the words_ of Scripture\n    are inspired                                                      117\n\n  Absolute irrelevancy of objections drawn from _the state of\n    the Text_ of Scripture                                            118\n\n  The Substance of Scripture inseparable from the Form                120\n\n  Antichristian spirit of the age                                     121\n\n  The Study of Scripture in a childlike spirit recommended            122\n\n\nSUPPLEMENT TO SERMON IV.\n\n  A favourite view of Inspiration stated                              126\n\n  Vagueness of this theory                                            127\n\n  The theory practically tested, and found unmanageable               128\n\n  Further examination of the theory                                   132\n\n  Our SAVIOUR'S reasoning as difficult as that of St. Paul            134\n\n\nSERMON V.\n\n  ST. MATTHEW iv. 4. _It is written, Man shall not live by bread\n    alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of\n    GOD._\n\n  INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.--INSPIRED\n    INTERPRETATION.--THE BIBLE IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED LIKE ANY\n    OTHER BOOK.--GOD, (NOT MAN,) THE REAL AUTHOR OF THE BIBLE.\n\n\n  Interpretation described                                            140\n\n  Three sources of Interpretation compared                            141\n\n  Eusebius on \"the Captain of the LORD'S Host\"                        143\n\n  The principle must be ascertained, on which Inspiration is to\n    be conducted                                                      144\n\n  How this is to be done                                              145\n\n  This question may not be needlessly encumbered with\n    difficulties                                                      147\n\n  The HOLY SPIRIT'S method of Interpretation must be the _true_\n    method                                                            148\n\n  Specimens of Inspired Interpretation                                149\n\n  The very narrative of Scripture mysterious                          152\n\n  Divine exposition of the history of Melchizedek                     152\n\n  Further proofs of the mysterious texture of Holy Scripture          156\n\n  Moses wrote concerning CHRIST                                       157\n\n  Two propositions established by the foregoing inquiry: (1) That\n    the Bible is _not to be interpreted like any other book_:\n    (2) That _the meaning of Scripture is not always only one_        160\n\n  Scripture to be interpreted literally                               160\n\n  The story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife remarked upon               162\n\n  The Bible is the Word of GOD                                        163\n\n  Bishop Butler on Inspiration                                        165\n\n  Unbelief remonstrated with from the analogy of Nature and of\n    Providence                                                        168\n\n  How the inspired writers may be supposed to have understood\n    what they delivered                                               171\n\n  The question of Interpretation not be argued on _\u00e0 priori_\n    grounds                                                           173\n\n  Interpretation would be hopeless, but that the fountain of\n    Inspiration is _one_                                              174\n\n  An apology for these Sermons                                        177\n\n  Exhortation to transmit the Faith                                   180\n\n\nSERMON VI.\n\n  ROMANS x. 6-9. _But the Righteousness which is of Faith\n    speaketh on this wise,--'Say not in thine heart, Who shall\n    ascend into Heaven?' (that is, to bring CHRIST down from\n    above:) or, 'Who shall descend into the deep?' (that is, to\n    bring up CHRIST again from the dead.) But what saith it?\n    'The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thine\n    heart:' that is, the word of Faith, which we preach; that if\n    thou shalt confess with thy mouth the LORD JESUS, and shalt\n    believe in thine heart that GOD hath raised Him from the\n    dead, thou shalt be saved._\n\n  THE DOCTRINE OF ARBITRARY SCRIPTURAL ACCOMMODATION CONSIDERED.\n\n  Many insidious methods of denying the Inspiration of Scripture      184\n\n  The most subtle method of all, characterized                        185\n\n  The term \"Accommodation\" not in itself objectionable                187\n\n  Arbitrary Accommodation explained                                   188\n\n  Reasons for rejecting this theory                                   189\n\n  Learned research proves that the theory is gratuitous               190\n\n  St. Paul's exposition of a passage in Deuteronomy xxx, (Rom.\n    x. 6 to 9,) proposed for examination                              191\n\n  License of Inspired quotation                                       194\n\n  How the phenomenon is to be regarded                                195\n\n  St. Paul's exposition examined by the light of unassisted\n    Reason                                                            198\n\n  Shewn not to be an instance of arbitrary Accommodation, but of\n    genuine Interpretation                                            211\n\n  The success or failure of such inquiries, unimportant               212\n\n  No \"Accommodation\" when an inspired writer quotes Scripture         213\n\n  Remarks on Inspired Reasoning                                       215\n\n\nSERMON VII.\n\n  ST. MARK xii. 24. _Do ye not therefore err, because ye know\n    not the Scriptures, neither the power of GOD._\n\n  THE MARVELS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE,--MORAL AND PHYSICAL.--JAEL'S\n    DEED DEFENDED.--MIRACLES VINDICATED.\n\n  Sadduceeism of the day                                              221\n\n  The Moral and Physical Marvels of Scripture proposed for\n    consideration                                                     222\n\n  Moral Marvels:--Jael.--How her story is to be read                  223\n\n  History of Jael. Her conduct explained and defended                 224\n\n  Jacob,--the Canaanites,--Abraham,--David                            230\n\n  Physical Marvels:--The greatest of those in the Old Testament\n    are witnessed to in the New                                       232\n\n  Design of the quotations in Holy Scripture                          234\n\n  Dr. Arnold and the Book of Daniel                                   235\n\n  Miracles are not to be called violations, &c. of Nature             237\n\n  Law in relation to GOD                                              238\n\n  An objectionable Theory of Miracles exposed                         239\n\n  Bishop Butler on Miracles                                           240\n\n  Miracles may be pared down, but cannot be explained away            242\n\n  \"Ideology\" applied to the explanation of Miracles                   243\n\n  Ideology explained and exposed                                      245\n\n  The Resurrection of CHRIST the foundation-truth of\n    Christianity                                                      248\n\n  False and true Charity                                              250\n\n  A parting Exhortation                                               252\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\n  A  _Bishop Horsley on the double sense of Prophecy_                 257\n\n  B  _Bishop Pearson on Theological Science_                          258\n\n  C  _The Bible an instrument of Man's probation_                     260\n\n  D  _St. Stephen's statement in Acts vii. 15, 16, explained_         261\n\n  E  _The simplest view of Inspiration the truest and the best_       265\n\n  F  _The written and the Incarnate Word_                             267\n\n  G  _The volume of the Old Testament Scriptures, indivisible_        268\n\n  I  _Remarks on Theories of Inspiration.--The 'Human Element'_       269\n\n  J  _How the Inspired Authors of the New Testament handle\n        the writings of the Inspired Authors of the Old_              271\n\n  K  _Bishop Bull on Deuteronomy_ xxx                                 273\n\n  L  _Opinions of commentators concerning Accommodation_              277\n\n\n\n\n PRELIMINARY REMARKS\n\n ON A VOLUME ENTITLED\n\n \"ESSAYS AND REVIEWS:\"\n\n ADDRESSED TO THE\n\n UNDERGRADUATE MEMBERS OF ORIEL COLLEGE.\n\n\nMy Friends,--I have determined to address to yourselves the present\nremarks; their subject, a volume which has recently obtained such a\ndegree of notoriety that it is almost superfluous even to specify it by\nname.\n\nWith unfeigned reluctance do I mix myself up in this strife; but the\ncourse of events, when I first took up my pen, left me almost without an\nalternative. Far more reluctant should I be to seem to make yourselves\nthe arbiters of Theological controversy. But in truth nothing is further\nfrom my present intention. As a plain matter of fact, you are called\nupon weekly, at St. Mary's, to listen to Sermons which indicate plainly\nenough the troubled state of the religious atmosphere; and which, of\nlate, (too frequently alas!) have inevitably assumed a controversial\naspect. The Sermons here published, (which form the constructive part of\nthe present volume,) were preached expressly with an eye to _your_\nadvantage, and were intended to warn you against (what I deemed) a very\nserious danger. It is only natural therefore that I should desire to\naddress to yourselves the present remarks likewise. _You_ are,\nnaturally, objects of special solicitude to myself in this place,--you,\nwith whom I live as among friends, and for not a few of whom I entertain\na sincere affection. And in addressing you, I am not by any means\ninviting you to exercise your own theological judgment; for _that_ would\nindeed be an absurd proceeding. I am simply seeking to instruct you, and\nto guide you with mine.\n\nThe case of \"Essays and Reviews\" is, in fact, altogether\nexceptional,--whether the respectability of its authors, the wickedness\nof its contents, or the reception which it has met with, is considered.\nThat volume embodies the infidel spirit of the present day. Turn where\nyou will, you encounter some criticism upon it. No advertizing column\nbut contains repeated mention of its name. To ignore so flagrant a\nscandal to the Church, is quite impossible. I have thought it better,\ntherefore, to encounter the danger in this straightforward way; and I\nproceed, without further preamble, to remark briefly on each of the\nSeven \"Essays and Reviews,\" in order.\n\nI. The feeblest essay in the volume is the first. It is not without\ngrave concern that I transcribe the name of its amiable, and (in every\nrelation of private life) truly excellent author,--\"FREDERICK TEMPLE,\nD.D., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen; Head Master of Rugby School;\nChaplain to the Earl of Denbigh.\" Under the imposing title of \"THE\nEDUCATION OF THE WORLD,\" we are presented with a worthless allegory,\nwhich has all the faults of a schoolboy's theme, (incorrect grammar\nincluded;) and not one of the excellencies which ought to characterize\nthe product of a ripened understanding,--the work of a Doctor of\nDivinity in the English Church[19].\n\nDr. Temple's opening speculations are at once unintelligible,\nirrelevant, and untrue. But they are immaterial; and serve only to lug\nin, (not to introduce,) the assumption that the \"power, whereby the\npresent ever gathers into itself the results of the past, transforms the\nhuman race into a colossal man whose life reaches from the Creation to\nthe day of Judgment. The successive generations of men are days in this\nman's life. The discoveries and inventions which characterize the\ndifferent epochs of the world's history are his works. The creeds and\ndoctrines, the opinions and principles of the successive ages, are his\nthoughts.\" [Alas, that the Creeds and Doctrines of the Church should be\nspoken of by a Professor of Divinity as the \"thoughts\" of men!] \"The\nstate of society at different times are (_sic_) his manners. He grows\nin knowledge, in self-control, in visible size, just as we do. And his\neducation is in the same way and for the same reason precisely similar\nto ours. All this is no figure, but only a compendious statement of a\nvery comprehensive fact.\" (p. 3.) \"We may then,\" (he repeats,) \"rightly\nspeak of a childhood, a youth, and a manhood of the world.\" (p. 4.) And\nthe process of this development of the colossal man, \"corresponds, stage\nby stage, with the process by which the infant is trained for youth, and\nthe youth for manhood. This training has three stages. In childhood, we\nare subject to positive rules which we cannot understand, but are bound\nimplicitly to obey. In youth we are subject to the influence of example,\nand soon break loose from all rules, unless illustrated and enforced by\nthe higher teaching which example imparts. In manhood we are\ncomparatively free from external restraints, and if we are to learn,\nmust be our own instructors. First comes the Law, then the Son of Man,\nthen the Gift of the Spirit. The world was once a child under tutors and\ngovernors until the time appointed by the Father. Then, when the fit\nseason had arrived, the Example to which all ages should turn was sent\nto teach men what they ought to be. Then the human race was left to\nitself, to be guided by the teaching of the Spirit within.\" (p. 5.)--So\nvery weak an analogy, (where everything is assumed, and nothing proved,)\nsingular to relate, is drawn out into distressing tenuity through no\nless than 49 pages.\n\nThe ANSWER to all this is sufficiently obvious, as well as sufficiently\ndamaging; and need not be delayed for a minute.\n\nThat the Human Race has made considerable progress in Knowledge, from\nfirst to last,--is a mere truism. That, in the civilized world, one\ngeneration is the heir of the generations which went before it, is what\nno one requires to be told. Thus the discovery of the compass, of\nprinting, and of the steam-engine, have been epochs in human knowledge\nfrom which a start was made by all civilized nations, without\nretrogression. But such facts supply no warrant for transforming the\nwhole Human Race into one Colossal Man; do not constitute any reason\nwhatever why the 6000 years of recorded time should be divided into\nthree periods corresponding with the Infancy, Boyhood, and Manhood of an\nIndividual.\n\nTo this theory, however, Dr. Temple even ostentatiously commits himself.\nIt is the purpose of his entire Essay, to establish the fanciful analogy\nalready indicated,--which is proclaimed to be \"no figure\" but a \"fact.\"\n(p. 3.) But an educated man of ordinary intelligence, on reaching p. 7,\n(where the writer first discloses his view,) summons the known facts of\nHistory to his recollection; and before he proceeds any further, reasons\nwith himself somewhat as follows:--\n\nThe Human Race had inhabited the Earth's surface for upwards of sixteen\nhundred years, when it was destroyed by the waters of the Flood. After\nthat, the descendants of Noah peopled the earth's surface; a transaction\nof which the sole authentic record is to be found in the xth chapter of\nthe Book of Genesis. Egypt first emerged into importance,--as history\nand monuments conspire to prove; having had a peculiar language and\nliterature, Arts and Sciences, anterior to the period of the Exodus,\nviz. B.C. 1491. Meanwhile, the chart of History directs our attention to\nfour great Empires: the Assyrian Empire, which was swallowed up by the\nPersian; and the Persian, which was merged in the Grecian Empire. The\nRoman Empire came last. [How _Law_ can be considered to be the\ncharacteristic of all or any part of this period, I am at a loss to\ndiscover. Neither do I see any indication of puling Infancy here.] These\nfour great Empires of the world had run their course when our SAVIOUR\nCHRIST was born. GOD sent His own Eternal SON into the world; and lo, a\nchange passed over the whole fabric of the world's polity. The old forms\nof social life became, as it were, dissolved; or rather, a new spirit\nhad been breathed into them all. A new era had commenced; and a new\nprinciple henceforth animated mankind. That peculiar system of Divine\nLaws which for 1500 years had separated the Hebrew race from all the\nnations of the earth,--the Mosaic Law which had hitherto been the\ninheritance of a single family, isolated in Canaan,--was explained and\nexpanded by its Divine Author. The ancient promises to Abraham and his\nposterity were declared in their application to be co-extensive with the\nwhole race of Mankind by faith embracing them. Henceforth, the kingdoms\nof the world were proclaimed the kingdoms of CHRIST, and _Mankind became\nfor the first time subject to a written Law_. The Laws of CHRIST'S\nKingdom, the doctrines of CHRIST'S Church, henceforth become supreme.\nThus, when a Christian Sovereign is crowned, the Bible is solemnly\nplaced in his hands; and it is required of him that he promise, on his\noath, \"to the utmost of his power, _to maintain the Laws of GOD_.\" \"When\nyou see this Orb set under this Cross,\" (says the Archbishop, on\ndelivering those insignia of Royalty,) \"remember that the whole World is\nsubject to the power and empire of CHRIST our Redeemer ... so that no\nman can reign happily, who ... directs not all his actions _according\nto His Laws_.\" ... No further change in the order of things is anywhere\nintimated. The Faith hath been =hapax=,--once and for ever,--delivered to\nthe Saints. Forsaken, it may be: by many, (alas!) _it will be_ forsaken\nbefore the consummation of all things: but it will not itself cease.\nHeaven and Earth shall pass away; but CHRIST'S Word, never. Not one jot\nnor one tittle of _the Law_ shall fail.... Such, in brief outline, is\nthe World's true history,--past, present, future. Does it correspond\nwith Dr. Temple's account? That may be very soon seen. He calls the\nhuman race a Colossal Man; and says that it passes through three\nstages,--Infancy, Boyhood, Manhood: and that during those three stages,\nit is governed by three corresponding principles,--Law, Example,\nConscience. How does Dr. Temple establish the first?\n\nThe Jews, (he says,) were subject to Law from the period of the Exode to\nthe coming of CHRIST.--We listen to the statement of a familiar fact\nwithout surprise: but we are inclined to express some stronger feeling\nthan surprise when we discover that this is _the whole_ of the proof\nconcerning the infancy of the Colossal Man! Does this writer then mean\nto tell us that the Jews were all Mankind? If they were _not_ the\nColossal Man,--if, instead of being the whole Human Race, they were one\nof the most inconsiderable and least known of the nations,--an isolated\nfamily, in fact, inhabiting Canaan,--what becomes of the analogy? We\nreally pause for an answer.... Such a theory might have been expected,\nand would have been excusable if it had proceeded from a\nSunday-school-boy of fifteen,--who had read the Bible indeed, but who\nwas unacquainted with any book besides; and so, had jumped to the\nconclusion that the Jews were \"the World.\" But Dr. Temple is a\nSchoolmaster, and therefore must surely know better. If he is fanciful\nenough to regard Mankind as a Colossal Man; and unphilosophical enough\nto consider that History is capable of being divided into three\nperiods,--corresponding with Infancy, Boyhood, and Manhood; and\nforgetful enough of the facts of the case to assume that mankind was\nsubject to Law _until_ the coming of CHRIST, thenceforward to be\nemancipated therefrom:--yet Dr. Temple ought not to be so unreasonable\nas to pretend that Canaan was coextensive with the World,--the\ndescendants of Abraham with the posterity of Noah! This amiable writer\nis inexcusable for excluding from the corporate entity of the Human Race\nthe four great Empires of the world, (to say nothing of prim\u00e6val Egypt\nand mysterious India;) and for the sake of elaborating a worthless\nallegory, identifying the least of all people with the Colossal Man,\nwho, (according to his own account of the matter,) represents the\naggregate of all the nations.\n\nOnce more. The Mosaic Law was not given till B.C. 1491. But the world\nwas then upwards of 2500 years old. Far more than one-third, therefore,\nof recorded time had already elapsed. How does it happen that the theory\nunder consideration gives no account of those 2500 years; or rather,\ndoes not begin to be applicable, until they have rolled away?\n\nOther inconveniences await this silly speculation. Thus, the Colossal\nMan, (who was _under Law_ from B.C. 1491 to the Christian \u00e6ra,) proves\nto have been a marvellously precocious Infant. He wrote the Song of\nMoses _in the year of his birth_. Nay, he built pyramids,--had a\nLiterature, Arts, and Sciences,--_ages before he was born!..._ While\nyet an infant, he sang with Homer, and carved with Phidias, and\nphilosophized with Aristotle,--as none have ever sung, or carved, or\nphilosophized since. Times and fashions have altered, truly; but these\nthree men are still _our_ Masters in Philosophy, in Sculpture, and in\nSong. Awkward fact, that the colossal Infant should have lisped in a\ntongue which for copiousness of diction, and subtlety of expression,\nabsolutely remains to this hour without a rival in the world!\n\nAgain. At this writer's dogmatic bidding, we force ourselves to think of\nMankind as a Colossal Man, who has already gone through three\nages,--Infancy, Boyhood, and Manhood. _Old Age is therefore to come\nnext_. When, (if it is a fair question,) may it be expected that the sad\nperiod of senile decrepitude will set in? What proof, in the mean time,\nis there, (we venture to ask,) that this period of decay has not begun\nalready? Or does Dr. Temple perhaps imagine that the world is moving in\ncycles, (to adopt the grotesque speculation of his own first pages); and\nthat after having run through the curriculum of Infancy, Boyhood, and\nManhood, the Colossal Man, (escaping, for some unexplained reason, the\npenalty of Old Age,) is to grow young again,--shake his rattle and cut\nhis teeth afresh? There is a childish vivaciousness, a juvenile\nrecklessness, a skittish impatience of restraint, in this amiable\nauthor's speculations, which powerfully corroborate such a view of the\ncase.\n\n\"The Childhood of the World was over when our LORD appeared on earth,\"\n(p. 20.) says Dr. Temple. But when at last he is compelled to introduce\nto our notice his Colossal Child (p. 9, _bottom_.) now developed into a\nColossal Youth, he is painfully sensible that the Law and the Prophets,\n(his schoolmasters,) (p. 8.) have not done their work quite so well as\nwas to have been desired and expected. Some apology is necessary, (p.\n13, _bottom_.) Two great results however he claims for their\ndiscipline:--\"a settled national belief in the unity and spirituality of\nGOD, and an acknowledgement of the paramount importance of chastity as a\npoint of morals.\" (p. 11.) Not however that the Law or the Prophets had\ntaught them even _this_. (p. 10, _top_.) \"It was in the Captivity, far\nfrom the temple and the sacrifices of the temple, that the Jewish people\nfirst learned that the spiritual part of worship could be separated from\nthe ceremonial; and that of the two the spiritual was far the higher.\"\n(p. 10.) At Babylon also the Jews first distinctly learned the doctrine\nof the immortality of the soul. (p. 19.)--The Law, to be sure, had\nemphatically said,--\"Hear, O Israel, the LORD thy GOD is _one GOD[20]_.\"\nThe prophets, to be sure, had protested,--\"Behold, to obey is better\nthan sacrifice[21].\" The Law and the Prophets, to be sure, are full of\nintimations that \"mercy and not sacrifice[22]\" is acceptable to the GOD\nof Heaven, and that GOD'S Saints well understood the Doctrine[23]; as\nwell as that a belief in the soul's immortality was a part of the\ninstruction of the Jewish people. But what is all this to one who has an\nallegory to establish?...\n\n_The facts_ of the case, in the meantime, sorely perplex the\ntruth-loving writer. \"For it is undeniable that, in the time of our\nLord, the Sadducees had lost all depth of spiritual feeling, whilst the\nPharisees had succeeded in converting the Mosaic system into a\nmischievous idolatry of forms.\" (p. 10.) \"In short, the Jewish nation\nhad lost very much when John the Baptist came.\" (p. 11.) The hopelessly\ncorrupt moral state of the youthful Colossus, described with such\nsickening force and power by the great Apostle in the first chapter of\nthe Epistle to the Romans, cannot have occurred to Dr. Temple's\nremembrance, for he says nothing about it. Certain withering\ndenunciations of \"a wicked and adulterous generation[24];\"--of\n\"adulterers and adulteresses[25];\"--\"serpents,\" a \"generation of\nvipers,\" which should hardly \"escape the damnation of Hell[26];\"--ought\nto have reached him with a reproachful echo; but he is silent about them\nall. Still less would it have suited the amiable allegorizer to state\nthat _just midway_ in the educational process, his Colossal Youth, \"as\nif\" the sins of Samaria and of Sodom \"were a very little thing,\" \"_was\ncorrupted more than they in all his ways_. As I live, saith the LORD\nGOD,\" (apostrophizing Dr. Temple's Colossal Youth, in allusion to his\ncharacter and conduct in the middle of his infant career,) \"_Sodom_ thy\nsister _hath not done as thou_ hast done: ... _neither hath Samaria\ncommitted half thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations\nmore than they_.... Bear thine own shame for thy sins that thou hast\ncommitted _more abominable than they_. They are more righteous than\nthou[27]!\" \"Ah sinful nation, laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers,\nchildren that are corrupters!... From the sole of the foot even unto\nthe head,\"--[these words, remember, are addressed to the Colossal Infant\njust _midway_ in his career; and Heaven and Earth are called upon to\ngive ear, \"for the LORD hath spoken!\" ... From the sole to the crown,]\n\"there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying\nsores.... Your hands are full of blood[28]!\" ... About all this hideous\nretrospect of what was going on at school, Dr. Temple is silent.\n\nIn like manner, the great fact that our REDEEMER came to republish His\nown two prim\u00e6val ordinances,--the spiritual observance of the Sabbath\nand the sanctity of Marriage,--is quietly ignored. A youth utterly\ndegraded by sensuality[29], and blinded by unbelief[30], is a terrible\npicture truly. Dr. Temple therefore boldly gives the lie direct to\nHistory, sacred and profane; and insists that \"side by side with freedom\nfrom idolatry, _there had grown up in the Jewish mind a chaster morality\nthan was to be found elsewhere in the world_:\" (p. 12:) that \"_in\nchastity the Hebrews stood alone_; and this virtue, which had grown up\nwith them from their earliest days (!!!) _was still in the vigour of\nfresh life when they were commissioned to give the Gospel to the\nnations_.\" (p. 13.)\n\nBehold the Colossal Child therefore, now grown into a Colossal \"Youth\ntoo old for discipline.\" (p. 20, _bottom_.) \"The tutors and governors\nhave done their work;\" (p. 20;) and he is now to go through a distinct\nprocess of training. Three tutors are now brought in to give the\nfinishing touches to the youth's education, and to inaugurate his new\ncareer. Rome, Greece, and Asia,--which for some unexplained reason never\nbecome (according to Dr. Temple) any part of the Colossal Man _at\nall_,--now come in; \"Rome to discipline the human will; Greece, the\nreason and taste; Asia, the spiritual imagination.\" (p. 19.) The Law and\nthe Prophets had disciplined the Colossal Child's conscience,--with what\nsuccess we have seen. At all events, Moses and Isaiah are for infants:\nwe have passed the age for such helps as _they_ could supply. In a\nword,--\"The childhood of the world was over when our Lord appeared on\nearth.\" (p. 20.) It was \"just the meeting-point of the Child and the\nMan; the brief interval which separates restraint from liberty.\" (p.\n22.) \"It was time that the second teacher of the Human Race should begin\nhis labours. The second teacher is EXAMPLE:\" (p. 20:) and \"the period of\nyouth in the history of the world, when the human race was, as it were,\nput under the teaching of example, corresponds, of course, to the\nmeeting point of the Law and the Gospel. The second stage therefore in\nthe education of man was the presence of our LORD upon earth.\" (p. 24.)\n\nLet not this stage of Dr. Temple's allegory suffer by being stated in\nany language besides his own. \"The world\" had been a Colossal Child for\n1490 years. It was to be a Youth for almost 100. \"The whole period from\nthe closing of the Old Testament to the close of the New was the period\nof the world's youth,--the age of examples: and our LORD'S presence was\nnot the only influence of that kind which has acted upon the human race.\nThree companions were appointed by Providence to give their society to\nthis creature whom GOD was educating, Greece, Rome, and the Early\nChurch.\" (p. 26.) Behold then, our Blessed Redeemer with His \"three\ncompanions.\" (I reproduce this blasphemous speculation with shame and\nsorrow.) What kind of Example _He_ was, Dr. Temple omits to inform us.\nBut Greece was \"the brilliant social companion;\"--Rome, \"the bold and\nclever leader;\"--the Early Church was \"the earnest, heavenly-minded\nfriend.\" (p. 26.) We are warned therefore against supposing that \"our\nLord's presence was _the only influence of that kind_,\" (i.e. example,)\nappointed by Providence for the creature whom God was educating. In a\nword: \"The world was now grown old enough to be taught by seeing the\nlives of Saints, _better than by hearing the words of Prophets_.\"\n(pp. 28-9.)\n\nWe come now to the conclusion of the allegory; and Dr. Temple shall\nagain speak for himself. \"The age of reflection begins. From the\nstorehouse of his youthful experience the Man begins to draw the\nprinciples of his life. The spirit or conscience comes to full strength\nand assumes the throne intended for him in the soul. As an accredited\njudge, invested with full powers, he sits in the tribunal of our inner\nkingdom, decides upon the past, and legislates upon the future without\nappeal except to himself. He decides not by what is beautiful, or noble,\nor soul-inspiring, but by what is right. Gradually he frames his code of\nlaws, revising, adding, abrogating, as a wider and deeper experience\ngives him clearer light. He is the third great teacher and the last.\"\n(p. 31.)\n\nAnd now, it will reasonably be asked,--May not the head-master of Rugby\nwrite a weak and foolish Essay on a subject which he evidently does not\nunderstand, without incurring so much not only of public ridicule, but\nof public obloquy also? If his own sixth-form boys do not laugh at him,\nneed the Church feel aggrieved at what he has written? Where is the\nspecial _irreligion_ in all this?\n\nI answer,--The offence is of the very gravest character; and in the\ncourse of what follows, it will appear with sufficient plainness wherein\nit consists. For the moment,--singly considered,--it is my painful duty\nto condemn Dr. Temple's Essay on the following grounds.\n\nWhereas the Church inculcates the paramount necessity of _an external\nauthoritative Law_ to guide all her members;--Creeds to define the\nfoundation of their Faith,--a Catechism to teach them the necessary\nelements of Christian Doctrine,--the several forms of Prayer contained\nin the Prayer Book to instruct them further in Religion, as well as to\nprescribe their exact mode of worshipping ALMIGHTY GOD: whereas too the\nChurch requires of her ministers subscription to Articles \"for the\navoiding of Diversities of Opinions, and for the establishing of Consent\nconcerning true Religion;\"--above all, since all Christian men alike are\ntaught to acknowledge the external guidance of the Divine Law itself\ncontained in Holy Scripture,--and every Minister of the Church of\nEngland is further called upon to admit the authority of that Divine Law\nas it is by the Church systematized, explained, upheld,\nenforced:--notwithstanding all this, Dr. Temple, who has solemnly taken\nthe vows of a minister of the Church of England, and writes after his\nname that he is _Sacr\u00e6 Theologi\u00e6 Professor_, in his present Essay more\nthan insinuates, he openly teaches that Man \"draws _the principles of\nhis life_,\" (not from Revelation, but) \"_from_ the storehouse of\n_experience_:\" that we live in an age when \"the spirit or conscience\nhaving come to full strength, assumes the throne intended for him in the\nsoul.\" This \"spirit or conscience\" \"legislates _without appeal except to\nhimself_.\" \"He is the third great teacher and the last.\" (p. 31.) The\nworld, in the days of its youth, could not \"walk by reason and\nconscience alone:\" (p. 21:) but it is not so with us, in these, the days\nof the world's manhood. \"The spiritual power within us ... must be the\nrightful monarch of our lives.\" (p. 14.) _We_, (he says,) \"walk by\nreason and conscience _alone_.\" (p. 21.)\n\nNow this is none other than a deliberate dethroning of GOD; and a\nsetting up of Self in His place. \"A revelation speaking from without and\nnot from within, is an external Law, and not a spirit,\"--(p. 36,) says\nDr. Temple. But I answer,--A revelation speaking from within, and not\nfrom without, is _no revelation at all_. \"The thought of building a\ntower high enough to escape GOD's wrath, could enter into no man's\ndreams,\" (p. 7,) says Dr. Temple in the beginning of his Essay, in\nderision of the Old World. But he has carried out into act the very\nself-same thought, himself; and his \"dreams\" occupy the foremost place\nin 'Essays and Reviews.' He teaches, openly, that henceforth Man must\nlearn by \"_obedience to the rules of his own mind_.\" (p. 34.) He is\nexpress in declaring that \"an external law\" is for the age which is\npast, (pp. 34-5.) Ours is \"an internal law;\" \"which bids us\nyield,\"--not to the revealed Will of GOD, \"but,--to the majesty of truth\nand justice; _a law which is not imposed upon us by another power, but\nby our own enlightened will_.\" (p. 35.) In this, the last stage of the\nColossal Man's progress, Dr. Temple gives him four avenues of learning:\n(1) Experience, (2) Reflection, (3) Mistakes, (4) Contradiction. By\nwithholding from this enumeration _the Revealed Will of GOD_, and _the\nknown sanctions of the Divine Law_, he _thrusts out GOD_ from every part\nof his scheme; denies that He is even one of the present teachers of the\nHuman Race,--explaining that the time has even gone by when CHRIST could\nteach by example[31],--\"for the faculty of Faith has turned inwards,\nand cannot now accent any outer manifestations of the truth of GOD[32].\"\n(p. 24.)--By this Essay, Dr. Temple comes forward as the open abettor of\nthe most boundless scepticism. Whether or no his statements be such as\nEcclesiastical Courts take cognizance of, is to me a matter of profound\nunimportance. In the estimation of the whole Church, it can be entitled\nto but one sentence. \"We use the Bible,\" (he tells us,) \"not to\noverride, but to evoke the voice of conscience.\" (p. 44.) \"The current\nis all one way,--it evidently points to the identification of the Bible\nwith the voice of conscience. The Bible, in fact, is hindered by its\nform from exercising a despotism (!) over the human spirit; if it could\ndo that, it would become an outer law at once.\" (p. 45.) Even if men\n\"could appeal to a revelation from Heaven, they would still be under the\nLaw (!!!); for a Revelation speaking from without, and not from within,\nis an external Law, and not a Spirit.\" (p. 36.) \"The principle of\nprivate judgment puts conscience between us and the Bible; making\nconscience the supreme interpreter, whom it may be a duty to enlighten,\nbut whom it can never be a duty to disobey.\" (_Ibid._)--Even those who\nlook upon the observance of Sunday \"as enjoined by an absolutely binding\ndecree,\" are reproached as \"thus at once putting themselves under a\nlaw.\" (p. 44.) ... Dr. Temple has written an Essay which he calls \"an\nargument,\" and for which he claims \"a drift.\" (p. 31.) _That_ argument\nis neither more nor less than a direct assault on the Faith of Christian\nmen; and carried out to its lawful results, _can_ lead to nothing but\nopen Infidelity;--which makes it a very solemn consideration that the\nauthor, (whose private worth is known to all,) should be a teacher of\nthe youth of Christian England. _That_ drift I deplore and condemn; and\nno considerations of private friendship, no sincere regard for the\nwriter's private worth, shall deter me from recording my deliberate\nconviction that it is wholly incompatible with his Ordination vows.\n\nI forbear to dive into the depth of irreligion and unbelief implied in\nwhat is contained from p. 37 to p. 40, and other parts of the present\nEssay: but I cannot abstain from asking why does this author,--who, in\nall the intercourse of private life, is so manly a character,--fall into\nthe _un_manly trick of his brother-Essayists, of insinuating what they\ndare not openly avow? The great master of this cloudy shuffling art is\nMr. Jowett. Even where he and his associates in \"free handling,\" are\nexpress and definite in their statements, yet, as their rule is\nprudently to abstain from adducing a single example of their meaning, it\nis only by their disingenuous reticence that they escape punishment or\nexposure. Thus, Dr. Temple speaks of \"many of the doctrinal statements\nof the early Church\" being \"plainly unfitted for permanent use;\"\n(p. 41;) but he prudently abstains from explaining _which_ of those\n\"doctrinal statements\" he means. He goes on to remark:--\"In fact, the\nChurch of the Fathers claimed to do what not even the Apostles had\nclaimed,--namely, not only to teach the Truth, but to clothe it in\nlogical statements ... for all succeeding time.\" He is evidently\nalluding to \"the forms in which the first ages of the Church defined the\nTruth;\" [i.e. to the Creeds;] of which he says, we \"_yet refuse to be\nbound by them_.\" (p. 44.) He goes on,--\"It belongs to a later epoch to\nsee 'the law within the law' which absorbs such statements _into\nsomething higher than themselves_.\" (p. 41.) But the writer of that\nsentence ought to have had the manliness to explain _what_ that \"higher\nsomething\" _is_.\n\nDr. Temple's estimate of the corruptions of the Papacy is of a piece\nwith the rest of what I must be excused for calling a most unworthy\nperformance. \"Purgatory,\" &c. (he says) \"was in fact, neither more nor\nless than _the old schoolmaster come back_ to bring some new scholars to\nCHRIST.\" (p. 42.) (Is the Romish fable of Purgatory then to be put on\nthe same footing as the Divine Revelation to Moses on Sinai?) It\nfollows,--\"When the work was done, men began to discover that the Law\nwas no longer necessary.\" (_Ibid._) (Is it thus that the head-master of\nRugby accounts for, and explains the Reformation?) \"The time was come\nwhen it was fit to trust to the conscience _as the supreme guide_.\"\n(_Ibid._) \"At the Reformation, it might have seemed at first as if the\nstudy of theology were about to return. But in reality an entirely new\nlesson commenced,--the lesson of toleration. Toleration is the very\nopposite of dogmatism.\" (p. 43.) \"Its tendency is to modify the early\ndogmatism by substituting the spirit for the letter, and practical\nreligion for precise definitions of truth.\" (_Ibid._) \"The mature mind\nof our race is beginning to modify and soften the hardness and severity\nof the principles which its early manhood had elevated into immutable\nstatements of truth. Men are beginning to take a wider view than they\ndid. Physical science, researches into history, a more thorough\nknowledge of the world they inhabit, have enlarged our philosophy beyond\nthe limits which bounded that of the Church of the Fathers. And all\nthese have an influence, whether we will or no, on our determinations of\nreligious truth. There are found to be more things in heaven and earth\nthan were dreamt of in patristic theology. GOD'S creation is a new book\nto be read by the side of His revelation, and to be interpreted as\ncoming from Him. We can acknowledge the great value of the forms in\nwhich the first ages of the Church defined the truth, and yet refuse to\nbe bound by them.\" (p. 43-4.) ... Who so unacquainted with the method of\na certain school as not to understand the fatal meaning of generalities,\nfalse and foul as these?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt may occur to some persons to inquire whether St. Paul, in a\nwell-known place, does not affirm, (somewhat as it is affirmed in this\nEssay,) that \"the heir, as long as he is a child, ... is under tutors\nand governors until the time appointed of the father?\" And that, \"Even\nso we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the\nworld: but when the fulness of time was come, GOD sent forth His SON\n... to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the\nadoption of sons?\" Does not St. Paul also go on to reproach men for\n\"turning again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto they desired\nto be again in bondage?\" saying, \"ye observe[33] days, and months, and\ntimes, and years[34].\" It is quite true that St. Paul says all this: and\nI would fain believe that a puerile misconception of the Apostle's\nmeaning has betrayed the misguided author of the present Essay into a\nnotion that he enjoys a species of Divine sanction for what he has\nwritten concerning \"the Education of the World.\" I may add that St. Paul\nalso declares, (in the same Epistle,) that \"the Law was our _p\u00e6dagogus_\nto bring us to CHRIST.... But after faith is come, we are no longer\nunder a _p\u00e6dagogus[35]_.\" He further adds an exhortation to the\nGalatians, (for it is still _them_ whom he is addressing,)--\"Stand fast\ntherefore in the liberty wherewith CHRIST hath made us free, and be not\nentangled again with the yoke of bondage[36].\"--St. John moreover, in\nmany places, insists upon the spiritual powers and privileges of\nbelievers, in a very remarkable manner,--the same St. John, the same\n'Apostle of Love,' who says of a certain Doctrine which 'Essayists and\nReviewers' write as if they disbelieved,--\"If there come any unto you,\nand bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither\nbid him GOD speed: for he that biddeth him GOD speed is partaker of his\nevil deeds[37].\"\n\nBut it does not require much knowledge of Divinity to make a man aware\nthat St. Paul's meaning and intention is as widely removed from Dr.\nTemple's, as Truth is removed from falsehood: or rather, that the\nApostle is flatly against him. St. Paul is not bent on explaining what\nhas been _the Education of the World_, but on pointing out in what\nrelation _the Gospel of CHRIST stands to the Law of Moses_. He is\nreproving men who, having been converted to Christianity, were for\nlapsing into Judaism. Certain of the Circumcision had been striving, in\nSt. Paul's absence, to bring his Galatian converts under the bondage of\nthe Levitical Law; assuring them that the Gospel would avail them\nnothing unless they were circumcised and obedient to the Jewish ritual.\nHence the Apostle's vehemence, and the peculiar form which his\ninstruction assumes.\n\nThe Christian dispensation, (the scheme of Man's Justification by Faith\nin CHRIST,) is the fulfilment, (St. Paul says,) of the covenant which\nGOD once solemnly made with Abraham. The Mosaic Law, (which was not\ngiven till 430 years after the time of Abraham,) is powerless to cancel\nthat earlier covenant of Faith. What was the use of the Law, then? some\none may ask. It was a supplementary, parenthetical, superadded thing,\nwhich came in, as it were, accidentally, for certain assignable\npurposes. But now that the original covenant of Faith has at length\nfound fulfilment in the person of CHRIST, it were monstrous (argues the\nApostle) to revert to Judaism: which was a species of prison-house where\nwe suffered bondage until MESSIAH came to set us free. We were _as\nprisoners_, says the Apostle. We were also _as children_, (who,\nanciently, from the age of six to fourteen, used to be consigned by\ntheir father to the care of a slave called a 'p\u00e6dagogus;' who was\nneither qualified nor allowed to teach them anything; but whose office\nit was _to conduct them to school_.) So _brought to the School of\nCHRIST_, where learning comes _by Faith_, (such is his argument,) let\nmen beware how they revert to the carnal ordinances of the Jewish Law.\n\nHow different a view of our true state is thus discovered, from that\nwhich Dr. Temple describes! A glorious liberty is _in reserve_ for us\nindeed[38]: a precious freedom is ours already. But it bears no\nresemblance whatever to that _lawlessness_ (=anomia=) with which Dr.\nTemple seems to be enamoured. It is the correlation of _slavery_, not of\nobedience. It implies emancipation from the _Levitical_ Law, not from\nthe sanctions, however strict, of the _Christian Church_. The Doctrines\nof Christ's kingdom are the Christian's crown and joy. _His_ \"service is\nperfect freedom,\" and imparts to life all its sweetness.--Not only,\ntherefore, (according to St. Paul's view of the matter,) were men _not_\nreleased from school at \"the meeting point of the Law and the Gospel,\"\n(p. 24,) but they only _began_ to go to School _then[39]_!\n\nHow different a view of the Education of the World does the HOLY\nSPIRIT,--does our LORD Himself--furnish, from that which Dr. Temple here\nadvocates!... Fallen, in the person of Adam, and made subject to the\npenalty of eternal death, behold Mankind from the very first taught to\nbelieve that they should be ultimately redeemed by One born of woman.\nUnder the image of a son who remained in his father's house, the\nfavoured descendants of Abraham are set before us: while the rest of the\nworld is pourtrayed in the person of another son, who goes into a far\ncountry, and there wastes his substance with riotous living. _Not_ when\ngrown into a colossal \"youth too old for discipline,\" (p. 20, _bottom_,)\nbut in the day of his dire necessity, and when he begins to be sensible\nof his utter need, behold the heathen nations, (in the person of the\npoor prodigal,) arising, and going to their true Father, and in the\nfulness of their misery asking for a hired servant's place in the\nhousehold. Behold too GOD'S mercies in CHRIST set forth by \"the first\nrobe,\" (_that_ robe of innocence which when Adam lost he knew that he\nwas naked!) and the ring, and the shoes, and the fatted calf! Lastly, in\nthe embrace which the Father, (while yet the offending but repentant son\nis a long way off,) _runs_ to bestow,--behold _how_ GOD loved the World!\n\nBut Dr. Temple may say,--_My_ parable relates to one person: that which\nyou have quoted pourtrays two, and thus all parallelism is lost. (In\nother words, _our LORD'S picture_ of \"the Education of the World\" _is\naltogether unlike Dr. Temple's_!)--Take, however, a parable which ought\nto suit exactly; for in it mankind are exhibited in the person of \"a\ncertain man.\"\n\nThis individual is represented as one who, as he travels, is by thieves\nstripped, wounded, and left half dead. Such then, by nature, is the\nstate of the human race! Priest and Levite, who \"look on him,\" but \"pass\nby on the other side,\" set forth the Education of the World (!) until\nCHRIST came. A certain Samaritan, who has compassion on the naked and\nwounded wretch, goes to him, binds up his wounds, pours in oil and wine,\nsets him on his own beast, brings him to the inn, and takes care of\nhim:--_this_ one is CHRIST. The stranger's pence, and his promise to\nrepay at his second coming what shall have been over-expended,--set\nforth, I suppose, _that_ ministration of CHRIST'S Word and Sacraments\nwhich Dr. Temple exercises.... Let me dismiss the subject by remarking\nthat I find no countenance given by Holy Scripture to Dr. Temple's\nmonstrous notions concerning the Infancy, the Youth, and the Manhood of\nthe Colossal Man.\n\nOur SAVIOUR CHRIST is indeed set before us in Scripture as our great\nExemplar[40]; and St. Paul calls upon us to be followers, or rather\nimitators, (=mim\u00eatai=), of himself; even as _he_ was of CHRIST[41]. But\nthis walking by example, did not supersede the walking by precept;\nneither was it to endure, (GOD forbid!) (as Dr. Temple emphatically says\nit was), (pp. 26: 28-9,) only for about a hundred years: still less was\n\"Example,\" (the second Teacher of the Human Race,) straightway to find\nitself supplanted by \"the Spirit or Conscience\" of Man,--\"the third\ngreat Teacher, and the last.\" What need to say that until His Second\nComing to judge the world, we shall have _no_ Teacher but CHRIST,--_no_\nother way proposed to us to walk in, but that which the Gospel\ndiscloses?\n\nNeither is it true that the world has been old enough, for the last 1800\nyears, to be taught by \"_seeing the lives of Saints_,\" (a sentiment\nworthy of the weakest of Romanists!) \"_better than by hearing the words\nof Prophets_.\" (pp. 28-9.) The Church of CHRIST will for ever listen to\nthe blessed accents of that \"goodly fellowship,\" until she beholds Him\nby whose Spirit they spake[42], coming again to judgment. True that the\nobject with which she will all along _inform_ her children, will ever be\nthat they may become _conformed_ to the model of her Divine LORD. But\n\"sound doctrine[43],\"--embodied in a \"form of sound\nwords[44],\"--constitutes that =parakatath\u00eak\u00ea=, or \"deposit,\" which is her\nproudest inheritance and her greatest treasure[45]: and impatience of it\nis a note of evil men, and of a season at which Prophecy points her\nawful finger[46].... \"Lawlessness,\" (=anomia=,) is discoursed of by the\nSPIRIT with a mysterious earnestness which it seems to me impossible to\nsurvey without mingled awe and terror lest one may become oneself\ninvolved in the threatened condemnation. I allude of course especially\nto what St. Paul says in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians; the\nlanguage of which, to be understood, must be studied in the\noriginal[47].\n\nConscience has her office, doubtless; and a most important one it is.\nConscience is the very candle of the LORD within us. But, (as I have\nelsewhere shewn,) it were base treason to speak of conscience as\nEssayists and Reviewers speak of it. With _them_, it is indeed\nimpossible to argue. They must first withdraw from the cause which they\nhave betrayed; cease to profess the teaching which they disbelieve;\nresign their commission in a Church to whose Doctrine and Discipline\nthey openly proclaim themselves to be opposed. I will not argue _with\nthem_, while they presume to write B.D. and D.D. after their\nnames,--hold Chaplaincies,--preside over Schools and Colleges,--profess\nto lecture in Divinity,--officiate at the altars of the Church of\nEngland,--by virtue of their sacred office, _and by virtue of that\nonly_, are instructors of youth. They _cannot_, (if they are in the full\nenjoyment of their faculties,) they _cannot_ imagine, for a moment,\nthat, as honest men, they can remain where they are! They _must_ either\nrecal their words or resign their stations!\n\nBut speaking to others, it will abundantly suffice to point out that\nsuch principles as the present Essay advocates are incompatible with the\nprofession of Christianity in _any_ country, and in _any_ age. If the\nspirit or conscience of Man is to legislate \"_without appeal except to\nhimself_;\" (p. 31;) if men are to \"_refuse to be bound_\" (p. 44.) by the\nCreeds of the Church; if the very Bible is not to be looked upon as \"_an\nouter law_:\" (p. 45:)--how is sentence _ever_ to be pronounced with\nauthority? how are men to know _what_ they have to believe? how are we\nto enjoy the guidance of any \"outer law\" _at all_? I do not ask these\nquestions as a clergyman; neither am I addressing those exclusively who\nhave been admitted to the Christian priesthood. Common sense, ordinary\npiety, natural reverence, seem to cry out, and ask,--If _the Church_\nhave no \"authority in controversies of Faith[48];\" if _the three Creeds_\nought not \"thoroughly to be received and believed[49];\" if _the Bible_\nis not \"an outer Law;\"--_where_ is Authority in things Divine to be\nsought for? _What_ can be worthy of credit? _Where_ are we to look for\nexternal guidance on this side the grave?... Surely, surely, common\nsense is outraged when she hears it insisted that the written Bible is a\nRevelation speaking NOT \"from without,\" but \"from within!\" (pp. 36 and\n45.) Surely it must be admitted that it were mere atheism to pretend\nthat Man's \"spirit or conscience, _without appeal except to himself_,\"\nshall henceforth be the governing principle of Mankind!\n\nLet me in conclusion do this writer an act of justice, (for which he\nwill not perhaps altogether thank me,) even while with shame and sorrow\nI now dismiss his Essay. Unpardonable as he is for having written thus;\nand _wholly_ without excuse for having suffered _nine editions_ of his\nblasphemous allegory to go forth to the world without apology,\nexplanation, or retractation of any kind,--although he labours under a\nweight of competent censure without a parallel, I believe, in the annals\nof the English Church[50]: notwithstanding all this, I am bound to say\nthat if the unbelievers of this generation think they have an ally in\n_the man_, Frederick Temple,--they are very much mistaken. That so pure\na heart, and earnest a spirit, will never work itself free of its\npresent bondage,--I should be sorry indeed to think. (But O the mischief\nwhich the head-master of Rugby School will have done in the meantime!)\nHis misfortune (or rather fault) it has been, that he has really never\nstudied Divinity; nor, in fact, _knows anything at all about it_,--as a\nvolume of his, lately published, sufficiently shews. Apart from his\nopinions (!), he is a thoroughly amiable man; and--(with the same\nproviso!)--an excellent schoolmaster; but when he ventures upon the\nprovince of Theology, he shews himself something infinitely worse than\n_a very bad Divine_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nII. On turning the first page of the review which follows, \"by ROWLAND\nWILLIAMS, D.D. Vice-Principal and Professor of Hebrew, St. David's\nCollege, Lampeter; Vicar of Broad Chalke, Wilts,\"--we are made sensible\nthat we are in company of a writer considerably in advance of Dr.\nTemple, though altogether of the same school. In fact, if Dr. Williams\nhad not been Vice-Principal of a Theological College, and a Doctor of\nDivinity, one would have supposed him to be a complete infidel,--who\nfound it convenient to vent his own unbelief in a highly laudatory\nreview of the principles of the late Baron Bunsen. Hear him:--\"When\nBunsen asks 'How long shall we bear this fiction of an external\nRevelation,'--that is, of one violating the heart and conscience,\ninstead of expressing itself through them;--or when he says, 'All this\nis delusion for those who believe it; but what is it in the mouths of\nthose who teach it?'--Or when he exclaims, 'Oh the fools! who, if they\ndo see the imminent perils of this age, think to ward them off by\nnarrow-minded persecution'!--and when he repeats, 'Is it not time, in\ntruth, to withdraw the veil from our misery? to tear off the mask from\nhypocrisy, and destroy that sham which is undermining all real ground\nunder our feet? to point out the dangers which surround, nay, threaten\nalready to engulf us?'--there will be some who think his language too\nvehement for good taste. Others will think burning words needed by the\ndisease of our time. These will not quarrel on points of taste with a\nman who in our darkest perplexity has reared again the banner of Truth,\nand uttered thoughts which gave courage to the weak and sight to the\nblind. If Protestant Europe is to escape those shadows of the twelfth\ncentury which with ominous recurrence are closing around us, to Baron\nBunsen will belong a foremost place among the champions of light and\nright.\" (pp. 92-3.)\n\nBut even the Prussian infidel is not advanced enough for the Vicar of\nBroad Chalke. Bunsen, it seems, was weak enough to believe that the\nprophet Jonah was a real personage. This evokes the following singular\nburst of critical indignation from the Reverend author of the present\nEssay:--\"It provokes a smile on serious topics,\"--(a kind of impropriety\nwhich the Vice-Principal of Lampeter will not commit except under\nprotest and with an apology!)--\"to observe the zeal with which our\ncritic vindicates the personality of Jonah, and the originality of his\nhymn, (the latter being generally thought doubtful), while he proceeds\nto explain that the narrative of our book in which the hymn is imbedded,\ncontains a late legend founded on misconception. One can imagine the\ncheers which the opening of such an essay might evoke in some of our\ncircles, changing into indignation (!) as the distinguished foreigner\ndeveloped his views. After this he might speak more gently of mythical\ntheories.\" (p. 77.)\n\nFor the most part, however, the Vicar of Broad Chalke is able to cite\nthe opinions of Bunsen with admiration and approval. They are both\nagreed that the Deluge \"was but a prolonged play of the forces of fire\nand water rendering the prim\u00e6val regions of North Asia uninhabitable,\nand urging the nations to new abodes.\" (Of what nature this \"_prolonged\nplay_\" was, is however left unexplained: while \"_the forces of fire and\nwater_ rendering _prim\u00e6val regions_ uninhabitable,\" and \"_urging_\nnations to new abodes,\" has altogether a Herodotean sound.) \"We learn\napproximately its antiquity, and infer limitation in its range from\nfinding it recorded in the traditions of Iran and Palestine, (or of\nJapheth and Shem), but unknown to the Egyptians and Mongolians.\"\n(p. 56.) (A delightful method truly of attaining historical precision\nin a matter of this nature!) ... \"In the _half ideal, half traditional_\nnotices of the beginnings of our race compiled in Genesis, we are bid\nnotice the combination of documents and the recurrence of barely\nconsistent Genealogies.\" (_Ibid._) Praise is at hand for \"the firmness\nwith which Bunsen relegates the long lives of the first patriarchs to\nthe domain of legend, or of symbolical cycle.\" (p. 57.) \"The historical\nportion begins with Abraham.\" (_Ibid._)--After this admission, it is\ninstructive to observe how the learned writer deals with the narrative.\nThe Exode was \"a struggle conducted by human means.\" (p. 59.) \"Thus, as\nthe pestilence of the Book of Kings becomes in Chronicles the more\nvisible angel, so the avenger who slew the firstborn may have been the\nBedouin host, (!) akin nearly to Jethro, and more remotely to Israel.\"\n(_Ibid._) (It is really hardly worth stopping to point out that by\n'Kings' the Reverend writer means 'the second Book of Samuel:' and to\nremind the reader that _the Angel is mentioned as expressly in Samuel\nas in Chronicles[51]_. Also, to ask what 'the Bedouin host' could have\nbeen doing _in Egypt_ previous to the Exode?) \"The passage of the Red\nSea may be interpreted with the latitude of poetry.\" (_Ibid._) \"Moses\nwould gladly have founded a free religious society, ... but the rudeness\nor hardness of his people's heart compelled him to a sacerdotal system\nand formal tablets of stone.\" (p. 62.) Nay, Abraham's intended sacrifice\nof Isaac was an act of obedience to \"the fierce ritual of Syria, with\nthe awe of a Divine voice:\" (p. 61:) while the Divine command, in\nconformity with which Abraham spared to slay his son, is resolved into\nan allegory. \"He trusted that the FATHER, whose voice from Heaven he\nheard at heart, was better pleased with mercy than with sacrifice, and\nthis trust was his righteousness.\" (p. 61.) Dr. Williams straightway\nshews us how _we_ may tread in the steps of faithful Abraham. The\nperpetual response of our hearts, (he says,) to principles of Reason and\nRight of our own tracing, is a truer sign of faith than deference to a\nsupposed external authority. (p. 61.) ... According to this writer,\ntherefore, Genesis and Exodus are pure fable!\n\nThe whole of Scripture, in the hands of this Doctor of Divinity,\nundergoes corresponding treatment. They who \"twist Prophecy into harmony\nwith the details of Gospel history, fall into inextricable\ncontradictions.\" (pp. 64-5.) \"The Book of Isaiah, as composed of\nelements of different eras,\" can only be accepted with a \"modified\ntheory of authorship and of prediction.\" (p. 68.) In the prophecy of\nZechariah are \"three distinct styles and aspects of affairs.\" (_Ibid._)\n\"The cursing Psalms,\" (!!!) he informs us, were not \"evangelically\ninspired;\" (p. 63;) and yet we are constrained to remember that the\ncixth Psalm (specially alluded to) is evangelically interpreted by St.\nPeter[52]. The true translation of Psalm xxii. 17, (learnedly discussed,\nlong since, by Bishop Pearson,) is not \"they pierced My hands and My\nfeet,\"--but \"like a lion;\" (notwithstanding that Pearson has shewn that\nthe substitution of _vau_ for _yod_ in this place is one of the eighteen\ninstances where the Scribes have tampered with the text[53]; and\nnotwithstanding that this modern corruption of the Hebrew, as every one\nmust see, makes the place almost nonsense[54].)--Is. vii. 14 does not\nrefer to the miraculous birth of CHRIST, (p. 69,) (although St. Matthew\nis express in his assertion that it _does_.) There is, it seems, an\nelder and a later Isaiah, (p. 71.) The famous liiird chapter does not\nrefer to CHRIST; but either to Jeremiah or to \"the collective\nIsrael,\"--(p. 73,) (although it is at least seven times quoted, and\nexpressly applied to our SAVIOUR, in the New Testament[55].) Daniel, we\nare assured, belongs to different ages; and it is \"certain, beyond fair\ndoubt ... that those portions of the book, supposed to be specially\npredictive, are ... a history of past occurrences.\" (p. 69.) That \"the\nbook contains no predictions, except by analogy and type, can hardly be\ngainsaid.\" (pp. 76-7.) ... (If any of _us_ had dogmatized as to Truth as\nthese men do as to error, (remarks Dr. Pusey,) what scorn we should be\nheld up to!) ... The Reverend author insolently adds,--\"It is time for\ndivines to recognize these things, since with their opportunities of\nstudy, the current error is as discreditable to them, as for the\nwell-meaning crowd, who are taught to identify it with their creed, it\nis a matter of grave compassion.\" (p. 77.) \"When so vast an induction on\nthe destructive side has been gone through, it avails little that some\npassages may be doubtful; one perhaps in Zechariah, and one in Isaiah,\ncapable of being made directly Messianic; and a chapter possibly in\nDeuteronomy foreshadowing the final fall of Jerusalem. Even these few\ncases, the remnant of so much confident rhetoric, tend to melt, if they\nare not already melted, in the crucible of searching enquiry.\" (pp.\n69-70.) ... Our Doctor of Divinity, having reduced the prophecies\n_\"capable of being made\"_ Messianic, to _two_,--breaks out into a strain\nof refined banter which is altogether his own, and which we presume is\nintended to stand in the place of argument. \"If our German, [viz.\nBunsen,] had ignored all that the masters of philology have proved on\nthese subjects, his countrymen would have raised a storm of ridicule, at\nwhich he must have drowned himself in the Neckar.\" (p. 70.) A\ncatastrophe so fatal to the cause of true Religion and sound learning\nmay well point a paragraph!... But we must write gravely.\n\nThe absolute worthlessness of unsupported dicta such as these, ought to\nbe apparent to all. It is useless to reason with a madman. We desiderate\nnothing so much as \"searching enquiry,\" (p. 69,) but we are presented\ninstead with something worse than random assertion. If the writer would\nstate a single case, with its evidence,--we should know how to deal with\nhim. We should examine his arguments seriatim; and either refute them,\nor admit their validity. From such \"free handling,\" the cause of sacred\nTruth can never suffer. But when, in place of argument and evidence, we\nhave merely bluster,--what is to be said? Pity and disregard are the\nonly reply we can bestow; or our answers must be as brief as the calumny\nwhich provokes them. \"How,\" (asks the Regius Professor of Hebrew,) \"can\nsuch an undigested heap of errors receive a systematic answer in brief\nspace, or in any one treatise or volume?\"\n\n\"If any sincere Christian now asks, is not then our SAVIOUR spoken of in\nIsaiah; let him open his New Testament, and ask therewith John the\nBaptist, whether he was Elias? If he finds the Baptist answering _I am\nnot_, yet our LORD testifies that in spirit and power this was Elias; a\nlittle reflexion will shew how the historical representation in Isaiah\nliii. is of some suffering prophet or remnant, yet the truth and\npatience, the grief and triumph, have their highest fulfilment in Him\nwho said, 'FATHER, not My will but Thine.'\" (p. 74.) I have transcribed\nthis passage to illustrate the miserable sophistry of the author. It is\nforetold by Malachi that before the great and terrible day of the LORD,\nElijah is to come back to Earth[56]. John Baptist came in his \"spirit\nand power[57],\" but was not Elijah himself. How does it follow from this\nthat Isaiah may have prophesied merely of _qualities_ and not of a\nperson? The only logical inference from his words would surely be, that\nElijah is yet to come[58]!--Dr. Williams adds,--\"We must not distort the\nprophets to prove the Divine WORD incarnate, and then from the\nIncarnation reason back to the sense of prophecy.\" (p. 74.) _Was_ not\nthen the Divine WORD incarnate?\n\nThe theory of one who writes like an open unbeliever concerning Divine\nthings is really not worth developing: and yet, as I am examining an\nEssay which seems to be entirely built upon such a theory, it may be\ndesirable, in this instance, that the deformity of the writer should be\nuncovered: especially since Dr. Williams writes such very dark English,\nthat, until some of his sentences are translated, they are barely\nintelligible.\n\nAnticipating that his doctrines may \"alarm those who think that, apart\nfrom _Omniscience belonging to the Jews_, (!) the proper conclusion of\nreason is Atheism;\"--(in other words, that the rejection of a belief in\n_the inspiration of Prophecy_ will eventually conduct a man to the\nrejection of GOD Himself;) the Reverend writer declares that \"it is not\ninconsistent with the idea that ALMIGHTY GOD has been pleased to educate\nmen and nations, employing imagination no less than conscience, and\nsuffering His lessons to play freely within the limits of humanity and\nits shortcomings.\" (p. 77.) (In other words, that what Scripture\nemphatically declares, and what men have for thousands of years\nbelieved to be inspired predictions of future events, are none other\nthan the effusions of a lively imagination, or the suggestions of a\nwell-informed conscience.) \"The prophetical disquisitions,\" (p. 77,)\ntherefore, are subject to error of every imaginable description; and\npossess no higher attributes than belong to any ordinary human work by\n\"a master's hand.\" (p. 77.) \"The Sacred Writers acknowledge themselves\nmen of like passions with ourselves, and we are promised illumination\nfrom the Spirit which dwelt in them.\" (p. 78.) We may not think of the\nSacred Writers as \"passionless machines, and call Luther and Milton\n'uninspired.'\" (_Ibid._) \"The great result is to vindicate the work of\nthe Eternal Spirit; that abiding influence which underlies all others,\nand in which converge all images of old time and means of grace now:\ntemple, Scripture, finger, and Hand of GOD; and again, preaching,\nsacraments, waters which comfort, and flame which burns.\" (p. 78.) It\nfollows,--\"If such a Spirit did not dwell in the Church, the Bible would\nnot be inspired, for _the Bible is_, before all things, _the written\nvoice of the congregation_.\" (p. 78.) Offended Reason, (for Piety has no\nplace here,) has not time to reclaim against so preposterous a\nstatement; for it follows immediately,--\"Bold as such a theory of\nInspiration (!) may sound, it was the earliest creed of the Church, and\nit is the only one to which the facts of Scripture answer.\" (p. 78.) ...\nWhat reply _can_ be offered to such an outrageous statement, but flat\ncontradiction? What more effectual refutation of such a 'theory' (?)\nconcerning Scripture, than simply to state it?\n\nLet this miserable but conceited man yet further map out the nature of\nhis own delusion respecting Prophecy. He applauds the wisdom of one who\n\"accepts freely the belief of scholars, and yet does not despair of\nHebrew Prophecy as a witness to the Kingdom of God:\" (p. 70:) (that is,\nof one who, like Bunsen, altogether disbelieves in prophecy _as\nprophecy_, and yet is bent on finding something of an Evangelical\ncharacter in the prophetic writings.) \"The way of doing so left open to\nhim, was to shew pervading the Prophets those deep truths which lie at\nthe heart of Christianity, and to trace the growth of such ideas, the\nbelief in a righteous GOD, and the nearness of Man to GOD, the power of\nprayer, and the victory of self-sacrificing patience, ever expanding in\nmen's hearts, until the fulness of time came, and the ideal of the\nDivine thought was fulfilled in the Son of Man.\" (p. 70.) In other\nwords, CHRIST was nothing more than the fullest development and\nimpersonation of the best thoughts and feelings of the (so-called)\nprophets! He \"fulfilled in His own person the highest aspiration of\nHebrew seers and of mankind, thereby lifting the ancient words, so to\nspeak, into a new and higher power; and therefore was recognized as\nhaving eminently the unction of a prophet whose words die not,--of a\npriest in a temple not made with hands,--and of a king in the realm of\nthought, delivering his people from a bondage of moral evil, worse than\nEgypt or Babylon.\" (pp. 74-5.) \"A notion of _foresight by vision of\nparticulars_, or a kind of clairvoyance,\" (p. 70,)--(such is this Doctor\nof Divinity's notion of the gift of prophecy!)--he deems inadmissible.\n\"_Literal prognostication_,\" (p. 65,) is his abhorrence. He would\neliminate the Messianic passages altogether. (pp. 65-6.) That Prophecy\nwas miraculous, was a dream of the Fathers, (p. 66.) Even the notion\nthat Prophecy is \"a natural gift, consistent with fallibility,\" (p. 70,)\nDr. Williams rejects as an unwarrantable addition to the \"moral and\nmetaphysical basis of Prophecy.\" (p. 70.) Bunsen was for admitting that\naddition. \"One would wish,\" (says the Vicar of Broad Chalke,) \"_he might\nhave intended only the power of seeing the ideal in the actual_, or of\ntracing the Divine Government in the movements of men. He seems to mean\n_more than presentiment or sagacity_: and this element in his system\nrequires proof.\" (pp. 70-1.) ... This, from a Doctor of Divinity! a\nProfessor of Hebrew! the Vice-Principal of a Theological College! a\nshepherd of souls!\n\nWe are left to infer that \"the Fall of Adam represents ideally the\ncircumscription of our spirits in limits of flesh and time:\" (p. 88:)\nthat CHRIST is \"the moral Saviour of mankind;\" (p. 80;) and that\nSalvation from evil is to be attained by the conformity of our souls to\na \"_religious idea_\" which was \"brought to perfection\" in CHRIST.\n(p. 80.) This \"religious idea\" \"is the thought of the Eternal.\"\n(_Ibid._) In other words, \"Salvation from evil\" is \"through sharing the\nSAVIOUR's Spirit.\" (p. 87.)--We are further left to infer that\n\"Justification by faith means the peace of mind, or sense of Divine\napproval, which comes of trust in a righteous GOD:\" (p. 80:) that\n\"Regeneration is a correspondent giving of insight, or an awakening of\nforces of the soul: Resurrection, a spiritual quickening: Salvation, our\ndeliverance, not from the life-giving GOD, but from evil and darkness.\"\n(p. 81.) ... And this from a Clergyman who has just subscribed,\n\"willingly and _ex animo_,\" the three Articles in the 36th Canon!...\nAfter such specimens of Divinity, we are scarcely surprised to find that\nthe fires of Hell =geenna= \"may serve as images of distracted remorse:\"\n(p. 81:) that \"Heaven is not a place[59], so much as a fulfilment of the\nlove of GOD.\" (pp. 81-2.) The very Incarnation, (which he calls \"the\nembodiment of the Eternal Mind,\") (p. 82.) is spoken of as if it were a\nmyth. \"It becomes with our author _as purely spiritual_ as it was with\nSt. Paul. The Son of David by birth is the SON of GOD _by the spirit of\nholiness_. What is flesh, is born of flesh; and what is spirit, is born\nof Spirit.\" (p. 82.) Rom. i. 1-3 is quoted in support of this, which I\ncannot but regard as blasphemy: for if it does not mean that our SAVIOUR\nwas not, in a true and literal sense, the SON of GOD at all, it is hard\nto see _what_ it can mean.--As for the following account of the mystery\nof the Blessed Trinity, it shall only be said that it sounds like a\ndenial of the Catholic doctrine altogether. \"Being, becoming, and\nanimating; or substance, thinking, and conscious life, are expressions\nof a Triad which may be also represented as will, wisdom, and love; as\nlight, radiance, and warmth; as fountain, stream, and united flow; as\nmind, thought, and consciousness; as person, word, and life; as FATHER,\nSON, and SPIRIT.\" (p. 88.)\n\nThe _nebulous_ is a striking peculiarity of the style of the Vicar of\nBroad Chalke[60]. He informs us that \"in virtue of the identity of\nThought with Being the primitive Trinity represented neither three\noriginant principles nor three transient phases, but three eternal\nsubsistences in one Divine Mind.... The Divine Consciousness or Wisdom,\nconsubstantial with the Eternal Will, becoming personal in the Son of\nMan, is the express image of the FATHER; and JESUS actually, but also\nMankind ideally, is the SON of GOD.\" (pp. 88-9.) Since this has \"almost\na Brahmanical sound\" (p. 89.) even to the Vicar of Broad Chalke, we are\ncontent to pass it by in mute astonishment. He proceeds: \"Both spiritual\naffection and metaphysical reasoning forbid us to confine Revelations\nlike those of CHRIST to the first half century of our era; but shew at\nleast affinities of our faith existing in men's minds, anterior to\nChristianity, and renewed with deep echo from living hearts in many a\ngeneration.\" (p. 82.) Was our SAVIOUR then a fabulous personage,--a\nvirtuous principle,--and not a Man?... \"Again. We find the evidences of\nour canonical books and of the patristic authors nearest to them, are\nsufficient to prove illustration in outward act of principles\nperpetually true, but not adequate to guarantee narratives inherently\nincredible or precepts evidently wrong.\" (pp. 82-3.) Are then the sacred\n\"narratives\" \"inherently incredible?\" or the Divine \"precepts\"\n\"evidently wrong?\"--These are, we presume, among the \"traditional\nfictions about our Canon\" (p. 83.) at which the Theological Professor\nsneers. \"Hence we are obliged to assume in ourselves a verifying\nfaculty,\"--(p. 83,) and so, Dr. Williams and Dr. Temple shake hands[61].\nAn instance of the exercise of this faculty is immediately subjoined.\n\"The verse 'And no man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he that came\ndown,' is intelligible as a free comment near the end of the first\ncentury; but has no meaning in our Lord's mouth at a time when the\nAscension had not been heard of.\" (p. 84.)--\"The Apocalypse\" in like\nmanner, to \"cease to be a riddle,\" must be \"taken as a series of\npoetical visions which represent the outpouring of the vials of wrath\nupon the City where our LORD was slain.\" (p. 84.) ... (Is it possible\nthat a Minister of the Gospel of CHRIST can speak thus concerning the\nDivine record?) ... \"The second of the Petrine Epistles, having alike\nexternal and internal evidence against its genuineness, is necessarily\nsurrendered as a whole.\" (p. 84.) (Can a man solemnly sign the vith\nArticle, and yet so write?)--\"A philosophical view [of the doctrine of\nthe Trinity] recommends itself as easiest to believe.\" (p. 87.) The\n\"view\" expressed in the Athanasian Creed is we presume that which is\nstigmatized as \"one felt to be so irrational, that it calls in the aid\nof terror.\" (p. 87.) The Reverend writer does not _name_ the Athanasian\nCreed, indeed. It is not the general fashion of Essayists and\nReviewers,--from Dr. Temple to Professor Jowett,--to speak plainly. But\ncommon sense asks,--If Dr. Williams does _not_ allude to the Creed in\nquestion, what _does_ he allude to? And common honesty adds,--How is\nsuch an allusion to that formula consistent with subscription to Art.\nviii.?\n\nThe Sacrament of Baptism, (he says,) has \"degenerated into a magical\nform,\" (p. 86,) since it has \"become twisted into a false analogy with\ncircumcision,\"--(twisted, at all events, by St. Paul[62]!)--and it is\nmerely an \"Augustinian notion\" that \"a curse is inherited by\nInfants.\"--How, one humbly asks, does the Reverend writer reconcile it\nto his conscience not only to have signed the ixth Article, but to\nemploy the Baptismal Service, and to teach the little ones of the flock\ntheir Catechism?\n\nOn reaching the last page of the present Essay, one is irresistibly led\nto remark that if a single word could convey an adequate notion of the\nauthor's manner, that word would be _Insolence_. When Dr. Williams would\nexpress difference of opinion, he has recourse to violence and bluster:\nwhen he would patronize, he is sure to make himself unspeakably\noffensive. But he seldom agrees with anybody, even with disciples of the\nsame school with himself,--as Messrs. Bunsen and Arnold, Coleridge and\nFrancis Newman. Professor Mansel is \"a mere gladiator hitting in the\ndark,\" whose \"blows fall heaviest on what it was his duty to defend.\"\n(p. 67.) Dr. Pusey receives a menacing intimation of what his Commentary\nmust _not_ be. Davison's reasoning labours under the inconvenient defect\nof an unproved minor premiss. (p. 66.) The majestic memory of Bp.\nPearson is insulted by this vulgar man, and the fairness of his\ncitations are impeached. (p. 72.)--Bp. Butler is declared to have turned\naside from an unwelcome idea (!), literature not being his strong\npoint (!) (p. 65.)--Justin, (p. 64,)--Augustine, (p. 65,)--Jerome, (pp.\n65, 71,)--Anselm, (p. 67,)--all come in for a share of the\nVice-Principal of Lampeter's contempt. Even the Apologist of _Essays and\nReviews_ is constrained to admit that \"anything more\" _un_becoming \"than\nsome of Dr. Williams's remarks we have never read, in writings\nprofessing to be written seriously[63].\"\n\nBut faults of mind and manner, however gross, do but disqualify a writer\nfor being the associate of men of taste and good breeding; and blemishes\nof style are, at least, venial. Not so easily to be excused is the\ndeplorable spectacle of a Minister of the Gospel, a Doctor of Divinity\nand Vice-Principal of a Theological College, lending all his critical\npowers, (which yet seem to be of the most indifferent description,) in\norder to undermine the authority of GOD'S Word. He has been asked,--\"Do\nyou unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New\nTestament?\" and he has answered,--\"I do believe them.\" He has been\nasked, \"Will you be ready, with all diligence, to banish and drive away\nall erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to GOD'S Word?\" and he has\nmade reply,--\"I will, the LORD being my helper.\" He has solemnly\ndeclared his trust that he was \"_inwardly moved by the HOLY GHOST to\ntake upon himself this office and ministration_.\"--Yet this is the man\nwho explains away Miracles, denies Prophecy, and idealizes Scripture;\nthe man who disparages the formul\u00e6 he uses daily, mutilates the Canon,\nand evacuates the most solemn doctrines of the Church!\n\nI have now said as much as I think necessary concerning Dr. Williams's\nEssay. The entire refutation of such a tissue of groundless assertions\nand unfounded statements, and unscholarlike criticisms, and\nunphilosophical views,--would fill many volumes. It is to be feared also\nthat, to _him_, the result would not be convincing after all. To have\nstated in brief outline, as I have already done, the leading positions\nto which he commits himself, ought to suffice. The mere exhibition of\nsuch principles (?) ought to be their own abundant refutation.... GOD\ngive the unhappy author repentance of his errors!--And will not men\nbelieve that in the pages of the present Essay is to be seen the lawful\ndevelopment, and inevitable result of the opinions advocated _in every\nother part_ of the present volume? I perceive scarcely any _essential_\ndifference between the views of any of these seven writers. All are\nmoving along the same fatal road; and are simply at different stages of\nthe journey. But they conduct themselves wondrous differently in their\nprogress, certainly; Dr. Williams being immeasurably the most offensive\nof the seven,--the only one who, besides seeming blasphemous, can truly\nbe called _vulgar_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIII. The third Essay in the present volume is by \"the REV. BADEN POWELL,\nM.A., F.R.S., Savilian Professor of Geometry in the University of\nOxford,\"--a gentleman with whose labours I shall deal briefly and gently\nfor two reasons. His assertions admit of summary refutation; and he has\nalready, (alas!) passed beyond the limit of earthly Criticism. I desire\nto add concerning him, that in the private relations of life he was a\nfriendly and amiable person.\n\nThe solemn circumstance already adverted to, would have kept me silent\naltogether. When a writer is no longer able to defend himself, it is\nungenerous to attack him: and at a time when he knows far more wonders\nthan are dreamed of by any one on the Earth's surface, it seems\nunbecoming to stand reasoning over his grave about an \"antecedent\nprobability.\" But I am addressing not the dead, but the living,--to\nwhom, in the pages of 'Essays and Reviews,' Professor Powell \"being dead\nyet speaketh.\"\n\nHe entitles his contribution,--\"On the Study of the Evidences of\nChristianity:\" but, as often happens with performances of the like\nnature, the title of his Essay gives a wrong notion of its contents. It\nought to have been called \"The Validity of THE EVIDENCE FROM MIRACLES\nconsidered,\" or rather \"denied.\"\n\nThere is nothing new in the present attack on the Miracles of Scripture.\nThe author disposes of them by a single assertion. \"What is alleged,\"\n(he says,) \"is a case of the supernatural. _But no testimony can reach\nto the supernatural._\" (p. 107.) The inference is obvious.--Again: \"an\nevent may be so incredible intrinsically as to _set aside any degree of\ntestimony_.\" (p. 106.) Such an event he declares a Miracle to be; and\nexplains that \"from the nature of our antecedent convictions, the\nprobability of _some_ kind of mistake or deception _somewhere_, though\nwe know not _where_, is greater than the probability of the event really\nhappening in _the way_, and from _the causes_ assigned.\" (pp. 106-7.)\nThis merely amounts to asserting that the antecedent improbability of\nMiracles is so great as to make them incredible. The writer does not\nattempt to establish this point. \"The present discussion,\" (he says,)\n\"is not intended to be of a controversial kind; it is purely\ncontemplative and theoretical.\" (p. 100.) And yet, he _cannot_ suppose\nthat the Universal Church will surrender its convictions and reverse its\ndeliberate judgment, at the merely \"contemplative and theoretical\"\nsuggestions of an individual, however respectable he may happen to be.\nAgainst his mere assertion, we claim a right to set the result of Bp.\nButler's careful investigation of the same subject:--\"_That there\ncertainly is no such presumption against Miracles, as to render them in\nany wise incredible_: that, on the contrary, our being able to discern\nreasons for them, gives a positive credibility to the history of them,\nin cases where those reasons hold: and that it is by no means certain\nthat there is any peculiar presumption at all, from analogy, even in the\nlowest degree, against Miracles, as distinguished from other\nextraordinary phenomena[64].\"\n\nProfessor Powell's objection against Miracles is, in fact, practically\nthat of the infidel Hume; who asserted \"that no testimony for any kind\nof Miracle can ever possibly amount to a probability, much less to a\nproof.\" He argued that Miracles, being contrary to general experience,\nare incapable of proof. He maintained also, (with Spinoza,) that\nMiracles, being contrary to the established laws of Nature, imply, in\nthe very character of them, a palpable contradiction. This latter\nposition seems to be identical with that adopted by Professor Powell.\n\nIn a certain place, this author finds fault with \"the too frequent\nassumption ... of the part of the ... _Advocate_, when the character to\nbe sustained should be rather that of the unbiassed _Judge_.\" (p. 95.)\nBut what are we to think of the judicial fairness of one who is not only\nAdvocate and Judge in his own cause; but who even turns the Witnesses\nout of Court; and will listen to no evidence,--on the plea that it\n_cannot_ be trustworthy; or at least, that it _shall_ be unavailing?--\"I\nexpress myself with caution,\" (says Bp. Butler, with reference to\narguments against the credibility of Revelation,) \"lest I should be\nmistaken to vilify Reason; which is indeed the only faculty we have\nwherewith to judge concerning anything, even Revelation itself: or be\nmisunderstood to assert that a supposed revelation cannot be proved\nfalse, from internal characters. For it may contain clear immoralities,\nor contradictions; and either of these would prove it false. Nor will I\ntake upon me to affirm, that nothing else can possibly render any\nsupposed revelation incredible. Yet still the observation is, I think,\ntrue beyond doubt; that _objections against Christianity, as\ndistinguished from objections against its evidence, are frivolous[65]_.\"\n\nThat a certain occurrence or phenomenon \"is due to supernatural causes,\"\nProfessor Powell maintains is \"entirely dependent on the previous belief\nand assumptions of the parties.\" (p. 107.) He forgets that he grounds\nhis own denial of the possibility of a Miracle, on nothing stronger than\n\"the nature of\" his own \"antecedent convictions.\" Thus, the question\nbecomes merely a personal one between Mr. Baden Powell and the Apostles\nof CHRIST. The reasonableness of the \"antecedent convictions\" in the one\ncase have to be set against the reasonableness of the \"antecedent\nconvictions\" in the other. Either party, (according to this view,) has\nits own \"previous belief and assumptions;\" which, in the one case, are\nknown to have produced conviction; in the other, they are unhappily\nfound to have resulted in a rejection of Miracles. But then it happens,\nunfortunately, that in the case of the Apostles and others, conviction\nof the truth of our LORD'S Miracles was based on _knowledge_, and\n_experience of a matter of fact_: in the case of Professor Powell,\ndisbelief is founded on certain \"antecedent convictions\" only: namely,\n\"the inconceivableness of imagined interruptions of natural Order, or\nsupposed suspensions of the Laws of matter.\" (p. 110.) He is never tired\nof repeating that \"in an age of physical research like the present, all\nhighly cultivated minds and duly advanced intellects (!) have imbibed,\nmore or less, the lessons of the Inductive Philosophy; and have, at\nleast in some measure, learned to appreciate the grand foundation\nconception of universal Law:\" (p. 133:) that \"the entire range of the\nInductive Philosophy is at once based upon, and in every instance tends\nto confirm, by immense accumulation of evidence, the grand truth of the\nuniversal Order and constancy of natural causes, as a primary law of\nbelief; so strongly entertained and fixed in the mind of every truly\ninductive inquirer, that he cannot even conceive the possibility of its\nfailure.\" (p. 109.)\n\nI gladly avail myself of a page from the writings of a thoughtful writer\nof our own, who, half a century ago, reviewed the very errors which are\nbeing so industriously reproduced among ourselves at this\nday,--certainly not with more ability than of old:--\"Let us examine a\nlittle farther into the weight of the argument derived from the supposed\nimmutability of the Laws of Nature. It has constantly been the theme of\nmodern Unbelievers, that the course of Nature is fixed, eternal,\nunalterable; and that nothing which is supposed to violate it can\npossibly take place. Now, we may readily allow, that the course of\nNature is unalterable by _human_ power; nay, even by the power of any\n_created_ being whatsoever. But the question is,--Are these Laws\nunalterable _by Him who made them_? Proof of this is requisite, before\nthe argument from the immutability of the Laws of Nature can have the\nleast force. We may safely assert, however, that proof of this is\nabsolutely impossible.--'Facts,' it may be said, 'daily passing before\nus, warrant us in _supposing_ its laws to be unchangeable.' Perhaps so.\nBut if a thousand or more facts have occurred, since the Creation of the\nWorld, in which those Laws appear to have been over-ruled, or suspended,\nis such a conclusion _then_ warrantable? Even if there had never been a\nsingle instance of a Miracle recorded, since the Creation; yet the\nconclusion would not be just or logical, that no such thing is possible.\nBut with such a multiplicity of instances to the contrary as are already\non record, it is no better than a shameless assertion, in direct\nopposition to the evidence of men's senses and experience. Nay, more;\nthe argument is _atheistical_. For, either GOD made and ordained these\nLaws of Nature; and may, consequently, at His pleasure, unmake or\nsuspend them: or else, these laws are self-framed, and Nature is\nindependent of the GOD of Nature; which is saying, in other words, that\nthe material Universe is not governed by any Supreme Intelligence.\n\n\"This latter opinion appears, indeed, to be the tenet of all who resort\nto arguments of this kind, in opposition to the credibility of Miracles.\nThus it is said, [by Hume,] that every effect must have a cause; and\nthat, therefore, a Miracle must have a cause in _Nature_; otherwise, it\ncannot be effected.--But, is not the _Will of_ GOD, without any other\nagency, or predisposing cause, sufficient for the purpose? When GOD\ncreated the World out of nothing, what pre-existing cause was there,\nexcept His own omnipotent Will to produce the effect? Why then is not\nthe same Will sufficient to work Miracles?\n\n\"'But,' says another Sophist, [Spinoza,]--'GOD is the Author of the Laws\nof Nature; so that whatever opposes those Laws, is necessarily\n_repugnant to the Divine nature_: if, therefore, we believe that GOD may\nact in a manner contrary to those laws, we, in effect, believe that He\nmay do what is contrary to _His own nature_; which is absurd and\nimpossible.'\n\n\"The reasoning turns upon the supposition that GOD is actuated by an\nabsolute _necessity_ of His Nature, and not by his _Will_: or, rather,\nthat He hath neither Will, nor Intellect. Otherwise, it were easy to\nperceive, that in suspending the operation of His own Laws, GOD cannot\nbe charged with doing anything contradictory to _His own_ nature; since\nHe may justly be supposed to have as good reasons for _departing_ from\nthose Laws, as for _framing_ them: and as we know not why He framed them\nin such a manner, and no otherwise; so He may have the best and wisest\nreasons for the suspension of them, which it is not for us to call in\nquestion. To speak of the Supreme Being as actuated by a kind of\nphysical necessity, and not by His _Will_, is to confound the GOD of\nNature with Nature itself; which is the very essence of Atheism, and\nnever can be reconciled with any just notions of the Deity, as a Being\nof intellectual and moral perfections[66].\"\n\n_It is by no means inconceivable_, therefore, that the great Cause of\nCreation, and first Author of Law should interfere at any given time in\nthe established Order of Nature. Moreover, it is irrational, on\nsufficient testimony, to disbelieve that He has sometimes so interposed.\nTo deny that this is conceivable, is to make GOD inferior to His own\ndecree; to pronounce it incredible that the Lawgiver should be superior\nto His own Laws. \"The universal subordination of causation,\" (p. 134,)\nwe as freely admit as the Professor himself: but then we contend that\n_everything else_ must be subordinate to the _First great Cause of all_.\nWorse than unphilosophical is it to argue as the Professor presumes to\ndo, concerning the MOST HIGH; but unphilosophical in the strictest sense\nit is. For it is to reason about Him, (the finite concerning the\nInfinite!) as if we understood Him; we, who can barely decipher a\nlittle part of His works! A few more remarks on this subject will be\nfound in my viith Sermon.\n\nWe are anxious to know if the whole of the case is really before us. A\nfew more extracts from Professor Powell's Essay seem necessary to do\nfull justice to his view of the matter:--\"All moral evidence must\nessentially have respect to the parties to be convinced. 'Signs' might\nbe adapted peculiarly _to the state of moral or intellectual progress of\none age_, or one class of persons, and not be suited to that of\nothers.... And it is to the entire difference in the ideas,\nprepossessions, modes, and grounds of belief in those times, that we may\ntrace the reason why Miracles, which would be incredible _now_, were not\nso in the age, and under the circumstances, in which they are stated to\nhave occurred.\" (p. 117.) ... \"An evidential appeal which in a long past\nage was convincing, as made to _the state of knowledge in that age_[67],\nmight have not only no effect, but even an injurious tendency, if urged\nin the present, and referring to what is at variance with existing\nscientific conceptions; just as the arguments of the present age would\nhave been unintelligible to a former.\"\n\n\"In a period of advanced physical knowledge, the reference to what was\nbelieved in past times, if at variance with principles now acknowledged,\ncould afford little ground of appeal: in fact, would damage the argument\nrather than assist it.\" (p. 126.)\n\n\"It becomes imperatively necessary, that such views should be suggested\nas may be really suitable to better informed minds, and may meet the\nincreasing demands of an age pretending at least to greater\nenlightenment.\" (p. 126.)\n\nThere is nothing in the additional suggestions thus thrown out which in\nreality affects the question at issue. Certain antecedent considerations\nwere before insisted on, which (it was said) \"must be paramount to all\nattestation.\" (p. 107.) These have been disposed of. The writer now\ntells us that he does not question \"_the honesty_ or _veracity_ of the\ntestimony, or the reality of the _impressions_ on the minds of the\nwitnesses.\" (p. 106.) It remains to inquire therefore to what natural\ncauses, events which were once thought miraculous, may reasonably be\nreferred; since the so-called Miracles of the imperfectly-informed age\nof our LORD and His Apostles will not endure the scrutiny of the present\nage of scientific enlightenment.\n\nBut this, unless it be a proposal to open the whole question afresh,--to\nexamine _the Miracles themselves_,--to consider them one by one,--to\ninquire into their exact nature,--and to investigate their attendant\ncircumstances,--is unmeaning. For we cannot, as reasonable men, dismiss\na vast body of august events, differing so considerably one from\nanother, with a vague inuendo that there was probably \"some kind of\nmistake or deception somewhere, though we do not know where:\" (p. 106:)\na hint that natural events may have been regarded as supernatural by an\nunscientific age, (which I believe was Schleiermacher's view:) and so\nforth. The two miraculous Draughts of fishes,--the Stater found in the\nfish's mouth,--the stilling of the Storm,--might perhaps, by a little\nrhetorical sophistry, in unscrupulous hands, be so disposed of. But the\n_Creative Power_ displayed on the two occasions of a miraculous feeding\nof thousands,--the giving of sight to a man born blind,--the calling of\nLazarus out of the grave where he had been for four days buried;--these\nare transactions which resist every attempt of the enemy to explain\naway, as unscientific misconceptions. They may be powerless to produce\nconviction in some _now_, as they were powerless to produce conviction\nin some _then_: but they cannot be set aside by an insinuation. There\ncould not have been any mistake when the Five Thousand were fed with\nfive loaves, and twelve baskets full were gathered up; or when the Four\nThousand were fed with seven loaves, and fragments enough to fill seven\nbaskets remained over[68]. There was no room for deception in the case\nof the man born blind; for _that_ case immediately underwent a judicial\nscrutiny[69]. Lazarus bound hand and foot with grave-clothes required\nthat the bystanders should \"loose him and let him go[70]:\" but from that\nmoment, neither supposed scientific necessity, nor antecedent\nconsiderations, nor the ordinary course of Nature, nor any other\ncreature, will avail to bind him any more!\n\nThis may suffice on the subject of Professor Powell's Essay. On the\ngreat question itself, I have said something in my Seventh Sermon, to\nwhich the reader is requested to refer.--The performance now under\nconsideration abounds in incorrect statements, while it revives not a\nfew exploded objections; but I have considered the only points in it\nwhich are material.\n\nThus the author assumes \"that, unlike the _essential Doctrines_ of\nChristianity, 'the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,' those\n_external accessories_, [Miracles, for example,] constitute a subject\nwhich of necessity is perpetually taking somewhat at least of a new\nform, with the successive phases of opinion and knowledge.\" (p. 94.)\nBut, (waiving for the moment the impossibility of severing the Doctrines\nof the Gospel from the miraculous evidence that our LORD was a Teacher\nsent from Heaven[71]), it requires no ability to perceive that although\n\"opinion\" should alter daily, and \"knowledge\" increase ever so much,\nyet, events professing to be miraculous, being plain _matters of fact_,\nare to-day exactly what and where they were many centuries ago. Physical\nScience may pretend (with Paulus) to explain them on natural principles,\ntruly; and while she does so, the world is sure to give her a patient,\neven an indulgent hearing. But then she must let it be known _what_ she\nproposes to explain, and _how_ she proposes to explain it. She must be\nso indulgent also, as to listen while we, in turn, shew her _on what_\ngrounds we find it impossible to accept her Theory. \"The inevitable\nprogress of research,\" (says this author,) \"must, within a longer or\nshorter period, unravel _all that seems most marvellous_; and what is at\npresent least understood will become as familiarly known to the Science\nof the future, as those points which a few centuries ago, were involved\nin equal obscurity, but are now thoroughly understood.\" (p. 109.) Such a\nvaticination as regards Miracles, is, to say the least, premature; and\nuntil it can appeal to incipient accomplishment, it must be regarded as\nnugatory also. I am not aware, that as yet one single Miracle has been\nstruck off the list; yet Miracles have now been before the world a long\ntime, and they have not wanted enemies either.\n\nTo begin Divinity with a discussion of the \"Evidences,\" we do indeed\nhold to be a beginning _at the wrong end_. At the same time, all of\nProfessor Powell's opening remarks, in which he insinuates that the\nChurch would bar, or would stifle discussion concerning the evidences of\nReligion, are obviously untrue. No scrutiny of Christian Miracles,\nhowever rigid, is stopped by the admonition that such narratives \"ought\nto be held sacred, and exempt from the unhallowed criticism of human\nReason.\" (p. 110.) We do not, by any means, \"treat all objections as\nprofane, and discard exceptions unanswered as shocking and immoral.\"\n(p. 100.) Neither does the Church think herself \"omniscient and\ninfallible;\" (p. 96;) though she holds Omniscience to be an attribute of\nGOD; and Infallibility, of the Bible. But she deprecates in the\nstrongest manner vague insinuations and unsupported doubts of the\nreality of her LORD'S Miracles, sown broad-cast over the land; and she\nis at a loss to understand how the \"difficulties\" of any, can be in this\nmanner \"removed;\" (p. 96;) except by a process analogous to that which\nwould cure a malady by taking away the life of the patient. We are not\nin fact at all disposed to admit that \"Miracles, which in the estimation\nof a former age were among the chief _supports_ of Christianity, are at\npresent among the main _difficulties_, and hindrances to its\nacceptance,\" (p. 140,)--although Professor Powell and Dr. Temple say so.\n\nThis Essay in fact is full of incorrect, or objectionable statements.\nThus Professor Powell asserts that since \"evidential arguments are\navowedly addressed to the intellect, it is especially preposterous to\nshift the ground, and charge the rejection of them on _moral_ motives.\"\n(p. 100.) And yet it is worthy of notice that our LORD Himself assures\nus that the reception of Truth depends on our moral, rather than on our\nintellectual condition. \"How can ye believe,\" (He said to the Jews,)\n\"which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that\ncometh from GOD only[72]?\"\n\nThis writer reasons also with singular laxity and inaccuracy. After\nquoting the dictum that \"on a certain amount of testimony we might\nbelieve any statement, however improbable,\" (pp. 140-1,) he scornfully\nadds;--\"So that if a number of respectable witnesses were to concur in\nasseverating that on a certain occasion they had seen two and two make\nfive, we should be bound to believe them!\" (p. 141.) Does he fail to\nperceive, (1) that mathematical truths do not come within the province\nof probable reasoning, and (2) are not dependent on testimony?... Again,\n\"The case of the _antecedent_ argument of Miracles is very clear,\nhowever little some are inclined to perceive it. In Nature and from\nNature, by Science and by Reason, _we neither have nor can possibly have\nany evidence of a Deity working by Miracles_;--for that, we must go out\nof Nature, and beyond Science.\" (pp. 141-2.) Very true. We must go _to\nScripture_. We must have recourse to testimony. This is precisely what\nwe are maintaining.... But,--\"Testimony, after all, is but a second-hand\nassurance; it is but a blind guide; testimony can avail nothing against\nReason.\" (p. 141.) True. But this, if it is intended as an argument\nagainst the reasonableness of admitting the truth of Miracles, is a mere\n_petitio principii_.... Again. \"It is not the _mere fact_ but the\n_cause_ or _explanation_ of it, which is the point at issue.\" (p. 141.)\nAdmitting then, as the learned author here does, that when CHRIST said\n\"Lazarus, come forth,\" \"he that was dead,\" (though he had been buried\nfour days,) \"came forth, bound hand and foot with\ngrave-clothes[73];\"--admitting these \"facts,\" I say,--what other\n\"cause,\" or \"explanation\" does the reverend gentleman propose to assign\nbut the supernatural power of the Divine Speaker?\n\nFar graver exception, however, must be taken against certain parts of\nProfessor Powell's labours, which betray an animus fatally indicative of\nthe tendency of such Essays and Reviews as these. Witness his assertion\nthat \"it is now acknowledged that 'Creation' is only another name for\nour ignorance of the mode of production;\" (p. 139;) and that a recent\nwork on the Origin of Species \"substantiates on undeniable grounds the\nvery principle so long denounced by the first naturalists,--_the\norigination of new species by natural causes_;\" (p. 139;) and that the\nsaid work \"must soon bring about an entire revolution of opinion in\nfavour of the grand principle of the _self-evolving powers of Nature_.\"\n(p. 139.)\n\nOne object of the present Essay is to insist that since Miracles belong\nto the world of matter, \"we must recognize the due claims of Science to\ndecide\" upon them. We are reminded that \"beyond the domain of physical\ncausation and the possible conceptions of _intellect_ or _knowledge_,\nthere lies open the boundless region of spiritual things, which is the\nsole dominion of Faith:\" (p. 127:) and that \"Advancing knowledge, while\nit asserts the dominion of Science in physical things, confirms that of\nFaith in spiritual.\" (p. 127.) It is proposed that \"we thus neither\nimpugn the generalizations of Philosophy, nor allow them to invade the\ndominion of Faith; and admit that what is not a subject for a problem,\nmay hold its place in a Creed.\" (p. 127.)\n\nBut the fatal consequences of this plausible fallacy become apparent the\ninstant we turn the leaf, and read that \"the more knowledge advances,\nthe more it has been, and will be acknowledged, that Christianity, as a\nreal religion, must be viewed apart from connexion with physical\nthings.\" (p. 128.) That \"the first dissociation of the spiritual from\nthe physical was rendered necessary by the palpable contradictions\ndisclosed by astronomical discovery with the letter of Scripture.\nAnother still wider and more material step has been effected by the\ndiscoveries of Geology. More recently, the antiquity of the Human Race,\nand the development of Species, and _the rejection of the idea of\n'Creation'_ (!) have caused new advances in the same direction.\"\n(p. 129.) ... From this it is evident, not only that the object of\nScience in thus taking the Miracles of Scripture into her own keeping,\nis (like an unnatural step-dame) to slay them; but that downright\nAtheism is to be the attitude in which men are expected to survey that\n\"boundless region of spiritual things\" which is yet proclaimed to be\n\"the sole dominion of Faith!\"\n\nFaith, on the other hand, does not object to the constant visits of\nScience to any part of _her_ treasure. She does but insist that all\ndiscussion shall be conducted _according to the rules of right Reason_.\nVague insinuations about \"a progressing Age,\" (p. 131,)--\"new modes of\nspeculation,\" (p. 130,)--\"the advance of Opinion,\" (p. 131,)--and so\nforth, are as little to the purpose, _apart from specific objections_,\nas sneers at \"the one-sided dogmas of an obsolete school, coupled with\nawful denunciations of heterodoxy on all who refuse to listen to them,\"\n(p. 131,) are unsuited to the gravity of the occasion. Faith insists\nmoreover that a divorce between the miraculous parts of Scripture, and\nthe context wherein they stand, is simply impossible. The unbeliever who\nboldly says, \"I disbelieve the Bible,\"--however much we may deplore his\nblindness and pity his misery,--is yet intelligible in his unbelief. But\nthe man who proposes to believe _the narrative_ of the Exode of Israel\nfrom Egypt, (for instance,) apart from the supernatural character of the\nevents which are related to have attended it; who believes _the history_\nof the Gospels, (holding the Evangelists to have been veracious\nwriters,) yet rejects the Divine nature of the Miracles which the\nGospels relate; and proposes, after eliminating from the historical\nnarrative everything which claims to be miraculous, to make what\nremains of that historical narrative, the strength and stay of his soul\nin life and in death:--_that_ man we boldly affirm to be one who cannot\nhave studied the Bible with that ordinary attention which would entitle\nhim to dogmatize concerning its contents: or else, whose logical faculty\nmust be so hopelessly defective that discussions of this class are\nevidently not his proper province.\n\nFinally, we are presented in this Essay with the same offensive\nassumption of intellectual superiority on the part of the writer, which\ndisfigures the entire volume. \"It becomes _imperatively necessary_ that\nviews should be suggested really suitable _to better informed minds_.\"\n(p. 126.) \"Points which may be seen to involve the greatest difficulty\nto _more profound inquirers_, are often such as do not occasion the\nleast perplexity to _ordinary minds_, but are allowed to pass without\nhesitation.\" (p. 125.) (And this, from one of those \"profound\ninquirers,\" one of \"those who have reflected most deeply,\" (p. 126,) who\nyet cannot get beyond a resuscitation of Hume and Spinoza's exploded\nobjections to the truth of Miracles!)--Butler's unanswerable arguments,\n(for the allusion is evidently to _him_,) are spoken of as \"a few trite\nand commonplace generalities as to the moral government of the World and\nthe belief in the Divine Omnipotence; or as to the validity of human\ntestimony; or the limits of human experience.\" (p. 133.) And yet the\nauthor is for ever informing us that his hostility to Miracles \"is\nessentially built upon those _grander conceptions_ of the order of\nNature, those comprehensive primary elements of all physical knowledge,\nthose ultimate ideas of universal causation, which can only be familiar\nto _those thoroughly versed in cosmical philosophy in its widest\nsense_.\" (p. 133.) \"All _highly cultivated minds_, and _duly advanced\nintellects_,\" are supposed to find their exponent in Professor Baden\nPowell. All other thinkers have \"_minds of a less comprehensive\ncapacity_,\" \"accustomed to reason on _more contracted views_.\" (p. 133.\nSee also p. 131, _top_.) Is this the modesty of real Science? the\nlanguage of a true Philosopher and Divine?\n\nFinally, after all that has gone before we are not much astonished, but\nwe _are_ considerably shocked, to read as follows:--\"The Divine\nOmnipotence is entirely an inference _from the language of the Bible_,\nadopted _on the assumption_ of a belief in Revelation. That 'with GOD\nnothing is impossible' is the very declaration of Scripture; yet on\nthis, the whole belief in Miracles is built[74].\" Now, it happens that\n'the whole belief in Miracles' is built on nothing of the kind: but the\npoint is immaterial. By no means immaterial, however, is the intimation\nthat the Divine attribute of Omnipotence is a mere inference from the\nlanguage of Revelation,--the very belief in which is also a mere\n\"assumption.\" _If belief in Holy Scripture_ is to be treated as _an\nassumption_,--without at all complaining of the unreasonableness of one\nwho so speaks,--we yet desire that he would say it very plainly; and let\nus know at least _with whom_ we have to do, and _what_ we are expected\nto prove. We do not complain, if any one calls upon us to shew that a\nbelief in the Bible cannot be called an assumption; but it makes us very\nsad: and when the challenge comes from a Minister of the Church, we are\nunable to forbear the remark that there is something altogether\nimmoral[75] in the entire proceeding. On the other hand, to find\nourselves involved in an argument on questions of Divinity with one _who\nbelieves nothing_, is in a manner absurd; and provokes a feeling of\nresentment as well as of pity.... What need to add that life is not long\nenough for such processes of proof? \"He that cometh unto GOD _must\nbelieve that He is_!\" We cannot be for ever laying the foundation. The\nbuilding must begin, at last, to grow. And when it _has_ grown up, and\nis compact as well as beautiful, it _cannot_ be necessary to pull it all\ndown again once or twice in every century in order to ascertain whether\nthe strong foundations be still there!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIV. The next performance is mainly directed against faith in the Church,\nas a society of Divine origin. \"The Rev. HENRY BRISTOW WILSON, B.D.,\nVicar of Great Staughton, Hunts,\" claims that a National Church shall be\nregarded as a purely secular Institution,--the spontaneous development\nof the State. \"If all priests and ministers of religion could at one\nmoment be swept from the face of the Earth, they would soon be\nreproduced[76].\" The Church is concerned with Ethics, not with Divinity.\nIt should therefore be \"free from dogmatic tests, and similar\nintellectual bondage:\" (p. 168:) hampered by no traditional Doctrines;\npledged to no Creeds: but, on the contrary, should be subject to\nperiodical doctrinal re-adjustments. \"Doctrinal limitations\" (i.e. the\nCreeds) \"are not essential to\" the Church. \"Upon larger knowledge of\nChristian history, upon a more thorough acquaintance with the mental\nconstitution of man, upon an understanding of the obstacles they present\nto a true Catholicity (!), they may be cast off.\" (p. 167.) \"In order to\nthe possibility of recruiting any national Ministry from the whole of\nthe nation, ... no needless intellectual or speculative obstacles should\nbe interposed.\" (p. 196. So at p. 198.)\n\nTo all this, the answer is very obvious. Viewed as an historical fact,\nthe Church is _not_ of human origin. The Church _is_ a Divine\nInstitution. That a Priest of the Church, charged with a cure of souls,\nshould desire her annihilation,--the reversal of the facts of her past\nHistory,--her reconstruction on an unheard-of basis, without even Creeds\nas terms of communion with her,--and so forth; all this may suggest some\nvery painful doubts as _to the objector's honesty_ in continuing to\nemploy the formularies of that Church, and in professing to teach her\ndoctrines;--but it can hardly be supposed to have any effect whatever on\nthe question at issue.\n\nForeseeing this, Mr. Wilson begins by asserting,--(for to insinuate is\nnot for so advanced a disciple of \"the negative Theology,\") (p.\n151,)--\"the fact of a very wide-spread alienation, both of educated and\nuneducated persons, from the Christianity which is ordinarily presented\nin our Churches and Chapels.\" (p. 150.) \"A self-satisfied Sacerdotalism,\nconfident in a supernaturally transmitted illumination,\" may amuse\nitself in trying to \"keep peace within the walls of emptied Churches:\"\n(p. 150:) but the day for \"traditional Christianity\" (p. 149.) has gone\nby. We may no longer ignore \"a great extent of dissatisfaction on the\npart of the Clergy at some portion, at least, of formularies of the\nChurch of England,\"--especially at the use of \"one unhappy creed.\" (p.\n150.) There has been \"a spontaneous recoil\" from some of the old\ndoctrines: a distrust of the old arguments: and a misgiving concerning\nScripture itself. \"In the presence of difficulties of this kind, ... it\nis vain to seek to check open discussion.\" (p. 151.)\n\nWhy then does not this man proceed openly to discuss? is the obvious\nrejoinder. Instead of vaguely hinting that either the Reason or the\nMoral sense is shocked by what people hear \"in our Churches and\nChapels,\"--why has not this writer, first, the honesty to withdraw from\nthe Ministry of the Church of England; and next, the courage to indicate\nthe particular doctrines which offend? To say that \"the ordinances of\npublic worship and religious instruction provided for the people of\nEngland\" are not \"really adapted to the wants of their nature as it is,\"\n(p. 150,) is a very vague and unworthy style of urging an objection. Why\ndoes not the reverend writer explain _wherein_ the Doctrine and\nDiscipline of the English Church are not really adapted to the actual\nwants of Man's nature?\n\nLet every unbeliever however be allowed to state his difficulties in his\nown way. Mr. Wilson's difficulties certainly take a very peculiar shape.\nThe increased _Geographical_ knowledge of the present generation has\nevidently disturbed his faith. \"In our own boyhood, the World as known\nto the ancients was nearly all which was known to ourselves (!). We have\nrecently become acquainted,--intimate,--with the teeming regions of the\nfar East, and with empires, pagan or even atheistic, of which the\norigin runs far back beyond the historic records of Jud\u00e6a or of the\nWest, and which were more populous than all Christendom now is, for many\nages before the Christian era.\" (p. 162.) Such a statement is soon made;\nbut it ought to have been substantiated. I take the liberty of doubting\nits accuracy.\n\nBut granting even that the heathen world \"for many ages before the\nChristian era\" _was_ more populous than all Christendom now is:--what\nthen? This fact \"_suggests questions_ to those who on Sundays hear the\nreading and exposition of the Scriptures as they were expounded to our\nforefathers, and on Monday peruse the news of a World of which our\nforefathers little dreamed.\" (pp. 152-3.)--And pray, (we calmly\ninquire,) _Why_ are the Scriptures to be read or expounded after a novel\nfashion, even though our geographical knowledge _has_ made a\nconsiderable advance? To this, we are favoured with no answer. The\n\"questions\" suggested are, we presume, the same which are contained in\nthe following sentence. \"In what relation does the Gospel stand to these\nmillions[77]? Is there any trace on the face of its records that it even\ncontemplated their existence[78]? We are told, that to know and believe\nin JESUS CHRIST is in some sense necessary to Salvation. It has not been\ngiven to these. Are they,--will they be, hereafter,--the worse off for\ntheir ignorance?\" (p. 153.) ... \"As to the necessity of faith in a\nSAVIOUR to these peoples when they could never have had it, no one,\nupon reflection, can believe in any such thing. Doubtless they will be\nequitably dealt with.\" (p. 153.)\n\nThese last seven words, (which scarcely seem of a piece with the rest of\nthe sentence,) we confess have always seemed a sufficient answer to the\nbadly-expressed speculative difficulty which immediately precedes; a\ndifficulty, be it observed, which does not depend _at all_ on the\npopular advancement of Geographical knowledge; for it was urged with the\nself-same force anciently, as now; and was met by Bp. Butler, almost in\nthe self-same words[79], upwards of a hundred years ago. But Mr. Wilson\nto our surprise and sorrow proceeds:--\"We cannot be content to wrap this\nquestion up and leave it for a mystery, as to what shall become of those\nmyriads upon myriads of non-Christian races. First, if our traditions\ntell us, that they are involved in the curse and perdition of Adam, and\nmay justly be punished hereafter individually for his transgression, not\nhaving been extricated from it by saving faith,--we are disposed to\nthink that our traditions cannot herein fairly declare to us the words\nand inferences from Scripture; but if on examination it should turn out\nthat they have,--we must say, that the authors of the Scriptural books\nhave, in those matters, represented to us their own inadequate\nconceptions, and not the mind of the SPIRIT of GOD.\" (pp. 153-4.)\n\nI forbear to dwell upon the grievous spectacle with which we are thus\npresented. Here is a Clergyman of the Church of England deliberately\nproposing the following dilemma:--Either the Prayer Book is incorrect in\nits most important doctrinal inferences from Holy Scripture; or else,\nthe Authors of Holy Scripture itself are incorrect in their statements.\nThe morality of one who declares that he finds himself placed between\nthe horns of this dilemma, and yet retains his office as a public\nteacher in the Church of England,--it is painful to contemplate. But\nthis is only _ad hominem_. The Reverend writer's difficulty remains.\n\nAnd it seems sufficient to reply:--It is not _we_ who \"wrap up the\nquestion,\" but GOD. As a mystery we find it; and as a mystery, we not\nonly \"can,\" but _must_ be content to \"leave it.\" Further, it is not\n\"_our traditions_,\" but Holy Scripture itself which tells us that \"by\none man Sin entered into the World, and Death by Sin; and so Death\npassed upon all men, for that all have sinned[80]:\"--that \"in Adam all\ndied[81]:\"--that \"we were by nature the children of wrath, even as\nothers[82]:\" and the like. Scripture, on the other hand, as\nunequivocally assures us that GOD is good, or rather that He is very\nGoodness. We are convinced, (in Mr. Wilson's words,) \"that all shall be\nequitably dealt with according to their opportunities.\" (p. 154.)\nMoreover, _he_ would be a rash Divine who should venture to adopt the\nopinion so strenuously disclaimed by Bp. Butler, \"that none can have the\nbenefit of the general Redemption, but such as have the advantage of\nbeing made acquainted with it in the present life[83].\" ... How, in the\nmeantime, speculative difficulties concerning the hereafter of the\nunevangelized Heathen are affected by the fact that our population now\n\"peruse the news of a World of which our forefathers little dreamed,\"\n(pp. 152-3,)--it is hard to see. Equally unable am I also to understand\nhow the discovery that a larger number of persons are the subjects of\nthis speculative difficulty than used once to be supposed, can\nconstitute any reason why Scripture should not still be read and\nexpounded on Sunday \"as it used to be expounded to our forefathers.\"\n\nWe have been so particular, because whenever any of these writers\ncondescend to be argumentative, _we_ are eager to bear them company. No\nwish at all have we, in the abstract, to stifle inquiry; no objection\nwhatever have we to the principle of free discussion. And yet, as a\nclergyman, I cannot discuss such questions as these with a _Minister of\nthe Church of England_, except under protest. I deny that these are in\nany sense open questions. To dispute concerning them,--=ei m\u00ea thesin\ndiaphylatt\u00f4n=,--one of the disputants must first, at least, resign his\ncommission. It is simply dishonest in a man to hold a commission in the\nChurch of England, under solemn vows, and yet to deny her doctrines. An\nOfficer in the Army who should pursue a similar line of action, would be\ndismissed the Service,--or worse.--Under protest, then, we follow the\nRev. H. B. Wilson, B.D.\n\nNext come three other specimens \"of the modern questionings of\ntraditional Christianity,\" \"whereby observers are rendered dissatisfied\nwith old modes of speaking:\" (p. 156:) viz. (1) St. Paul \"speaks of the\nGospel 'which was preached to every nation (_sic_) under heaven,' when\nit has never yet been preached to the half[84].\" (2) \"Then, again, it\nhas often been appealed to as an evidence of the supernatural origin of\nChristianity, and as an instance of supernatural assistance vouchsafed\nto it in the first centuries, that it so soon overspread the world:\"\n(p. 155:) whereas \"it requires no learning to be aware that neither then\nnor subsequently have the Christians amounted to a fourth part of the\npeople of the Earth.\" (_Ibid._) (3) So again, \"it has been customary to\nargue that, _\u00e0 priori_, a supernatural Revelation was to be expected at\nthe time when JESUS CHRIST was manifested upon the Earth, by reason of\nthe exhaustion of all natural or unassisted human efforts for the\namelioration of mankind;\" (pp. 155-6;) whereas \"our recently enlarged\nEthnographical information shews such an argument to be altogether\ninapplicable to the case.\" \"It would be more like the realities of\nthings, as we can now behold them, to say that the Christian Revelation\nwas given to the Western World, because it deserved it better and was\nmore prepared for it than the East.\" (p. 156.)--The remedy for the first\nof these difficulties (says Mr. Wilson,) is, \"candidly to acknowledge\nthat the words of the New Testament which speak of the preaching of the\nGospel to the whole world, were limited to the understanding of the\ntimes when they were spoken.\" The suggestions of our own moral instincts\nare rather to be followed, \"than the express declarations of Scripture\nwriters, who had no such knowledge as is given to ourselves of the\namplitude of the World.\" (p. 157.)\n\nFor my own part, I see not how Mr. Wilson's proposed remedy meets the\ncase; unless he means to say that in the time of St. Paul the Gospel had\nbeen literally preached to the whole World _as far as the World was then\nknown_. If not, it is clear that recourse must be had to some other\nexpedient. Instead then of the \"candid acknowledgment\" required of _us_\nby the learned writer, may we be allowed to suggest to _him_ the more\nprosaic expedient (1st) of making sure that he quotes Scripture\naccurately; and (2nd) that he understands it?... It happens that St.\nPaul does not use the words \"_every nation under heaven_\" as Mr. Wilson\ninadvertently supposes. The Apostle's phrase, =pas\u00ea t\u00ea ktisei=, in\nColossians i. 23, (as in St. Mark xvi. 15), means 'to the whole\nCreation,' or 'every creature;' (the article is doubtful;) in other\nwords, he announces the universality of the Gospel, as contrasted with\nthe Law; and he explains that it had been preached _to the Heathen_ as\nwell as to the Jews. Our increased knowledge therefore has nothing\nwhatever to do with the question; and the supposed difficulty\ndisappears. The two which remain, being (according to the same writer,)\nmerely incorrect inferences of Biblical critics, need not, it is\npresumed, be regarded as insurmountable either.\n\nFollowing Mr. Wilson through his successive vagaries of religious (?)\nthought, we come upon a succession of strange statements; the object of\nwhich seems to be to cast a slur on _Doctrine_ generally.--The doctrine\nof Justification by faith \"is not met with ... in the Apostolic\nwritings, _except those of St. Paul_.\" (p. 160.) [A minute exception\ntruly!].--\"Then, on the other hand, it is maintained by a large body of\nTheologians, as by the learned Jesuit Petavius and many others, that the\ndoctrine afterwards developed into the Nicene and Athanasian, is not to\nbe found explicitly in the earliest fathers, nor even in Scripture,\nalthough provable by it.\" (p. 160.) [Would it not have been fair,\nhowever, to state what appears to have been the design of Petavius\ntherein[85]? and should it not have been added that our own Bishop Bull\nin his immortal \"Defensio Fidei Nic\u00e6n\u00e6\" established the very reverse\n\"out of the writings of the Catholic Doctors who flourished within the\nfirst three centuries of the Christian Church[86]?\"] \"The nearer we come\nto the original sources of the History, the less definite do we find the\nstatements of Doctrines, and even of the facts from which the Doctrines\nwere afterwards inferred.\" (p. 160.) \"In the patristic writings,\ntheoretics assume continually an increasingly disproportionate value.\nEven within the compass of our New Testament, there is to be found\nalready a wonderful contrast between the words of our LORD and such a\ndiscourse as the Epistle to the Hebrews.\" (pp. 160-1.) [What a curious\ndiscovery, by the way, that an argumentative Epistle should differ in\nstyle from an historical Gospel!] \"Our LORD'S Discourses,\" (continues\nthis writer,) \"have almost all of them a direct _Moral_ bearing.\"\n(p. 161.) [The case of St. John's Gospel immediately recurs to our\nmemory. And it seems to have occurred to Mr. Wilson's also. He says:--]\n\"This character of His words is certainly more obvious in the first\nthree Gospels than in the fourth; and the remarkable unison of those\nGospels, when they recite the LORD'S words, notwithstanding their\ndiscrepancies in some matters of fact, compels us to think, that _they\nembody more exact traditions of what He actually said than the fourth\ndoes_.\" (p. 161.) [In other words, the authenticity of St. John's\nGospel[87] is to be suspected rather than the worthlessness of the\nspeculations of the Vicar of Great Staughton!]\n\nThe object of three pages which follow (pp. 162-5.) seems to be to shew\nthat in the Apostolic Age, Immorality of life was more severely dealt\nwith, even than erroneousness of Doctrine. Except because the writer is\neager to depreciate the value of orthodoxy of belief, and to cast a slur\non doctrinal standards generally,--it is hard to see why he should write\nthus. Let him be reminded however that our SAVIOUR makes Faith itself a\n_moral_, not an _intellectual_ habit[88]; and, (if it be not an uncivil\nremark,) what but an _immoral_ spectacle does a Clergyman present who\nopenly inculcates distrust of these very Doctrines which he has in the\nmost solemn manner pledged himself to uphold and maintain?\n\nAnd thus we come back to the theme originally proposed. \"A national\nChurch,\" we are informed, \"need not, historically speaking, be\nChristian (!); nor, if it be Christian, need it be tied down to\nparticular forms which have been prevalent at certain times in\nChristendom (!). That which is essential to a National Church is, that\nit should undertake to assist the spiritual progress of the nation and\nof the individuals of which it is composed, in their several states and\nstages. Not even a Christian Church should expect all those who are\nbrought under its influence to be, as a matter of fact, of one and the\nsame standard; but should endeavour to raise each according to his\ncapacities, and should give no occasion for a reaction against itself,\nnor provoke the individualist element into separation.\" (p. 173.) Of\nwhat sort the Ministers of such a \"chartered libertine\" are to prove,\nmay be anticipated. \"Thought and speech, which are free among all other\nclasses,\" must be free also \"among those who hold the office of leaders\nand teachers of the rest in the highest things.\" The Ministers of the\nChurch ought not \"to be bound to cover up, but to open; and having, it\nis presumed, possession of the key of knowledge, ought not to stand at\nthe door with it, permitting no one to enter unless by force. A National\nChurch may also find itself in this position, which, perhaps, is our\nown.\" (p. 174.)--What a charming picture of the duties and the method of\nthat class to which the Vicar of Great Staughton himself belongs!... The\nwriter proceeds to set an example of that freedom of inquiry which he\nvindicates as the privilege of his Order; and without which he is\napprehensive of being left isolated between \"the fanatical religionist,\"\n(p. 174,) (i.e. the man who believes the truths he teaches,) and \"the\nnegative theologian,\" (i.e. those who, \"impatient of old fetters, follow\nfree thought heedlessly wherever it may lead them.\") (_Ibid._) \"The\nfreedom of opinion[89],\" (he says,) \"which belongs to the English\ncitizen should be conceded to the English Churchman; and the freedom\nwhich is already practically enjoyed by the members of the congregation,\ncannot without injustice be denied to its ministers.\" (p. 180.) Let us\nsee how the Reverend Gentleman exercises the license which he claims:--\n\nThe phrase \"Word of GOD,\" (he says,) is unauthorized and begs the\nquestion. The epithet \"Canonical\" \"may mean either books ruled and\ndetermined by the Church, or regulation books; and the employment of it\nin the Article hesitates between these two significations.\" (p. 176.)\nThe declaration of the sixth Article simply implies \"the Word of GOD is\ncontained in Scripture; whence it does not follow that it is\nco-extensive with it.\" (p. 170.) \"Under the terms of the Sixth Article\none may accept literally, or allegorically, or as parable, or poetry, or\nlegend, the story of a serpent-tempter, of an ass speaking with man's\nvoice, of an arresting the earth's motion, of a reversal of its\nmotion[90], of waters standing in a solid heap, of witches, and a\nvariety of apparitions. So under the terms of the Sixth Article, every\none is free in judgment as to the primeval institution of the Sabbath,\nthe universality of the Deluge, the confusion of tongues, the corporeal\ntaking up of Elijah into Heaven, the nature of Angels, the reality of\ndemoniacal possession, the personality of Satan, and the miraculous\nparticulars of many events.\" (p. 177.) \"Good men,\" we are assured; (the\nInspired Writers being the good men intended;) \"may err in facts, be\nweak in memory, mingle imaginations with memory, be feeble in\ninferences, confound illustration with argument, be varying in judgment\nand opinion.\" (p. 179.) [A \"free handling\" this, of the work of the HOLY\nGHOST, truly!... It would, I suppose, be deemed very unreasonable to\nwish that a catalogue of facts misstated,--of slips of memory,--of\nimaginary details,--of feeble inferences,--of instances of logical\nconfusion,--and so forth, had been subjoined by the Reverend writer. I\nwill only observe concerning his method that such \"frank criticism of\nScripture\" (p. 174.) as this, is dogmatism of the most disreputable\nkind: insinuating what it does not state; assuming what it ought to\nprove; asserting in the general what it may be defied to substantiate in\nparticular.] It follows,--\"But the spirit of absolute Truth cannot err\nor contradict Himself; if He speak immediately, even in small things,\naccessories, or accidents.\" (p. 179.) To this we entirely agree. Where\nthen are the \"errors?\" and where the \"contradictions?\"\n\nWe cannot \"suppose Him to suggest contradictory accounts:\" [not\n_contradictory_, of course; because contradictories cannot both be\ntrue:] \"or accounts only to be reconciled in the way of hypothesis and\nconjecture.\"--(_Ibid._) _Why_ not[91]?\n\n\"To suppose a supernatural influence to cause the record of that which\ncan only issue in a puzzle, is to lower indefinitely our conception of\nthe Divine dealings in respect of a special Revelation.\"\n(_Ibid._)--_Why_ more of a lowering puzzle in GOD'S Word than in GOD'S\nWorks[92]?\n\nMr. Wilson proceeds:--\"It may be attributed to the defect of our\nunderstandings, that we should be _unable altogether to reconcile the\naspects_ of the SAVIOUR as presented to us in the first three Gospels,\nand in the writings of St. Paul and St. John. At any rate, there were\ncurrent in the primitive Church very distinct Christologies.\"--(_Ibid._)\nQueer language this for a plain man! _I_, for my own part, have never\nyet discovered the difficulty which is here hinted at; but which has\nbeen prudently left unexplained.\n\nIt follows:--\"But neither to any defect in our capacities, nor to any\nreasonable presumption of a hidden wise design, nor to any partial\nspiritual endowments in the narrators, can we attribute the difficulty,\nif not impossibility, of reconciling the genealogies of St. Matthew and\nSt. Luke; or the chronology of the Holy Week; or the accounts of the\nResurrection: nor to any mystery in the subject-matter can be referred\nthe uncertainty in which the New Testament writings leave us, as to the\ndescent of JESUS CHRIST according to the flesh, whether by His mother He\nwere of the tribe of Judah or of the tribe of Levi.\"--(pp. 179-180.) I,\nfor my part, can declare that I have found the reconcilement in the\nthree subjects first alluded to, as complete as could be either expected\nor desired. The last part of the sentence discovers nothing so much as\nthe writer's ignorance of the subject on which he presumes to dogmatize.\n\nPresently, we read,--\"It may be worth while to consider how far a\nliberty of opinion is conceded by our existing Laws, Civil and\nEcclesiastical.\"--(p. 180.) \"As far as _opinion privately entertained is\nconcerned_, the liberty of the English Clergyman appears already to be\ncomplete. For no Ecclesiastical person can be obliged to answer\ninterrogations as to his opinions; nor be troubled for that which he has\nnot actually expressed; nor be made responsible for inferences which\nother people may draw from his expressions.\" (_Ibid._)--Surely such\nlanguage needs only to be cited to awaken indignation in every honest\nbosom! \"With most men educated, not in the schools of Jesuitism, but in\nthe sound and honest moral training of an English Education, the mere\nentering on the record such a plea as this, must destroy the whole case.\nIf the position of the religious instructor is to be maintained only by\nhis holding one thing as true, and teaching another thing as to be\nreceived,--in the name of the GOD of Truth, either let all teaching\ncease, or let the fraudulent instructor abdicate willingly his office,\nbefore the moral indignation of an as yet uncorrupted people thrust him\nignominiously from his abused seat[93]!\"\n\nThe remarks just quoted serve to introduce a series of views on\nsubscription to the Articles, which, if they were presented to me\nwithout any intimation of the quarter from which they proceed, I should\nnot have hesitated to denounce as simply dishonest[94].... The Statute\n13 Eliz. c. 12, is next discussed with the same unhappy licentiousness;\nand the declaration that \"the meshes are too open for modern\nrefinements.\" (p. 185.) ... I desire not to speak with undue severity of\na fellow-creature: but I protest that I cannot read the Review under\nconsideration without a profound conviction that, (speaking for myself,)\nI have to do with one whom in the common concerns of life I would not\ntrust. The aptitude here displayed[95] for playing tricks with plain\nlanguage, is calculated to sap the foundations of human intercourse, and\nto destroy confidence. If plain words may mean anything, or may mean\nnothing,--then, farewell to all good faith in the intercourse of daily\nlife. If Articles \"for the avoiding of Diversities of Opinions, and for\nthe establishing of Consent touching true Religion[96],\"--such Articles\nespecially as the IInd., \"Of the WORD or SON of GOD, which was made very\nMan;\" and the Vth., \"Of the HOLY GHOST,\" (which the Rev. Mr. Wilson\ncalls \"humanifying of the Divine Word,\" and \"the Divine Personalities,\")\n(p. 186,)--may be signed by one who, even in signing, resolves to \"_pass\nby the side of them_,\" (p. 186, line 6,)--then is it better at once to\nadmit that no Logic can be supposed to be available with such a writer;\nthat he places himself outside the reach of fair argumentation; and must\nnot be astonished if he shall find himself regarded by his peers simply\nin the light of an untrustworthy and impracticable person.\n\nThe last stage of all in this deplorable paper is an application to\nHoly Scripture itself of the tricks which the Vicar of Great Staughton\nhas already played, so much to his own satisfaction, with the Articles.\n\"We may say that the value of the historical parts of the Bible may\nconsist, rather in their significance, in the ideas which they awaken,\nthan in the scenes themselves which they depict.\" (p. 199.) To a plain\nEnglish understanding, (unperplexed with the dreams of Strauss, and\nother unbelievers of the same stamp,) such a statement conveys scarcely\nan intelligible notion. But we are not left long in doubt.\n\n\"The application of Ideology to the interpretation of Scripture, to the\ndoctrines of Christianity, to the formularies of the Church, may\nundoubtedly be carried to an excess; may be pushed so far as to leave in\nthe sacred records no historical residue whatever.... An example of the\ncritical Ideology carried to excess, is that of Strauss; which resolves\ninto an ideal _the whole of the historical and doctrinal person of\nJESUS_.... But it by no means follows, because Strauss has substituted a\nmere shadow for the JESUS of the Evangelists, that there are not traits\nin the scriptural person of Jesus, which are better explained by\nreferring them to an ideal than an historical origin: and without\nfalling into fanciful exegetics, there are parts of Scripture more\nusefully interpreted ideologically than in any other manner,--as for\ninstance, _the history of the Temptation of JESUS by Satan, and accounts\nof demoniacal possessions_.\" (pp. 200-201.) \"Some may consider the\ndescent of all Mankind from Adam and Eve as an undoubted historical\nfact; others may rather perceive in that relation a form of narrative\ninto which in early ages tradition would easily throw itself\nspontaneously.... _Among a particular people, this historical\nrepresentation became the concrete expression of a great moral\ntruth_,--of the brotherhood of all human beings.... The force, grandeur,\nand reality of these ideas are not a whit impaired in the abstract, nor\nindeed the truth of the concrete history (!) as their representation,\neven though mankind should have been placed upon the earth _in many\npairs at once, or in distinct centres of creation_. For the brotherhood\nof men really depends,\" &c., &c. (p. 201.) \"Let us suppose one to be\nuncertain whether our LORD were born of the house and lineage of David,\n_or of the tribe of Levi_; and even to be driven to conclude that the\ngenealogies of Him have _little historic value_; nevertheless, in idea,\nJESUS is both Son of David and Son of Aaron, both Prince of Peace, and\nHigh Priest of our profession; as He is, under another idea, though not\nliterally, 'without father and without mother.' And He is none the less\nSon of David, Priest Aaronical, or Royal Priest Melchizedecan, in idea\nand spiritually, even if it be unproved whether He were any of them _in\nhistoric fact_.--In like manner it need not trouble us, if in\nconsistency, we should have to suppose both an ideal origin, and to\napply an ideal meaning, to the birth in the city of David, (!) and to\nother circumstances of the Infancy. (!) So again, the Incarnification of\nthe divine Immanuel remains, although the angelic appearances which\nherald it in the narratives of the Evangelists may be of ideal origin,\naccording to the conceptions of former days.\" (pp. 202-3.) \"And,\"\nlastly,--\"_liberty must be left to all as to the extent in which they\napply this principle_!\" (p. 201.)\n\nTo such dreamy nonsense, what \"Answer\" _can_ we return[97]? Such\nspeculations would be a fair subject for ridicule and merriment, if the\nsubject were not so unspeakably solemn,--the issues so vast, and\nterribly momentous. We find ourselves introduced into a new world,--of\nwhich the denizens talk like madmen, and in a jargon of their own. And\nyet, that jargon is no sooner understood, than the true character of our\nnew companions becomes painfully evident[98].... He who believes the\nplain words of Holy Writ, finds himself called \"the literalist.\" He who\nresolves Scripture into a dream, and the LORD who redeemed him into \"a\nmere shadow,\" (p. 200) is dignified with the title of \"an idealist.\"\n\"Neither\" (we are assured) \"should condemn the other. They are fed with\nthe same truths; the literalist unconsciously, the idealist with\nreflection. Neither can justly say of the other that he undervalues the\nSacred Writings, or that he holds them as inspired less properly than\nhimself.\" (p. 200.) \"The ideologian,\" (who is the same person as the\n\"idealist;\" for the gentleman, at this place, changes his name;) \"is\nevidently in possession of a principle which will enable him to stand in\ncharitable relation to persons of very different opinions from his own.\"\n(p. 202.) \"Relations which may repose on doubtful grounds as matter of\nhistory, and, as history, be incapable of being ascertained or verified,\nmay yet be equally suggestive of true ideas with facts absolutely\ncertain. The spiritual significance is the same of the Transfiguration,\nof opening blind eyes, of causing the tongue of the stammerer to speak\nplainly, of feeding multitudes with bread in the wilderness, of\ncleansing leprosy; whatever links may be deficient in the traditional\nrecords of particular events.\" (_Ibid._) ... I will but modestly\ninquire,--What would be said of _us_, if _we_ were so to expound Holy\nScripture _in defence_ of Christianity?\n\nBut it is time to dismiss this tissue of worthless as well as most\nmischievous writing;--even to exhibit which, in the words of its\nmisguided author, ought to be its own sufficient exposure. Do men really\nexpect us to \"answer\" such groundless assertions, and vague speculations\nas those which go before? A Faith without Creeds: a Clergy without\nauthority or fixed opinions: a Bible without historical truth:--how can\nsuch things, for a moment, be supposed to be[99]? What answer do we\nrender to the sick man who sees unsubstantial goblins on the solid\ntapestried wall; and mistakes for shadowy apparitions of the night, the\nforms of flesh and blood which are ministering to his life's\nnecessities? If the Temptation, and the Transfiguration, and the\nMiracles of CHRIST be not true history, but ideological\nallegories,--then why not His Nativity and His Crucifixion,--His Death\nand His Burial,--His Resurrection and His Ascension into Heaven\nlikewise? \"_Liberty_\" (we have been expressly told,) \"_must be left to\nall, as to the extent in which they apply the principle_\" (p.\n201.)--_Where_ then is Ideology to begin,--or rather, where is ideology\nto end? \"Why then is Strauss to be blamed for using that universal\nliberty, and '_resolving into an ideal the whole of the historical and\ndoctrinal person of JESUS_?' Why is Strauss' resolution 'an excess?' or\nwhere and by what authority, short of his extreme view, would Mr. Wilson\nhimself stop? or at what point of the process? and by what right could\nhe, consistently with his own canon, call on any other speculator, to\nstay the ideologizing process[100]?\"\n\n\"Discrepancies in narratives, scientific difficulties, defects in\nevidence, do not disturb the ideologist as they do the literalist.\"\n(p. 203.) No, truly. _Nothing_ troubles him; simply because he _believes\nnothing_! The very Sacraments of the Gospel are not secure from his\nunhallowed touch. \"The same principle\" (?) is declared to be \"capable of\napplication\" to them also. \"Within these concrete conceptions there lie\nhid the truer ideas of the virtual presence of the LORD JESUS everywhere\nthat He is preached, remembered, and represented.\" (p. 204.) ... Do we\never deal thus with any other book of History? And yet, on what possible\nprinciple is the Bible to be thus trifled with, and Thucydides to be\nspared?--I protest, if the historical personages of either Testament may\nbe resolved at will into abstract qualities, and the historical\ntransactions of either Testament may be supposed to represent ideas and\nnotions only,--then, I see not why the Vicar of Great Staughton himself\nmay not prove to be a mythical personage also. Why need Henry Bristow\nWilson, B.D.,--who, (as \"literalists\" say,) in 1841 was one of the 'Four\nTutors' who procured the condemnation of Tract No. 90, on the ground\nthat it 'evaded rather than explained the Thirty-nine Articles;' and\nwho, in 1861 writes that \"Subscription to the Articles may be thought\n_even inoperative upon the conscience_ by reason of its vagueness;\"\n(p. 181.)--why need this author be supposed to be a man _at all_? Why\nshould he not be interpreted \"ideologically;\" and resolved into the\nprinciple of disgraceful Inconsistency of conduct, and \"variation of\nopinion at different periods of life?\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nV. In the present crusade against the Bible and the Faith of Christian\nmen, the task of destroying confidence in the first chapter of Genesis\nhas been undertaken by MR. C. W. GOODWIN, M.A. He requires us to \"regard\nit as the speculation of some Hebrew Descartes or Newton, promulgated\nin all good faith as the best and most probable account that could be\nthen given of GOD'S Universe.\" (p. 252.)\n\nMr. Goodwin remarks with scorn, that \"we are asked to believe that a\nvision of Creation was presented to him by Divine power, for the purpose\nof enabling him to inform the world of what he had seen; which vision\ninevitably led him to give a description which has misled the world for\ncenturies, and in which the truth can now only with difficulty be\nrecognized.\" (p. 247.) He puts \"pen to paper,\" therefore, (he says,) in\norder to induce the world to a \"frank recognition of the erroneous views\nof nature which the Bible contains.\" (p. 211.) The importance of the\ninquiry, he vindicates in the following modest terms:--\"Physical Science\ngoes on unconcernedly pursuing its own paths. Theology, (the Science\nwhose object is the dealing of GOD with Man as a moral being,)\n_maintains but a shivering existence, shouldered and jostled by the\nsturdy growths of modern thought_, and _bemoaning itself_ for the\nhostility it encounters.\" (p. 211.)--A few remarks at once suggest\nthemselves.\n\nI cannot help thinking that if any person of ordinary intelligence,\nunacquainted with the Bible, were to be left to obtain his notion of its\ncontents from \"Essays and Reviews,\" infidel publications generally, and\n(_absit invidia verbo!_) from not a few of the Sermons which have been\npreached and printed in either University of late years,--the notion so\nobtained would be singularly at variance with the known facts of the\ncase. Would not a man infallibly carry away an impression that the Bible\nis a book abounding in statements concerning matters of Physical Science\nwhich are flatly contradicted by the ascertained phenomena of Nature?\nWould he not be led to expect that it contained every here and there a\ntheoretical Excursus on certain Astronomical or Physiological subjects?\nand to anticipate, above all, an occasional chapter on Geology? Great\nwould be his astonishment, surely, at finding that _one single chapter_\ncomprises nearly the whole of the statements which modern philosophy\nfinds so very hateful; and _that_ chapter, the first chapter in the\nBible[101].\n\nBut the surprise would grow considerably when the conditions of the\nproblem came to be a little more fully stated. Has then the actual\nhistory of the World's Creation been ascertained from some other\nindependent and infallible source? No! Are Geologists as yet so much as\nagreed even about a theory of the Creation? No! Can it be proved that\nany part of the Mosaic account is false? Certainly not! Then why all\nthis hostile dogmatism?--To witness the violence of the partisans of\nGeological discovery, and the arrogance of their pretensions, one would\nsuppose that some Divine Creed of theirs had been impugned: that a\nrevelation had been made to _them_ from Heaven, which the profane and\nunbelieving world was reluctant to accept. Whereas, these are Christian\nmen, impatient, as it seems, to tear the first leaf out of their Bible:\nor rather, to throw discredit on the entire volume, by establishing the\nuntrustworthiness of the earliest page!\n\nOne single additional consideration completes the strangeness of the\npicture. If our account of the Six Days of Creation were a sybilline\nleaf of unknown origin, it would not be unreasonable to treat its\nrevelations as little worth. But since the author of it is confessedly\nMoses,--the great Hebrew prophet, who lived from B.C. 1571 to 1451, who\nenjoyed the vision of the Most High; nay, who conversed with GOD face to\nface, was with Him in the Mount for thrice forty days, and received from\nHim the whole details of the Sacred Law;--since this first chapter of\nGenesis is known to have formed a part of the Church's unbroken heritage\nfrom that time onward, and therefore must be acknowledged to be an\nintegral part of the volume of Scripture which, (as our LORD says,) =ou\ndynatai lyth\u00eanai=,--\"cannot be broken, diluted, loosened, explained\naway;\"--since, further, this account of Creation is observed to occur in\nthe most conspicuous place of the most conspicuous of those books which\nare designated by an Apostle by the epithet =theopneustos=, or, \"given by\ninspiration,\" \"filled with the breath,\" or \"Spirit of GOD;\" and when it\nis considered that our SAVIOUR and His Apostles refer to the prim\u00e6val\nhistory contained in the first two chapters about thirty\ntimes[102]:--when, (I say,) all this is duly weighed, surely too strong\na _prim\u00e2 facie_ case has been made out on behalf of the first chapter of\nGenesis, that its authority should be imperilled by the random\nstatements of every fresh individual who sees fit to master the elements\nof Geology; and on the strength of that qualification presumes to sit in\njudgment on the Hebrew Scriptures,--of which, confessedly, he does not\nunderstand so much as the alphabet!\n\nIt is even amusing to see how vain a little mind can become of a little\nknowledge. Mr. Goodwin remarks,--\"The school-books of the present day,\nwhile they teach the child that the Earth moves, yet assure him that it\nis a little less than six thousand years old, and that it was made in\nsix days.\" (p. 210.) (I am puzzled to reconcile this statement with the\nauthor's declaration that \"no well-instructed person now doubts the\ngreat antiquity of the Earth any more than its motion.\" (_Ibid._) Would\nit not have been fairer to have _named_ at least _one_ of the\nschool-books which perpetuate so wicked a heresy?) \"On the other hand,\nGeologists of all religious creeds are agreed that the Earth has existed\nfor an immense series of years,--to be counted by millions rather than\nby thousands; and that indubitably more than six days elapsed from its\nfirst Creation to the appearance of Man upon its surface. By this broad\ndiscrepancy between old and new doctrine is the modern mind startled, as\nwere the men of the sixteenth century when told that the earth moved.\"\n(p. 210.)\n\nBut begging pardon of our philosopher, if all he means is that more than\nsix days elapsed between the Creation of \"Heaven and Earth,\" (noticed in\nver. 1,) and the Creation of Man, (spoke of from ver. 26 to 28,)--he\nmeans to say mighty little; and need not fear to encounter contradiction\nfrom any \"well-instructed person.\" True, that an ignorant man could not\nhave suspected anything of the kind from reading the first chapter of\nGenesis: but this is surely nobody's fault but his own. An ignorant man\nmight in like manner be of opinion that the Sun and Moon are the two\nlargest objects in creation; and there is not a word in this same\nchapter calculated to undeceive him. Again, he might think that the Sun\nrises and sets; and the common language of the Observatory would confirm\nhim hopelessly in his mistake. All this however is no one's fault but\nhis own. The ancient Fathers of the Church, behind-hand as they were in\nPhysical Science, yet knew enough to anticipate \"the hypothesis of the\nGeologist; and two of the Christian Fathers, Augustine and Theodoret,\nare referred to as having actually held that a wide interval elapsed\nbetween the first act of Creation, mentioned in the Mosaic account, and\nthe commencement of the Six Days' work.\" (p. 231.) Mr. Goodwin therefore\nhas got no further, so far, than Augustine and Theodoret got, 1400 years\nsince, without the aid of Geology.\n\nBut we must hasten on. The business of the Essayist, as we have said, is\nto undermine our confidence in the Bible, by exposing the ignorance of\nthe author of the first chapter. \"Modern theologians,\" (he remarks, with\nunaffected displeasure,) \"have directed their attention to the\npossibility of reconciling the Mosaic narrative with those geological\nfacts which are admitted to be beyond dispute.\" (p. 210.)--And pray, (we\nmodestly ask,) is not such a proceeding obvious? A \"frank recognition of\nthe erroneous views of Nature which the Bible contains,\" (p. 211,) we\nshall be prepared to yield when those \"erroneous views\" have been\ndemonstrated to exist,--_but not till then_. Mr. Goodwin must really\nremember that although, in _his_ opinion, the \"Mosaic Cosmogony,\" (for\nso he phrases it,) is \"not an authentic utterance of Divine knowledge,\nbut a human utterance,\" (p. 253,) the World thinks differently. The\nlearned and wise and good of all ages, including the present, are\nhappily agreed that the first chapter of Genesis is _part of the Word of\nGOD_.\n\nAfter what is evidently intended to be a showy sketch of the past\nhistory of our planet,--\"we pass\" (says Mr. Goodwin) \"to the account of\nthe Creation contained in the Hebrew record. And it must be observed\nthat in reality two distinct accounts are given us in the book of\nGenesis; one, being comprised in the first chapter and the first three\nverses of the second; the other, commencing at the fourth verse of the\nsecond chapter and continuing till the end. This is so philologically\ncertain that it were useless to ignore it.\" (p. 217.) Really we read\nsuch statements with a kind of astonishment which almost swallows up\nsorrow. Do they arise, (to quote Mr. Goodwin's own language,) \"from our\nmodern habits of thought, and from the modesty of assertion which the\nspirit of true science has taught us?\" (p. 252.) Convinced that _my_\nunsupported denial would have no more weight than Mr. Goodwin's ought to\nhave, I have referred the dictum just quoted to the highest Hebrew\nauthority available, and have been assured that it is utterly without\nfoundation.\n\nAfter such experience of Mr. Goodwin's _philological_ \"certainties,\"\nwhat amount of attention does he expect his dicta to command in a\nScience which, starting from \"a region of uncertainty, where Philosophy\nis reduced to mere guesses and possibilities, and pronounces nothing\ndefinite,\" (p. 213,) has to travel through \"a prolonged period,\nbeginning and ending we know not when;\" (p. 214;) reaches another\nperiod, \"the duration of which no one presumes to define;\" (_Ibid._;)\nand again another, during which \"nothing can be asserted positively:\"\n(p. 215:) after which comes \"a kind of artificial break?\" (_Ibid._)\n\nFor my own part, I freely confess that Mr. Goodwin's final admission\nthat \"the advent of Man may be considered as inaugurating a new and\ndistinct epoch, _that_ in which we now are, and during the whole of\nwhich the physical conditions of existence cannot have been very\nmaterially different from what they are now;\" (p. 216;) and that \"thus\nmuch is clear, that Man's existence on Earth is brief, compared with the\nages during which unreasoning creatures were the sole possessors of the\nglobe:\" (p. 217:)--these statements, I say, contain as much as one\ndesires to see admitted. For really, since the fossil Flora, and the\nvarious races of animated creatures which Geologists have classified\nwith so much industry and skill, confessedly belong to a period of\nimmemorial antiquity; and, _with very rare exceptions indeed_, represent\n_extinct species_,--I, as an interpreter of Scripture, am not at all\nconcerned with them. Moses asserts nothing at all about them, one way or\nthe other. What Revelation says, is, that nearly 6000 years ago, after a\nmighty catastrophe,--unexplained alike in its cause, its nature, and its\nduration,--the Creator of the Universe instituted upon the surface of\nthis Earth of ours that order of things which has continued ever since;\nand which is observed at this instant to prevail: that He was pleased to\nparcel out His transcendent operations, and to spread them over Six\nDays; and that He ceased from the work of Creation on the Seventh Day.\nAll extant species, whether of the vegetable or the animal Kingdom,\nincluding Man himself, belong to the week in question. And this\nstatement, as it has never yet been found untrue, so am I unable to\nanticipate by what possible evidence it can ever be set aside as false.\n\nIn my IInd Sermon, I have ventured to review the Mosaic record\nsufficiently in detail, to render it superfluous that I should retrace\nany portion of it here. The reader is requested to read at least so much\nof what has been offered as is contained from p. 28 to p. 32. My\nbusiness at present is with Mr. Goodwin.\n\nAnd _in limine_ I have to remind him that he has really no right first\nto give, in his own words, his own notion of the history of Creation;\nand then to insist on making _the Revelation_ of the same transaction\nridiculous by giving _it_ also in words of his own, which become in\neffect a weak parody of the original. What is there in Genesis about\n\"_the air or wind_ fluttering over the waters of the deep?\" (p. 219.) Is\nthis meant for the august announcement that \"the SPIRIT of GOD moved\nupon the face of the waters?\"--\"On the third day, ... we wish to call\nattention to the fact that trees and plants destined for food are those\nwhich are particularly singled out as the earliest productions of the\nearth.\" (p. 220.) The reverse is the fact; as a glance at Gen. i. 11.\nwill shew.--\"The formation of the stars\" on the fourth day, \"is\nmentioned in the most cursory manner.\" (p. 221.) But _who_ is not aware\nthat \"the formation of the stars\" is _nowhere mentioned in this chapter\nat all_?\n\n\"Light and the measurement of time,\" (proceeds Mr. Goodwin,) \"are\nrepresented as existing before the manifestation of the Sun.\" (p. 219.)\nHalf of this statement is true; the other half is false. The former\nidea, he adds, is \"repugnant to our modern knowledge.\" (p. 219.) Is then\nMr. Goodwin really so weak as to imagine that our Sun is the sole source\nof Light in Creation? Whence then the light of the so-called fixed\nStars? But I shall be told that Mr. Goodwin speaks of _our_ system only,\nand of our Earth in particular. Then pray, whence that glory[103] which\non a certain night on a mountain in Galilee, caused the face of our\nREDEEMER to shine as the Sun[104] and His raiment to emit a dazzling\nlustre[105]? \"We may boldly affirm,\" (he says,) \"that those for whom\n[Gen. i. 3-5] was penned could have taken it in no other sense than that\nlight existed before and independently of the sun.\" (p. 219.) We may\nindeed. And I as boldly affirm that I take the passage in that sense\n_myself_: moreover that I hold the statement which Mr. Goodwin treats so\nscornfully, to be the very truth which, in the deep counsels of GOD,\nthis passage _was designed_ to convey to mankind; even that \"the King of\nKings, and LORD of Lords, who only hath immortality, _dwelleth in the\nLight which no man can approach unto[106]_.\"\n\n\"The work of the second day of Creation is to erect the vault of Heaven\n(Heb. _Rakia_; Gr. =stere\u00f4ma= _Lat. Firmamentum_,) which is represented\nas supporting an ocean of water above it. The waters are said to be\ndivided, so that some are below, and some above the vault.... No\nquibbling about the derivation of the word _Rakia_, which is literally\n'something beaten out,' can affect the explicit description of the\nMosaic writer contained in the words 'the waters that are above the\nfirmament,' or avail to shew that he was aware that the sky is but\ntransparent space.\" (pp. 219, 220.) \"The allotted receptacle [of Sun and\nMoon] was not made until the Second Day, nor were they set in it until\nthe fourth.\" (p. 221.) Surely I cannot be the only reader to whom the\nimpertinence of this is as offensive, as its shallowness is ridiculous!\nIn spite of Mr. Goodwin's uplifted finger, and menacing cry,--\"No\nquibbling!\" I proceed with my inquiry.\n\nFor first; Why does Mr. Goodwin parody the words of Inspiration? The\naccount as given by Moses is,--\"And GOD said, Let there be a firmament\nin the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the\nwaters[108].\" But surely, to make the \"open firmament of Heaven\" in\nwhich every winged fowl may fly[109], is not _\"to erect the vault of\nHeaven,\"--\"a permanent solid vault,\"--\"supporting an ocean of water!\"_\n\nThe Hebrew word here used to denote \"firmament,\" on which Mr. Goodwin's\nindictment turns, (\"_rakia_,\") is derived from a verb which means to\n\"beat.\" Now, what is beaten, or hammered out, while (if it be a metal)\nit acquires _extension_, acquires also _solidity_. The Septuagint\ntranslators seem to have fastened upon the latter notion, and\naccordingly represented it by =stere\u00f4ma=; for which, the earliest Latin\ntranslators of the Old Testament coined an equivalent,--_firmamentum_.\nBut that Moses by the word \"_rakia_\" intended rather to denote the\n_expanse_ overhead, than to predicate _solidity_ for the sky, I suspect\nwill be readily admitted by all. True that in the poetical book of Job,\nwe read that the sky is \"strong, as a molten looking-glass[110]:\" but\nthen we meet more frequently with passages of a different tendency. God\nis said to \"_stretch out_ the heavens _like a curtain[111]_,\" \"and\n_spread them out as a tent_ to dwell in[112]:\" to \"bind up the waters in\nHis thick clouds[113],\" and \"_in a garment[114]_,\" &c., &c.[115] It is\nonly needful to look out the word in the dictionary of Gesenius to see\nthat _spreading out_, (as of thin plates of metal by a hammer,) is the\n_only_ notion which properly belongs to the word. Accordingly, the\nearliest modern Latin translation from the Hebrew, (that of Pagninus,)\nrenders the word _expansio_. And so the word has stood for centuries in\nthe margin of our English Bible.\n\nThe actual _fact_ of the case,--the _truth_ concerning the physical\nphenomenon alluded to,--comes in, and surely may be allowed to have some\nlittle weight. Since expansion _is_ a real attribute of the atmosphere\nwhich divides the waters above from the waters below,--and solidity is\n_not_,--it seems to me only fair, seeing that the force of the\nexpression is thought doubtful, to assign to it the meaning which is\nopen to fewest objections.\n\nBut \"the Hebrews,\" (says Mr. Goodwin,) \"understood the sky, firmament,\nor heaven to be a permanent solid vault, as it appears to the ordinary\nobserver.\" This, he adds, is \"evident enough from various expressions\nmade use of concerning it. It is said to have pillars[116],\nfoundations[117], doors[118], and windows[119],\"--(p. 220.) Now, I\nreally do not think Mr. Goodwin's inference by any means so \"evident\" as\nhe asserts. If Heaven has \"pillars\" in the poetical book of Job, so has\nthe Earth[120]. The \"foundations\" spoken of in 2 Sam. xxii. 8, seem\nrather to belong to _Earth_ than to Heaven,--as a reference to the\nparallel place in Ps. xviii. 7 will shew[121]. Is Mr. Goodwin so little\nof a poet, as to be staggered by the phrase \"windows of Heaven,\" when it\noccurs in the figurative language of an ancient people, and in a\npoetical book[122]?\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, I distrust Mr. Goodwin's inference that \"the\nHebrews understood the sky to be a solid vault, furnished with pillars,\nfoundations, doors, and windows.\" But whether they did, or did not, it\nis to be hoped that he is enough of a logician to perceive that the\npopular notions of God's ancient people on this subject, are not the\nthing in question. The only FACT we have to do with is clearly\n_this_,--that _Moses has in this place employed the word \"rakia_:\" and\nthe only QUESTION which can be moved about it, is (as evidently) the\nfollowing,--whether he was, or was not, to blame _in employing that\nword_; for as to _the meaning which he, individually, attached to the\nphenomenon_ of which \"_rakia_\" is the name, it cannot be pretended that\nany one living knows anything at all about the matter. A Greek, Latin,\nor French astronomer who should speak of Heaven, would not therefore be\nassumed to mean that it is _hollow_; although =koilon=, '_coelum_,'\n'_ciel_,' etymologically imply no less.\n\nNow I contend that Moses employed the word \"_rakia_\" with exactly the\nsame propriety, neither more nor less, as when a Divine now-a-days\nemploys the English word \"firmament.\" It does not follow that the man\nwho speaks of \"the spacious firmament on high,\" is under so considerable\na delusion as to suspect that the firmament is _a firm thing_; nor does\nit follow that Moses thought that \"_rakia_\" was _a solid_ substance\neither,--even if _solidity_ was the prevailing etymological notion in\nthe word, and even if the Hebrews were no better philosophers than Mr.\nGoodwin would have us believe. The Essayist's objection is therefore\nworthless. GOD was content that Moses should employ the ordinary\nlanguage of his day,--accommodate himself to the forms of speech then\nprevalent,--coin no new words. What is there unreasonable in the\ncircumstance? What possible ground does it furnish for a supposition\nthat the _etymological_ force of the word,--or even that the popular\nphysical theory of which that word may, or may not, have once been the\nconnotation,--denoted _the sense in which Moses employed it_? Is it to\nbe supposed that when a physician speaks of a \"_jovial_ temperament,\" he\ninsinuates his approval of an exploded system of medicine? Do\nastronomers maintain that the Sun has a _disk_, or the Earth _an axis_?\nthat the former _leaves its place_ in the heavens when it suffers\n'eclipse[123]?' or that the latter has a superior _latitude_, from East\nto West? To give the most familiar instance of all,--Do scientific men\nbelieve that the sun _rises_, and _sets_?--And yet all _say_ that it\ndoes, until this hour!... Why is Moses to be judged by a less favourable\nstandard than anybody else,--than Shakspeare, than Hooker, even than Mr.\nGoodwin? The first, in an exquisite passage, bids Jessica,--\n\n                  \"Look how the floor of heav'n\n    Is thick inlayed with patens of bright gold.\"\n\n\nDid Shakspeare expect his beautiful language would be tortured into a\nshape which would convict him of talking nonsense?--But this is poetry.\nThen take Hooker's prose:--\n\n     \"If the frame of that heavenly arch erected over our heads should\n     loosen and dissolve itself; ... if the Moon should wander from her\n     beaten way[124],\" &c.\n\nDid Hooker suppose that heaven is \"an arch,\" which could be \"loosened\nand dissolved?\" or that \"the way\" of the moon is \"beaten?\"--But this is\na highly poetical passage, written three centuries ago.--Let an\nunexceptionable witness then be called; and so, let the question be\nbrought to definite issue. _I_, for my part, am quite content that it\nshall be _the philosopher in person_. The present Essayist shall be\nheard discoursing about Creation, and shall be convicted out of his own\nmouth. Mr. Goodwin begins his paper by a kind of cosmogony of his own,\nwhich he prefaces with the following apology:--\"It will be necessary for\nour purpose to go over the oft-trodden ground, which must be done with\nrapid steps. Nor let the reader object to be reminded of some of the\nmost elementary facts of his knowledge. The human race has been ages in\narriving at conclusions now familiar to every child.\" (p. 212.) After\nthis preamble, he begins his \"elementary facts,\" as follows:--\n\n\"This Earth, apparently so still and stedfast, lying in majestic repose\nbeneath the \u00e6therial vault,\"--(p. 212.)\n\nBut we remonstrate immediately. \"The \u00e6therial _vault_!\" Do you then\nunderstand the sky, firmament, or heaven to be \"a permanent solid vault,\nas it appears to the ordinary observer?\" (p. 220.)\n\n\"The Sun which seems to leap up each morning from the east, and\ntraversing the skyey bridge,\"--(p. 212.)\n\n\"The _skyey bridge_!\" And pray in what part of the universe do you\ndiscover a \"skyey bridge?\" Is not _this_ calculated \"to convey to\nordinary apprehensions an impression at variance with facts?\" (p. 231.)\n\n\"The Moon which occupies a position in the visible heavens only second\nto the Sun, and far beyond that of every other celestial body in\nconspicuousness,\"--(p. 212.)\n\nNay, but really Mr. Philosopher, while you remind us \"of some of the\nmost elementary facts of our knowledge,\" (p. 212,) you write (except in\nthe matter of the \"leaping Sun\" and the \"skyey bridge,\")--_exactly as\nMoses does_ in the first chapter of Genesis! What else does that great\nProphet say but that \"the Moon occupies a position in the visible\nheavens only second to the Sun, and far beyond that of every other\ncelestial body in conspicuousness?\" (p. 212.)\n\nEnough, it is presumed, has been offered in reply to Mr. Goodwin, and\nhis notions of \"Mosaic Cosmogony.\" He writes with the flippancy of a\nyouth in his teens, who having just mastered the elements of natural\nscience, is impatient to acquaint the world with his achievement. His\npowers of dogmatism are unbounded; but he betrays his ignorance at every\nstep. The Divine decree, \"Let us make Man in Our image, after Our\nlikeness[125],\" he explains by remarking that \"the Pentateuch abounds in\npassages shewing that the Hebrews contemplated the Divine being in the\nvisible form of a man.\" (!!!) (p. 221.) A foot-note contains the\nfollowing oracular dictum,--\"See particularly the narrative in Genesis\nxviii.\" What _can_ be said to such an ignoramus as this? Hear him\ndogmatizing in another subject-matter:--\"The common arrangement of the\nBible in chapters is of comparatively modern origin, and is admitted on\nall hands to have no authority or philological worth whatever. In many\ncases the division is most preposterous.\" (p. 222.) That the division of\nchapters is occasionally infelicitous, is true: but is Mr. Goodwin weak\nenough to think that he could divide them better? The division into\nchapters and verses again is _not_ so modern as Mr. Goodwin fancies. Dr.\nM'Caul, (in a pamphlet on the Translation of the Bible,) shews reason\nfor suspecting that some of the divisions of the Old Testament\nScriptures are as old as the time of Ezra.\n\nTo return, and for the last time, to Mr. Goodwin's Essay.--His object\nis, (with how much of success I have already sufficiently shewn,) (1) To\nfasten the charge of absurdity and ignorance on the ancient Prophet who\nis confessedly the author of the Book of Genesis: (2) To prove that a\nliteral interpretation of Gen. i., \"will not bear a moment's serious\ndiscussion.\" (p. 230.) I look through his pages in vain for the\nwished-for proof. He has many strong assertions. He puts them forth with\nnot a little insolence. But he proves nothing! At p. 226, however, I\nread as follows:--\"Dr. Buckland appears to assume that when it is said\nthat the Heaven and the Earth were created in the beginning, it is to be\nunderstood that they were created in their present form and state of\ncompleteness, the heaven raised above the earth as we see it, or seem to\nsee it now.\" (pp. 226-7.)\n\nBut Dr. Buckland \"appears to assume\" nothing of the kind. His words\nare,--\"The first verse of Genesis seems explicitly to assert the\ncreation of _the Universe_: the Heaven, including the sidereal\nsystems,--and the Earth, ... the subsequent scene of the operations of\nthe six days about to be described.\" (pp. 224-5.)\n\n\"This,\" continues Mr. Goodwin, \"is the fallacy of his argument.\"\n(p. 227.)\n\nBut if this is \"_the_ fallacy of his argument,\" we have already seen\nthat it is a fallacy which rests not with Dr. Buckland, but with Mr.\nGoodwin. He proceeds:--\n\n\"The circumstantial description of the framing of the Heaven out of the\nwaters proves that the words 'Heaven and Earth,' in the first verse,\nmust be taken proleptically.\"--(p. 227.)\n\nBut we may as well stop the torrent of long words, by simply pointing\nout that \"the heavens,\" (_hashamaim_,) spoken of in Gen. i. 1, are quite\ndistinct from \"the firmament,\" (_rakia_,) spoken of in ver. 6. The word\nis altogether different, and the sense is evidently altogether different\nalso; although Mr. Goodwin seeks to identify the two[126]. And further,\nwe take leave to remind our modern philosopher that _no_\n\"circumstantial description of the framing of the heaven out of the\nwaters,\" is to be found either in ver. 6, or elsewhere. And this must\nsuffice.\n\nThe entire subject shall be dismissed with a very few remarks.--Mr.\nGoodwin delights in pointing out the incorrectness of \"the sense in\nwhich the Mosaic narrative was taken by those who first heard it:\"\n(p. 223:) and in asserting \"that this meaning is _prim\u00e2 facie_ one\nwholly adverse to the present astronomical and geological views of the\nUniverse.\" (p. 223.) But we take leave to remind this would-be\nphilosopher that \"the idea which entered into the minds of those to whom\nthe account was first given,\" (p. 230,) is not the question with which\nwe have to do when we are invited to a \"frank recognition of the\nerroneous views of Nature which the Bible contains.\" (p. 211.) \"It is\nmanifest,\"--(in this I cordially agree with Mr. Goodwin,)--\"that the\nwhole account is given from a different point of view from that which we\nnow unavoidably take:\" (p. 223:) and, (I beg leave to add,) _that_ point\nof view is _somewhere in Heaven_,--not here on Earth! The \"Mosaic\nCosmogony,\" as Mr. Goodwin phrases it, (fond, like all other smatterers\nin Science, of long words,) is _a Revelation_: and the same HOLY GHOST\nwho gave it, speaking by the mouth of St. John, not obscurely intimates\nthat it is mystical, like the rest of Holy Scripture,--that is, that it\nwas fashioned not without a reference to the Gospel[127]. But we are\ntouching on a high subject now, of which Mr. Goodwin does not understand\nso much as the Grammar. _He_ is thinking of the structure of the globe:\n_we_ are thinking of the structure _of the Bible_. But to return to\nEarth, we inform the Essayist that it is simply unphilosophical, even\nabsurd, for him to insist on what _shall_ be implied by certain words\nemployed by Moses,--(of which he judges by their etymology;) and further\nto assume what erroneous physical theories those words must have been\nconnected with, by his countrymen, and so forth; and straightway to hold\nup the greatest of the ancient prophets to ridicule, as if those notions\nand those theories were all _his_!\n\n\"After all,\" (as Dr. Buckland remarked, long since,) \"it should be\nrecollected that the question is not respecting the correctness of the\nMosaic narrative, but of our interpretation of it:\" (p. 231:)--\"a\nproposition,\" (proceeds Mr. Goodwin,) \"which can hardly be sufficiently\nreprobated.\" But I make no question which of these two writers is most\nentitled to reprobation. For the view which will be found advocated in\nSermon II., (which is substantially Dr. Buckland's,) (p. 24 to p. 32,)\nit shall but be said that it recommends itself to our acceptance by the\nstrong fact that it takes _no_ liberty with the sacred narrative,\nwhatever; and receives the Revelation of GOD in all its strangeness,\n(which it _cannot_ be a great mistake to do;) without trying to\nreconcile it with supposed discoveries, (wherein we _may_ fail\naltogether.) I defy anybody to shew that it is _impossible_ that GOD may\nhave disposed of the actual order of the Universe, as in the first\nchapter of Genesis He is related to have done; and _probability_ can\nclearly have no place in such a speculation. I would only just remind\nthe thoughtful student of Scripture, and indeed of Nature also, that the\nsingular _analogy_ which Geologists think they discover between\nsuccessive periods of Creation, and the Mosaic record of the first Six\nDays, is no difficulty to those who hesitate to identify those Days with\nthe irregular Periods of indefinite extent. Rather was it to have been\nexpected, I think, that such an analogy would be found to subsist\nbetween His past and His present working, when, 6,000 years ago, GOD\narranged the actual system of things in Six Days.--Neither need we feel\nperplexed if Hugh Miller was right in the conclusion at which, he says,\nhe had been \"compelled to arrive;\" viz. that \"not a few\" of the extant\nspecies of animals \"enjoyed life in their present haunts\" \"for many long\nages ere Man was ushered into being;\" \"and that for thousands of years\nanterior to even _their_ appearance many of the existing molluscs lived\nin our seas.\" (p. 229.) I find it nowhere asserted _by Moses_ that the\nseverance was so complete, and decisively marked, between previous\ncycles of Creation and that cycle which culminated in the creation of\nMan, _that_ no single species of the pr\u00e6-Adamic period was reproduced by\nthe Omnipotent, to serve as a connecting link, as it were, between the\nOld world and the New,--an identifying note of the Intelligence which\nwas equally at work on this last, as on all those former occasions. On\nthe other hand, I _do_ find it asserted _by Geologists_ that between the\nsuccessive pr\u00e6-Adamic cycles such connecting links are discoverable; and\nthis fact makes me behold in the circumstance supposed fatal to the view\nhere advocated, the strongest possible confirmation of its accuracy. At\nthe same time, it is admitted that in every department of animated and\nvegetable life, the severance between the last (or Mosaic) cycle of\nCreation, and all those cycles which preceded it, is _very_ broadly\nmarked[128].\n\nMr. Goodwin's method contrasts sadly with that of the several writers he\nadduces,--whether Naturalists or Divines. Those men, believing in the\ntruth of GOD'S Word, have piously endeavoured, (with whatever success,)\nto shew that the discoveries of Geology are not inconsistent with the\nrevelations of Genesis. But he, with singular bad taste, (to use no\nstronger language,) makes no secret of the animosity with which he\nregards the inspired record; and even finds \"the spectacle of able, and\nwe doubt not conscientious writers engaging in attempting the\nimpossible,--painful and humiliating.\" He says, \"they evidently do not\nbreathe freely over their work; but shuffle and stumble over their\ndifficulties in a piteous manner.\" (p. 250.) He asserts dogmatically\nthat \"the interpretation proposed by Buckland to be given to the Mosaic\ndescription, will not bear a moment's serious discussion:\" (p. 230:)\nwhile Hugh Miller \"proposes to give an entirely mythical or enigmatical\nsense to the Mosaic narrative.\" (p. 236.) He is clamorous that we should\nadmit the teaching of Scripture to be \"to some extent erroneous.\"\n(p. 251.) He \"recognizes in it, not an authentic utterance of Divine\nKnowledge, but a human utterance.\" (p. 253.) \"Why should we hesitate,\"\n(he asks,) \"to recognize the fallibility of the Hebrew writers?\"\n(p. 251.)\n\nWith one general reflexion, I pass on to the next Essay.--The Works of\nGOD, the more severely they have been questioned, have hitherto been\nconsidered to bear a more and more decisive testimony to the Wisdom and\nthe Goodness of their Author. The animal and the vegetable kingdoms have\nbeen made Man's instructors for ages past; and ever since the microscope\nhas revealed so many unsuspected wonders, the argument from contrivance\nand design, Creative Power and infinite Wisdom, has been pressed with\nincreasing cogency. The Heavens, from the beginning, have been felt to\n\"declare the glory of GOD.\" One department only of Nature, alone, has\nall along remained unexplored. Singular to relate, the Records of\nCreation, (as the phenomena of Geology may I suppose be properly\ncalled,)--though the most obvious phenomena of all,--have been\nthroughout neglected. It was not till the other day that they were\ninvited to give up their weighty secrets; and lo, they have confessed\nthem, willingly and at once. The study of Geology does but date from\nyesterday; and already it aspires to the rank of a glorious Science.\nEvidence has been at once furnished that our Earth has been the scene of\nsuccessive cycles of Creation; and the crust of the globe we inhabit is\nfound to contain evidence of a degree of antiquity which altogether\ndefies conjecture. The truth is, that Man, standing on a globe where his\ndeepest excavations bear the same relation to the diameter which the\nscratch of a pin invisible to the naked eye, bears to an ordinary\nglobe;--learns that his powers of interrogating Nature break down\nmarvellous soon: yet Nature is observed to keep from him no secrets\nwhich he has the ability to ask her to give up.\n\nIn the meantime, the attitude assumed by certain pretenders to Physical\nScience at these discoveries, cannot fail to strike any thoughtful\nperson as extraordinary. Those witnesses of GOD'S work in Creation,\nwhich have been dumb for ages only because no man ever thought of\ninterrogating them, are now regarded in the light of depositaries of a\nmighty secret; which, because GOD knew that it would be fatal to the\ncredit of His written Word, He had bribed them to keep back, as long as,\nby shuffling and equivocation, they found concealment practicable. It\nseems to be fancied, however, that _that_ fatal secret the determination\nof Man has wrung from their unwilling lips, at last; and lo, on\nconfronting GOD with these witnesses, He is convicted even by His own\ncreatures of having spoken falsely in His Word[129].--Such, I say, is\nthe tone assumed of late by a certain school of pretenders to Physical\nScience.\n\nWhat need to declare that to the well-informed eye of Faith,--(and\nsurely Faith is here the perfection of Reason! for _Faith_, remember, is\nthe correlative not of _Reason_, but of _Sight_;)--the phenomenon\npresented is of a widely different character. Faith, or rather Reason,\nlooks upon GOD'S Works _as a kind of complement of His Word_. He who\ngave the one, gave the other also. Moreover, He knew that He had given\nit. So far from ministering to unbelief, or even furnishing grounds for\nperplexity, the record of His Works was intended, according to His\ngracious design, to supply what was lacking to our knowledge in the\nrecord of His Word.... \"Behold My footprints, (He seems to say,) across\nthe long tract of the ages! I could not give you this evidence in My\nwritten Word. The record would have been out of place, and out of time.\nIt would have been unintelligible also. But what I knew would be\ninexpedient in the page of Revelation, I have given you abundantly in\nthe page of Nature. I have spared your globe from combustion, which\nwould have effaced those footprints,--in order that the characters might\nbe plainly decipherable to the end of Time.... O fools and blind, to\nhave occupied a world so brimful of wonders for wellnigh 6000 years, and\nonly now to have begun to open your eyes to the structure of the earth\nwhereon ye live, and move, and have your being! Yea, and the thousandth\npart of the natural wonders by which ye are surrounded has not been so\nmuch as dreamed of, by any of you, yet!... O learn to be the humbler,\nthe more ye know; and when ye gaze along the mighty vista of departed\nages, and scan the traces of what I was doing before I created\nMan,--multiply that problem by the stars which are scattered in number\nnumberless over all the vault of Heaven; and learn to confess that it\nbehoves the creature of an hour to bow his head at the discovery of his\nown littleness and blindness; and that his words concerning the Ancient\nof Days had need to be at once very wary, and very few!\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nVI. By far the ablest of these seven Essays is from the pen of the \"REV.\nMARK PATTISON, B.D., Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford.\" It purports to\nbe an Essay on the \"TENDENCIES OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN ENGLAND,\n1688-1750;\" but it can hardly be said to correspond with that\ndescription. In the concluding paragraph, the learned writer gives to\nhis work a different name. It is declared to be \"_The past History of\nthe Theory of Belief in the Church of England_[130].\" But neither the\ntitle at the head, nor the title at the tail of the Essay, gives any\nadequate notion of the Author's purpose.\n\nHad we met with this production, isolated, in the pages of a Review, we\nshould have probably passed it by as the work of a clever man, who,\nafter amusing himself to some extent with the Theological literature of\nthe last century, had desired to preserve some record of his reading;\nand had here thrown his random jottings into connected form. There is a\nracy freshness in a few of Mr. Pattison's sketches, (as in his account\nof Bentley's controversy with Collins[131],) which forcibly suggests\nthe image of an artist whose pencil cannot rest amid scenery which\nstimulates his imagination. To be candid, we are inclined to suspect\nthat, in the first instance, something of this sort was in reality all\nthat the learned author had in view. But we are reluctantly precluded\nfrom putting so friendly a construction on these seventy-six pages. Not\nonly does Mr. Pattison's Essay stand between Mr. Goodwin's open\nendeavour to destroy confidence in the writings of Moses, and Professor\nJowett's laborious insinuations that the Bible is only an ordinary book;\nbut it claims a common purpose and intention with both those writers.\nMr. Pattison's avowed object is \"to illustrate the advantage derivable\nto the cause of religious and moral truth, from a free handling, in a\nbecoming spirit, of subjects peculiarly liable to suffer by the\nrepetition of conventional language, and from traditional methods of\ntreatment[132].\" We proceed therefore to examine his labours by the aid\nof the clue which he has himself supplied. For when nine editions of a\nbook appear in quick succession, prefaced by a description of the spirit\nin which \"_it is hoped that the volume will he received_,\"--it seems a\npity that the author should not be judged by the standard of his own\nchoosing.\n\nWe are surprised then to find how slightly Mr. Pattison's Essay fulfils\nits avowed purpose. The learned author does not, in fact, _directly_\n\"handle\" the class of subjects referred to, _at all_: or if he does, it\nis achieved in a couple of pages. And yet it is not difficult to point\nout the part which his Essay performs in the general scheme of this\nguilty volume. With whatever absence of \"concert or comparison\" the\nauthors may have severally written, the fatal effect of their combined\nendeavours is not more apparent than the part sustained by each Essay\nsingly in promoting it.\n\nWhile Mr. Goodwin demolishes the Law, and Dr. Williams disbelieves the\nProphets; while Professor Powell denies the truth of Miracles, and\nProfessor Jowett evacuates the authority of Holy Scripture\naltogether--while Dr. Temple substitutes the inner light of Conscience\nfor an external Revelation; and Mr. Wilson teaches men how they may turn\nthe substance of Holy Scripture into a shadow, evade the plain force of\nlanguage, and play fast and loose with those safeguards which it has\nbeen ever thought that words supply;--Mr. Pattison, reviewing the last\ncentury and a half of our own Theological history, labours hard to\nproduce an impression that, _here_ also \"all is vanity and vexation of\nspirit.\" He calls off our attention from the Bible, and bids us\ncontemplate the unlovely aspect of the English \"religious world\" from\nthe Revolution of 1688 down to the publication of the 'Tracts for the\nTimes,' in 1833[133]. \"Be content for a while, (he seems to say,) to\ndisregard the prize; and observe the combatants instead. Listen to the\nhistorian of moral and religious progress,\" while he depicts \"decay of\nreligion, licentiousness of morals, public corruption, profaneness of\nlanguage, a day of rebuke and blasphemy.\" Come attend to me; and I will\ndraw the likeness of \"an age destitute of depth or earnestness; an age\nwhose poetry was without romance, whose philosophy was without insight,\nand whose public men were without character; an age of 'light without\nlove,' whose 'very merits were of the earth, earthy.'\" (p. 254.) \"If we\nwould understand our own position in the Church, and that of the Church\nin the age; if we would hold any clue through the maze of religious\npretension which surrounds us; we cannot neglect those immediate\nagencies in the production of the present, which had their origin\ntowards the beginning of the eighteenth century.\" (p. 256.) Let us then\n\"trace the descent of religious thought, and the practical working of\nthe religious ideas,\" (p. 255,) through some of the phases they have\nmore recently assumed. You shall see the Apostles tried on a charge \"of\ngiving false witness in the case of the Resurrection of JESUS;\"\n(p. 303;) and pronounced \"not guilty,\" by one whose \"name once commanded\nuniversal homage among us;\" but who now, (!) with South (!!) and\nBarrow, (!!!) \"excites perhaps only a smile of pity.\" (p. 265.) You\nshall be shewn Bentley in his attack on Collins the freethinker,\nenjoying \"rare sport,\"--\"rat-hunting in an old rick;\" and \"laying about\nhim in high glee, braining an authority at every blow.\" (p. 308.)\n\"Coarse, arrogant, and abusive, with all Bentley's worst faults of style\nand temper, this masterly critique is decisive.\" (p. 307.) And yet, you\nare not to rejoice! \"The 'Discourse of Freethinking' was a small tract\npublished in 1713 by Anthony Collins, a gentleman whose high personal\ncharacter and general respectability seemed to give a weight to his\nwords, which assuredly they do not carry of themselves.\" (p. 307.) [Why,\nthe man ought to have been an Essayist and Reviewer!] ... \"By\n'freethinking'\" he does but \"mean liberty of thought,--the right of\nbringing all received opinions whatsoever to the touchstone of reason:\"\n(p. 307:) [a liberty which has evidently disappeared from English\nLiterature: a right which no man dares any longer exercise under pain\nof excommunication!] \"Collins was not a sharper, and would have\ndisdained practices to which Bentley stooped for the sake of a\nprofessorship.\" (p. 310.) [O high-minded Collins!] \"The dirt endeavoured\nto be thrown on Collins will cleave to the hand that throws it.\"\n(p. 309.) [O dirty Bentley!] And though \"Collins's mistakes,\nmistranslations, misconceptions, and distortions are so monstrous, that\nit is difficult for us now, forgetful how low classical learning had\nsunk, to believe that they _are_ mistakes, and not wilful errors,\"\n(p. 308,)--yet \"Addison, the pride of Oxford, had done no better. In his\n'Essay on the Evidences of Christianity,' Addison 'assigns as grounds\nfor his religious belief, stories as absurd as that of the Cock-lane\nghost, and forgeries as rank as Ireland's 'Vortigern;' puts faith in the\nlie about the thundering legion; is convinced that Tiberius moved the\nSenate to admit JESUS among the gods; and pronounces the letter of\nAgbarus, King of Edessa, to be a record of great authority.'\" (p. 307,\nquoting Macaulay's _Essays_.) All this and much more you shall see.\nRemember that it is the history of your immediate forefathers which you\nwill be contemplating,--the morality of the professors of religion\nduring the last century,--\"the past history of the theory of Belief in\nthe Church of England!\" (p. 329.)\n\nThe curtain falls; and now, pray how do you like it? I invite you, in\nconclusion, to \"take the religious literature of the present day, as a\nwhole; and endeavour to make out clearly on what basis Revelation is\nsupposed by it to rest; whether on Authority, on the Inward Light, on\nReason, on self-evidencing Scripture, or on the combination of the\nfour, or some of them, and in what proportions.\" (p. 329.) ... After\nthis, you are at liberty to proceed to read 'Jowett on\nInspiration,'--with what appetite you may!\n\nSuch is the impression which Mr. Pattison's Essay is calculated to leave\nbehind. That he had no wicked intention in writing it, no one who knows\nhim could for an instant suppose: but _the effect_ of what he has done\nis certainly to set his reader adrift on a dreary sea of doubt.\nDiscomfort and dissatisfaction, confusion and dismay, are the prevailing\nsentiments with which a religious mind, unfortified with learning, will\nrise from the perusal of the present Essay: while the irreligious man\nwill study it with a sneer of ill-concealed satisfaction. The marks of\nMr. Pattison's own better knowledge, (sufficiently evident to the quick\neye of one who is aware of the writer's high theological\nattainments;)--the indications of a truer individual judgment,\n(discoverable throughout by one who _knows_ the author's private worth,\nand is himself happily in possession of the clue by which to escape from\nthis tangled labyrinth:)--_these_ escape the common reader. To _him_,\nall is dreary doubt.\n\nI must perforce deal with Mr. Pattison's labours in a very summary\nmanner. The chief complaint I have to make against him is that he has\naltogether omitted what, to you and to me, is the _most_ important\nfeature of the century which he professes to describe,--namely, the vast\namount of lofty Churchmanship, the unbroken Catholic tradition, which,\nwith no small amount of general short-coming, is to be traced throughout\nthe eighteenth century. To insinuate that the return to Catholic\nprinciples _began_ with the publication of the 'Tracts for the Times,'\n(p. 259,) in 1833, is simply to insinuate what is _not_ true. But Mr.\nPattison does more than 'insinuate.' He states it openly. \"In\nconstructing _Caten\u00e6 Patrum_,\" (he says,) \"the Anglican closes his list\nwith Waterland or Brett, and leaps at once to 1833.\" (p. 255.)--Now,\nsince Waterland _died_ in 1740 and Brett in 1743, it is clear that,\n(according to Mr. Pattison,) a hundred years and upwards have to be\ncleared _per saltum_: during which the lamp of Religion in these\nkingdoms had gone fairly out. But how stands the truth? At least _four_\n\"Caten\u00e6 Patrum\" are given in the \"Tracts for the Times[134];\" _not one_\nof which is closed with Waterland or Brett. On the contrary, in the two\nformer Caten\u00e6 (beginning with Jewel and Hooker) the names of these\nsupposed 'ultimi Romanorum' occur little more than _half way_!... \"Les\nfaits,\" therefore, (as usual with 'Essayists and Reviewers,')--\"_les\nfaits sont contraires_.\"--It would be enough to cite Bethell's 'General\nView of the Doctrine of Regeneration in Baptism,' which appeared in\n1822; and Hugh James Rose's 'Discourses on the Commission and Duties of\nthe Clergy,' which were preached in 1826. But the case against Mr.\nPattison, as I shall presently shew, is abundantly stronger.\n\nIn short, to exclude from sight, as this author so laboriously\nendeavours to do, the Catholic element of the last century and the early\npart of the present, is extremely unfair. There had _never failed_ in\nthe Church of England a succession of illustrious men, who transmitted\nthe Divine fire unimpaired, down to yesterday. Quenched in some places,\nthe flame burned up brightly and beautifully in others. As for the\n'Tracts for the Times,' they speedily assumed a party character: and by\nthe time that ninety-seven of them had appeared, the series was\ndiscontinued by the desire of the Diocesan,--who was yet the friend of\nits authors. The Tracts do not all, by any means, represent Anglican\n(i.e. Catholic) Theology. They were written by a very few men; while the\ngreatest of those who had materially promoted the Catholic movement out\nof which they sprang, (_not_ which they _occasioned_,) were dissatisfied\nwith them; would not write in them; kept aloof; and foresaw and foretold\nwhat would be the issue of such teaching[135]. And yet, 'Tracts for the\nTimes' did more good than evil, I suppose, on the whole.\n\nThe truth is, that in every age, (and the last century forms no\nexception to the rule,) the history of the Church on Earth has been a\n_warfare_. Mr. Pattison says contemptuously,--\"The current phrases of\n'the bulwarks of our faith,' 'dangerous to Christianity,' are but\ninstances of the habitual position in which we assume ourselves to\nstand. Even more philosophic minds cannot get rid of the idea that\nTheology is polemical.\" (p. 301.) And pray, whom have we to thank, but\nsuch writers as Mr. Pattison, that it is so? I am one of the many who at\nthis hour are (unwillingly) neglecting _constructive_ tasks in order to\nbe _destructive_ with Mr. Pattison and his colleagues! So long as\nInfidelity abounds, our service _must_ be a warfare. 'The Prince of\nPeace' foretold as much, when He prophesied to His Disciples that it\nwould be found that He had \"brought on earth, a sword.\" As much was\ntypically adumbrated, I suspect, (begging Mr. Jowett's pardon,) when, at\nthe rebuilding of the walls of the Holy City, \"they which builded on the\nwall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with\none of his hands wrought in the work, and _with the other hand held a\nweapon_. For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side,\nand so builded[136].\" May I not add that the unique position which the\nChurch of England has occupied, ever since her great Reformation in\nrespect both of Doctrine and of Discipline three centuries ago,--is of a\nnature which must inevitably subject her to constant storms? An object\nof envy to 'Protestant Europe,'--and of hatred to Rome;--exposed to the\nhostility of the State, (which would trample her under foot, if it\ndared,)--and viewed with ill-concealed animosity by Dissenters of every\nclass;--admitting into her Ministry men of very diverse views,--and\nrestraining them by scarcely any discipline;--allowing perfect freedom,\naye, licentiousness of discussion,--and tolerating the expression of\nalmost any opinions,--_except those of Essayists and Reviewers_:--how\nshall the Church of England fail to adopt 'the bulwarks of the faith'\nfor one of her current phrases? how not, many a time, deem 'dangerous to\nChristianity' the speculations of her sons?... Nay, polemics _must_\nprevail; if only because, in a certain place, the Divine Speaker already\nquoted foretells the partial, (if not the _entire_,) obscuration even of\ntrue Doctrine, in that pathetic exclamation of His,--\"When the Son of\nMan cometh, shall He find the faith upon the Earth[137]?\" ... In the\nface of all this, it is to confuse and mystify the ordinary reader to\ndraw such a picture of the last century as Mr. Pattison has drawn here.\nAs dismal a view might be easily taken of the first, of the second, of\nthe third, of the fourth, of the fifth century. What Mr. Newman once\ndesignated as \"ancient, holy, and happy times,\" might very easily indeed\nbe so exhibited as to seem times of confusion and discord, blasphemy and\nrebuke. A discouraging picture might be drawn, (I suppose,) of every age\nof the Church's history. But in, and by itself, it would never be quite\na _true_ picture. For to the eye of Faith there is ever to be descried,\namid the hurly-burly of the storm, the Ark of CHRIST'S Church floating\npeacefully over the troubled waters, and making steadily for that\nHeavenly haven \"where it would be.\" ... Yes, there is ever some blessed\ntrace discoverable, that this Life of ours is watched over by One whose\nName is Love; whether we con the chequered page of History,\nEcclesiastical or Civil; or summon to our aid the story of our own\nnarrow experience. From the fierce and fiery opposition, Good is ever\nfound to have resulted; and _that_ Good was _abiding_. Out of the weary\nconflict ever has issued Peace; and _that_ Peace was of the kind which\n'passeth all understanding;' a Peace which the world cannot give,--no,\nnor take away. There are abundant traces that in all that has happened\nto the Church of CHRIST, from first to last, there has been a purpose\nand a plan!... No one knows this better than Mr. Pattison. No man in\nOxford could have drawn out what I have been saying into a convincing\nreality, better than he, had he yielded to the instincts of a good\nheart, and directed his fine abilities to their lawful scope.\n\nThe character of the last dismal century, Mr. Pattison has drawn with\nsufficient vividness: but that century armed the Church, (as we shall be\npresently reminded,) on the side of the \"Evidences of Religion;\" and if\nit taught her the insufficiency of such a method, the eighteenth\ncentury did its work. Above all, _it produced Bishop Butler_.--The\nprevious century, (the seventeenth,) witnessed the supremacy of\nfanaticism. It saw the monarchy laid prostrate, and the Church trampled\nunder foot, and the use of the Liturgy prohibited by Act of Parliament.\nThe \"Sufferings of the Clergy\" fill a folio volume. But this was the\ncentury which produced our great Caroline Divines! From Bp. Andrewes to\nBp. Pearson,--_what_ a galaxy of names! Moreover, on the side of the\nRomish controversy, the seventeenth century supplied the Church's\narmoury for ever,--Stillingfleet, who died in the year 1699, in a manner\nclosing the strife.--The sixteenth century witnessed the Reformation of\nReligion, with all its inevitably attendant evils; an unsettled\nfaith,--gross public and private injustice,--an illiterate parochial\nclergy:--yet how goodly a body of sound Divinity did the controversies\nof that age call forth! The same century witnessed the rise of\nPuritanism; but then, it produced Richard Hooker!--What was the\ncharacter of the century which immediately preceded the\nReformation,--the fifteenth?... A tangled web of good and evil has been\nthe Church's history from the very first. The counterpart of what we\nread of in Eusebius and Socrates is to be witnessed among ourselves at\nthe present day, and will doubtless be witnessed to the end! But then,\nin days of deepest discouragement, faithful men have never been found\nwanting to the English Church, (no, nor GOD helping her, ever _will_!)\nwho, like the late Hugh James Rose, \"when hearts were failing, bade us\nstir up the gift that was in us, and betake ourselves to our true\nMother.\" Mean wilee, such names as George Herbert and Nicholas Farrar,\nKen and Nelson, Leighton and Bishop Wilson, shine through the gloom\nlike a constellation of quiet stars; to which the pilgrim lifts his\nweary eye, and _feels_ that he is looking up to Heaven!\n\nWhen the spirit of the Age comes into collision with the spirit of the\nGospel, the result is sometimes (as in the earliest centuries,)\nportentous;--sometimes, (as in the last,) simply deplorable and\ngrievous. The battle which seems to be at present waging is of a\ndifferent nature. Physical Science has undertaken the perilous task of\nhardening herself against the GOD of Nature. We shall probably see this\nunnatural strife prolonged for many years to come;--to be succeeded by\nsome fresh form of irreligion. Somewhat thus, I apprehend, will it be to\nthe end: and the men of every age will in those conflicts find their\nbest probation; and it will still be the office of the Creator, in this\nway to separate the Light from the Darkness,--until the dawn of the\neverlasting Morning!\n\nIt is not proposed to enter into the Rationalism of the last century,\ntherefore; or to inquire into the causes of the barren lifeless shape\ninto which Theology then, for the most part, threw itself. I have never\nmade that department of Ecclesiastical History my study: and _who_ does\nnot turn away from what is joyless and dreary, to greener meadows, and\nmore fertile fields? It shall only be remarked that when the\n_Credibility_ of Religion is the thing generally denied, _Evidences_\nwill of necessity be the form which much of the Theological writing of\nthe Day will assume. Let it not be imagined for an instant that one is\nthe apologist of what Mr. Pattison has characterized as \"an age of Light\nwithout Love.\" (p. 254.) But I insist that the theological picture of\nthe last century is incomplete, until attention has been called to the\nmany redeeming features which it presents, and which are all of a\nre-assuring kind.\n\nThus, in the department of sacred scholarship, _who_ can forgot that our\nlearned John Mill, in 1707, gave to the world that famous edition of the\nNew Testament which bears his name, after thirty years of patient toil?\nWho can forget our obligations in Hebrew, to Kennicott? (1718-1783.)\nHumphrey Hody's great work on the Text, and older Versions of Holy\nScripture, was published in 1705.--Bingham's immortal 'Origines' began\nto appear in 1708; and William Cave lived till 1714.\n\nIn the same connexion should be mentioned Bp. Gibson, who died in 1748,\nand Humphrey Prideaux, whose 'Connexion' is dated 1715. Pococke died on\nthe eve of the commencement of the last century (1691); but so great a\nname casts a bright beam through the darkness which Mr. Pattison\ndescribes so forcibly. Archbishop Wake died in 1737. Warton, the author\nof 'Anglia Sacra,' died at the age of 35 in 1695.\n\nSurvey next the field of Divinity, properly so called; and in the face\nof Mr. Pattison's rash statement that \"we have no classical Theology\nsince 1660,\" (p. 265,) take notice that Bp. Bull, one of the greatest\nDivines which the Church of CHRIST ever bred, did not begin to write\nuntil 1669, and lived to the year 1709. This was the man, remember, who\nreceived the thanks of the whole Gallican Church for his 'Judicium\nEcclesi\u00e6 Catholic\u00e6,' (i.e. his learned assertion of our SAVIOUR'S\nGODhead[138];)--the man whose writings would have won him the reverence\nand affection of Athanasius and Augustine and Basil, had he lived in\ntheir day; for he had a mind like theirs. Bp. Pearson did not die till\n1686. Bp. Beveridge wrote till his death in 1707. Fell, the learned\neditor of Cyprian, died in 1686: Stillingfleet lived till 1699. Wall's\nHistory of Infant Baptism appeared in 1705. Wheatly, who led the way in\nliturgical inquiry, was alive till 1742; and Bp. Patrick was a prolific\nwriter till his death in 1707. May we not also claim the excellent and\nlearned Grabe as altogether one of ourselves?\n\nSuch names do not require special comment. They are their own best\neulogium, and present a high title to their country's gratitude. The\nname of Prebendary Lowth, (the author of an excellent commentary on the\nprophets,) reminds us that there was living till 1732 one who fully\nappreciated the calling of an Interpreter of God's Word[139]. Bishop\nLowth his son, in his great work, (1753,) recovered the forgotten\nprinciple of Hebrew poetry. To convince ourselves what a spirit existed\nin some quarters, (notwithstanding the general spread of the very\nopinions which 'Essayists and Reviewers' have been so industriously\nreproducing in our own day,) it is only necessary to transcribe the\ntitle-page of S. Parker's excellent 'Bibliotheca Biblica,' a Commentary\non the Pentateuch, 1720-1735; 'gathered out of the genuine writings of\nFathers, Ecclesiastical Historians, and Acts of Councils down to the\nyear of our LORD 451, being that of the fourth General Council; and\nlower, as occasion may require.'--That learned man designed to achieve a\nCommentary on the whole Bible on the same laborious plan; but his\nlabours and his life, (at the age of 50,) were brought to an end in\n1730.--Dr. Waterland, born in 1683, and Dr. Jackson, born in 1686,--two\ngreat names!--died respectively in 1740 and 1763.--In 1778, appeared Dr.\nTownson's admirable 'Discourses on the Gospels.' The author lived till\n1792. Pious Bp. Horne (1730-1792) has left the best evidence of his\nability as a Divine in the Introduction to his Commentary on the Psalms.\nJones of Nayland is found to have lived till 1800. Bp. Horsley, a great\nchampion of orthodoxy of belief, as well as an excellent commentator,\ncritic, and Sermon writer, lived till 1806. Not seven years have elapsed\nsince there was to be seen among ourselves a venerable Divine, who was\ndeclared in 1838, by the chief promoter of the 'Tracts for the Times,'\nto have \"been reserved to report to a forgetful generation what was the\nTheology of their Fathers[140].\" Martin Joseph Routh, died in 1854,\nafter completing a century of years. In 1832 appeared his 'Scriptorum\nEcclesiasticorum Opuscula.' His 'Reliqu\u00e6 Sacr\u00e6' had appeared in 1814.\nThe work was undertaken so far back as 1788. The last volume appeared in\n1848, and concluded with a _Catena_ of authorities on the great question\nwhich was denied by the unbelievers of the last century, and _is_ denied\nby the 'Essayists and Reviewers' of this[141]. Here then was one who had\nborne steady witness in the Church of England to what is her genuine\nCatholic teaching from a period dating long before the birth of any one\nwho was concerned with the 'Tracts for the Times.'\n\nMore ancient names present themselves as furnishing exceptions to Mr.\nPattison's dreary sentence. From Abp. Potter and Leslie, down to Abp.\nLaurence and Van Mildert,--how many might yet be specified! We have not\nhitherto mentioned Abp. Leighton, who died in 1684: Hickes, Johnson, and\nBrett, who survived respectively till 1715, 1725, and 1743: the truly\napostolic Wilson, Bishop of Sodor and Man (1663-1755,)--a name, by the\nway, which deserves far more distinct and emphatic notice than can here\nbe bestowed upon it; and Nelson, the pious author of 'Fasts and\nFestivals,' who died in 1715. We had good Iz. Walton, till 1683, and\nholy Ken till 1711. Richard Hele, author of 'Select Offices,' (which\nappeared in 1717,) is a name not forgotten in Heaven certainly, though\nlittle known on Earth; while Kettlewell and Scandret begin a Catena of\nwhich good Bishop Jolly would be only one of the later links. Meanwhile,\nthe reader is requested to take notice that there were many other\nexcellent Divines of the period under consideration, (as Long and\nHorbery;) men who made no great figure indeed, but who were evidently\npersons of great piety and sound judgment; while their learning puts\nthat of 'Essayists and Reviewers' altogether to the blush.\n\nBut I have reserved for the last, a truly noble name,--which Mr.\nPattison, (with singular bad taste, to say no worse,) mentions only to\ndisparage. I allude to Dr. Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham; whose\n'Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and\nCourse of Nature,'--remains, at the end of a century, unanswerable as an\nApology,--unrivalled as a text-book,--unexhausted as a mine of\nsuggestive thought. It may be convenient for an 'Essayist and Reviewer'\nto declare that \"the merit of the Analogy lies in its want of\noriginality.\" (p. 286.) There was not much originality perhaps in the\nremark that an apple falls to the ground. Whatever the faults of the\nAnalogy, that work, under GOD, _saved the Church_. However \"depressing\nto the soul\" (p. 293.) of Mr. Pattison, it is nevertheless a book which\nwill invigorate Faith, and brighten Hope, and comfort Charity\nherself,--long after the spot where he and I shall sleep has been\nforgotten: long after our very names will be hard to find.\n\nLet me turn from this illustrious individual, to one whose very name is\nperhaps unknown. One loves to think that there are at all times plenty\nof good men, who are doing GOD'S work in the world, in quiet corners;\nbut whose names do not perhaps rise to the surface and emerge into\nnotice, throughout the whole of a long life. Conversely, how many must\nthere be, the blessing of whose example and influence has extended down\nfrom the surface, (where perhaps it was acknowledged and appreciated by\nall,) until it made itself felt by the humblest units of a lowly country\nparish!... The obscure village of Finmere, (in Oxfordshire,) was so\nhappy as to enjoy for its Rector, from 1734 to 1771, the Rev. Thomas\nLong, M.A.,--\"a man,\" (says the Register,) \"of the most exemplary piety\nand charity.\" He presented to the church twelve acres of land, \"charging\nit with a yearly payment of fifteen shillings to the Clerk, _as a\nrecompense to him for attending on the Fasts and Festivals_; and\nordering sixpence to be deducted from the payment, for each time the\nClerk failed to attend on those days,--unless let by sickness.\" About\nten years ago, there was found in the hands of a labouring man at\nFinmere, a solitary copy of a printed \"Lecture,\" by this individual,\n\"addressed to the young persons\" of the village, (1762,) which begins as\nfollows:--\"I have usually, once every three years, gone through a course\nof Lectures upon the Catechism; but considering my age and great\ninfirmities, it is not very probable I should continue this practice any\nlonger. I am willing therefore, as a small monument of my care and\naffection for you, to print the last of these Lectures,\" &c.... What\nheart so dull as not to admit that men like this, (and there were _many_\nof them!) are quite good enough to redeem an age from indiscriminate\nopprobrium and unmitigated contempt?\n\nShall we omit, after this enumeration, to notice the singular fact that\n_Discipline_ still lingered on,--even the discipline of _public\npenance_,--until within the memory of aged persons yet living? Merchants\nin the city of London wore mourning during Lent, within the present\ncentury. It is only within the last thirty years that formul\u00e6 expressive\nof reliance on the Divine blessing have been expunged from\nbills-of-lading, and similar printed documents. In the beginning of the\nperiod discoursed of by Mr. Pattison, (viz. in the year 1714,) the\nexcellent Robert Nelson, in \"An Address to Persons of Quality and\nEstate,\" proposed as objects for the generosity of the affluent, such\ninstitutions as the following:--\"the creating of Charity Schools,\"--of\n\"Parochial Libraries in the meanly endowed Cures throughout\nEngland,\"--of \"a superior School for training up Schoolmasters and\nSchoolmistresses,\"--and of \"Colleges or Seminaries for the Candidates of\nHoly Orders.\" He suggested that there should be \"Houses of Hospitality\nfor entertaining Strangers;\" \"Suffragan Bishops, both at home and in the\nWestern Plantations;\" \"Colleges for receiving Converts from Popery.\"\nSome of Nelson's suggestions read like vaticinations. He points out the\nneed of Ladies' Colleges,--of a Hospital for Incurables,--of Ragged\nSchools, (for what else is a school \"for the distressed children called\nthe _Black-guard_?\"),--and of Houses of Mercy for the reception of\npenitent fallen women.--Is it right to speak of a century which could\nfreely contemplate such works as these and carry into execution many of\nthem[142], without some allusion to the leaven which was at work beneath\nthe dry crust of Society? the living Catholic energy which neither the\naverage dulness of the pulpit could quench, nor the lifeless morality\nwhich had been popularly substituted for Divinity could destroy?\n\nWe are abundantly prepared therefore for Mr. Pattison's admission that\n\"public opinion was throughout on the side of the defenders of\nChristianity:\" (p. 313:)--that, \"however a loose kind of Deism might be\nthe tone of fashionable circles, it is clear that distinct disbelief of\nChristianity was by no means the general state of the public mind. The\nleaders of the Low-Church and Whig party were quite aware of this.\nNotwithstanding the universal complaints of the High-Church party of the\nprevalence of infidelity, it is obvious that this mode of thinking was\nconfined to a very small section of society.\" (p. 313.)\n\nAnd surely it should not escape us that the peculiar form which unbelief\nassumed during the period under discussion, resulted in a benefit to the\nChurch. \"The eighteenth century,\" (says our author,) \"enforced the\ntruths of Natural Morality with a solidity of argument and variety of\nproof which they have not received since the Stoical epoch, if then.\"\n(p. 296.) \"The career of the Evidential School, its success and its\nfailure, has enriched the history of Doctrine,\" not indeed \"with a\ncomplete refutation of that method as an instrument of theological\ninvestigation,\" (p. 297,) (witness the immortal 'Analogy' of Bishop\nButler!)--but, certainly with very precious experience. That age has\nbequeathed to the Church a vast body of controversial writing which she\ncould ill afford to part with at the present day.\n\nSo far, we have little to complain of in Mr. Pattison's Essay, except on\nthe side of omission. _But_ for the fatal circumstance of the company in\nwhich the learned writer comes abroad, and _the avowed purpose_ with\nwhich he is found there, a charitable construction might have been put\nupon most of the present performance. The following sentences, on the\nother hand, are _not_ excusable.\n\n\"In the present day when a godless orthodoxy threatens, as in the\nfifteenth century, to extinguish religious thought (!) altogether, and\nnothing is allowed in the Church of England but the formul\u00e6 of past\nthinkings, which have long lost all sense of any kind, (!) it may seem\nout of season to be bringing forward a misapplication of common-sense in\na bygone age,\" (p. 297.)\n\nThe \"orthodoxy\" of the fifteenth century is something new to us. So is\nthe prospect \"in the present day,\" of an \"extinction of religious\nthought,\"--the result of \"godless orthodoxy.\" The fault, or the\nmisfortune of the Church of England then, is, that she retains \"_the\nformul\u00e6 of past thinkings, which have long lost all sense of any\nkind_.\" (p. 297.) If this does not mean the English _Book of Common\nPrayer_, what _does_ it mean? And if it _means_ the English Prayer-Book,\nhow can Mr. Pattison retain his commission in the Church of England, and\nexclusively employ a Book which he presumes so to characterize?\n\nBut this is _ad hominem_. The learned writer proceeds:--\"There are times\nand circumstances when religious ideas will be greatly benefited by\nbeing submitted to the rough and ready tests by which busy men try what\ncomes in their way; by being made to stand their trial, and be fully\ncanvassed, _coram populo_. As Poetry is not for the critics, so Religion\nis not for the Theologians.\" (p. 297.)\n\nNo doubt. But does Mr. Pattison then really mean to tell us that the\nproper tribunal before which the Creeds, (for example,) of the Catholic\nChurch,--our Communion and Baptismal offices,--the structure of our\nCalendar, and so forth,--should \"_stand their trial_, and be _freely\ncanvassed_,\" is, \"_coram populo_?\" A \"rough and ready test,\" this, of\nTruth, I grant; aye, a _very_ \"rough\" one. But was it ever,--can it ever\nbe,--a _fair_ test? Let us hear Mr. Pattison out, on the subject of\nReligion:--\n\n\"When it is stiffened into phrases, and these phrases are declared to be\nobjects of reverence but not of intelligence, it is on the way to become\n_a useless encumbrance; the rubbish of the past; blocking the road_.\nTheology then retires into the position it occupies in the Church of\nRome at present, an unmeaning frostwork of dogma, out of all relation to\nthe actual history of Man.\" (pp. 297-8.)\n\nIt cannot be necessary to discuss such sentiments. With Mr. Pattison\npersonally, I _will not_ condescend to discuss them,--until he has\ndivested himself of that \"useless encumbrance,\" and ceased to employ\ndaily \"that rubbish of the past,\" which yet the two letters he subjoins\nto his name indicate, in the most solemn manner, his reverence for; and\nwhich alone make him _Reverendus_.\n\nBut speaking to others,--speaking to _you_, my friends,--let me point\nout that \"the tendencies of _irreligious_ thought in England,\n1860-1861,\" are _indeed_ in a direction where the Prayer-Book is found\nto be _effectually_ \"blocking up the road.\" (pp. 297-8.) Mr. Pattison is\nsimply dreaming,--haunted by the phantoms of his own brain, and talking\nthe language of the den,--when he complains that \"the Philosophy, now\npetrified into tradition, may once have been a vital Faith; but now\nthat\" it is \"withdrawn from public life,\" has ceased to be a \"social\ninfluence.\" (p. 298.) And when he would exalt the last century at the\nexpence of the present, (pp. 298-9,) he shews nothing so much as the\nmorbid state of his own imagination,--the disordered condition of his\nown mind. He has blinded himself; and he will not or he cannot see in\nthe healthier tone of our popular Divinity,--in the increased attention\nto the study of Holy Scripture,--in the impulse which Liturgical\ninquiries have received since Wheatly's useful volume appeared;--or\nagain, in the immense number of Schools and Churches which have been\nrecently built,--in the marvellous change for the better which has come\nover the Clergy of the Church of England within the present century,--in\nthe vast development of our Colonial Episcopate within the last few\nyears,--in the rapid increase of Institutions connected more or less\ndirectly with the Church,--and I will add, in the conspicuous loyalty\nof the nation;--a practical refutation of his own injurious\ninsinuations; a blessed earnest that God has _not_ forsaken us; and that\nwe shall _yet_ be a blessing to the World! The people of England, I am\npersuaded, are in the main very sincerely attached to their Prayer-Book.\nTo them, it is not \"a useless encumbrance, the rubbish of the past,\nblocking the road.\" Nay, there is a \"rough and ready test\" of what is\nthe current temper of the age in things religious, to which I appeal\nwith infinite satisfaction. I mean, _the general burst of execration\nwith which \"Essays and Reviews\" have been received_, from one end of the\nkingdom to the other. _The censure of all the Bishops_, and of _both\nHouses of Convocation_; re-echoed, as it has been, through _all ranks of\nthe community_, is a great fact;--a fact which I cordially recommend to\nMr. Pattison's attention, when he would philosophize on the religious\ntendencies of his countrymen.\n\nThe age we live in, (Heaven knows!) has many drawbacks. _What_ age of\nthe Church has _not_ had them? The fatal disposition which prevails to\nrelax all the ancient safeguards,--the desire to tamper yet further with\nthe Law of Marriage, and to desecrate the Christian Sabbath,--these are\ngrievous features of the times; which may well occasion alarm and create\nperplexity. But nothing of the kind should ever make us despond; much\nless despair. There is One above \"who is over all, GOD blessed for\never.\" Shall we not rather seek to employ these advantages which we\nhave, with a single heart, a single eye to GOD'S glory; and leave the\nissue, with a generous confidence, to _Him_?... It was thus that the\ngreat philosophic Divine of the last century comforted himself, amid\ndarker days than _we_ shall ever experience.\n\n\"As different ages have been distinguished by different sorts of\nparticular errors and vices, the deplorable distinction of ours,\" (he\nsaid,) \"is an avowed scorn of Religion in some, and a growing disregard\nto it in the generality.\" \"It is impossible for me, my\nbrethren,\"--(Butler is still addressing the clergy of his Diocese,\n1761,)--\"to forbear lamenting with you the general decay of Religion in\nthis nation; which is now observed by every one, and has been for some\ntime the complaint of all serious persons. The influence of it is more\nand more wearing out of the minds of men;\" while \"the number of those\nwho profess themselves unbelievers, increases, and with their number\ntheir zeal. Zeal, it is natural to ask,--for what? Why truly _for_\nnothing, but _against_ everything that is sacred and good among\nus[143].\" And yet, in days dark as those, Piety could suggest that \"no\nChristian should possibly despair;\" and Faith could assign as the reason\nof this blessed confidence,--\"_For He who hath all power in Heaven and\nEarth, hath promised that He will be with us to the end of the world._\"\n\nIt is time to dismiss Mr. Pattison's Essay. In doing so, I will not\nwaste my time and yours by carping at the many errors of detail into\nwhich he has (not inexcusably) fallen. These are the accidents,--not the\nessence of his paper. The root of bitterness with the Author is, clearly\nenough, _the Theory of Religious Belief in the Church of England_. His\nconcluding words shew this plainly. The sting of the Essay is in the\ntail:--\n\n\"In the Catholic theory the feebleness of Reason is met half-way, and\nmade good by the authority of the Church. When the Protestants threw off\nthis authority, they did not assign to Reason what they took from the\nChurch, but to Scripture. Calvin did not shrink from saying that\nScripture 'shone sufficiently by its own light.' As long as this could\nbe kept to, the Protestant theory of belief was whole and sound. At\nleast it was as sound as the Catholic. In both, Reason, aided by\nspiritual illumination, performs the subordinate function of recognising\nthe supreme authority of the Church, and of the Bible, respectively.\nTime, learned controversy, and abatement of zeal, drove the Protestants\ngenerally from the hardy but irrational assertion of Calvin. Every foot\nof ground that Scripture lost was gained by one or other of the three\nsubstitutes: Church-authority, the Spirit, or Reason. Church-authority\nwas essayed by the Laudian divines, but was soon found untenable, for on\nthat footing it was found impossible to justify the Reformation and the\nbreach with Rome.\" [O shame!] \"The SPIRIT then came into favour along\nwith Independency. But it was still more quickly discovered that on such\na basis only discord and disunion could be reared. There remained to be\ntried Common Reason, carefully distinguished from recondite learning,\nand not based on metaphysical assumptions. To apply this instrument to\nthe contents of Revelation was the occupation of the early half of the\neighteenth century; with what success has been seen. In the latter part\nof the century the same Common Reason was applied to the external\nevidences. But here the method fails in a first\nrequisite,--universality; for even the shallowest array of historical\nproof requires some book-learning to apprehend.\"--(pp. 328-9.)\n\nNow all this is discreditable to Mr. Pattison as a Philosopher and as a\nDivine. _When_ did Protestant England \"throw off the authority\" of the\nChurch?--What are _Calvin's_ opinions to _her_?--How does\n'Independency,' 'Rationalism,' or any other unsound principle, affect\n_us_? Look at our Prayer-Book. Is it not the same which it was from the\nbeginning? The Sarum Use, reformed and revised, has been our unbroken\nheritage as Christian men, from the first. Essentially remodelled in the\ndays of Edward VI., the recension of our \"Laudian Divines\" is, (by GOD'S\ngreat mercy!) still ours. What other teaching but that of _the Book of\nCommon Prayer_, is, to this hour, the authoritative teaching of the\nChurch of England? Why insinuate there has been vicissitude of Theory,\nwhere notoriously there has been none? Why imply that the storms which\nperiodically sweep over the citadel of our Zion are effectual to remove\nthe old foundations and to substitute new? What but a hollow heartless\nScepticism _can_ be the result of such an abominable passage as the\nforegoing?\n\n\"Whoever will take the religious literature of the present day as a\nwhole, and endeavour to make out clearly on what basis Revelation is\nsupposed by it to rest, whether on Authority, on the Inward Light, on\nReason, on self-evidencing Scripture, or on the combination of the four,\nor some of them, and in what proportions; would probably find that he\nhad undertaken a perplexing but not altogether profitless\ninquiry.\"--(p. 329.) And so the Essay ends.\n\nWith a short comment on the proposed problem, I also shall conclude.\n\nNo one but a fool would set about the task which Mr. Pattison here\nproposes. The current \"religious literature _of the day_\" cannot be\nsupposed, for an instant, to be an adequate exponent of the mind of the\nChurch of England,--or of any other Church. Revelation rests, at this\nhour, on exactly the same basis on which it has always rested, and on\nwhich it will rest, to the end of time; let the age be faithful, or\nfaithless,--learned or unlearned,--rationalizing or\nscientific,--sceptical or superstitious,--or whatever else you will. And\nif I am asked to explain myself, I would humbly say,--(always submitting\nmy own statements in such a matter to the judgment of the Bishops and\nDoctors of the Church of England,)--that we receive the Bible on the\nauthority of _the Church_. The Church teaches us by the concurrent\nvoices of many Fathers, Doctors, Saints, how to interpret the Bible; and\nconvinces us that the three Creeds which she delivers to us as her own\nindependent tradition, may be proved thereby; being in entire conformity\nwith Holy Scripture, though not originally deduced from it.\n\"Self-evidencing\" is hardly a correct epithet to bestow upon Scripture.\nAnd yet, from the evidence which the New Testament supplies to the Old,\nand from the interpretation which it puts upon its teaching, we should\nnot despair of proving the Truth of Revelation, to one who had neither\ndarkened the inward Light, nor perverted his Reason.\n\nIn truth, however, it is idle thus to speculate. We have been born into\nthe world during the nineteenth Century, whether we wish it or not. We\nhave been nourished, (GOD be thanked!) in the bosom of the Christian\nChurch, whether we would or no. The glory of the Gospel has informed our\nnatural reason, and we cannot undo the blessed process, strive we as\nmuch as we will. The \"inward Light,\" (as we call it,) is the lingering\ntwilight of the Day of Creation, in the case of the heathen,--the\nreflected ray of the noontide of the Gospel, even in the case of the\nmodern unbeliever. We cannot escape from these conditions of our being,\nalthough we may affect to ignore them, or pretend to turn our eyes the\nother way. _No_ help however is to be rejected. _No_ faculty of the soul\nneed be denied the privilege of assisting to convince the doubting\nheart. The inward Light may not be disparagingly spoken of: for what if\nit should prove to be a ray sent down from the Father of Lights, to\nillumine the dark places of the soul? The aid of Reason is not to be\nexcluded; for what is Faith but the highest dictate of the Reason?\nFaith, (let us ever remember,) being opposed not to _Reason_, but to\n_Sight_!... And who for a moment supposes that we disparage the office\nof Reason, because we speak of the authority of the Church, in\ncontroversies of Faith? We simply proclaim the Church to be the\nappointed witness and keeper of Holy Writ; and when we are invited \"_to\nmake out clearly_ on what basis Revelation is supposed to rest,\"\n(p. 329,) we point,--where else _should_ we point?--unhesitatingly to\n_her_ unwavering witness from the beginning.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nVII. The Essay which brings up the rear in this very guilty volume is\nfrom the pen of the \"REV. BENJAMIN JOWETT, M.A., [Fellow and Tutor of\nBalliol College, and] Regius Professor of Greek in the University of\nOxford,\"--\"a gentleman whose high personal character and general\nrespectability seem to give a weight to his words, which assuredly they\ndo not carry of themselves[144].\" His performance is entitled \"ON THE\nINTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE:\" being, in reality, nothing else but a\nlaborious _denial of its Inspiration_.\n\nMr. Jowett's quarrel is with the whole body of Commentators on the\nBible,--ancient and modern; with the whole Church Catholic. He cannot\nendure the claim of that Book, (like its Divine object and Author,) to\n\"a Name which is above every other Name.\" That Plato and Sophocles\nshould be capable of but one method of Interpretation, and _that_ the\nliteral,--while the Bible lays claim to a yet profounder meaning,--so\ndistresses the Regius Professor of Greek, that he has appropriated to\nhimself almost a quarter of the present volume, in order that he may\ncast laborious and systematic ridicule on the very supposition. Some\nparts of his method I propose presently to submit to _exactly the same\n\"free handling\" which he has himself applied to THE WORD OF GOD_. In the\nmeantime, since it is my intention not only to demonstrate the\nworthlessness of the structure which Mr. Jowett has with so much\nperverse industry here built up, by an examination of some parts of it\nin detail, but also to pull down as much of the fabric as I am able\nwithin a small compass,--(the construction of something which it is\nhoped will prove more durable, being to be found in my IIIrd and IVth,\nVth and VIth Sermons,)--I proceed at once to inspect the\nfoundation-stone of his edifice; and briefly to demonstrate its absolute\ninsecurity.\n\n$1.$ Mr. Jowett's fundamental principle is expressed in the following\nbrief precept: \"_Interpret the Scripture like any other book._\"\n(p. 377.) To this favourite tune, (although he plays many intricate\nvariations on it,) he invariably reverts in the end[145]. On this\npreliminary postulate therefore, which, at first sight, to a candid\nmind, seems fair enough, I proceed to remark as follows:--\n\nMr. Jowett's formula may be cheerfully and entirely accepted,--_apart\nfrom the sinister glosses which he immediately proceeds to put upon it_.\nBy all means \"Interpret the Scripture like any other book.\" Let us see\nto what result this principle will conduct us. As for the formula\nitself, I take the liberty to assume that it _ought to mean_ somewhat as\nfollows:--\"Approach the volume of Holy Scripture with the same candour,\nand in the same unprejudiced spirit with which you would approach any\nother famous book of high antiquity. Study it with at least the same\nattention. Give at least equal heed to all its statements. Acquaint\nyourself at least as industriously with its method, and with its\nprinciple; employing and applying either, with at least equal fidelity,\nin its interpretation. Above all, beware of playing tricks with its\nplain language. Beware of suppressing any part of the evidence which it\nsupplies as to its own meaning. Be truthful, and unprejudiced, and\nhonest, and consistent, and logical, and exact throughout, in your work\nof Interpretation. 'INTERPRET SCRIPTURE LIKE ANY OTHER BOOK.'\"\n\nNow, (not to be tedious,) if _this_ were Mr. Jowett's principle, all\nfurther discussion would be at an end. The general question of the right\nmethod of interpreting the Bible would be easily settled; but it would\nbe hopelessly settled--_against the Regius Professor of Greek_. As I\nhave briefly shewn, (from p. 144 to p. 160 of the present volume,) our\nLORD and His Apostles openly and repeatedly claim for Scripture that\nvery depth of meaning, that very extent of signification, which Mr.\nJowett so strenuously maintains that it does _not_ possess.--This great\nfact, he prudently takes no notice of. He simply ignores it. Either he\nhas overlooked it, through inadvertency: or he has omitted it, as not\nperceiving its force and bearing on the question: or he has\ndisingenuously kept it back. He must choose between these three\nsuppositions. If he has overlooked the fact on which I lay so much\nstress,--he is a careless and incompetent reader. If he has failed to\nsee its force and bearing on the question,--he is a weak and illogical\nthinker. If he has deliberately suppressed it, knowing its fatal\npower,--he is simply a dishonest man. To prevent offence, I may as well\nstate freely that my entire conviction is that he is simply a weak and\nillogical person. My warrant for this opinion is especially the very sad\nperformance of his now under consideration.\n\nIt is clear however that the paraphrase above hazarded does _not_\nexpress Mr. Jowett's principle. \"Interpret the Bible like any other\nbook,\" means with him something else. And what it _does_ mean, the\nReverend author does not suffer us to doubt. He shews that his meaning\nis, _Interpret the Bible like any other book_, FOR _it is like any other\nbook_. I proceed to shew that this _is_ Mr. Jowett's meaning.\n\nIt becomes necessary however at once to introduce to the reader's notice\nthe main inference which, (as already hinted,) flows from Mr. Jowett's\nfavourite position. \"_Interpret_ Scripture like any other book,\"--he\nsays. His business is with _the Interpretation_ of \"the Jewish and\nChristian Scriptures;\" and he begins by eagerly assuring us,--and is\nstrenuous in all that follows to make us believe,--(but simply on _\u00e0\npriori_ grounds!)--that \"the true glory and note of Divinity in these,\nis _not_ that they have hidden, mysterious, or double meanings; but _a\nsimple and universal one_, which is beyond them and will survive them.\"\n(p. 332.) \"Is it admitted,\" (he asks, at the end of many pages,) \"that\n_the Scripture has one and only one true meaning_?\" (p. 368.)\n\nLet us hear what reasons the Reverend author of this seventh Essay is\nable to produce in support of his favourite opinion. He approaches the\nsubject from a respectful distance:--\n\n(i) \"It is a strange, though familiar fact,\"--(such are the opening\nwords of his Essay,)--\"that great differences of opinion exist\nrespecting the Interpretation of Scripture.\" (p. 330.)--'Familiar,' the\nfact is, certainly; but why 'strange?' A Book of many ages,--of immense\nantiquity,--of most varied character,--treating of the unseen\nworld,--purporting to be a mysterious composition,--and by all Christian\nmen believed to have GOD for its true Author: a book which has come into\ncollision with every form of human error, and has triumphed gloriously\nover every form of human opposition:--_how_ can it be thought 'strange'\nthat the interpretation of such a book should have provoked \"great\ndifferences of opinion?\" ... Surely none but the weakest of thinkers,\nunless committed to the assumption that _the Bible is like any other\nbook_, could ever have penned such a silly remark.\n\n(ii) \"We do not at once see _the absurdity_ of the same words having\nmany senses, or free our minds from _the illusion_ that the Apostle or\nEvangelist must have written with a reference to the creeds or\ncontroversies or circumstances of other times. Let it be considered,\nthen, that this extreme variety of interpretation _is found to exist in\nthe case of no other book, but of the Scriptures only_.\" (p. 334.)\n\nBut the \"phenomenon\" which Mr. Jowett represents as \"so extraordinary\nthat it requires an effort of thought to appreciate it,\" (_Ibid._,) does\nnot seem at all extraordinary to any one who does not begin by\n_assuming_ that the Bible is \"like any other book.\"--If _the Bible be\ninspired_,--then all is plain!\n\n(iii) \"Who would write a bulky treatise about the method to be pursued\nin interpreting Plato or Sophocles?\"--asks Mr. Jowett. (p. 378.)--No one\nbut a fool!--is the obvious reply. Plato and Sophocles are ordinary\nbooks; and therefore _are to be interpreted_ like any other book. The\nBible not so, as we shall see by and by. Again,--\n\n(iv) \"Each writer, each successive age, has characteristics of its own,\nas strongly marked, or more strongly, than those which are found in the\nauthors or periods of classical Literature. These differences are not to\nbe lost in _the idea of a Spirit from whom they proceed, or by which\nthey were overruled_. And therefore, illustration of one part of\nScripture by another should be confined to writings of the same age and\nthe same authors, except where the writings of different ages or persons\noffer obvious similarities. It may be said, further, that illustration\nshould be chiefly derived, not only from the same author, _but from the\nsame writing, or from one of the same period of his life_. For example,\nthe comparison of St. John and the 'synoptic' Gospels, or of the Gospel\nof St. John with the Revelation of St. John, will tend _rather to\nconfuse than to elucidate the meaning of either_.\" (pp. 382-3.)--But\nreally, in reply, it ought to suffice to point out that the result of\nthe Church's experience for 1800 years has been the very opposite of\nthe Professor's. \"_The idea of a SPIRIT from whom they proceeded_,\" is,\nto the thoughtful part of mankind, _the only intelligible clue_ to the\nseveral books of Holy Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation! Hence \"the\nmarginal references to the English Bible,\" (to which Mr. Jowett devotes\na depreciatory half page,) so far from being the dangerous or useless\napparatus which he represents, we hold to be an instrument of paramount\nimportance for eliciting the true meaning of Holy Writ.--In a word, he\nis reasoning about the Bible on _the assumption_ that the Bible is _like\nany other book_.\n\n(v) \"To attribute to St. Paul or the Twelve the abstract notion of\nChristian Truth which afterwards sprang up in the Catholic Church ... is\nthe same error as to attribute to Homer the ideas of Thales or\nHeraclitus, or to Thales the more developed principles of Aristotle and\nPlato.\" (p. 354.)--_Not if St. Paul and the Twelve were inspired._\n\n(vi) He bids us remark, with tedious emphasis, that although the same\nphilological and historical difficulties which occur in Holy Scripture\nare found in profane writings, yet \"the meaning of classical authors is\nknown with comparative certainty; and the interpretation of them seems\nto rest on a scientific basis.... _Even the Vedas and the Zendavesta_,\nthough beset by obscurities of language probably greater than are found\nin any portion of the Bible, are interpreted, at least by European\nscholars, according to fixed rules, and beginning to be clearly\nunderstood.\" (p. 335.)\n\nBut at the end of several weak sentences, through which the preceding\nfallacy is elongated into distressing tenuity, _who_ does not\nexclaim,--The supposed \"scientific\" basis on which the interpretation of\nbooks in general rests, is simply this; (=1=) that being _merely\nhuman_, and (=2=) _not professing_ to have any other than their obvious\nliteral meaning,--they are all interpreted in the obvious ordinary way!\n\nFor (=1=),--If any book were even _suspected_ to be Divine, the manner\nof interpreting it would of course be different. Not that the \"basis\" of\nsuch Interpretation would therefore cease to be \"scientific!\" Take the\nonly known instance of such a Book. The Bible has been suspected (!) for\n1800 years to be inspired. How has it fared with the Bible?\n\nThe Science of Biblical Interpretation is one of the noblest and best\nunderstood in the world. It has been professed and practised in every\ncountry of Christendom. The great Masters of this Science have been such\nmen as Hilary of Poictiers, Basil and the two Gregories in Asia Minor,\nEpiphanius in Cyprus, Ambrose at Milan, John Chrysostom at Antioch,\nJerome in Palestine, Augustine in Africa, Athanasius and Cyril at\nAlexandria. The names descend in an unbroken stream from the first four\ncenturies of our \u00e6ra down to the age of Andrewes, and Bull, and Pearson,\nand Mill. These men all interpret Scripture in one and the same way.\nTheir principles are the same throughout. They were all Professors of\n_the same Sacred Science_.\n\nBut (=2=),--If a book even _professes_ to have a hidden meaning, it is\ninterpreted by a special set of canons. Thus Dante's great poem[146] may\nnot be read as Hume's History of England is read.--To proceed, however.\n\n(vii) Sophocles is perhaps the most subtle of the ancient Greek poets.\n\"Several schools of critics have commented on his works. To the\nEnglishman he has presented one meaning, to the Frenchman another, to\nthe German a third; the interpretations have also differed with the\nphilosophical systems which the interpreters espoused. To one the same\nwords have appeared to bear a moral, to another a symbolical meaning; a\nthird is determined wholly by the authority of old commentators; while\nthere is a disposition to condemn the scholar who seeks to interpret\nSophocles from himself only and with reference to the ideas and beliefs\nof the age in which he lived. And the error of such an one is attributed\nnot only to some intellectual but even to a moral obliquity (!) which\nprevents his seeing the true meaning.\" (p. 336.)\n\nIt has fared with Sophocles therefore, (according to Mr. Jowett,) _in\nall respects as it has fared with the Bible_. \"It would be tedious,\" (he\njustly remarks,) \"to follow the absurdity which has been supposed into\ndetails. By such methods,\" Sophocles or Plato might \"be made to mean\nanything.\" (p. 336.)\n\nBut who does not perceive that the obvious way to escape from the\nsupposed difficulty, is to remember that _neither Sophocles nor Plato\nwas inspired_!... Mr. Jowett's difficulty is occasioned by his\nassumption that _the Bible stands on the same level as Plato and\nSophocles_.\n\n(viii) Again,--\"If it is not held to be a thing impossible that there\nshould be agreement in the meaning of _Plato and Sophocles_, neither is\nit to be regarded as absurd, that there should be a like agreement in\nthe interpretation of _Scripture_?\" (p. 426.)--The whole force of this\nargument clearly consisting in the strictly equal claims of these books\nto Inspiration.--Elsewhere, Mr. Jowett expresses the same thing more\nunequivocally:--The old \"explanations of Scripture,\" (he says,) \"are no\nlonger tenable. They belong to a way of thinking and speaking which was\nonce diffused over the world, but has now passed away.\" Having quietly\n_assumed_ all this, the Reverend writer proceeds:--\"And what we give up\nas a general principle, we shall find it impossible to maintain\npartially; _e.g._ in the types of the Mosaic Law, and the double\nmeanings of Prophecy, at least _in any sense in which it is not equally\napplicable to all deep and suggestive writings_.\" (p. 419.)\n\n(ix) \"Still one other supposition has to be introduced, which will\nappear, perhaps, _more extravagant than any which have preceded_.\nConceive then that these modes of interpreting Sophocles (!) had existed\nfor ages; that great institutions and interests had become interwoven\nwith them; and in some degree even the honour of Nations and\nChurches;--is it too much to say that, in such a case, they would be\nchanged with difficulty, and that they would continue to be maintained\nlong after critics and philosophers had seen that they were\nindefensible?\" (pp. 336-7.)\n\nI suppose we may at once allow Mr. Jowett most of what he asks. We may\nfreely grant that if the Tragedies of Sophocles _had_ exercised the same\nwondrous dominion over the world which the Books of the Bible have\nexercised:--if Oedipus and Jocasta and Creon; if Theseus and Dejanira\nand Hercules; if Ajax, Ulysses and Minerva;--_had_ done for the world\nwhat Enoch and Noah;--what Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;--what Joseph, and\nJoshua, and Hannah, and Samuel, and David;--what Elijah and Elisha;\nwhat Isaiah and Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, and the rest;--what St.\nPeter, and St. John, and St. Paul;--what the Blessed Virgin and her\nname-sakes, have done:--In a word: had Homer's gods and heroes\naltogether changed the face of society, and revolutionized the world;\n_so that \"great institutions and interests had become interwoven with\nthem, and in some degree even the honour of Nations and Churches_;\"\n(p. 336;)--if, I repeat, all this _had_ really and actually taken\nplace;--_great_ \"difficulty\" would, no doubt, (as Mr. Jowett profoundly\nsuggests,) be experienced, at the end of 2000 years, in getting rid of\nthem.\n\nBut since it unfortunately happens that _they have done nothing of the\nkind_, we do not seem to be called upon to follow the Regius Professor\nof Greek into the supposed consequences of what he admits to be an\n\"extravagant supposition;\" and which we humbly think is an excessively\nfoolish one also.\n\nWhen, however, the Reverend Author of this speculation establishes it as\n_a parallel with what has taken place with regard to the Word of GOD_,\nwe tell him plainly that his insinuation that \"critics and philosophers\nare maintaining the present mode of interpreting Scripture _long after\nthey have seen that it is indefensible_\"--is a piece of impertinence\nwhich seems to require a public apology. A man may retain Orders in the\nChurch of England, if he pleases, while yet he repudiates her doctrines:\nmay declare that he subscribes her Articles _ex animo_, and yet seem\nopenly to deny them. But he has no right whatever to impute\ncorresponding baseness to others. The charge should be either plainly\nmade out, or openly retracted[147].\n\nBy such considerations then does Professor Jowett attempt to shew that\nwe ought to \"interpret Scripture like any other book.\" The gist of his\nobservations, in every case, is one and the same,--namely, from _\u00e0\npriori_ considerations to insinuate that _the Bible is not essentially\nunlike any other book._\n\nNow, quite apart from its Inspiration,--which is, obviously, THE one\nessential respect wherein the Bible is wholly unlike every other book in\nthe world; (inasmuch as, if it is inspired, it differs from every other\nbook _in kind_; stands among Books as the Incarnate WORD stood among\nMen,--_quite alone_; notwithstanding that He spoke their language,\nshared their wants, and accommodated Himself to their\nmanners;)--_apart_, I say, _from the fact of its Inspiration_, it is not\ndifficult to point out several particulars in which the Bible is\n_utterly unlike any other Book which is known to exist_; and therefore\nto suggest an _\u00e0 priori_ reason why _neither should it be interpreted_\nlike any other book.\n\n1. The Bible then contains in all (66-9=) 57 distinct writings,--the\nwork of perhaps upwards of forty different Authors[148]. Yet, for\nupwards of fifteen centuries those many writings have been all collected\ninto one volume: and, for a large portion of that interval, on the\nwritings so collected the Church Universal has agreed in bestowing the\nname of _the Book_,--=kat' exoch\u00ean=,--THE BIBLE.\n\n2. The Bible is divided into two parts, which are severed by an interval\nof upwards of four centuries. On these two great divisions of the Bible,\nrespectively, has been bestowed the title of the Old and the New\nCovenant. And, what is remarkable,--_The same phenomena which are\nobservable in respect of the whole Bible, are observable in respect of\neither of its parts._ Thus,\n\n(=1=) The several writings of which the Old Testament is\ncomposed,--(39-3=) 36 in all[149], are by many different hands: those of\nthe New Testament, in like manner,--(27-6=) 21 in all, are by eight\ndifferent authors.\n\n(=2=) Those many writings of the Old Testament are found to have been\ncollected into a single volume about four hundred years before the\nChristian \u00e6ra; when they were denominated by a common name, =h\u00ea\ngraph\u00ea=,--\"_The Scripture_[150];\" and the supreme authority of the\nwritings so collected together, was axiomatic[151]. One arguing with His\nHebrew countrymen was able to appeal to a place in the Psalms, and to\nremind them parenthetically that \"the Scripture _cannot be\nbroken_[152],\"--that is, might not be gainsaid, doubted, explained\naway, or set aside.--Precisely similar phenomena are observable in\nrespect of the writings of the New Testament.\n\n(=3=) Although the books of the Old Covenant are scattered at intervals\nover the long period of upwards of a thousand years, the writers of the\nlater books are observed to quote the earlier ones, as if by a peculiar\nsecret sympathy: now, incorporating long passages,--now, simply adapting\none or two sentences,--now, blending allusive references. For some proof\nof this assertion, (as far as I am able to produce it at a moment's\nnotice,) the reader is referred to the foot of the page[153].\n\nThe self-same phenomenon is observable with regard to the New Testament\nScriptures. Although all the books were written within so short a space\nas about fifty years, the later writers quote the earlier ones to a\nsurprising extent. In the Gospels, the Gospels are quoted times without\nnumber. In the Epistles, the Gospels are cited, or referred to, upwards\nof sixty times. The Epistles contain many references to the\nEpistles.--The phenomenon thus alluded to will also be found insisted\nupon in a later part of the present volume[154].\n\n\"The fact, I believe, on close examination, will be found to stand\nthus:--The Holy Bible abounds in quotations, even more perhaps than most\nother books; but they are introduced in a way which is peculiar to\nRevelation, and its own. When a Prophet or Apostle mentions one of his\nown holy brethren, as when Ezekiel names Daniel, or Daniel Jeremiah;\nwhen St. Peter speaks of St. Paul, or St. Paul of St. Peter, or of St.\nLuke the Physician; _when they mention them, they do not quote them; and\nwhen they quote them, they do not mention them_[155].\"\n\n(=4=) The later writer in the Old Testament who quotes some earlier\nportion of narrative is often observed to supply independent\ninformation,--entering into minute details and particulars which are not\nto be found in the earlier record.--Now, \"with the same Almighty SPIRIT\nfor their guide, what was it to be expected that the historians of our\nBlessed LORD would do? What, but the very thing which they have done?\nthat they would walk in the path, which the holy Prophets of old had\nmarked out? that they would often tread full in each other's steps;\noften relate the same miracle, or discourse, or parts of it, in the\nwords of the same prior writer; sometimes compress, sometimes expand;\nalways shew to the diligent inquirer, that they did not derive their\ninformation, even of facts which they relate in another's words, from\nhim whom they copy, but wrote with antecedent plenitude of knowledge and\ntruth in themselves; without staying to inform us whether what they\ndeliver is told for the first time, or has its place already in\nauthentic history[156].\"\n\n(=5=) It may be worth remarking that though _the Inspiration_ of no part\nof either Testament has ever been doubted in the Church, there do exist\ndoubts as to the _Authorship_ of more than one of the Books of the Old\nTestament; and _one_ Book in the New, (the Epistle to the Hebrews,) has\nbeen suspected by some orthodox writers _not_ to have been from the pen\nof St. Paul, but to have been the work of some other inspired and\nApostolic writer.\n\n(=6=) History, Didactic matter, and Prophecy,--is found to be the\nsubject of either Testament.\n\n(=7=) In the New Testament, as in the Old, we are presented with the\nsingular phenomenon of more than one Book being in a manner _copied_\nfrom another,--yet with the addition of much independent original\nmatter. It is superfluous to name Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, on one\nside,--and the Gospels on the other. To the Gospels may be added the\nSecond Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude.\n\n(=8=) Lastly, the same _modest_ use of the Supernatural is to be found\nin either Testament.--In both, the writers are observed to pass without\neffort, and as it were unconsciously, from revelations of the most\nstupendous character, to statements of the simplest and most ordinary\nkind[157].--In both, there is the same prominence given to individual\ncharacters[158]; the same occasional minuteness of detail where it might\nhave been least expected[159].\n\n3. But by far the most remarkable phenomenon remains to be noticed;\nnamely, the immense number of quotations, (so far more numerous than is\ncommonly suspected,)--extending in length from a single word to nearly a\nhundred and fifty[160],--together with allusive references, literally\nwithout number, which are found in the New Testament Scriptures; _the\nwritings of the elder Covenant being in every instance,\nexclusively[161], the source of those quotations,--the object of those\nallusions_.\n\n4. When the nature of these quotations, references, and allusions is\nexamined with care, several extraordinary phenomena present themselves,\nwhich it seems impossible to consider without the deepest interest,\nsurprise, and admiration. Thus,--(i.) The New Testament writers, on\nrepeated occasions, display _independent knowledge_ of the Old Testament\nHistory to which they make reference[162]. The following instances occur\nto my memory:--All the later links in our LORD'S Genealogy[163]; the\nsecond Cainan[164]: Salmon's marriage with Rahab[165]: the burial-place\nof the twelve Patriarchs[166]: the age of Moses in Exod. ii. 11[167]:\nthat in the days of Elijah the heaven was shut up for three years _and\nsix months_[68]: that it was _the Devil_ who tempted Eve[169]: the\ncontest for the dead body of Moses[170]: the names of Pharaoh's\nmagicians[171]: how Abraham reasoned with himself when he prepared to\noffer up his son Isaac[172]: the golden censer, mentioned in Heb. ix. 4:\nAbraham's purchase of Sychem[173]; and a few other things[174].\n\n(ii.) The same New Testament writers are observed to handle the Old\nTestament Scriptures with an air of singular authority, and to exercise\nan extraordinary license of quotation; inverting clauses,--paraphrasing\nstatements,--abridging or expanding;--and always without apology or\nexplanation;--as if they were conscious that they were dealing with\n_their own_.\n\n(iii.) Most astonishing of all, obviously, as well as most important, is\n_the purpose_ for which the Evangelists and Apostles of our LORD make\ntheir appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures; invariably in order _to\nestablish some part of the Christian Revelation_. \"Every thoughtful\nstudent of the Holy Scriptures has been struck with the circumstance\nwhich I now allude to: the freedom, namely, with which the inspired\nWriters of the New Testament appeal back to the Old; and see in it, as\nits one proper theme, the Christian subject. They find themselves in\nthat place, at length, to which former intimations had pointed, and\nrecognize the connexion which they themselves have with their ancient\nforerunners[175].\" ... It is as if for four hundred years and upwards, a\nmighty mystery,--described in many a dark place of Prophecy, exhibited\nby many a perplexing type, foreshadowed by many a Divine narrative,--had\nwaited for solution. The world is big with expectation. The\nlong-expected time at last arrives. Up springs the Sun of Righteousness\nin the Heavens; and lo, the cryptic characters of the Law flash at once\ninto glory, and the dark Oracles of ancient days yield up their wondrous\nmeanings! \"GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time\npast unto the Fathers by the Prophets,\"--in these last days speaks \"unto\nus by His SON:\" and lo, a chorus of Apostolic voices is heard bearing\nwitness to the Advent of \"the Desire of all nations!\" ... Such is the\nrelation which the New Testament bears to the Old: such the true nature\nof the many quotations from the earlier Scriptures, which are found in\nthe later half of the One inspired Volume.\n\n5. And thus we are led naturally to notice the extraordinary connexion\nwhich subsists between the two Testaments. \"For what is the Law,\" (asks\nJustin, A.D. 140,) \"but the Gospel foretold? or what is the Gospel, but\nthe Law fulfilled[176]?\" \"The contents of the Old and New Testament are\nthe same,\" remarks Augustine: \"_there_ foreshadowed, _here_ revealed:\n_there_ prefigured, _here_ made plain.\" \"In the Old Testament there is a\nconcealing of the New: in the New Testament there is a revealing of the\nOld[177].\"--Mr. Jowett's inquiry,--\"If we assume the New Testament as _a\ntradition running parallel with the Old_, may not the Roman Catholic\nassume with equal reason a tradition parallel with the New?\"\n(p. 81.)--shews a truly childish misapprehension of the entire\nquestion. The New Testament is not a \"parallel tradition\" at all; but a\n_subsequent Revelation from Heaven_.\n\n6. Now I might pursue these remarks much further: for it would be well\nworth while to exhibit what an extraordinary sameness of imagery,\nsimilarity of allusion, and unity of purpose, runs through the writings\nof either Covenant;--phenomena which can only be accounted for in one\nway. This subject will be found dwelt upon elsewhere; and to what has\nbeen already delivered, I must be content here to refer the reader[178].\n\n(Mr. Jowett himself has been struck by the phenomenon thus alluded to:\nbut after hinting at \"some natural association\" as having suggested the\nlanguage of the Prophets, he proceeds: \"We are not therefore justified\nin supposing any hidden connexion in the prophecies where [the prophetic\nsymbols] occur. _Neither is there any other ground for assuming design\nof any other kind in Scripture; any more than in Plato or Homer._\"\n(p. 381.) ... And thus our philosopher, assuming at the outset that the\nBible is an uninspired book, is for ever coming back to the lie with\nwhich he set out. But to proceed.)\n\n7. Still better worthy of notice, in this connexion, is the singular\nfact (which will also be found adverted to in another place[179],) that\nthe Old and New Testaments alike profess to be a History of _Earthly_\nevents from a _Heavenly_ point of view. The writers of either Covenant\nclaim to know _what GOD did_[180]; how characters and events appeared\n_in His sight_[181]: they profess to find themselves in a familiar, and\naltogether extraordinary relation with the unseen world[182]. Thus,\nMoses begins the Bible with an august account of the great Six\nDays,--when GOD was alone in Creation; the unwitnessed Agent, and Author\nof all things:--while St. John the Divine, concluding the inspired\nCanon, relates that he was \"in the Spirit on the LORD'S Day;\" and heard\nbehind him \"a great Voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and\nOmega, the first and the last[183].\" ... \"The general design of\nScripture,\" (says Bishop Butler,) \"may be said to be, to give us an\naccount of the World, in this one single view,--_as GOD'S World: by\nwhich it appears essentially distinguished from all other books, as far\nas I have found, except such as are copied from it_[184].\"\n\n8. And _yet_ the grand external characteristic feature of the Bible\nremains unnoticed! The one distinctive feature of the Bible, is\n_this_,--that the four-fold Gospel, _as a matter of fact_, exhibits to\nus, the WORD \"made flesh:\" and, (O marvel of marvels!) suffers us to\nhear His voice, and look upon His form, and observe His actions. It does\nmore. The New Testament professes to be, and is, the complement of the\nOld. The promise of CHRIST, solemnly, and repeatedly,--\"at sundry times\nand divers manners,\"--given in the one, is fulfilled in the other.\nHenceforth they are no more twain, for they have been by GOD Himself\njoined together; and the subject of both is none other than our SAVIOUR,\nJESUS CHRIST.\n\nEnough surely has been already adduced to warrant a reasonable man in\nrefusing to accept Professor Jowett's repeated asseveration that the\nBible is \"to be interpreted like any other book.\" A Book which proves on\nexamination to be so _wholly unlike every other book_,--so entirely _sui\ngeneris_,--may surely well create an _\u00e0 priori_ suspicion that it is not\nto be interpreted either, after any ordinary fashion. But the grand\nconsideration of all is _still_ behind! The _one_ circumstance which\neffectually refutes the view of the Reverend Professor, remains yet to\nbe specified; namely, that THE BIBLE PROFESSES TO BE INSPIRED BY THE\nHOLY SPIRIT. The HOLY GHOST is again and again declared _to speak_\ntherein, =dia=, \"_by the instrumentality_,\" \"_by the mouth_,\" of Man. In\nother words, _GOD, not Man, professes to be the Author of the Bible_!\n\nThat the Bible _does_ set up for itself such a claim, will be found\nestablished at p. 53 to p. 57 of the present volume. Professor Jowett's\nassurance that \"for any of the higher or supernatural views of\nInspiration, _there is no foundation in the Gospels or Epistles_,\"\n(p. 345,)--must therefore be regarded as an extraordinary, or rather as\nan unpardonable oversight on his part. One would have thought that a\nsingle saying, like that in Acts iii. 18 and 21, would have occurred to\nhis memory, and been sufficient to refute him. Other places will be\nfound quoted at p. cxcvii.\n\nVery much is it to be feared however that the same gentleman has\noverlooked a consideration of at least equal importance; namely, the\ninevitable _inference_ from the discovery that the origin of the Bible\nis Divine. He informs us that,--\"It will be a further assistance (!) in\nthe consideration of this subject, to observe that the Interpretation of\nScripture has _nothing to do with any opinion respecting its origin_.\"\n(p. 350.) \"The _meaning_ of Scripture,\" (he proceeds,) \"is one thing:\nthe _Inspiration_ of Scripture is another.\"--True. But when we find the\nReverend Author insisting, again and again, that \"it may be laid down\nthat Scripture has _one_ meaning,--_the meaning which it had to the mind\nof the Prophet or Evangelist who first uttered, or wrote it_,\"\n(p. 378,)--we are constrained to remind him that, \"To say that the\nScriptures, and the things contained in them, can have no other or\nfarther meaning than those persons thought or had, who first recited or\nwrote them; is evidently saying, _that those persons were the original,\nproper, and sole authors of those books_, i.e. THAT THEY ARE NOT\nINSPIRED[185].\" So that, in point of fact, _the origin_ of Holy\nScripture, so far from being a consideration of no importance, (as Mr.\nJowett supposes,) proves to be a consideration of the most vital\nimportance of all. And _the Interpretation_ of Scripture, so far from\nhaving \"_nothing to do_ with any opinion respecting its origin,\" is\naffected by it most materially, or rather depends upon it altogether!\n\nOn a review of all that goes before, it will, I think, appear plain to\nany person of sound understanding, that Professor Jowett's _\u00e0 priori_\nviews respecting the Interpretation of Holy Scripture will not stand the\ntest of exact reason. To suggest as he has done that the Bible is to be\ninterpreted like any other book, on the plea that it _is_ like any other\nbook, is to build upon a false foundation. His syllogism is the\nfollowing:--\n\n     If the Bible is a book like any other book, the Bible is to be\n     interpreted like any other book.\n\n     The Bible is a book like any other book.\n\n      Therefore,--\n\nBut it has been shewn that the learned Professor's minor premiss is\nfalse. It has been proved that the Bible is NOT a book like any other\nbook.\n\nNay, I claim to have done _more_. I claim to have established the\ncontradictory minor premiss. The syllogism therefore will henceforth\nstand as follows:--\n\n     If the Bible can be shewn to be a book like no other book, but\n     entirely _sui generis_, and claiming to be the work of\n     Inspiration,--then is it reasonable to expect that it will have to\n     be interpreted like no other book, but entirely after a fashion of\n     its own.\n\n     But the Bible _can_ be shewn to be a book like no other book;\n     entirely _sui generis_; and claiming to be the work of Inspiration.\n\n      Therefore,--\n\n$2.$ It remains however, now, to advance an important step.--Mr. Jowett,\nin a certain place, adopts a principle, the soundness of which I am\nable, happily, entirely to admit. \"Interpret Scripture from\nitself,--like any other book about which we know almost nothing except\nwhat is derived from its pages.\" (p. 382.) \"_Non nisi ex Scriptur\u00e2\nScripturam interpretari potes._\" (p. 384.)\n\nScarcely has he made this important admission however, and enunciated\nhis golden Canon of interpretation, when he hastens to nullify it. His\nvery next words are,--\"The meaning of the Canon is only this,--'That we\ncannot understand Scripture without becoming familiar (!) with it.'\"\n\nBut, (begging the learned writer's pardon,) so far from _that_ being the\nwhole of the meaning of the Canon, his gloss happens exactly to miss the\nonly important point. The plain meaning of the words,--\"Only out of the\nScriptures can you explain the Scriptures,\"--is obviously rather\nthis:--'That in order _to interpret_ the Bible, our aim must be to\n_ascertain how the Bible interprets itself_.' In other\nwords,--'Scripture must be made _its own Interpreter_.' More simply yet,\nin the Professor's own words, (from which, _more suo_, he has\nimperceptibly glided away,)--\"_Interpret Scripture from itself._\"\n(p. 382.) ... How then does Scripture interpret Scripture? _That_ is the\nonly question! for the answer to this question must be held to be\ndecisive as to the other great question which Mr. Jowett raises in the\npresent Essay,--namely, How are _we_ to interpret Scripture?\n\nNow this whole Inquiry has been conducted elsewhere; and will be found\nto extend from p. 144 to p. 160 of the present volume. It has been there\nestablished, by a sufficiently large induction of examples, that _the\nBible is to be interpreted as no other book is, or can be interpreted_;\nand for the plain reason, that _the inspired Writers themselves_, (our\nLORD Himself at their head!) _interpret it after an altogether\nextraordinary fashion_. Mr. Jowett's statement at p. 339 that \"the\nmystical interpretation of Scripture originated in the Alexandrian\nage,\" is simply false.\n\nAnd in the course of this proof, (necessarily involved in it, in fact,)\nit has been incidentally shewn that the sense of Scripture is not, by\nany means, invariably _one_; and _that_ sense the most obvious to those\nwho wrote, heard, or read it. It has been fully shewn that the office of\nthe Interpreter is _not_, by any means, (as Mr. Jowett imagines,) \"to\nrecover the meaning of the words _as they first struck on the ears, or\nflashed before the eyes of those who heard or read them_.\" (p. 338.) The\nReverend writer's repeated assertion that \"we have no reason to\nattribute to the Prophet or Evangelist any second or hidden sense\ndifferent from that which appears on the surface,\" (p. 380,) has been\nfully, and as it is hoped effectually refuted.\n\nAnd here I might lay down my pen. For since, at the end of 74 pages, the\nProfessor thus delivers himself, (in a kind of imitation of St. Paul's\nlanguage[186],)--\"Of what has been said, this is the sum,--That\nScripture, _like other books_, has _one_ meaning, which has to be\ngathered from itself ... _without regard to \u00e0 priori notions about its\nnature and origin_:\" that, \"It is to be interpreted _like other books_,\nwith attention to the prevailing state of civilization and knowledge,\"\nand so forth; (p. 404;)--it must suffice to say that, having established\nthe very opposite conclusion, I claim to have effectually answered his\nEssay; because I have overthrown what he admits to be \"the sum\" of it.\nLet me be permitted however--before I proceed to review some other parts\nof his performance,--in the briefest manner, not so much to\nrecapitulate, as to exhibit 'the sum' of what has been hitherto\ndelivered on the other side; in somewhat different language, and as it\nwere from a different point of view.\n\nWe are presented then, in the New Testament Scriptures, with the august\nspectacle of the Ancient of Days holding the entire volume of the Old\nTestament Scriptures in His Hands, _and interpreting it of Himself_. He,\nwhose Life and Death are set forth in the Gospel;--whose Church's early\nfortunes are set forth historically in the Acts, while its future\nprospects are shadowed prophetically in the Apocalypse;--whose\nDoctrines, lastly, are explained in the twenty-one Epistles of St. Paul\nand St. Peter, St. James and St. John and St. Jude:--He, the Incarnate\nWORD, who was \"in the beginning;\" who \"was with GOD,\" and who \"was\nGOD:\"--that same Almighty One, I repeat, is exhibited to us in the\nGospel, repeatedly, holding the Volume of the Old Testament Scriptures\nin His Hands, and _explaining it of Himself. \"To day is this Scripture\nfulfilled_ in your ears[187],\"--was the solemn introductory sentence\nwith which, in the Synagogue of Nazareth, (after closing the Book and\ngiving it again to the Minister,) He prefaced His Sermon from the lxist\nchapter of Isaiah.--\"Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me:\n_for he wrote of Me_[188],\"--\"'O fools, and slow of heart to believe all\nthat the Prophets have spoken! Ought not CHRIST to have suffered these\nthings, and to enter into His glory?' And _beginning at Moses and all\nthe Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things\nconcerning Himself_[189].\"--\"These are the words which I spake unto you,\nthat all things must be fulfilled _which are written in the Law of\nMoses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me_[190].\"\n\n\"CHRIST was before Moses. The Gospel was not made for the Law; but the\nLaw was made for the Gospel. The Gospel is not based on the Law, but the\nLaw is a shadow of the Gospel. In order to believe the Bible, we must\nlook upward; and fix our eyes on JESUS CHRIST, sitting in Heavenly\nGlory, holding both Testaments in His Hand; sealing both Testaments with\nHis seal; and delivering both Testaments as Divine Oracles, to the\nWorld. We must receive the _written Word_ from the Hands of the\nINCARNATE WORD[191].\"\n\nThis august spectacle, let it be clearly stated,--(1) Establishes,\nbeyond all power of contradiction, the intimate connexion which subsists\nbetween the Old and the New Testament; as well as the altogether unique\nrelation which the one bears to the other:--(2) Invests either Testament\nwith a degree of sacred importance and majestic grandeur which\naltogether makes the Bible _unlike \"any other book_:\"--(3) Proves that\nthe Bible is to be interpreted as no other book ever was, or ever can be\ninterpreted:--(4) Demonstrates that it has _more than a single\nmeaning_:--and lastly, Convincingly shews that _GOD, and not Man, is its\ntrue Author_.\n\nIt will of course be asked,--Then does Mr. Jowett take no notice at all\nof this vast and complicated problem? How does he treat of the relation\nbetween the Old Testament and the New?... He despatches the entire\nsubject in the following passage:--\"The question,\" (he says,) \"runs up\ninto a more general one, 'the relation between the Old and New\nTestaments.' For the Old Testament _will receive a different meaning\naccordingly as it is explained from itself, or from the New_.\" (Very\ndifferent certainly!) \"In the first case,--a careful and conscientious\nstudy of each one for itself is all that is required.\" (That is to say,\nit will not be explained at all!) \"In the second case,--_the types and\nceremonies of the Law, perhaps the very facts and persons of the\nhistory_, WILL BE ASSUMED (!) to be predestined or made after a pattern\ncorresponding to the things that were to be in the latter days.\"\n(p. 370.) (And why not \"_will be found_ to be replete with Christian\nmeaning,--full of lofty spiritual significancy?\"--the _proved_\nmarvellousness of their texture, the _revealed_ mysteriousness of their\npurpose, being an effectual refutation of all Mr. Jowett's _\u00e0 priori_\nnotions!)\n\n\"And this question,\" (he proceeds,) \"stirs up another question\nrespecting the Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Is such\nInterpretation to be regarded as the meaning of the original text, or\n_an accommodation of it to the thoughts of other times_?\" (Nay, but\nReverend and learned Sir: \"nothing so plain,\" as you justly observe,\n\"that it may not be explained away;\" (p. 359;) yet we cannot consent to\nhave the sense of plain words thus clouded over at your mere bidding. It\nis now _our_ turn to declare that the Interpreter's \"object is to read\nScripture _like any other book_, with a real interest and not merely a\nconventional one.\" It is now _we_ who \"want to be able to open our eyes,\nand see things as they truly are.\" (p. 338.) We simply petition for\nleave to \"_interpret Scripture like any other book, by the same rules of\nevidence and the same canons of criticism_.\" (p. 375.) And if this\nfreedom be but conceded to us, there will be found to be no imaginable\nreason why the Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New,--(CHRIST\nHimself being the Majestic Speaker! our present edification and\neverlasting welfare being His gracious purpose!)--should not be strictly\n\"regarded as _the meaning of the original text_.\" ... But let us hear\nthe Professor out:--)\n\n\"Our object,\" (he says, and with this he dismisses the problem!)--\"Our\nobject is not to attempt here the determination of these questions; but\nto point out that they must be determined before any real progress can\nbe made, or any agreement arrived at in the Interpretation of\nScripture.\" (p. 370.) ... They must indeed. But can it be right in this\nslovenly, slippery style to shirk a discussion on the issue of which the\nwhole question may be said to turn? especially on the part of one who\nscruples not to prejudge that issue, and straightway to apply it, (in a\nmanner fatal to the Truth,) throughout all his hundred pages. Mr.\nJowett's method is ever to _assume_ what he ought to _prove_, and then\neither to be plaintive, or to sneer. \"It is a _heathenish or Rabbinical\nfancy_:\"--\"Such complexity would place the Scriptures _below human\ncompositions_ in general; for it would deprive them of the ordinary\nintelligibleness of human language\" (p. 382):--&c.\n\n\"Is the Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New to be regarded as\nthe _meaning of the original text_; or an _accommodation of it to the\nthoughts of other times_?\" (p. 370.) This is Mr. Jowett's question; the\nquestion which it is \"_not his object_ to attempt to determine;\" but\nwhich I, on the contrary, have made it _my_ object to discuss in my VIth\nSermon,--p. 183 to p. 220. Without troubling the reader however now to\nwade through those many pages, let me at least explain to him in a few\nwords what Mr. Jowett's question really amounts to: namely this,--Do the\nApostles and Evangelists, does our Blessed LORD Himself, when He\nprofesses to explain the mysterious significancy of the Old\nTestament,--_invariably,--in every instance,--misrepresent \"the meaning\nof the original text_?\" And the answer to this question I am content to\nawait from any candid person of plain unsophisticated understanding. Is\nit credible, concerning the Divine expositions found in St. Matth. xxii.\n31, 32,--xxii. 43-5,--xii. 39, 40,--xi. 10,--St. John viii. 17,18,--i.\n52,--vi. 31, &c,--x. 34-5:--the Apostolic interpretations found in 1\nCor. ix. 9-11,--x. 1-6,--xv. 20,--Heb. ii. 5-9,--vii. 1-10,--Gal. iv.\n21-31:--is it conceivable, I ask, that _not one_ of all these places\nshould exhibit the actual '_meaning of the original text_?' And yet, (as\nMr. Jowett himself is forced to admit,)--\"If we attribute to the details\nof the Mosaical ritual a reference to the New Testament, or suppose the\npassage of the Red Sea to be regarded not merely as a figure of Baptism,\nbut as a preordained type;--_the principle is conceded_!\" (p. 369.) \"A\nlittle more or a little less of the method does not make the\ndifference.\" (_Ibid._) In a word,--in such case, Mr. Jowett's Essay\nfalls to the ground!... To proceed however.\n\n$3.$ The case of Interpretation has not yet been fully set before the\nreader. Hitherto, we have merely traced the problem back to the\nfountain-head, and dealt with it simply as _a Scriptural question_. We\nhave shewn what light is thrown upon _Interpretation_ by the volume of\n_Inspiration_. The subject has been treated in the same way in the Vth\nand VIth of my Sermons. But it will not be improper, in this place,--it\nis even indispensable,--to develope the problem a little more fully; and\nto explain that it is of much larger extent.\n\nNow, there is a family resemblance in the method of all ancient\nexpositions of Holy Scripture which vindicates for them, however\nremotely, a common origin. There is a resemblance in the general way of\nhandling the Inspired Word which can only be satisfactorily explained by\nsupposing that the remote type of all was the oral teaching of the\nApostles themselves. In truth, is it credible that the early Christians\nwould have been so forgetful of the discourses of the men who had seen\nthe LORD, that no trace of it,--no tradition of so much as _the manner_\nof it,--should have lingered on for a hundred years after the death of\nthe last of the Apostles; down to the time when Origen, for example, was\na young man?... It cannot possibly be!\n\n(i.) \"The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses,\"\n(writes the great Apostle to his son Timothy,) \"the same commit thou to\nfaithful men, who shall be able to teach others also[192].\" Provision is\nthus made by the aged Saint,--_in the last of his Epistles_,--for the\ntransmission of his inspired teaching[193] to a second and a third\ngeneration. Now the words just quoted were written about the year 65, at\nwhich time Timothy was a young man. Unless we suppose that ALMIGHTY GOD\ncurtailed the lives of the chief depositaries of His Word, Timothy will\nhave lived on till A.D. 100; so that \"faithful men\" who died in the\nmiddle of the next century might have been trained and taught by him for\nmany years. It follows, that the \"faithful men\" last spoken of will\nhave been \"able to teach others also,\" whose writings (if they wrote at\nall) would range from A.D. 190 to A.D. 210. Now, just such a writer is\nHippolytus,--who is known to have been taught by that \"faithful man\"\nIren\u00e6us[194],--to whom, as it happens, the deposit was \"committed\" by\nPolycarp,--who stood to St. John in the self-same relation as Timothy to\nSt. Paul!\n\n(ii.) Our SAVIOUR is repeatedly declared to have interpreted the Old\nTestament to His Disciples. For instance, to the two going to Emmaus,\n\"beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, _He interpreted to them in all\nthe Scriptures the things concerning Himself_[195].\" Moreover, before He\nleft the world, He solemnly promised His Apostles that the HOLY GHOST,\nwhom the FATHER should send in His Name, \"should _teach them all\nthings_, and _bring to their remembrance all things which He had spoken\nto them_[196].\" Shall we believe that the Treasury of _Divine\nInspiration_ thus opened by CHRIST Himself was straightway closed up by\nits human guardians, and at once forgotten? Shall we not rather believe\nthat Cleopas and his companion, (for instance,) forthwith repeated their\nLORD'S words to every member of the Apostolic body, and to others also;\nthat they were questioned again and again by adoring listeners, even to\ntheir extremest age; aye, and that they taxed their memories to the\nutmost in order to recal every little word, every particular of our\nSAVIOUR'S Divine utterance? It must be so! And the echo, the remote echo\nof that exposition, depend upon it! descended to a second, aye and to a\nthird generation; yea, and has come down, faintly, and feebly it may be,\nbut yet essentially and truly, even to ourselves!\n\n(iii.) And yet,--(for we would not willingly incur the charge of being\nfanciful in so solemn and important a matter,)--the great fact to be\nborne in mind, (and it is the great fact which nothing can ever set\naside or weaken,) is, that for the first century at least of our \u00e6ra,\nthere existed within the Christian Church _the gift of Prophecy_; that\nis, of _Inspired Interpretation_[197]. The minds of the Apostles, CHRIST\nHimself \"opened, _to understand the Scriptures_[198].\" Can it be any\nmatter of surprise that men so enlightened, when they had been\nmiraculously endowed with the gift of tongues[199], and scattered over\nthe face of the ancient civilized World, should have disseminated the\nsame principles of Catholic Interpretation, as well as the same elements\nof Saving Truth? When this miraculous _gift_ ceased, its _results_ did\nnot also come to an end. The fountain dried up, but the streams which it\nhad sent forth yet \"made glad the City of GOD.\" And by what possible\nlogic can the teaching of the early Church be severed from its source?\nIt cannot be supposed for an instant that such a severance ever took\nplace. The teaching of the Apostolic age was the immediate parent of the\nteaching of the earliest of the Fathers,--in whose Schools it is matter\nof history that those Patristic writers with whom we are most familiar,\nstudied and became famous. Accordingly, we discover a method of\nInterpreting Holy Scripture strictly resembling that employed by our\nSAVIOUR and His Apostles, _in all the earliest Patristic writings_. As\ndocuments increase, the evidence is multiplied; and at the end of two or\nthree centuries after the death of St. John the Evangelist, voices are\nheard from Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine; from Antioch and from\nother parts of Syria; from the Eastern and the Western extremities of\nNorth Africa; from many regions of Asia Minor; from Constantinople and\nfrom Greece; from Rome, from Milan, and from other parts of Italy; from\nCyprus and from Gaul;--all singing in unison; all singing the same\nheavenly song!... In what way but one is so extraordinary a phenomenon\nto be accounted for? Are we to believe that there was a general\nconspiracy of the East and the West, the North and the South, to\ninterpret Holy Scripture in a certain way; and that way, the wrong way?\n\nEnough has been said, it is thought, to shew that many of Mr. Jowett's\nremarks about the value of Patristic evidence are either futile or\nincorrect; or that they betray an entire misapprehension of the whole\nquestion, not to say a thorough want of appreciation of the claims of\nAntiquity. We do not yield to the 'Essayist and Reviewer' in veneration\nfor the Inspired page; and trust that enough has been said to shew it.\nOur eye, when we read Scripture, (like his,) \"is fixed on the form of\nOne like the Son of Man; or of the Prophet who was girded with a garment\nof camel's hair; or of the Apostle who had a thorn in the flesh.\"\n(p. 338.) We are only unlike Mr. Jowett we fear in _this_,--that _we_\nbelieve _ex animo_ that the first-named was the Eternal SON, \"equal to\nthe FATHER,\" and \"of one substance with the FATHER[200]:\" and further\nthat St. Paul's fourteen Epistles are all _inspired writings_, in an\nentirely different sense from the Dialogues of Plato or the Tragedies of\nSophocles. It follows, that however riveted our mental gaze may be on\nthe awful forms which come before us in Holy Scripture,--as often as we\ncon _the inspired record of the actions and of the sayings of those\nmen_, we are constrained many a time to look upward, and to exclaim with\nthe Psalmist, \"Thy thoughts are very deep[201]!\" And often if asked,\n\"Understandest thou what thou readest?\"--we must still answer with the\nEthiopian, \"How can I, except some man should guide me[202]?\"\n\n(iv.) To assume however that our defective knowledge \"cannot be supplied\nby the _conjectures_ of Fathers or Divines,\" (p. 338,) is in some sort\nto beg the question at issue. To say of the student of Scripture that\n\"the history of Christendom, and all the afterthoughts of Theology, _are\nnothing to him_:\" (p. 338:) that \"he has to imagine himself a disciple\nof CHRIST or Paul, and _to disengage himself from all that follows_:\"\n(_Ibid._:) is not the language of modesty, but of inordinate conceit. In\nMr. Jowett it is in fact something infinitely worse; for he shews that\nhis object thereby is to \"obtain an unembarrassed opportunity of\napplying all the resources of a so-called criticism to discredit and\ndestroy the written record itself[203].\"\n\n\"True indeed it is, that more than any other subject of human knowledge,\nBiblical criticism has hung (_sic._) to the past;\" (p. 340;) but the\nreason is also obvious. It is because, in the words of great Bishop\nPearson, \"Philosophia quotidie _progressu_, Theologia nisi _regressu_\nnon crescit[204].\" \"O ye who are devoting yourselves to the Divine\nScience of Theology,\" (he exclaims,) \"and whose cheeks grow pale over\nthe study of Holy Scripture above all; ye who either fill the venerable\noffice of the Priesthood or intend it, and are hereafter to undertake\nthe awful cure of souls:--rid yourselves of that itch of the present\nage, the love of novelty. Make it your business to inquire for that\nwhich was from the beginning. Resort for counsel to the fountain-head.\nHave recourse to Antiquity. Return to the holy Fathers. Look back to the\nprimitive Church. In the words of the Prophet,--'_Ask for the old\npaths_[205].'\"\n\nWhen therefore Mr. Jowett classes together \"the early Fathers, the Roman\nCatholic mystical writers, the Swiss and German Reformers, and the\nNonconformist Divines,\" (p. 377,)--he either shews a most lamentable\nwant of intellectual perspective, or a most perverse understanding. So\njumbled into one confused heap, it may not be altogether untrue to say\nof Commentators generally, that \"the words of Scripture suggest to them\n_their own thoughts or feelings_.\" (p. 377.) But when it is straightway\nadded, \"There is nothing in such a view derogatory to _the Saints and\nDoctors of former ages_,\" (_Ibid._,) we are constrained, (for the\nreasons already before the reader,) to remonstrate against so\nmisleading and deceitful a way of putting the case. Mr. Jowett desires\nto be understood not to depreciate \"the genius or learning of famous men\nof old,\" when he remarks \"that _Aquinas or Bernard did not shake\nthemselves free from the mystical method of the Patristic times_.\"\n(_Ibid._) But with singular obtuseness, or with pitiful\ndisingenuousness, he does his best by such words to shut out from view\nthe real question at issue,--namely, _the exegetical value of Patristic\nAntiquity_. For the Church of England, when she appeals, (as she\nrepeatedly does,) to \"the Ancient Fathers,\" does not by any means intend\nsuch names as the Abbot of Clairvaux, who flourished in the middle of\nthe twelfth century; or Thomas of Aquinum, who lived later into the\nthirteenth. It is the spirit of _the ante-Nicene age_ which she defers\nto; the Fathers of _the first four or five centuries_ to whose opinion\nshe gives reverent attention; as her formularies abundantly shew.\nWhether therefore Aquinas and Bernard were or were not able to \"shake\nthemselves free from the mystical method _of the Patristic times_,\"\nmatters very little. The point to be observed is that _the Writers of\nthe Patristic times_, as a matter of fact, \"did not shake themselves\n_free from the mystical method of\" CHRIST and His Apostles_!\n\nVery far am I from denying that \"any one who, instead of burying himself\nin the pages of the commentators, would learn the Sacred Writings by\nheart, and paraphrase them in English, will probably make a nearer\napproach to their true meaning than he would gather from any\nCommentary.\" Quite certain is it that \"the true use of Interpretation is\nto get rid of interpretation, and leave us alone in company with the\nauthor.\" (p. 384.) But this is quite a distinct and different matter, as\nevery person of unsophisticated understanding must perceive at once. The\nsame thing will be found stated by myself, in a subsequent part of the\npresent volume, at considerable length[206]; the qualifying condition\nhaving been introduced at p. 16. The truth is, a man can no more divest\nhimself of the conditions of thought habitual to one familiar with his\nPrayer-Book, than he can withdraw himself from the atmosphere of light\nin which he moves. _Not_ the abuse of Commentators on Holy Scripture,\nbut _the principle on which Holy Scripture itself is to be\ninterpreted_,--is the real question at issue: the fundamental question\nwhich underlies this, being of course the vital one,--namely, _Is the\nBible an inspired book, or not_?\n\nApart from what has been already urged concerning \"the torrent of\n_Patristic_ Interpretation[207]\" which flows down not so much from the\nfountain-head of Scripture, (wherein so many specimens of _Inspired_\nInterpretation are preserved,) as from the fontal source of all Wisdom\nand Knowledge,--even the lips of the Incarnate WORD Himself;--apart from\nthis, a very important Historical circumstance calls for notice in this\nplace.\n\nHow did Christianity originate? how did it first establish a footing in\nthe world? \"The answer is, By the preaching of living men, who said they\nwere commissioned by GOD to proclaim it. _That_ was the origin and first\nestablishment of Christianity. There is indeed a vague and unreasoning\nnotion prevalent that Christianity was _taken from the New Testament_.\nThe notion is historically untrue. Christianity was widely extended\nthrough the civilized world before the New Testament was written; and\nits several books were successively addressed to various bodies of\nChristian believers; to bodies, that is, who already possessed the faith\nof CHRIST in its integrity. When, indeed, GOD ceased to inspire persons\nto write these books, and when they were all collected together into\nwhat we call the New Testament, the existing Faith of the Church,\nderived from oral teaching, was tested by comparison with this Inspired\nRecord. And it henceforth became the standing law of the Church that\nnothing should be received as necessary to Salvation, which could not\nstand that test. But still, though thus tested, (every article being\nproved by the New Testament,) Christianity is not taken from it; _for it\nexisted before it_.\n\n\"What, then, was the Christianity which was thus established? Have we\nany record of it as it existed before the New Testament became the sole\nauthoritative standard? I answer, we have. The Creeds of the Christian\nChurch are the record of it. That is precisely what they purport to be:\nnot documents taken from the New Testament, but documents transmitting\nto us the Faith as it was held from the beginning; the Faith as it was\npreached by inspired men, before the inspired men put forth any\nwritings; the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints. Accordingly\nyou will find that our Church in her viiith Article does not ground her\naffirmation that the Creeds ought to be 'thoroughly received and\nbelieved,' on the fact that they _were taken_ from the New Testament,\n(which they were _not_;) but on the fact that '_they may be proved by\nmost certain warrants of Holy Scripture_.'\"\n\nIt follows therefore from what has been said, that even if bad men could\nsucceed in destroying the authority of the Bible as the Word of GOD, all\ncould not be up with Christianity. There would _still_ remain to be\ndealt with the Faith as it exists in the world; the Faith held from the\nbeginning; the Faith once delivered to the Saints. None of the assaults\non Holy Scripture can touch _that_; for it traces itself to an\nindependent origin. The evil work, therefore, would have to be begun all\nover again. The special doctrines which are impugned in 'Essays and\nReviews' do not stand or fall with the Inspiration or Interpretation of\nScripture; but are stereotyped in the Faith of Christendom. \"The Fall of\nMan, Original Sin, the Atonement, the Divinity of CHRIST, the Trinity,\nall have their place in the Faith held from the beginning. They are\nimbedded in the Creeds, and in that general scheme of Doctrine which\ncircles round the Creeds, and is involved in them. Nay, curiously\nenough,--or rather I should say providentially,--the very point against\nwhich the attacks of this book are principally directed, namely the\nInspiration of the Old Testament, is in express terms asserted\nthere:--_the_ HOLY GHOST '_spake by the Prophets_[208].'\"\n\nIt remains to shew the bearing of these remarks on Mr. Jowett's\nEssay.--With infinite perseverance, he dwells upon \"the nude Scripture,\nthe merest letter of the Sacred Volume, as if in it and in it alone,\nresided the entire Revelation of CHRIST, and all possible means of\njudging what that Revelation consists of: whereas this is very far\nindeed from being the case. Every single Book of the New Testament was\nwritten, as we have seen, to persons _already in possession of Christian\nTruth_. It is quite erroneous therefore, historically and notoriously\nerroneous, to suppose either that the Divine Institution of the Church,\nor that its Doctrines, were literally founded upon the written words of\nHoly Scripture; or that they can impart no illustration nor help in the\nInterpretation of those written words.... The complete possession of the\nsaving Truth belonged to the Christian Church not by degrees, nor in\nlapse of time, but from the first. Of that saving truth, thus taught and\nthus possessed, _the Apostles' Creed_, growing up as it did on every\nside of Christendom as the faithful record of the uniform oral teaching\nof the Apostles, is the true and precious historical monument[209]; and\nI venture to say that if any person claims to reject the Apostles'\nCreed as an auxiliary, a great and invaluable auxiliary, in interpreting\nthe writings of the Apostles, he shews himself to be very wanting indeed\nin appreciation of the comparative value of Historical Evidence, and of\nthe true principles of Historical Philosophy.--And not the Apostles'\nCreed only; but the whole history and tradition of the universal\nChurch,--needing, no doubt, skill and discretion in its\napplication,--supply, when applied with requisite skill and discretion,\nvery valuable and real aid in interpreting Holy Scripture[210].\"\n\nWhen therefore Mr. Jowett speaks contemptuously of \"the attempt to adapt\nthe truths of Scripture to the doctrines of the Creeds,\" (p. 353,) the\nkindest thing which can be said is that he writes like an ignorant, or\nat least an unlearned man. \"The Creeds\" (he says) \"are acknowledged to\nbe a part of Christianity.... Yet it does not follow that they should be\npressed into the service of the Interpreter.\" Why not? we ask. \"The\n_growth of ideas_,\" (he replies,) \"in the interval which separated the\nfirst century from the fourth or sixth makes it _impossible_ to apply\nthe language of the one to the explanation of the other. Between\nScripture and the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds, _a world of the\nunderstanding comes in_; and mankind are no longer at the same point as\nwhen the whole of Christianity was contained in the words 'Believe on\nthe LORD JESUS CHRIST and thou mayest be saved;' when the Gospel centred\nin the attachment to a living and recently departed friend and Lord.\"\n(p. 353.)\n\nBut there is a fallacy or a falsity at every step of this argument. For\n_when_ did the Gospel ever \"centre in attachment?\" or _when_ was \"the\nwhole of Christianity contained\" in one short sentence? Supposing too\nthat \"a world of the understanding\" _does_ come in between the first\ncentury and the sixth; how does it follow that it is \"impossible\" to\napply the language of the Creeds to the interpretation of Holy\nScripture? Explain to me how that \"world of understanding\" affects _the\nNicene_ Creed? Even in the case of that most precious Creed called the\nAthanasian,--why need we _assume_ that \"the growth of ideas\" has been a\nspurious growth? What if it should prove, on the contrary, that the\ndevelopment has been that of the plant from the seed[211]? Above all,\nwhy talk of \"the fourth _or sixth_ century,\"--as if the Creeds were not\nessentially much older; nay, _co-eval with Christianity itself_?... Such\nwriting shews nothing so much as a confused mind,--a weak, ill-informed,\nand illogical thinker.\n\nIndeed Mr. Jowett seems to be altogether in the dark on the subject of\nthe Creeds: for he speaks of them as \"the result of three or four\ncenturies of reflection and controversy,\" (p. 353,)--which is by no\nmeans true of all of them; nor, except in a certain sense, of any. But\nwhen he inquires,--\"If the occurrence of the phraseology of the Nicene\nage in a verse of the Epistles would detect the spuriousness of the\nverse in which it was found,--how can the Nicene _or Athanasian Creed_\nbe a suitable instrument for the interpretation of Scripture?\"\n(p. 354.)--he simply asks a fool's question. The cases are not only not\nparallel, but there is not even any analogy between them. Let us hear\nhim a little further:--\n\n\"Absorbed as St. Paul was in the person of Christ, ... he does not speak\nof Him as 'equal to the Father,' or 'of one substance with the\nFather[212].' Much of the language of the Epistles, (passages for\nexample such as Romans i. 2: Philippians ii. 6,) would lose their\nmeaning if distributed in alternate clauses between our LORD'S Humanity\nand Divinity[213]. Still greater difficulties would be introduced into\nthe Gospels by the attempt to identify them with the Creeds[214]. We\nshould have to suppose that He was and was not tempted[215]; that when\nHe prayed to His Father He prayed also to Himself[216]; that He knew and\ndid not know 'of that hour' of which He as well as the angels were\nignorant[217]. How could He have said 'My God, My God, why hast Thou\nforsaken Me?' or 'Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from Me.'\nHow could He have doubted whether 'when the Son of Man cometh He shall\nfind faith upon the earth[218]?' These simple and touching words,\"\n(p. 355,)--pah!\n\nNow if what precedes means anything at all,--(I am by no means certain\nhowever that it does!)--it means that the writer does not believe in the\nDivinity of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. Unless the sentence which is without\na reference to the foot of the page be not a denial of the fundamental\nDoctrine of the Faith[219],--I do not understand it. But look at _all_\nwhich precedes; and then say if those are the remarks of a man entitled\nto dogmatize \"On the Interpretation of Scripture.\" ... If Mr. Jowett\nreally means that the Creeds _cannot be reconciled with the Bible_,--how\ncan he himself subscribe to the VIIIth Article? If he means nothing of\nthe kind,--why does he write in such a weak, cloudy, illogical way?\n\nBut the whole of the case has not even yet been stated. Down from the\nremote period of which we have been hitherto speaking,--the age of\nprimitive Creeds, and oecumenical Councils, and ancient Fathers,--in\nevery country of the civilized world to which the Gospel has\nspread,--the loftiest Intellect, the profoundest Learning, the sincerest\nPiety, have invariably endorsed the ancient and original method of\ninterpretation. I am not implying that such corroboration was in any\nsense _required_; but the circumstance that it has been _obtained_, at\nleast deserves attention. Modes of thought are dependent on times and\ncountries. There is a fashion in all things. Great advances in\nScience,--grand epochs in civilization,--vicissitudes of\nopinion,--difference of institutions, national traditions, and the\nlike,--might be supposed to have wrought a permanent change even in this\ndepartment of Sacred Science. But it is not so. The storm has raged from\none quarter or other of the heavens, but has ever spent its violence in\nvain. Still has the Church Catholic retained her own unbroken tradition.\nTo keep to the history of that Church to which we, by GOD'S mercy,\nbelong:--The constant appeal, at the time of our own great Reformation,\nwas to the Fathers of the first four centuries. Ever since, the temper\nand spirit of our Commentators has been to revert to the same standard,\nto reproduce the same teaching. The most powerful minds and the most\nholy spirits,--English Divines of the deepest thought and largest\nreading,--let me add, of the soundest judgment and severest\ndiscrimination,--have, in every age, down to the present, gratefully\naccepted not only the method, but even the very details of primitive\nPatristic Interpretation. But \"the acceptance of a hundred generations\nand the growing authority arising from it,\"--like \"the institutions\nbased upon such ancient writings, and the history into which they have\nentwined themselves indissolubly for many centuries,\"--all conspire to\n\"constitute a perpetually increasing and strengthening[220]\" body of\nevidence on the subject of Sacred Interpretation.\n\nNow, to oppose to the learning, and piety, and wisdom, of every age of\nthe English Church,--to the unbroken testimony of the Church\nUniversal,--(3) to the torrent of Patristic Antiquity,--(4) the decision\nof early Councils, and (5) the 'still small voice' of primitive\nCreeds,--yet more, (6) to the constant practice of the Apostles,--and,\nabove all, (7) to the indisputable method of our Divine LORD\nHimself;--to oppose to all this mighty accumulation of evidence, the\nsimple _\u00e0 priori_ convictions of--Mr. Jowett! savours so strongly of the\nridiculous, that it really seems superfluous to linger over the\nantithesis for a single moment.\n\n$4.$ Our task might now be looked upon as completed.--It only remains,\nin justice to the gentleman whose method we have been considering, to\nascertain by what considerations he is induced to reject that method of\nInterpretation which, as we have seen, enjoys such overwhelming\nsanction.\n\n(i) In opposition to what goes before, then, he throws out a suggestion,\nthat \"nothing would be more likely to restore a natural feeling on this\nsubject than a History of the Interpretation of Scripture. It would take\nus back to the beginning; it would present in one view the causes which\nhave darkened the meaning of words in the course of ages.\" (p. 338-9.)\n\"Such a work would enable us to separate the elements of Doctrine and\nTradition with which the meaning of Scripture is encumbered in our own\nday.\" (p. 339.)\n\nLet us here be well understood with our author. The advantage of a good\n\"History of Interpretation\" would indeed be incalculably great. But Mr.\nJowett, (like most other writers of his class,) _assumes_ the point he\nhas to _prove_, when he insinuates that the result of such a\ncontribution to our Theological Literature would be to shew that all the\nworld has been in error for 1700 years, and that he alone is right. That\n'erring fancy' has _often_ been at work in the fields of sacred\ncriticism,--_who_ ever doubted? That there have been epochs of\nInterpretation,--different Schools,--and varying tastes, in the long\ncourse of so many centuries of mingled light and darkness, learning and\nbarbarism;--what need to declare? A faithful history of Interpretation\nwould of course establish these facts on a sure foundation.\n\nBut the Reverend Author forgets his Logic when he goes on from these\nundoubted generalities to imply that all has been confusion and utter\nuncertainty until now. Above all, common regard for the facts of the\ncase ought to have preserved him from putting forth so monstrous a\nfalsehood as the following:--\"_Among German Commentators_ there is for\nthe first time in the history of the world, an approach to agreement and\ncertainty.\" (p. 340.)\n\nLet us however,--passing by the many crooked remarks and unsound\ninferences with which the Reverend writer, (_more suo_,) delights to\nperplex a plain question[221],--invite him to abide by the test which he\nhimself proposes. For 1700 years, (he says,) the Interpretation of\nScripture has been obscured and encumbered by successive Schools of\nInterpretation. The Interpreter's concern (he says) is _with the Bible\nitself_. \"The simple words of that book he tries to preserve absolutely\npure from the refinements of later times.... The greater part of his\nlearning is a knowledge of the text itself.\" [He is evidently the very\nman who _sweeps the house to discover the pearl of great price_.\n(p. 414.)] \"He has no delight in the voluminous literature which has\novergrown it. He has no theory of Interpretation. A few rules guarding\nagainst common errors are enough for him.... He wants to be able to open\nhis eyes, and see or imagine things as they truly are.\" (p. 338.) [How\ncrooked by the way is all this! \"He has no _theory_ of\nInterpretation[222]?\" Why, no; for the best of all reasons. He _denies\nInspiration altogether!_ His \"theory\" is that _the Bible is an\nuninspired Book!_ ... How peculiar too, and how plaintive is the \"want\"\nof the supposed Interpreter, \"_to he able to open his eyes_;\"--glued up,\nas they no doubt are, by the superstitious tendencies of the nineteenth\ncentury, and the tyranny of an intolerant age!]\n\nBut we may perhaps state the matter more intelligibly and simply,\nthus:--In order to ascertain the _true_ principle of Scriptural\nInterpretation, let us,--divesting ourselves of the complicated and\nvoluminous lore of 1700 years,--_resort to the Bible itself_. Let us go\nfor our views to the fountain-head; and abide by what we shall discover\n_there_.\n\nA fairer proposal (as I think) never was made. It exactly describes the\nmethod which I have humbly endeavoured myself to pursue in the ensuing\nSermons. The inquiry will be found elaborated from  p. 141 to p. 160 of\nthe present volume; and the result is to be read on the last-named page,\nin the following words:--\"that it may be regarded as a fundamental rule,\nthat the Bible _is not to be interpreted like a common book_. This I\ngather infallibly from the plain fact, that _the inspired writers\nthemselves_ habitually interpret it _as no other book either is, or can\nbe interpreted_.--Next, I assert without fear of contradiction that\ninspired Interpretation, whatever varieties of method it may exhibit, is\nyet uniform and unequivocal in this one result; namely, that it proves\nHoly Scripture to be of far deeper significancy than at first sight\nappears. By no imaginable artifice of Rhetoric or sophistry of\nevasion,--by no possible vehemence of denial or plausibility of counter\nassertion,--can it be rendered probable that Scripture has invariably\none only meaning; and _that_ meaning, the most obvious and easy.\"\n\nNow, the reader is requested to observe that what precedes is _the\ndirect contradictory_ of the position which Mr. Jowett has written his\nEssay in order to establish. And thus we keep for ever coming back to\nhis =pr\u00f4ton pseudos=,--the fundamental falsity which underlies the whole\nof what he has written.\n\n(ii) But although we have eagerly resorted to Scripture itself in order\nto ascertain _on what principle_ Scripture ought to be interpreted, we\ncannot for a moment allow some of the sophistries with which the\nReverend Author has encumbered the question, to escape without\ncastigation. He may not first court an appeal to the School of\nApostolical Interpretation; and then, before the result of that appeal\nhas been ascertained, go off in praise of the illumination of the\npresent age; and claim to represent the Theological mind of Europe in\nhis own person. \"Educated persons,\" (he has the impertinence to\nassert,) \"are _beginning to ask_ (!), not what Scripture may be _made_\nto mean, but what it _does_. And it is no exaggeration to say that he\nwho in the present state of knowledge will confine himself to _the plain\nmeaning of words_, and the study of their context, may know more of the\noriginal spirit and intention of the authors of the New Testament _than\nall the controversial writers of former ages put together_.\"\n(pp. 340-1.) This might be tolerated perhaps, in the self-constituted\noracle of a Mechanics' Institute; but as proceeding from a Divinity\nLecturer in one of the first Colleges in Oxford, I hesitate not to\ndeclare that such an opinion is simply disgraceful.\n\nVery much of a piece with this, in point of flippancy,--(though barely\nconsistent with his frequent assertions that the entire subject is\nhemmed in by grave difficulties,)--are the Regius Professor of Greek's\nremarks on the value of learning as a help to the Interpretation of Holy\nWrit. \"_Learning obscures_ as well as illustrates.\" (p. 337.)--\"There\nseem to be reasons for doubting whether any _considerable light_ can be\nthrown on the New Testament from inquiry into _the language_.\"\n(p. 393.)--\"Minute corrections of tenses or particles are _no good_.\"\n(p. 393.)--\"Discussions respecting the chronology of St. Paul's life and\nhis second imprisonment; or about the identity of James, the brother of\nthe LORD; or, in another department, _respecting the use of the Greek\narticle,--have gone far beyond the line of utility_.\" (p. 393.) \"The\nminuteness of the study of Greek in our own day has also a tendency _to\nintroduce into the text associations_ which are not really found there.\"\n(p. 391.)--Lastly, he complains of \"the error of interpreting every\nparticle, as though it were a link in the argument; instead of being,\nas is often the case, _an excrescence of style_.\" (p. 391.)\n\nSo then, in brief, the Fathers are in a conspiracy to mislead: Creeds\nand Councils encumber the sense: Modern Commentators are not to be\ntrusted: the comparison of Scripture with Scripture, except it be \"of\nthe same age and the same authors,\" \"will tend rather to confuse than to\nelucidate:\" (p. 383:) \"Learning obscures,\" and an accurate appreciation\nof the meaning of the text is \"no good!\"--\"When the _meaning of Greek\nwords_ is once known[223], the young student has almost _all the real\nmaterials which are possessed by the greatest Biblical scholar_, in the\nbook itself.\" (p. 384.) In a word, (as Dr. Moberly has had the manliness\nto remark,)--\"It simply comes to this: A little Greek, (not too much,)\nand a strong self-relying imagination, and you may interpret Holy\nScripture as well as--Mr. Jowett!\" (p. lxii.) ... Benighted himself, the\nunhappy author of this Essay is so apprehensive lest a ray of light from\nHeaven shall break in upon one of his disciples,--even sideways, as it\nwere, from the margin of the Bible,--that he carefully prohibits \"the\nindiscriminate use of parallel passages\" as \"useless and uncritical.\"\n... Yet may one not _with discrimination_ refer to the margin?--Better\nnot! \"No good!\" (p. 393.) replies the Oracle. \"Even the critical use of\nparallel passages is _not without danger_.\" (p. 383.) ... O shame! And\nall this from a College Tutor and Lecturer on Divinity! _this_ from one\nentrusted with the care of educating young men! _this_ from a Regius\nProfessor of Greek[224]!\n\nMr. Jowett congratulates himself that \"Biblical criticism has made two\ngreat steps onward,--at the time of the Reformation, and _in our own\nday_.\" But his notion is amply refuted by the known facts of the case:\nfor when he adds,--\"The diffusion of a critical spirit in History and\nLiterature is affecting the criticism of the Bible in our own day in a\nmanner not unlike the burst of intellectual life in the fifteenth or\nsixteenth centuries;\" (p. 340;) he clearly requires to be reminded that\nthe success of the Divinity of the Reformation was owing to the grand\nappeal then made to _the Patristic writings_.\n\nSo far then as any of ourselves are resorting to _those_ sources of\ninformation, there may be a faint resemblance _in kind_ between the\nspirit which animates us, and that which wrought so nobly in the Fathers\nof our spiritual freedom,--Cranmer and Ridley and the other learned and\nholy men who revised our Offices. But if \"_German_ Commentators\" and\n_their_ method be supposed to be the ideals to which the age is tending,\n_then_ the Theology of the middle of the nineteenth century stands in\nmarked _contrast_ to what prevailed in the middle of the sixteenth; and\nour spirit is _the very reverse of theirs_.--But I hasten on.\n\n(iii) \"The uncertainty which prevails in the Interpretation of\nScripture,\" Mr. Jowett proposes to get rid of,--(this is in fact the aim\nof his entire Essay,) by denying that there are in Scripture any deeper\nmeanings to interpret. In the meantime, by every device in his power, he\nseeks from _\u00e0 priori_ considerations, (as we have seen,) to shew that no\nsuch meanings can exist. We allow ourselves to be biassed, to a singular\nextent, he says, \"by certain previous suppositions with which we come to\nthe perusal of Scripture.\" (p. 342.) _But_ for this, \"no one would\ninterpret Scripture as many do.\" (_Ibid._) Let us ascertain then what\nthese erroneous \"suppositions\" are.\n\n(=1=) \"The failure of a prophecy is never admitted, in spite of\nScripture and of history, (Jer. xxxvi. 30. Isaiah xxiii. Amos vii.\n10-17.)\" (p. 343.)\n\nNow this can only mean two things: viz. first, that a Divine Prophecy is\n_not_ an infallible utterance: and secondly, that the three places\nquoted from the Old Testament are _proofs_ of the fallibility of\nProphecy; proofs which ought to overcome prejudice, and persuade men to\nrenounce their \"previous supposition\" that Prophecy is _in_fallible.\n\nCertainly the charge is a grave one. For if _Prophecy_ is untrue, then\nwhat becomes of Inspiration?\n\nAnd yet, how stands the case? The writer seems to have expected \"that no\none would refer to the passages that he has bracketed, or that all would\nbe too ignorant to know the utter groundlessness of his assumption. If\nthere are, in the whole Scripture, two past prophecies which were\nsignally and remarkably fulfilled, they are the first two which he has\nselected as instances to be dropped down, without a remark, of the\nfailure of Scripture prophecies! And as to the third passage, surely it\nimplies an 'incuria' which might be deemed 'crassa' to have asserted\nthat it contained an instance of the non-fulfilment of Prophecy: for it\nimplies that Mr. Jowett has read the verses to which he refers with so\nlittle attention as not to have discovered that the prediction which\nfailed of its fulfilment was _no utterance of Amos_, but was _the\nmessage of Amaziah, the priest of Bethel_, in which he falsely\nattributes to Amos _words he had not spoken_!... Surely such slips as\nthese are as discreditable to a scholar as a Divine[225]!\"\n\nAnd this, from a gentleman who has the impertinence to remind us\noracularly, that \"he who would understand the nature of Prophecy in the\nOld Testament, should have _the courage to examine how far its details\nwere minutely fulfilled_!\" (p. 347.) Are we then to infer that Mr.\nJowett's courage failed him when he came to Amos vii. 10-17?\n\n(=2=) \"The mention of a name later than the supposed age of the\nprophet is not allowed, as in other writings, to be taken in evidence of\nthe date. (Isaiah xlv. 1.)\" (p. 343.)\n\nBut what is the meaning of this complaint when applied to Isaiah's well\nknown prophecy concerning Cyrus? In the words of the excellent critic\nlast quoted,--\"We know not that we could point to such an instance as\nthis in the writings of any other author of credit. Of course, Mr.\nJowett knows as well as we do the distinction between History and\nProphecy; and that the mention in any document of the name of one who\nwas unborn at the time fixed as the date of the writing, would be at\nonce a complete _disproof_ of its accuracy as a history of the past, and\na _proof_ of its accuracy as a prediction of the future. Of course he\nalso remembers that the point he has _to prove_ is that this passage is\nHistory and not Prediction; and his mode of proving is this; _he\nassumes that it is a history of the past_,--advancing as a charge\nagainst the believers of Revelation, that they do not, (as they would in\nany other History,) reject the genuineness of the passage because it\nembalms a future name in a past history!... This audacious, (for we\ncannot use a weaker word,) _assumption_ of what he has _to prove_,\npervades his Essay[226].\"\n\nAnd thus, into whatever department of speculation we follow this writer,\nthe tortuous path is still found to conduct us back to the same\nunderlying fallacious _assumption_,--viz. that _the Bible is like any\nother Book_; in other words, is _not inspired_.\n\n(=3=) Persons in Mr. Jowett's position, \"find themselves met by a _sort\nof presupposition that 'GOD speaks not as Man speaks_.'\"--(p. 343.)\n\n\"A sort of presupposition,\" indeed!... Does the Reverend gentleman\nreally expect that we will stoop so low as argue _this_ point also with\nhim? It shall suffice to have branded him with his own words.\n\n\"The suspicion of Deism, or perhaps of Atheism, awaits inquiry. By such\nfears, a good man (!) refuses to be influenced: a philosophical mind (!)\nis apt to cast them aside with too much bitterness. It is better to\nclose the book, than to read it under conditions of thought which are\nimposed from without.\" (p. 343.)\n\nWell surely, the proximity to Balliol College of the scene of Cranmer\nand Ridley's martyrdom, must have turned the brain of the Regius\nProfessor of Greek!--Let him be well assured however that not rational\n\"Inquiry,\" but irrational _assumption_; not the modest cogitations of \"a\nphilosophical mind,\" but the _arrogant dreams of a weak and confused\nintellect_, are what have excited such general indignation of late,\namong \"good men,\" from one end of the Kingdom to the other. Nor could\nanything probably of equal pretensions be readily appealed to, which is\nnevertheless more truly unphilosophical, fallacious, and foolish, than\nthe Essay now under consideration.\n\n(iv) Subsequently, (p. 344,) Mr. Jowett professes to grapple with the\nphenomenon of Inspiration. His method is instructive. He begins by\ninadvertently advancing a direct untruth: for he asserts that for none\n\"of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration is there _any\nfoundation_ in the Gospels or Epistles.\" (p. 345.)--Had he then\nforgotten St. Paul's statements in Gal. i. 1, 11-17: ii. 2, 7-9. 1 Cor.\nxv. 3. Ephes. iii. 3, &c., &c.? But I have established the contradictory\nof the Professor's position in the ensuing Sermons, p. 53 to p. 57, to\nwhich the reader must be referred.--This done, he proceeds to assert\nthat,\n\n(=1=) Inspiration does not preserve a writer from inaccuracy. And the\ncharge is substantiated by the following ridiculous enumeration:--\"One\n[Evangelist] supposes the original dwelling-place of our LORD'S Parents\nto have been Bethlehem[227], another Nazareth[228].\" (This from a\nLecturer on Divinity! Does Mr. Jowett then suppose that his readers have\nnever opened the Gospels, and do not know better? Why, _both_ his\nstatements are simply _false!_)--\"They trace His genealogy in different\nways.\" (Yes. In two. And why not _in twenty?_ Is Mr. Jowett not aware\nthat a genealogy may be differently traced through different\nancestors?)--\"One mentions the thieves blaspheming: another has\npreserved to after ages the record of the penitent thief:\" (And why\nshould he not?)--\"They appear to differ about the day and hour of the\nCrucifixion.\" (Yes, _they appear_ to differ: but _they do not\ndiffer_!)--\"The narrative of the woman who anointed our LORD'S feet with\nointment is told in all four, each narrative having more or less\nconsiderable variations.\" (There is no conceivable reason why this\nshould _not_ have been as Mr. Jowett relates; but, as a matter of fact,\nwe have here another of this Gentleman's private _blunders_,--shewing\nwhat an uncritical reader he must be, of that book concerning which he\npresumes to dogmatize so freely.)--\"These are a few instances of the\ndifferences which arose in the traditions of the earliest ages\nrespecting the history of our LORD.\" (Nay, but this is to beg the whole\nquestion!)--\"He who wishes to investigate the character of the sacred\nwritings _should not be afraid_ to make a catalogue of them all, with\nthe view of estimating their cumulative weight.\" (p. 346.) (Truly, it\nwould be well for Mr. Jowett if he had as little to fear from such\n\"investigations\" as the Evangelists!)\n\n\"In the same way, he who would understand the nature of Prophecy in the\nOld Testament, should have the courage to examine how far its details\nwere minutely fulfilled. _The absence of such a fulfilment_ may further\nlead him to discover that he took the letter for the spirit in expecting\nit.\" (p. 347.) But really this is again simply to beg the whole\nquestion. Unbecoming in any writer, how absurd also is such a sentence\nfrom the pen of one who, (as we have lately seen,) no sooner descends to\nparticulars than he makes himself ridiculous by betraying his own\nexcessive ignorance.... \"The letter for the spirit,\" also! which is one\nof the 'cant' expressions of Mr. Jowett and his accomplices in 'free\nhandling,'--based evidently on a misconception of the meaning of 2 Cor.\niii. 6. The contrast recurs at pp. 36, 357, 375, 425, &c., &c.\n\n(=2=) Still bent on shewing that Inspiration does not secure Scripture\nfrom blots and blemishes, Mr. Jowett proceeds as follows. (I must\npresent him to the reader, for a short space, _in extenso_; since by no\nother expedient can the complicated fallacies of his very intricate and\nperverse method be exposed.)\n\n\"Inspiration is a fact which we infer from the study of Scripture,--not\nof one portion only, but of the whole.\" (p. 347.) (Now even _this_ is\nnot a correct way of stating the case. Still, because the words _may_\nbear an honourable sense, we pass on.)--\"Obviously then, it embraces\nwritings of very different kinds,--the book of Esther, for example, or\nthe Song of Solomon, as well as the Gospel of St. John.\" (That _the\nvolume_ of Inspiration is of this complex character, and that _it_\nembraces writings so diverse, is beyond dispute.)--\"It is reconcileable\nwith the mixed good and evil of the characters of the Old Testament,\nwhich nevertheless does not exclude them from the favour of GOD.\" (_Why_\nthe Inspiration of a writer should not be 'reconcileable' with _any_\namount of wickedness in the persons about whom he writes,--I am quite at\na loss to perceive. Neither do I see why \"the mixed good and evil\" of\ncertain \"characters of the Old Testament,\" (or of the New either,)\nshould \"exclude them from the favour of GOD.\" What else becomes of your\nhope, and mine, of Eternal Life?)--\"Inspiration is also reconcileable,\"\n(he proceeds,)--\"with the attribution to the Divine Being of _actions at\nvariance with that higher revelation which He has given of Himself in\nthe Gospel_.\" (Is this meant as an insult to \"the Divine Being?\" or\nsimply as a slur on Revelation? Either way, we reject the charge with\nindignation[229].)--\"It is not inconsistent with imperfect or opposite\naspects of the Truth, as in the Book of Job or Ecclesiastes:\" (Nothing\nwhich comes from GOD should be called \"imperfect:\" but why _different_\naspects of the Truth should not be brought out, by different writers, as\nby St. Paul and by James,--it is hard to see.)--\"With variations of fact\nin the Gospels, or the Books of Kings and Chronicles:\" (We do not admit\nthat Inspiration is consistent with \"variations of _fact;_\" but with\n_different versions_ of the same incident, it is confessedly\ncompatible.)--\"With inaccuracies of language in the Epistles of St.\nPaul.\" (With _grammatical inelegancies_, no doubt; but not with _logical\ninaccuracies_.)--\"For these are all found in Scripture:\" (This\nstatement, by the way, should have been substantiated by at least as\nmany references as there are heads in the indictment,)--\"neither is\nthere any reason why they should not be; except a general impression\nthat Scripture ought to have been written in a way different from what\nit has.\" (Just as if Mankind for 1800 years had been the victims of an\n_\u00e0 priori_ conception as to _how_ Holy Scripture _ought to have been_\nwritten!)--\"A principle of progressive revelation admits them all; and\nthis is already contained in the words of our SAVIOUR, 'Moses because of\nthe hardness of your hearts;' or even in the Old Testament, 'Henceforth\nthere shall be no more this proverb in the house of Israel?'\" (O if\nCatholic writers were to expound Holy Scripture with the license of\n_these_ gentlemen!... That the scheme of Revelation has been\nprogressive, is a Theological truism. What that has to do with the\nquestion in hand, I see not.)--\"For what is progressive is necessarily\nimperfect in its earlier stages:\" (\"Imperfect\" in what sense?)--\"and\n_even erring_ to those who come after.\" (No, not in _that_ sense\nimperfect, certainly!) ... \"There is no more reason why _imperfect\nnarratives_ should be excluded from Scripture than imperfect grammar; no\nmore ground for expecting that the New Testament would be logical or\nAristotelian in form, than that it would be written in Attic Greek.\"\n(Now _why_ this cloudy shuffling about \"imperfect narratives,\"--instead\nof saying _what you mean_, like a man! Further,--Is Mr. Jowett so weak\nas not to perceive that there is _no force whatever_ in his supposed\nparallel? The Discourses of the Incarnate SON, for instance, are\ncertainly anything but \"Aristotelian in form.\" His dialect,--(Angels\nbowed to catch it, I nothing doubt!)--was that of the despised Galilee.\nBut need _the teaching it conveyed_ have _therefore_ been \"imperfect?\"\nWhy may not the least perfect _Greek_ be the vehicle for the more\nperfect _Doctrine_? What connexion is there between the casket and the\njewel which it encloses?)\n\n(=3=) The Reverend writer promises us help, from \"another consideration\nwhich has been neglected by writers on this subject.\" (The announcement\nmakes us attentive.)--\"It is this,--that any true Doctrine of\nInspiration must conform to all well-ascertained facts of History or of\nScience.\" (We scarcely see the drift of this ill-worded proposition; but\nare disposed to assent.)--\"The same fact cannot be true and untrue,\"\n(Who ever supposed that it could?)--\"any more than the same words can\nhave two opposite meanings.\" (But why glide at once into a gross\nfalsity? Are there not plenty of words and speeches, of the kind called\n'equivocal' or 'ambiguous,' which are of this nature? I am content to\nrefer this writer to _his own pages_, for the abundant refutation of his\nown assertion. No man in the world knows better than Mr. Jowett that\n\"_the same words can have two opposite meanings_.\") \"The same fact\ncannot be true in Religion, when seen by the light of Faith; and untrue\nin Science, when looked at through the medium of evidence or\nexperiment.\" (Why not? For example,--'He maketh His Sun to rise.' 'If\nGOD so clothe the grass of the field.' 'GOD said, Let there be light.'\nWho sees not that the view which Faith and which Physical Science\nrespectively take of the same phenomenon, may essentially differ?)--\"It\nis ridiculous to suppose that the Sun goes round the Earth in the same\nsense in which the Earth goes round the Sun;\" (Very ridiculous.)--\"or\nthat the world appears to have existed, but has not existed, during the\nvast epochs of which Geology speaks to us.\" (Leave out the words,\n\"appears to have,\" and this also is undeniable.)--\"But if so, there is\nno need of elaborate reconcilements of Revelation and Science.\" (How\ndoes that follow? If what is thought to be Divinely revealed, and what\nis thought to be scientifically ascertained, seem to be conflicting\ntruths,--why should not an effort be made to reconcile them?) \"They\nreconcile themselves the moment any scientific truth is distinctly\nascertained.\" (Yes: by the Human simply trying to thrust the Divine out\nof doors!)--\"As the idea of Nature enlarges, the idea of Revelation also\nenlarges:\" (I deny that there is any such intimate connexion as this\nauthor supposes between Physical Science and Divinity,)--\"it was a\ntemporary misunderstanding which severed them.\" (But _when_ were Nature\nand Revelation ever for an instant \"severed?\")--\"And as the knowledge of\nNature which is possessed by the few is communicated in its leading\nfeatures at least, to the many, they will receive it with a higher\nconception of the ways of GOD to Man. It may hereafter appear as natural\nto the majority of Mankind to see the Providence of GOD in the order of\nthe world, as it once was to appeal to interruptions of it.\" (p. 349.)\n(As if an increased _knowledge of Nature_ were the condition of\nTheological enlightenment!... I presume that the latter clause,--so hazy\nand the reverse of obvious in its meaning!--is intended to convey the\nsentiment which Mr. Baden Powell expresses as follows:--\"The inevitable\nprogress of research must, within a longer or shorter period, unravel\n_all that seems most marvellous_; and what is at present least\nunderstood will become as familiarly known to the Science of the future,\nas those points which a few centuries ago were involved in equal\nobscurity, but now are thoroughly understood[230].\")\n\n(=4=) We are next informed \"that there are a class of scientific facts\nwith which popular opinions on Theology often conflict.... Such\nespecially are the facts relating to the formation of the Earth and the\nbeginnings of the Human Race.\" (p. 349.) (And pray, what \"_facts_\" are\nthese, relative to the \"beginnings of the Human Race,\" which conflict\nwith Scripture?) ... \"Almost all intelligent persons are agreed that the\nearth has existed for myriads of ages:\" (Which is perfectly true.)--\"The\nbest informed are of opinion that the history of nations extends back\n_some thousand years_ before the Mosaic Chronology.\" (Which is\ndecidedly false.)--\"Recent discoveries in Geology _may perhaps_ open a\nfurther vista of existence for the human species; while _it is possible,\nand may one day be known_, that Mankind spread not from one but from\nmany centres over the globe; or, (as others say,) that the supply of\nlinks which are at present wanting in the chain of animal life _may\nlead_ to new conclusions respecting the origin of Man.\" (A cool way,\nthis, of anticipating that something which '_may_'--(or _may not!_)--be\ndiscovered hereafter, will demonstrate that the beginning of the Bible\nis all a fable!)--\"Now,\" (proceeds our author,) \"let it be granted that\"\n\"_the proof_ of some of these facts, especially of those last-mentioned,\n_is wanting_; still it is a false policy to set up Inspiration or\nRevelation _in opposition to them_, a principle which can have _no\ninfluence on them_, and should be kept rather out of their way.\"\n(Considerate man!) \"The Sciences of Geology and comparative Philology\nare steadily gaining ground. Many of the guesses of twenty years ago\nhave been certainties; and the guesses of to-day may hereafter become\nso. Shall we peril Religion (!) on the possibility of their untruth? on\nsuch a cast to stake the life of Man, implies not only a recklessness of\nfacts (!), but a misunderstanding of the nature of the Gospel. If it is\nfortunate for Science, it is perhaps more fortunate for Christian Truth,\nthat the admission of Galileo's discovery has for ever settled the\nprinciple of the relations between them.\"--(pp. 349-50.) ...\n\nNow, what a curious picture of a perverse and crooked mind does such a\nsentence exhibit! Divine Revelation can \"_have no influence_\" of course,\non facts of _any_ kind, (including facts in Physical Science,) when\nonce those facts have been well ascertained. But, _in the entire absence\nof such facts_, why should we refuse to listen to the _well ascertained\nRevelation of GOD_? Nothing is more emphatic, for example, than the\nDivine declaration that the whole Human family is derived from a single\npair; and the origin of Man is plainly set down in Genesis. Why then\noppose to this, the confessedly _undiscovered_ fact that \"mankind spread\nfrom many centres;\" and the purely speculative possibility that,\nhereafter, a certain theory \"_may lead_ to new conclusions respecting\nthe origin of Man?\"--As for \"Religion\" being \"perilled on the\npossibility\" of the truth or untruth of the Sciences of Geology and\ncomparative Philology;--we really would submit that _GOD may be safely\nleft to take care of His own;_ and that \"peril,\" there is,--there _can_\nbe,--_none!_\n\nAnd then, the maudlin tenderness of an \"Essayist and Reviewer\" (of all\npersons in the world!) for \"_the life of Man_,\"--meaning thereby his\nChristian hope, and Faith in the REDEEMER!... As if, (first,) Man's\n\"_Life_\" were _in any sense_ endangered, by our upholding the honour and\nauthority of the Bible! And (secondly,) as if the age had shewn itself\nin the least degree impatient of scientific investigation! And\n(thirdly,) as if Religion depended, or could be made to depend, on\nPhysical phenomena, or on the progress of Natural Science, _at all!_ ...\nI scruple not to say that arguments like these impress me with the\nmeanest opinion of Mr. Jowett's intellectual powers: while they prove to\ndemonstration that he does not in the least understand the subject on\nwhich he yet writes with such feeble vehemence.\n\nBut I may not proceed any further, or my pages will equal in extent\nthose of the gentleman already named. Indeed, to follow that most\nconfused of thinkers, and crooked of disputants, through all his\nperverse pages; to expose his habitual paltry evasive dodging,--his\nshifting equivocations,--his misapplications of Scripture,--his unworthy\ninsinuations,--his plaintive puerilities of thought and\nsentiment;--would require a thick volume.--If Mr. Jowett does not deny\nthe Personality of the HOLY GHOST, he ought to be thoroughly ashamed of\nhimself for penning sentences which can lead to no other inference. For\nhe ought to know that when men talk of words \"receiving _a more exact\nmeaning than they will truly bear_;\" and of what \"is _spoken in a\nfigure_ being construed with the severity of a logical statement, while\n_passages of an opposite tenour are overlooked or set\naside_:\"--(p. 360.) men mean to repudiate the doctrine which those words\nare thought to convey; not to imply their acceptance of it.--So again,\nif Mr. Jowett holds the doctrine of Original Sin, he ought to be\nheartily ashamed of himself for having insinuated that it depends \"on\n_two figurative expressions of St. Paul to which there is no parallel in\nany other part of Scripture_.\" (p. 361.)--Nor, however moderate his\nattainments as a teacher of Divinity, ought he to be capable of putting\nforth such a notorious misstatement as that the doctrine of Infant\nBaptism _rests upon a verse in the Acts_ (xvi. 33,)--which verse has\nreally _nothing whatever to do with the question_[231]. (p. 360.)\n\nProfessor Jowett shuts up his Essay with a passage which, for a certain\namount of tender pathos in the sentiment, has been often quoted, and\nsometimes admired, He says:--\n\n\"The suspicion or difficulty which attends critical inquiries is no\nreason for doubting their value. The Scripture nowhere leads us to\nsuppose that the circumstance of all men speaking well of us is any\nground for supposing that we are acceptable in the sight of God. And\nthere is no reason why the condemnation of others should be witnessed to\nby our own conscience. Perhaps it may be true that, owing to the\njealousy or fear of some, the reticence of others, the terrorism of a\nfew, we may not always find it easy to regard these subjects with\ncalmness and judgment. But, on the other hand, these accidental\ncircumstances have nothing to do with the question at issue; they cannot\nhave the slightest influence on the meaning of words, or on the truth of\nfacts....\n\n\"Lastly, there is some nobler idea of truth than is supplied by the\nopinion of mankind in general, or the voice of parties in a Church.\nEvery one, whether a student of Theology or not, has need to make war\nagainst his prejudices no less than against his passions; and, in the\nreligious teacher, the first is even more necessary than the last.... He\nwho takes the prevailing opinions of Christians and decks them out in\ntheir gayest colours,--who reflects the better mind of the world to\nitself--is likely to be its favourite teacher. In that ministry of the\nGospel, even when assuming forms repulsive to persons of education (!),\nno doubt the good is far greater than the error or harm. But there is\nalso a deeper work which is not dependent on the opinions of men, in\nwhich many elements combine, some alien to Religion, or accidentally at\nvariance with it. That work can hardly expect to win much popular\nfavour, so far as it runs counter to the feelings of religious parties.\nBut he who bears a part in it may feel a confidence, which no popular\ncaresses or religious sympathy could inspire, that he has by a Divine\nhelp been enabled to plant his foot somewhere beyond the waves of Time.\nHe may depart hence before the natural term, worn out with intellectual\ntoil; regarded with suspicion by many of his contemporaries; yet not\nwithout a sure hope that the love of Truth, which men of saintly lives\noften seem to slight, is, nevertheless, accepted before\nGOD.\"--(pp. 432-3.)\n\nMy respect for a fellow-man induces me to offer a few remarks on all\nthis.\n\nLet me be permitted then to declare that I am as incapable as any one\nwho ever breathed the air of this lower world, of making light of the\nsentiments of true genius. I can respond with my whole heart to the\npassion-stricken cry of one who, when \"regarded with suspicion by many\nof his contemporaries,\" is observed to hail his fellows with confidence,\nacross the gulph of Time; and as it were implore them, after many days,\nto do him right. Nay, were I to behold a man of splendid, but misguided\npowers, elaborating from GOD'S Word a plausible system of his own,\nwhereby to bring back the Golden Age to suffering Humanity; and\ninsisting that he beheld in the common revelations of the SPIRIT, the\nunsuspected outlines of such a form of polity as Man never dreamed\nof,--(nor, it may be, Angels either;)--I should experience a kind of\ngenerous sympathy with this bright-eyed enthusiast; even while I\nproceeded to test his wild dream by what I believed to be the standard\nof right Reason. Then, as the specious fabric was seen suddenly to\ncollapse and melt away, should I not, with affectionate sorrow, secretly\nmourn that such brilliant parts had not been enlisted on the side of\nTruth? and feel as if I could have been content to go about for life\nmaimed in body, or hopelessly impoverished in estate, if so great a\ndisaster could but have been prevented as the loss of one who ought to\nhave been a standard-bearer in Israel?\n\nOnce more. Although the cold shade of unbelief has never for an instant,\n(thank GOD!) darkened my spirit; so that one may not be very apt to\nsympathize with men who walk about hampered with a doubt; yet, were one\nto know, (as one has often known,--_too_ often, alas!) that the arrow\nwas rankling in a friend's heart,--who by consequence shunned the\nsociety of his fellows, and walked in moody abstraction,--looking as if\nlife had lost its charm, and as if nothing on the earth's surface were\nany longer to him a joy;--would one not be the first to go after such a\nsufferer; and seek whether a firm hand and steady eye might not avail to\nextract the poisoned shaft? If that might not be, at least by daily acts\nof unaltered kindness, and the ways which brotherly sympathy suggests,\n_who_ would not strive to recover such an one? If all other arts proved\nunavailing, it would remain for a man with the ordinary instincts of\nhumanity, in silence and sorrow at least, to look on, while the solitary\ndoubter was paying the bitter penalty,--doubtless, of his sin.\n\nBut how widely different,--rather, how utterly dissimilar,--is the\nphenomenon before us! Here is a singularly confused and shallow thinker\noppressed with the vastness of his discovery, that the Bible--_has\nnothing in it!_ Here is a Clergyman of the Church of England, and a\nLecturer in Divinity, whose difficulty is how he shall convince the\nworld that the Bible is--_like any other book!_ Here is the sceptical\nfellow of a College, conspiring with six others, to produce a volume of\nwhich Germany itself, (having changed its mind,) would already be\nashamed!... Mr. Jowett is enthusiastic for _a negation!_ Without belief\nhimself, he cannot rest because Christendom has, on the whole, a good\ndeal of belief remaining! If he may but _unsettle somebody's mind_,--his\nEssay will have achieved its purpose, and its author will not have lived\nin vain!... Sublime privilege for \"the only man in the University of\nOxford who\" is said to \"exercise a moral and spiritual influence at all\ncorresponding to that which was once wielded by John Henry Newman[232]!\"\n\nI shall be thought a very profane person, I dare say, by the friends and\napologists of Mr. Jowett, if I avow that the passage with which he\nconcludes his Essay, instead of sounding in my ears like the plaintive\ndeath-song of departing Genius, sounds to me like nothing so much as the\npiteous whine of a schoolboy who knows that he _deserves_ chastisement,\nand perceives that he is about to experience his deserts. System, or\nTheory, the Reverend Gentleman has none to propose. Views, except\nnegative ones, Mr. Jowett is altogether guiltless of. Can anybody in his\nsenses suppose that a man \"has, by a Divine help (!), been enabled to\nplant his foot _somewhere beyond the waves of Time_,\" (p. 433,) who\ndoubts everything, and believes nothing? Can any one of sane mind dream\nthat posterity will come to the rescue of a man who, when he is asked\nfor his story, rejoins, (with a well-known needy mechanic,) that he has\n\"none to tell, Sir?\" _What_ then is posterity to vindicate? _What_ has\nthe Regius Professor of Greek written so many weak pages to prove? Just\nnothing! If Mr. Jowett's Essay could enforce the message it carries, the\nresult would simply be that the world would become _dis_believers in the\nInspiration of the Bible: they would _dis_believe that Scripture has any\nsense but that which lies on the surface: they would therefore\n_dis_believe the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles of CHRIST: they\nwould _dis_believe the words of our LORD JESUS CHRIST Himself!... Has\nMr. Jowett, then, grown grey under the laborious process of arriving at\nthis series of negations? When he anticipates \"departing hence before\nthe natural term,\" does he mean that he is \"_worn out with the\nintellectual toil_\" of propounding _nothing!_ and that he expects the\nsympathy and gratitude of posterity for what he has propounded?\n\nBut this is not all. Instead of coming abroad, (if come abroad he must,)\nin that garb of humility which befits doubt,--that self-distrust which\nbecomes one whose fault, or whose misfortune it is, that he simply\ncannot believe,--Mr. Jowett assumes throughout, the insolent air of\nintellectual superiority; the tone of one at whose bidding Theology must\nabsolutely 'keep moving.' A truncheon and a number on his collar, alone\nseem wanting. The menacing voice, and authoritative air, are certainly\nnot away,--as I proceed to shew.\n\n\"It may be observed that a change in some of the prevailing modes of\nInterpretation, is not so much a matter of expediency as _of necessity_.\nThe original meaning of Scripture _is beginning to be understood_.\"\n(p. 418.)\n\n\"Criticism has _far more power_ than it formerly had. It has spread\nitself over ancient, and even modern history.... _Whether Scripture can\nbe made an exception to other ancient writings_, now that the nature of\nboth is more understood; whether ... _the views of the last century will\nhold out_,--these are questions respecting which\" (p. 420.) it is hard\nto judge.\n\n\"It has to be considered whether the intellectual forms under which\nChristianity has been described, may not also be _in a state of\ntransition_.\" (p. 420.)\n\n\"Now, as _the Interpretation of Scripture is receiving another\ncharacter_, it seems that distinctions of Theology which were in great\nmeasure based on old Interpretations, are _beginning to fade away_.\" ...\n\"There are other signs that times are changing, and we are changing\ntoo.\" (p. 421.)\n\n\"These reflections bring us back to the question with which we\nbegan,--_What effect will the critical Interpretation of Scripture have\non Theology?_\" (p. 422.)\n\nAgain:--\"As the time has come when it is no longer possible to ignore\nthe results of criticism, it is of importance that Christianity should\nbe seen to be in harmony with them.\" (p. 374.) (The sentences which\nimmediately follow shall be exhibited in distinct paragraphs, in order\nthat they may separately enjoy admiration. Each is a gem or a curiosity\nin its way.)\n\n\"That objections to some received views _should be valid_, and yet that\nthey should be always held up as _the objections of Infidels_,--is a\nmischief to the Christian cause.\"\n\n\"It is a mischief that critical observations which any intelligent man\ncan make for himself (!), should be ascribed to Atheism or Unbelief.\"\n\n\"It would be a strange and almost incredible thing that the Gospel,\nwhich at first made war only on the vices of mankind, should now be\n_opposed_ to one of the highest and rarest of human virtues,--_the love\nof Truth_.\"\n\n\"And that in the present day the great object of Christianity should be,\nnot to change the lives of men, but to prevent them from changing their\nopinions; _that_ would be a singular inversion of the purposes for which\nCHRIST came into the world.\"\n\nWe are really constrained to pause for a moment, and to inquire what\nthis last sentence means. Are not \"the lives of men\" mainly _dependent_\non \"their opinions?\" Why then contrast the two? And _which_ of our\n\"opinions\" does Mr. Jowett desire to see changed? Would he have us\nresign our belief in the Atonement? reject the Divinity of CHRIST? deny\nthe Personality of the HOLY GHOST? put the Bible on a level with\nSophocles and Plato? ridicule the idea of Inspiration?... How would it\nbe a \"singular inversion of the purposes of CHRIST'S Coming,\" that\nChristianity should \"prevent\" mankind from \"changing\" such \"opinions\" as\n_these?_\n\n\"The Christian religion is in a false position when _all the tendencies\nof knowledge are opposed to it_.\" (_All the tendencies of knowledge,\nthen, are opposed to the Christian Religion!_)\n\n\"Such a position cannot be long maintained, or can only end in the\nwithdrawal of the educated classes from the influences of Religion.\" (So\nwe are to look for \"_the withdrawal of the educated classes from the\ninfluences of Religion_[233]!\") After anticipating \"religious\ndissolution,\" because of \"the progress of ideas, (!) with which\nChristian teachers seem to be ill at ease,\" (!) Mr. Jowett, (who we\npresume is speaking of himself,) says, \"Time was when the Gospel was\nbefore the Age:\" (The Gospel is therefore now _behind_ the age!)--\"when\nthe difficulties of Christianity were difficulties of the heart only:\"\n(When was that?)--\"and _the highest minds_ found in its truths not only\nthe rule of their lives, but a well-spring of intellectual delight.\"\n(All this then has _ceased to be the case!_ \"The highest minds\" being of\ncourse represented by--Mr. Jowett!)\n\n\"Is it to be held a thing impossible that the Christian Religion,\ninstead of shrinking into itself, (!) may again _embrace the thoughts of\nmen upon the earth?_\" (that is to say, \"embrace the thoughts\" of--Mr.\nJowett!)--\"Or is it true that _since the Reformation 'all intellect has\ngone the other way_?'\"\n\n\"But for the faith that the Gospel might win again the minds of\n_intellectual men_,\" (such men as Mr. Jowett?)--\"it would be better to\nleave Religion to itself, instead of attempting to draw them together.\"\n(p. 376.)\n\nNow this kind of language, in daily life, would be called sheer\nimpertinence; and the person who could talk so before educated gentlemen\nwould probably receive an intimation that he was making himself\noffensive. He would certainly be looked upon as a weak and conceited\nperson. I really am unable to see why things should be _written and\nprinted_ which no one would presume _to say_! ... Encircled by a little\natmosphere of fog of his own creating, Mr. Jowett is evidently under the\ndelusion that his own confused vision and misty language are the result\nof the giddy eminence to which, (leaving his fellow-mortals far behind\nhim,) he has contrived, all alone, to soar. He anticipates the complaint\nof some unhappy disciple, that he \"experiences a sort of shrinking or\ndizziness at the prospect which is opening before him:\" whereupon Mr.\nJowett invites the \"highly educated young man,\" (p. 373,) to consider\n\"that he may possibly not be the person who is called upon to pursue\nsuch inquiries.\" Who are they _for_, then? \"No man should busy himself\nwith them who has not clearness of mind enough to see things as they\nare.\" (p. 430.) The clearness of mind, for example, which belongs to Mr.\nJowett!\n\nTrue enough it is that had such airs been assumed by such an one as\nRichard Hooker, who achieved the first four books of his 'Laws of\nEcclesiastical Polity' before he was 40; and dying in his 46th year,\nproved himself to be the greatest genius of his age:--had language like\nMr. Jowett's been found on the lips of Joseph Butler, who when he was 44\nproduced his immortal 'Analagy,' and at the age of 26 delivered his\nfamous Rolls 'Sermons:'--had Bishop Bull been betrayed into the language\nof self-complacency when, at the age of 35, he made himself famous by\nhis 'Harmonia Apostolica:'--the proceeding would have been intelligible,\nhowever much one might have lamented such an exhibition of weakness....\nBut when the speaker proves to be one of the very shallowest of\nthinkers, and most confused of reasoners;--a man who, although\ngrey-headed, has done nothing whatever for Literature, sacred or\nprofane;--nor indeed is known out of Oxford except for having been\nthought to deny the Doctrine of the Atonement;--a man who dogmatizes in\na Science of which he clearly does not know so much as the very\nalphabet; and presumes to dispute about a Bible which he has evidently\nnot read with the attention which is due even to a first-rate uninspired\nbook;--_then_, one's displeasure and impatience assume the form of\nindignation and disgust. The Divine who, purposing to prove that Holy\nScripture is in kind like any other book, does so _by inveighing against\nthose who treat it differently_; and indeed, on every occasion, _assumes\nas proved_ the thing he has _to prove_[234]:--is obviously the very man\nto vaunt the privileges of the intellect. The student of the Bible who\nmistakes the utterance of a lying prophet for the language of Amos, and\nthen boldly charges the lie upon the inspired author of a book of\nCanonical Scripture;--is of course a proper person to discuss the\nProphetic Canon. The gentleman who flatters himself that he has been\n_sweeping the house_ to find _the pearl of great price_, (p. 414,) is a\nvery pretty person, truly, to lecture about the Gospel!... I forbear\nreproaching Mr. Jowett with his _invariable_ misapplications or\nmisapprehensions of the meaning of Scripture: his false glosses, and\ntruly preposterous specimens of exegesis[235]. I am content to take\nleave of him, while he is flattering himself that he has \"_found the\npearl of great price, after sweeping the house_:\" (p. 414:) and under\nthat melancholy delusion, I fear he must be left,--holding the broom in\nhis hands.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOn a review of these Seven Essays, few things strike one more forcibly\nthan the utterly untenable ground occupied by their authors. They are\n\"in a position in which it is impossible to remain. The theory of Mr.\nJowett and his fellows is as false to philosophy as to the Church of\nEngland. More may be true, or less; but to attempt to halt where they\nwould stop is a simple absurdity[236].\"\n\nTo exactness of method or System, their work can hardly pretend; and yet\nthey _have_ a system,--which has only not been rounded into symmetry, by\nthe singular circumstance that these seven writers \"have written in\nentire independence of one another, and without concert or comparison.\"\nThey _avow a common purpose_, however; for they \"hope\" that their joint\nlabours \"will be received as an attempt to illustrate,\" (whatever _that_\nmay mean,) \"the advantage derivable to the cause of Religion and Moral\nTruth\" from what they have here attempted; and which they justly\ncharacterize as \"_free handling_.\" Putting oneself in their position, it\nis easy to imagine the sorrow and concern,--the _horror_ rather,--with\nwhich a good man, when the first edition of 'Essays and Reviews' made\nits appearance, would have discovered the kind of complicity into which\nhe had been inadvertently betrayed; and how eagerly he would have\nwithdrawn from a literary partnership which had resulted so\ndisastrously. At the end of nine large editions, however, the corporate\nresponsibility of each individual author has become fully established;\nand besides the many proofs of sympathy between the several authors\nwhich these pages contain[237], it is no longer doubtful that the\nsentiments of the work are to be quoted without reference to the\nindividual writers. It would be unfair to assume that not one of these\nseven men has had the manliness to avow that his own individual\nconvictions are opposed to those of his fellows. We are compelled to\nregard their joint labours as _one_ production. It is the _corporate\nefficacy_ of the several contributions which constitutes the chief\ncriminality of the volume. It is to the respectability and weight of the\n_conjoined_ names of its authors, and to their _combined_ efforts, that\n'Essays and Reviews' are indebted for all their power.\n\nWhat then is the system, or theory, or view, advocated by these seven\nAuthors?--They are all agreed that we are \"placed evidently at an epoch\nwhen Humanity finds itself under new conditions, to form some definite\nconception to ourselves of the way in which Christianity is henceforward\nto act upon the world which is our own.\" (p. 158.) To do this, we must\nemerge from our \"narrow chamber of Doctrinal and Ecclesiastical\nprepossessions.\" (_Ibid._) Accordingly, we find insinuated \"a very\nwide-spread alienation, both in educated and uneducated persons, from\nthe Christianity which is ordinarily presented in our Churches and\nChapels.\" (p. 150.) There has been \"a spontaneous recoil.\" (p. 151.) We\ncannot \"resist the tide of civilization on which we are borne.\"\n(p. 412.) \"The time has come when it is no longer possible to ignore the\nresults of criticism.\" It is therefore \"of importance that Christianity\nshould be seen to be in harmony with them.\" (p. 374.) \"The arguments of\nour genuine critics, with the convictions of our most learned clergy\"\n(p. 66) are all opposed to the actual teaching of the Church. Meantime,\n\"the Christian Religion is in a false position when all the tendencies\nof knowledge are opposed to it.\" (p. 374.) \"Time was when the Gospel was\nbefore the age: ... when the highest minds found in its truths not only\nthe rule of their lives, but a well-spring of intellectual delight. Is\nit to be held a thing impossible that the Christian Religion may again\nembrace the thoughts of men upon the earth?\" (pp. 374-5.)\n\nIn the mean time, THE BIBLE is a stubborn fact in the way of the new\nReligion. Nay, the English _Book of Common Prayer_ is a great hindrance;\nfor those \"formul\u00e6 of past thinkings, have long lost all sense of any\nkind;\" (p. 297;) so that the Prayer-book \"is on the way to become a\nuseless encumbrance, the rubbish of the past, blocking the road.\"\n(_Ibid._) But the Prayer-book confessedly stands on a different footing\nfrom the Bible. The Bible erects itself hopelessly in the way of \"the\nnegative religion.\" (p. 151.) O those many prophecies, which for 4000\nlong years sustained the faith of GOD'S chosen people, and at last found\nfulfilment in the person of CHRIST, or in the circumstances which\nattended the establishment of His Kingdom! O that glorious retinue of\ntypes and shadows which heralded MESSIAH'S approach!... And then,--O the\nmiraculous evidence which attested to the reality of His Divinity[238]!\nO the confirmation, (to those who needed it,) when He walked the water,\nand stilled the storm, and cast out devils by His word, and by one\nstrong cry broke the gates of Death, and caused Lazarus to \"Come forth!\"\n... O the solemn _independent_ testimony borne by Creeds, from the very\nbirthday of Christianity,--(whether planted in Syria or in Asia Minor,\nin Africa or in Italy, in Greece or in Gaul; \"in Germany or in Spain,\namong the Celts or in the far East, in Egypt or in Libya, or in the\nmiddle regions of the globe[239].\") Lastly,--O the adoring voice of the\nwhole Church Catholic throughout the world, for many a succeeding\ncentury,--translating, expounding, defining, explaining, defending to\nthe death!... How shall all this formidable mass of evidence possibly be\nset aside?\n\nIt is plain that Prophecy must be evacuated of its meaning; or rather,\nmust be denied entirely: and to do this, falls to the share of the\nvulgar and violent Vice-Principal of Lampeter College. Disprove he\ncannot; so he sneers and rails and blusters instead. Prophecy, he calls\n\"omniscience;\" \"a notion of foresight by vision of particulars;\"\n(p.70;) \"a kind of clairvoyance,\" (p. 70,) and \"literal\nprognostication.\" (p. 65.) Mr. Jowett (as we have lately seen[240],)\nlends plaintive help: but indeed Dr. Williams does not lack supporters.\n\nTo deny the truth of Miracles falls to the lot of the Savilian Professor\nof Astronomy. His method has the merit of extreme simplicity: for it is\nbased on the ground that, in the writer's opinion, Miracles are\nimpossible,--which of course must be held to be decisive of the\nquestion.\n\nThe battle against the Inspiration of the Word of GOD is reserved for\nthe Regius Professor of Greek; who requires for his purpose twice the\nspace of any of his fellows. _His_ method is also of the simplest kind,\nwhen divested of its many encumbrances. He simply _assumes it as proved_\nthat the Bible is a book not essentially different from Sophocles and\nPlato. In other words he _assumes_ that the Bible is not inspired; and\nreproaches, pities, or sneers at every one who is not of his opinion.\n\nIn the meantime, What _is_ Prophecy? What _are_ Miracles? Of what sort\nis that Bible which has imposed upon mankind so grossly, and so long?\nThey are _facts_, and must be explained. What are they? Prophecy, then,\nis \"_only the power of seeing the ideal in the actual_, or of tracing\nthe Divine Government in the movements of men.\" (p. 70.) As for\nMiracles, \"their evidential force is wholly _relative_ to the\napprehensions of the parties addressed ... Columbus' prediction of the\nEclipse to the native islanders,\" (p. 115,) is advanced as an\nillustration of the nature of the argument from Miracles. By whatever\nmethod the Bible has attained its present footing in the world, it is a\nbook which has been hitherto misunderstood; and it must plainly be dealt\nwith after a new fashion. Our Lord's Incarnation, Temptation, Death and\nBurial, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven,--all His Miracles, in\nshort, will be best interpreted _Ideologically_; in other words, by a\nprinciple \"which resolves into an ideal the whole of the historical and\ndoctrinal person of JESUS.\" (p. 200.) So interpreted, \"the Gospel may\nwin again the minds of intellectual men;\" (p. 376;) but it will find it\nno easy matter. There is in fact \"a higher wisdom\" than the Gospel,\n\"which is known to those who are perfect,\"--\"_that_ reconcilement,\"\nnamely, \"of Faith and Knowledge which may be termed Christian\nPhilosophy.\" (p. 413.)\n\nThe great object, in short, is to bring about \"a reconciliation\"\n(p. 375,) between \"the minds of intellectual men\" (p. 376,) and\nChristianity. Such a reconciliation is to be regarded as a \"restoration\nof belief.\" (p. 375.) And it is to be effected by \"taking away some of\nthe external supports, because they are not needed and do harm: also\nbecause they interfere with the meaning.\" (p. 375.)--Those \"external\nsupports\" are (1) a belief in the Inspiration of the Bible;--(2) the\nwritings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church;--(3) Creeds and the\ndecisions of Councils;--(4) the works of Anglican Divines;--(5)\nLearning; (p. 337;)--(6) a profound acquaintance with the Greek\nlanguage; (p. 393;)--(7) a minute knowledge of Greek Grammar;\n(p. 391;)--(8) the Doctrine of the Greek Article;--(9) the free use of\nthe parallel passages.... The Bible, when interpreted by any\nself-relying young man who knows a little Greek, and attends to the\nmeaning _of words_,--will be seen in all the freshness of its early\nbeauty, like an old picture which has been recently cleaned. \"A new\ninterest\" will be excited by this new Bible, which will \"make for itself\na new kind of authority.\" By being thus literally interpreted, it will\nbe transformed into \"a spirit.\" Then, (but not before) the Bible will\nenjoy the sublime satisfaction of keeping pace with the Age. It may so,\neven yet, \"embrace the thoughts of men upon the earth.\"\n\nBut what kind of thing will this Bible be? The beginning of Genesis,\n(pp. 207-253,) is to be rejected because it \"is not an authentic\nutterance of Divine knowledge, but a human utterance, which it has\npleased Providence to use in a special way for the education of\nmankind.\" (p. 253.) We are invited to \"a frank recognition of the\n_erroneous views of Nature_ which the Bible contains.\" (p. 211.) Thus,\n_all_ miraculous transactions will have to be explained away. The volume\nof Prophecy will have to be regarded as a volume of History. The very\nHistory will have to be read with distrust. Like other records, it is\nsubject to the conditions of \"knowledge which existed in an early stage\nof the world.\" (p. 411.) It does not even begin to be authentic, until\nB.C. 1900; or rather, until B.C. 900[241]. What remains is to be looked\nupon as \"the continuous witness in all ages of the higher things in the\nheart of man,\" (p. 375,)--(whatever that may happen to mean.) The Gospel\nis to be looked upon as \"a life of CHRIST in the soul, instead of a\ntheory of CHRIST which is in a book, or written down,\" (p. 423.) \"The\nlessons of Scripture, when disengaged from theological formulas, have a\nnearer way to the hearts of the poor.\" (p. 424.) Even \"in Missions to\nthe heathen, Scripture is to be treated as the expression of universal\ntruths, rather than of the tenets of particular men and Churches.\"\n(p.423.) It is anticipated that this \"would remove many obstacles to the\nreception of Christianity.\" (_Ibid._) \"It is not the Book of Scripture\nwhich we should seek to give the heathen;\" \"but the truth of the Book;\nthe mind of CHRIST and His Apostles, in which all lesser details and\ndifferences should be lost and absorbed;\" \"the purer light or element of\nReligion, of which Christianity is the expression.\" (p. 427.) ... Such\nis the ghostly phantom, by the aid of which the Heathen are to become\nevangelized!\n\nBut this historical Bible is not to be regarded as the rule of a man's\nlife, or indeed as an external Law at all. (pp. 36, 45.) \"We walk now by\nReason and Conscience _alone_.\" (p. 21.) The Bible is to be identified\n\"with the voice of Conscience,\" (p. 45,)--which it has \"to evoke, not to\noverride.\" (p. 44.) \"The principle of private judgment ... makes\nConscience the supreme interpreter.\" (p. 45.) Ours is \"a law which is\n_not imposed upon us by another power_, but _by our own enlightened\nwill_:\" (p. 35:) for the \"Spirit, or Conscience\" \"legislates\" henceforth\n\"_without appeal except to himself_.\" (p. 31.)\n\nHaving thus disposed of \"Traditional Christianity,\" (p. 156,) it is not\nobscurely hinted that something quite different is to be substituted in\nits place. And first, next to \"a frank appeal to Reason, and a frank\ncriticism of Scripture,\" (p. 174,) the nature and \"office of the Church\nis to be properly understood.\" (p. 194.)\n\nThe Church then is a spontaneous development of the State, as \"part of\nits own organization,\" (p. 195,)--a purely secular Institution. The\nState will \"develop itself into a Church\" by \"throwing its elements, or\nthe best of them, into another mould; and constituting out of them a\nSociety, which is in it, though in some sense not of it (?),--which is\nanother (?), yet the same.\" (p. 194.) The nation must provide, from time\nto time, that the teaching of one age does \"not traditionally harden, so\nas to become an exclusive barrier in a subsequent one; and so the moral\ngrowth of those who are committed to the hands of the Church be\nchecked.\" (_Ibid._) The Church is founded, therefore, not upon \"the\npossession of a supernaturally communicated speculation (!) concerning\nGOD,\" but \"upon _the manifestation of a Divine Life in Man_.\"\n\"Speculative doctrines should be left to _philosophical schools_. A\nnational Church must be concerned with the _ethical development_ of its\nmembers.\" (p. 195.) It should be \"free from dogmatic tests, and similar\nintellectual bondage;\" (p. 168;) hampered by no Doctrines, pledged to no\nCreeds. These may be retained indeed; but \"_we refuse to be bound by\nthem_.\" (p. 44.) The Subscription of the Clergy to the Articles should\nalso be abolished: for \"no promise can reach fluctuations of opinion,\nand personal conviction.\" (!!!) _Open_ heretical teaching may, to be\nsure, be dealt with by the Law; but the Law \"should not require any act\nwhich appears to signify 'I think.'\" (p. 189.) Witness \"the reluctance\nof the stronger minds to enter an Order in which their intellects may\nnot have _free play_.\" (p. 190.) ... Such then is the Negative Religion!\nSuch is the new faith which Doctors Temple and Williams, Professors\nPowell and Jowett, Messieurs Wilson, Goodwin, and Pattison, have\ndeliberately combined to offer to the acceptance of the World!\n\nIt is high time to conclude. I cannot lay down my pen however until I\nhave re-echoed the sentiments of one with whom I heartily agree. I\nallude to Dr. Moberly; who professes that he is \"struck almost more with\nwhat seems to him the hardheartedness, and exceeding unkindness of this\nbook, than with its unsoundness. Have the writers,\" (he asks,)\n\"considered how far the suggesting of innumerable doubts,--doubts\nunargued and unproved,--will check honest devotion, and embolden timid\nsin? _For whom_ do they intend this book? Is it written for the mass of\ngeneral readers? Is it designed for students at the Universities? Do\nthey suppose that this multitude of random suggestions will be carefully\nwrought out by these readers, and be rejected if unsound; so as to leave\ntheir faith and devotion untarnished?... Have they reflected how many\nsouls for whom CHRIST died may be slain in their weakness by _their_\nself-styled strength?\"\n\n\"Suppose, for a moment, that the Holy Scriptures _are_ (p. 177,) the\nWord of the Spirit of GOD,--that the Miracles, (cf. p. 109,) including\nthe Resurrection of CHRIST, are actual objective facts, which have\nreally happened,--that the Doctrines of the Church are true, (p. 195,)\nand the Creeds (p. 355,) the authoritative expositions of them,--and\nthat men are to reach Salvation through faith in CHRIST, Virgin-born,\naccording to the Scriptures, and making atonement (cf. p. 87,) for their\nsins upon the Cross. ON THIS SUPPOSITION,--_Is not the publication of\nthis book an act of real hostility to GOD'S Truth; and one which\nendangers the Faith and Salvation of Men?_ And is this hostility less\nreal, or the danger diminished, because the writers are, all but one,\nClergymen, some of them Tutors and Schoolmasters; because they wear the\ndress, and use the language of friends, and threaten us with bitter\nopposition if we do not regard them as such[242]?\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWith this I lay down my pen. My last words shall be simple and\naffectionate, addressed solely to yourselves.\n\nI trace these concluding lines,--(of a work which, but for _you_, would\nnever have been undertaken,)--in a _quite_ empty College; and in the\nroom where we have so often and so happily met on Sunday evenings. Can\nyou wonder if, at the conclusion of what has proved rather a heavy task,\n(so _hateful_ to me is controversy,) my thoughts revert with\naffectionate solicitude to yourselves, already scattered in all\ndirections; and to those evenings which more, I think, than any other\nthing, have gilded my College life?... In thus sending you a written\nfarewell, and praying from my soul that GOD may bless and keep you all,\nI cannot suppress the earnest entreaty that you would remember the best\nwords of counsel which may have at any time fallen from my lips: that\nyou would persevere in the daily study of the pure Book of Life; and\nthat you would read it, _not_ as feeling yourselves called upon to sit\nin judgment on its adorable contents; but rather, as men who are\npermitted to draw near; and invited _to listen_, and _to learn_, and _to\nlive_. And so farewell!... \"Watch ye, stand fast in the Faith,\"--nay,\ntake it in the original, which is far better:--=Gr\u00eagoreite, st\u00eakete en t\u00ea\npistei andrizesthe, krataiousthe. panta hym\u00f4n en agap\u00ea ginesth\u00f4. H\u00ea charis\ntou Kyriou I\u00easou Christou meth' hym\u00f4n. h\u00ea agap\u00ea mou meta pant\u00f4n hym\u00f4n.=\n\n Your friend,\n    J. W. B.\n\n ORIEL,\n    _June 22nd_, 1861.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[19] I abstain from enumerating Dr. Temple's mistakes,--for such things\ndo not belong to the essence of a composition. And yet I must remark\nthat it is hardly creditable in a Doctor of Divinity to write as he\ndoes. \"In _all_ (!) the doctrinal disputes of the fourth and fifth\ncenturies, the decisive voice came from Rome. Every controversy was\nfinally settled by her opinion, because she alone possessed _the art of\nframing formulas_,\" &c. (p. 16.) Would the learned writer favour us with\n_a single warrant_ for this assertion?... At p. 9, Dr. Temple mistakes\nfor Micah's, words spoken 700 years before by Balaam. At p. 10, he says\nthat \"Prayer, as a regular and necessary part of worship, first appears\nin the later books of the Old Testament.\"--His account of the papacy is\ncontained in the following words:--\"Law was the lesson which Rome was\nintended to teach the world. Hence (?) the Bishop of Rome soon became\nthe Head of the Church. Rome was in fact the centre of the traditions\nwhich had once governed the world; and their spirit still remained; and\nthe Roman Church developed into the papacy simply because a head was\nwanted (!), and no better one could be found.\"--p. 16. At p. 10 we have\na truly puerile misconception of the meaning of 1 Cor. xv. 56, &c., &c.\n\n[20] Deut. vi. 4.\n\n[21] 1 Sam. xv. 22, where see the places in the margin.\n\n[22] Hos. vi. 6, quoted by our LORD, St. Matth. ix. 13: xii. 7.\n\n[23] Consider Ps. xxvi. 6: l. 13, 14: li. 16, 17: cxvi. 15: cxix. 108:\ncxli. 2, &c.\n\n[24] St. Matth. xvi. 4: xii. 39. Compare St. Mark viii. 38.\n\n[25] St. James iv. 4.\n\n[26] St. Matth. xxiii. 33.\n\n[27] Ezek. xvi. 47-52.\n\n[28] Is. i. 4, 6, 15.\n\n[29] St. John viii. 9. \"I cannot but speak my mind,\" (says Josephus,\nafter taking a survey of the extreme wickedness of his countrymen, in\nconnexion with the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem,) \"and it is this:\nI suppose that if the Romans had delayed to come against these sinners,\neither the earth would have swallowed them up; or the city would have\nbeen swept away by another Flood; or it would have been consumed, like a\nsecond Sodom, by fire from Heaven.\"\n\n[30] S. John xii. 38-40. \"_They have blinded_ their eyes,\" &c. (See the\nplace in the LXX.:) sc. =ho laos houtos.=\n\n[31] \"Had the revelation of CHRIST been delayed till now, assuredly it\nwould have been hard for us to recognize His Divinity.... We, of course,\nhave in our turn counterbalancing advantages. (!) If we have lost that\nfreshness of faith which would be the first (_sic_) to say to a poor\ncarpenter,--Thou art the CHRIST, the SON of the living GOD,--yet we\npossess in the greater cultivation of our religious understanding, that\nwhich perhaps we ought not to be willing to give in exchange (!) ...\nThey had not the same clearness of understanding as we; the same\nrecognition that it is GOD and not the Devil who rules the World; the\nsame power of discrimination between different kinds of truth.... Had\nour LORD come later, He would have come to mankind already beginning to\nstiffen into the fixedness of maturity.... The truth of His Divine\nNature would not have been recognized.\" (pp. 24-5.)--Is this meant for\nbitter satire on the age we live in; or for disparagement of the\nIncarnate WORD?... But in the face of such anticipations, the keenest\nsatire of all is contained in the author's claim to a \"religious\nunderstanding, cultivated\" to a degree unknown to the best ages of the\nChurch; as well as to surpassing \"clearness of understanding,\" and\n\"powers of discrimination.\" Lamentable in _any_ quarter, how deplorable\nis such conceit in one who shews himself _unacquainted with the first\nprinciples of Theological Science_; and who puts forth an Essay on the\nEducation of the World, which would have been discreditable to an\nadvanced school-boy!\n\n[32] Quite ineffectual, at the very close of this unhappy composition,\nas a set off to the compacted and often repeated asseverations of his\nearlier pages, is the amiable author's plaintive plea for \"even the\nperverted use of the Bible;\" adding,--\"And meanwhile, how utterly\nimpossible it would be in the manhood of the world to imagine any other\ninstructor of mankind!\" (p. 47.) It is one of the favourite devices of\nthese seven writers, side by side with their most objectionable\nstatements, to insert isolated passages of admitted truth,--and\noccasionally even of considerable beauty: which however are _utterly\nmeaningless_ and out of place where they stand; and (like the sentence\nabove written,) powerless to undo the circumstantial wickedness of what\nwent before. I repeat, that the words above-written are meaningless\n_where they stand_: for if Dr. Temple really means that it is \"_utterly\nimpossible in the manhood of the world to IMAGINE any other instructor\nof mankind_\" than THE BIBLE,--what becomes of his Essay?\n\n[33] =parat\u00eareisthe=: i.e. \"ye _mis_observe,\" \"keep _in a wrong way_.\"\n\n[34] Gal. iv. 1-10.\n\n[35] Gal. iii. 24, 25.\n\n[36] Gal. v. 1.\n\n[37] 2 St. John v. 10, 11.\n\n[38] Rom. viii. 21.\n\n[39] It is presumed that the article in the _Dict. of Antiquities_ will\nbe held unexceptionable authority as to the office of the\n=paidag\u00f4gos=.--\"Rex filio p\u00e6dagogum constituit, et singulis diebus ad\neum invisit, interrogans eum: Num comedit filius meus? _num in scholam\nabiit? num ex schol\u00e2 rediit_?\"--Wetstein, in loc.--So Plato _Lysis_, p.\n118.\n\n[40] 1 St. Peter ii. 21. Comp. St. James v. 10.\n\n[41] 1 Cor. xi. 1: iv. 16. Phil. iii. 17. 2 Thess. iii. 9. Heb. xiii. 7,\n&c.\n\n[42] 1 St. Pet. i. 11.\n\n[43] 1 Tim. i. 10: iv. 6. Tit. i. 9: ii. 1. Comp. 2 St. John v. 10.\n\n[44] 2 Tim. i. 13.\n\n[45] 2 Tim. i. 13, 14: ii. 2. Also 1 Tim. vi. 20. On both places, Dr.\nWordsworth's _Notes_ may be consulted with advantage.\n\n[46] 2 Tim. iv. 3.\n\n[47] 2 Thess. ii. 7, 8, &c.\n\n[48] Art. XX.\n\n[49] Art. VIII.\n\n[50] I allude especially to the terrible castigation he has individually\nreceived at the hands of the Bishop of Exeter. See _the Times_, of March\n4th, 1861.\n\n[51] \"And when the Angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to\ndestroy it, the LORD ... said to the Angel that destroyed the people,\"\n&c. \"And the Angel of the LORD was by the threshing-place of Araunah the\nJebusite.\"--2 Sam. xxiv. 16.\n\n\"The Angel of the LORD stood by the threshing-floor of Ornan the\nJebusite. And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the Angel of the LORD\nstand between the Earth and the Heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand\nstretched out over Jerusalem.\"--1 Chron. xxi. 15, 16.\n\n[52] Acts i. 20.\n\n[53] _On the Creed_, Art. iv. p. 244, _notes_ (_u_) and (_x_).\n\n[54] \"It would take no great space,\" (says Dr. Pusey,) \"to shew that the\nrendering 'as a lion,' is unmeaning, without authority, against\nauthority; while the rendering 'they pierced' is borne out alike by\nauthority and language.\"\n\n[55] Ver. 1,--St. John xii. 38. Rom. x. 16. Ver. 4,--St. Matth. viii.\n17. Ver. 4 to 11,--1 St. Pet. ii. 24, 25. Ver. 7 and 8,--Acts viii. 32.\nVer. 12,--St. Mark xv. 28. St. Luke xxii. 37.\n\n[56] Mal. iv. 5.\n\n[57] St. Luke i. 17.\n\n[58] As the Fathers generally teach. See Brown's _Ordo S\u00e6clorum_,\npp. 702-3, &c., &c.\n\n[59] And yet,--\"I go to prepare _a place_ for you!\"--St. John xiv. 2.\n\n[60] See, for example, p. 60, (_lower half_,) p. 62, (_middle_,) &c.\n\n[61] Comp. p. 45.\n\n[62] Col. ii. 11, 12. Rom. ii. 29. Phil. iii. 3, &c.\n\n[63] _Edinburgh Review_, (Ap. 1861,) p. 429.\n\n[64] _Analogy_, P. II. ch. ii., _ad fin._\n\n[65] _Analogy_, P. II. ch. iii., _ad init._\n\n[66] Van Mildert's _Historical View of the Rise and Progress of\nInfidelity_, &c. Serm. xxi., (ed. 1806,) vol. ii. pp. 313-17.\n\n[67] \"Columbus' prediction of the eclipse to the native islanders, was\nas true an argument to them as if the event had really been\nsupernatural.\" p. 115.\n\n[68] St. Mark viii. 19, 20.\n\n[69] St. John ix.\n\n[70] St. John xi. 44.\n\n[71] Consider St. John iii. 2, (referring to ii. 23 and iv. 45.) So ix.\n16: x. 21 and 38: xiv. 10, 11. Also xv. 24; and consider St Luke vii.\n16: also 21, 22: St. Matth. xii. 22, 23: St. John vii. 31: xii. 17-19.\n\n[72] St. John v. 44. Comp. vii. 17: viii. 12. St. Matth. v. 8. Ps. xix.\n8: cxix. 100. Also, Ecclus. i. 26: xxi. 11.--\"There is,\" (says an\nexcellent living writer,) \"scarcely any doctrine or precept of our\nSAVIOUR more distinctly and strongly stated, than that the capacity for\njudging of, and for believing the Truths of Christianity, depends upon\nMoral Goodness, and the practice of Virtue.\"--Let us hear our own Hooker\non this subject:--\"We find by experience that although Faith be an\nintellectual habit of the mind, and have her seat in the understanding,\nyet an evil moral disposition obstinately wedded to the love of darkness\ndampeth the very light of heavenly illumination, and permitted not the\nMind to see what doth shine before it.\"--_Eccl. Pol._, B. v.c. lxiii.\n\u00a7 2.\n\n[73] St. John xi. 44.\n\n[74] P. 113. The italics are in the original.\n\n[75] See the _Quarterly Review_, (on Prof. Baden Powell's \"Order of\nNature,\")--for Oct. 1859, (No. 212,) pp. 420-3.\n\n[76] p. 169.--\"Priests have neither been, as some would represent, a set\nof deliberate conspirators against the free thoughts of mankind; nor, on\nthe other hand,\" &c. _Ibid._--How partial becomes the judgment, when we\nhave to discuss the merits of our own order!\n\n[77] _Ans._ Clearly in the relation of a blessing which has by all means\nto be communicated to them.\n\n[78] _Ans._ Certainly there is. Those which most obviously present\nthemselves are such as the following:--St. Matth. ix. 37, 38: xxviii.\n19, 20. St. Luke xxiv. 47. Acts ii. 38, 39, &c.\n\n[79] _Analogy_, P. II. c. vi.\n\n[80] Rom. v. 12.\n\n[81] 1 Cor. xv. 22.\n\n[82] Eph. ii. 3.\n\n[83] _Analogy_, P. II. c. v. note (d).\n\n[84] Col. i. 23.--p. 155.\n\n[85] See Nelson's _Life of Bp. Bull_, p. 245.\n\n[86] See Nelson's _Life of Bp. Bull_, p. 242.\n\n[87] \"The horizon which his view embraced was _much narrower_ than St.\nPaul's,\"--who had enlarged his mind by foreign travel, (p. 168.)\n\nIn a note, we are informed that \"at any rate his Gospel cannot, by\nexternal evidence, be attached to the person (!) of St. John as its\nauthor.\" \"Many persons,\" (it is added,) \"shrink from a _bon\u00e2 fide_\nexamination of the 'Gospel question,' because they imagine, that unless\nthe four Gospels are received as ... entirely the composition of the\npersons whose names they bear, and without any admixture of legendary\nmatter or embellishment in their narratives, the only alternative is to\nsuppose a fraudulent design in those who did compose them.\" (p. 161.)\n... May one who has _not_ shrunk from 'the Gospel question' be permitted\nto regret that the Reverend writer has not specified the charges which\nhe thus vaguely brings against the Gospels? _What_, pray, is the\nlegendary matter; and _which_ are the embellishments?\n\nIn the same page we read of \"the first, or genuine, epistle of St.\nPeter.\" Is not his _second_ epistle genuine, then?\n\n[88] See above, p. lviii.\n\n[89] \"Pleas for 'liberty of conscience' and 'freedom of opinion,'\" (as\non excellent writer has recently pointed out,) \"can have neither place\nnor pretext, while there is liberty, for all who choose, to decline\njoining the Church of England; _and freedom, for all who choose, to\nleave her_.\"--Rev. C. Forster's 'Spinoza Redivivus,' (1861,) p. 6.\n\n[90] In what part of the Bible, (one begs respectfully to inquire,) is\none called upon to \"accept the story of an arresting of the Earth's\nmotion, or of a reversal of its motion?\" ... Would it not be as well to\nbe truthful in one's references to the Bible?\n\n[91] See below, p. 68.\n\n[92] See Butler's _Analogy_, P. II. c. iii.\n\n[93] _Quarterly Review_, Jan. 1861, p. 275.\n\n[94] Take a few as a specimen:--\"A great restraint is supposed to be\nimposed upon the Clergy by reason of their subscription to the\nThirty-nine Articles. Yet it is more difficult than might be expected,\nto define what is the extent of the legal obligation of those who sign\nthem; and in this case, the strictly legal obligation is the measure of\nthe moral one. Subscription may be thought even to be _inoperative upon\nthe conscience_ by reason of its vagueness. For the act of subscription\nis enjoined, but its effect or meaning nowhere plainly laid down; and it\ndoes not seem to amount to more than an acceptance of the Articles of\nthe Church as the formal law to which the subscriber is _in some sense_\nsubject. What that subjection amounts to, must be gathered elsewhere;\nfor it does not appear on the face of the subscription itself.\"--(p.\n181. See down to page 185.) Can equivocation such as this be read\nwithout a sense of humiliation and shame, as well as of disgust and\nabhorrence?\n\n[95] p. 180 to p. 190.\n\n[96] Heading of the XXXIX Articles.\n\n[97] The reader is referred to some remarks on Ideology towards the\nclose of Sermon VII., p. 243 to p. 251.\n\n[98] \"Unhappily, together with his _inauguration of Multitudinism_,\nConstantine also inaugurated a principle essentially at variance with\nit, the principle of _doctrinal limitation_.\" (p. 166.) ... \"The\nopportunity of reverting to the freedom of the Apostolic, and\nimmediately succeeding periods, was finally lost for many ages by the\nsanction given by Constantine to the decisions of Nic\u00e6a.\" (_Ibid._) \"At\nall events, a principle at variance with a true Multitudinism was then\nrecognised.\" (_Ibid._)\n\nHow does it happen, by the way, that one writing B.D. after his name,\nhowever bitter his animosity against the Nicene Creed may be, is not\naware that Creeds are co-eval with Christianity? Thus we find the Creed\nof Carthage in the works of Cyprian, (A.D. 225,) and Tertullian,\n(A.D. 210, 203): that of Lyons in the works of Iren\u00e6us, (A.D. 180.) [see\nHeurtley's _Harmonia Symbolica_, pp. 7-20.] We recognize fragments of\nthe Creed in Ignatius, (A.D. 90.) We hear St. Paul himself\nsaying--=hypotyp\u00f4sin eche hygiainont\u00f4n log\u00f4n, h\u00f4n= (i.e. _the words_\nthemselves!) =par' emou \u00eakousas ... t\u00ean kal\u00ean parakatath\u00eak\u00ean phylaxon=--2\nTim. i. 13, 14. A few more words on this subject will be found in the\nnotice of Mr. Jowett's Essay.\n\n[99] It is really impossible to argue with a man who informs us that\n\"_previous to the time of the divided Kingdom_, the Jewish History\npresents little which is thoroughly reliable:\" (p. 170:)--that \"the\ngreater probability seems on the side of the supposition, that the\nPriesthood, with its distinct offices and charge, was constituted by\nRoyalty, and that _the higher pretensions of the priests were not\nadvanced till the reign of Josiah_:\" (_Ibid._:)--that, \"The negative\nTheologian\" demands \"some positive elements in Christianity, on grounds\nmore sure to him than _the assumption of an objective 'faith once\ndelivered to the saints_,' which he cannot identify with the Creed of\nany Church as yet known to him:\" (pp. 174-5:)--a man who can remark\nconcerning the Bible, that,--\"Those who are able to do so, ought to lead\nthe less educated to distinguish between the different kinds of words\nwhich it contains, between _the dark patches of human passion and error\nwhich form a partial crust upon it_, and the bright centre of spiritual\ntruth within.\" (p. 177.)\n\n[100] _Quarterly Review_, (Jan. 1851,) No. 217, p. 259.\n\n[101] A writer in the _Saturday Review_, (April 6, 1861,) in an\nadmirable Article on the importance of retaining the office of 'Dean' in\nits integrity, (instead of suicidally merging it in the office of\n'Bishop,') speaks of there being \"no English Commentary on the New\nTestament brought up to the level of modern Theological Science.\" [As if\n\"the level\" had been rising of late!] \"Butler and Paley are still our\ntext-books on the Evidences; and we are defending _old beliefs_ behind\nwooden walls _against the rifled cannon and iron broadsides of modern\nPhilosophy_.\"--p. 337. What a strange misapprehension of the entire\nquestion,--of the relation of Theological to Physical Science,--does\nsuch a sentence betray!\n\n[102] See below, p. 235.\n\n[103] As the excellent Townson observed long since,--\"The brightness of\ncountenance and raiment which dazzled and overcame the sight of His\nApostles when He was Transfigured on the Mount, was to Him but _a ray of\nthat glory in which He dwelt before the Worlds were made_.\"--Sermon on\n\"The manner of our SAVIOUR'S Teaching,\"--_Works_, vol. i. p. 282.\n\n[104] St. Matth. xvii. 2.\n\n[105] St. Mark ix. 3.\n\n[106] 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16.--If it be more philosophical to suppose that\nthe Light which shone upon the earth during the first three days\nproceeded from the Sun, (the orb of which remained invisible,) and not\nfrom any extraneous independent source,--I have no objection whatever to\nsuch a supposition,--or indeed to any other which suffers the inspired\nrecord to remain intact. I am by no means clear however that Philosophy\n(begging her pardon,) does not entirely mistake her office, when she\npretends to explain the first chapter of Genesis. Hence, her constrained\nlanguage, and unnatural manner, when she desires to be respectful,--her\ninconsequential remarks and perpetual blunders when she rather prefers\nto be irreligious. She is simply out of her element, and is discoursing\nof what _she does not understand_.--Theology, dealing with a physical\nproblem by the method of Theological Science; and Philosophy, applying\nto a chapter in the Bible the physical method,--are alike at fault, and\nalike ridiculous. This truth, however obvious, does not seem to be\ngenerally understood.\n\nBut, (to return to the first three days of Creation,)--since the Author\nof Revelation seems to design that I should understand that Sun, Moon,\nand Stars not only did not come to view until the fourth day,--but also\nthat they were not re-invested with their immemorial function and office\nuntil then,--I find no difficulty, _remembering with whom I have to do,\neven with Him who sowed the vault of Heaven so thick with stars, each\none of which may be not a sun but a system_[107];--when, I say, I attend\nto the emphatic nature of the inspired record, on the one hand, and to\nGOD'S Omnipotence on the other,--I have no difficulty in supposing that\nHe embraced the Sun in a veil, for just so long a period as it seemed\nHim good, and when He willed that it should re-appear, that He withdrew\nthe veil again. The _name_ for the operation just now alluded to belongs\nto the province of Philosophy. Divinity is all the while thinking about\nsomething infinitely better and higher.\n\n[107] Herschel.\n\n[108] Gen. i. 6.\n\n[109] Ibid. 20.\n\n[110] Job xxxvii. 18.\n\n[111] Ps. civ. 2.\n\n[112] Is. xl. 22.\n\n[113] Job xxvi. 8.\n\n[114] Prov. xxx. 4.\n\n[115] See also Job ix. 8. Even in Job xxxvii. 18, the sky is said to be\n\"_spread out_.\" So Is. xlv. 12, &c.\n\n[116] Job xxvi. 11.\n\n[117] 2 Sam. xxii. 8.\n\n[118] Ps. lxxviii. 23.\n\n[119] Gen. vii. 11.\n\n[120] Job ix. 6. Ps. lxxv. 3. See Blomfield's Glossary to Prom. Vinct.\nv. 357.\n\n[121] Comp. Is. xxiv. 18.\n\n[122] See Is. xxiv. 18 and Mal. iii. 10.\n\n[123] =ekleipein t\u00ean hedran=. (Herod.) See Copleston's _Remains_, p. 107.\n\n[124] _Eccl. Pol._ 1. iii. \u00a7 2.\n\n[125] Gen. i. 26.\n\n[126] \"The difficulty,\" he says, (alluding to Gen. i. 1,) \"lies in this,\nthat the heaven is distinctly said to have been formed ... on the second\nday.\" (p. 226.) But this is the language of a man determined that there\n_shall_ be a difficulty. \"The Heavens and the Earth\" clearly denote, (in\nthe simple phraseology of a primitive age,) the sum of all created\nthings; the great transaction which Nehemiah has so strikingly\nexpounded:--\"Heaven, _the Heaven of Heavens, with all their host_,--the\nEarth and all things that are therein;\" including \"the sea, with all\nthat is therein.\" (Neh. ix. 6.) Whereas \"the firmament\" of ver. 6,\n(which GOD called \"Heaven\" in ver. 8,) _can_ only indicate the blue\nvault immediately overhead, wherein fowls fly. (ver. 20.) If this be\n_not_ the meaning of Gen. i. 1, one half of the phrase is\n\"proleptical,\"--the other half not: for the creation of Earth is nowhere\nrecorded, if not in ver. 1.... But surely it is a waste of words to\ndiscuss such \"difficulties\" as these.\n\n[127] Consider especially Heb. iv. 9 and 10; and consider, (besides\nExod. xx. 11,) Deut. v. 15. See also Col. ii. 17.\n\n[128] \"There have been found within the area of these islands upwards of\n15,000 species of once living things, _every one differing specifically\nfrom those of the present Creation_. Agassiz states that, with the\nexception of one small fossil fish, (discovered in the clay-stones of\nGreenland,) _he has not found any creature of this class, in all the\nGeological strata, identical with any fish now living_.\" (Pattison's\n_The Earth and the World_, p. 27.)\n\n[129] I allude to such passages as the following,--all of which are to\nbe found in Mr. Goodwin's Essay:--\n\n\"We are asked to believe that a vision of creation was presented to him\n(Moses) by Divine power, for the purpose of enabling him to inform the\nworld of what he had seen; which vision inevitably led him to give a\ndescription which has misled the world for centuries, and in which the\ntruth can now only with difficulty be recognized.\" (p. 247.) \"The\ntheories [of Hugh Miller and of Dr. Buckland] assume that appearances\nonly, not facts, are described; and that, in riddles which would never\nhave been suspected to be such, had we not arrived at the truth from\nother sources.\" (p. 249.) \"For ages, this simple view of Creation\nsatisfied the wants of man, and formed a sufficient basis of theological\nteaching:\" but \"modern research now shews it to be physically\nuntenable.\" (p. 253.)\n\n\"The writer asserts solemnly and unhesitatingly that for which he must\nhave known that he had no authority.\" But this was only because \"the\nearly speculator was harassed by no such scruples\" as \"arise from our\nmodern habits of thought, and from the modesty of assertion (!) which\nthe spirit of true science has taught us.\" He therefore \"asserted as\nfacts what he knew in reality only as probabilities.... He had seized\none great truth.... With regard to details, observation failed\nhim.\"--(pp. 252-3.)\n\n[130] p. 329.\n\n[131] pp. 307-309.\n\n[132] Notice prefixed to _Essays and Reviews_.\n\n[133] p. 255.\n\n[134] Nos. 74, 76, 78, 81.\n\n[135] I allude particularly to the late Hugh James Rose, B.D.\n\n[136] Neh. iv. 17, 18.\n\n[137] St. Luke xviii. 8.\n\n[138] See Nelson's _Life of Bull_, p. 329, &c.\n\n[139] See his admirable Preface.\n\n[140] Newman's dedication of his 'Lectures on Romanism and popular\nProtestantism.'\n\n[141] See the 'Monitum' prefixed to Dr. Routh's _Testimonia De\nAuctoritate S. Scriptur\u00e6 Ante-Nic\u00e6na.--Reliqq. Sacr\u00e6_, vol. v. p. 335.\n\n[142] \"In 1781, the first Sunday School was established in England by\nRobert Raikes, a publisher and bookseller in Gloucester.\"--National\nSociety's _Circular_.\n\n[143] _Primary Charge_, at the end of his _Sermons_.\n\n[144] Rev. M. Pattison, in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 307.\n\n[145] pp. 338, 375, 420 top line, 428, &c.\n\n[146] See all this very ably and interestingly explained in an article\nreprinted from the 'Christian Remembrancer' (Jan. 1861,) _On certain\nCharacteristics of Holy Scripture_, by the Rev. J. G. Cazenove, p. 11,\n&c.\n\n[147] Nor is this a mere slip of Mr. Jowett's pen. At p. 372, he states\nthat \"a majority of the Clergy throughout the world,\"--(with whom he\nassociates the \"instincts of many laymen, perhaps also individual\ninterest,\")--are in favour of \"_withholding the Truth_.\" But, he adds,\n(with the indignant emphasis of Virtue when she is reproaching\nVice,)--\"a higher expediency pleads that 'honesty is the best policy,'\nand that truth alone 'makes free!'\"--How would such insolence be treated\nin the common intercourse of daily life?--(I will not pause to remark on\nMr. Jowett's wanton abuse of the Divine saying recorded in St. John\nviii. 32,--repeated at p. 351.)\n\n[148] I suppose that there may have been many inspired Psalmists; and\nthat perhaps the book of Judges was not all by one hand. With reference\nto the two books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, see 1 Chron. xxix. 29,\n30. 2 Chron. ix. 29: xi. 2: xii. 15, 5, 7: xiii. 22.\n\n[149] By the Jews themselves they were reckoned as 22.\n\n[150] \"It is remarkable that the word =Graph\u00ea=, which means simply\n_Writing_, is reserved and appropriated in the New Testament (where it\noccurs fifty times) to the _Sacred_ writings, i.e. to the _Holy\nScriptures_; and marks the separation of the _Scriptures_ from all\n\"common books,\" indeed from _all other writings_ in the\nworld.\"--Wordsworth 'On Inspiration,'--p. 85.\n\n[151] St. Luke xvi. 17.\n\n[152] =ou dynatai lyth\u00eanai h\u00ea graph\u00ea=,--St. John x. 35.\n\n[153] e.g. (i) _Long passages_:--\n\nJudges i. 11-15 quotes Joshua xv. 15-19.--2 Sam. xxii. quotes Ps.\nxviii.--1 Chron. xvi. quotes Ps. xcvi., and Ps. cv.--2 Kings xix. quotes\nIs. xxxvii.--2 Kings xx. quotes Is. xxxviii., xxxix.\n\n(ii) _One or two sentences_:--\n\nNumb. xiv. 18 quotes Exod. xxxvi. 6, 7.--Ps. lxviii. 1 quotes Numb. x.\n35.--Ps. lxviii. 7, 8 quotes Judges v. 4, 5.--Ps. cxviii. 14 quotes\nExod. xv. 2.--Prov. xxx. 5 quotes Ps. xviii. 30.--Joel ii. 13 quotes\nJonah iv. 2.--Isaiah xii. 2 quotes Exod. xv. 2.--Isaiah xiii. 6 quotes\nJoel i. 15.--Isaiah li. 6 quotes Ps. cii. 25-7.--Isaiah lii. 10 quotes\nPs. xcviii. 2, 3.--Micah iv. 1, 2, 3 quotes Isaiah ii. 2, 3, 4.--Nahum\ni. 15 quotes Isaiah lii. 7.--Zeph. iii. 19 quotes Micah iv. 6.--Habakkuk\nii. 14 quotes Isaiah xi. 9.--Jeremiah x. 13: li. 16 quotes Ps. cxxxv.\n7.--Jeremiah xlviii. quotes Isaiah xv. 16.--Jeremiah xxvi. 18 quotes\nMicah iii. 12.--1 Chron. xxix. 15 quotes Ps. xxxix. 12.\n\n(iii) _Allusive references_.--(This would involve a prolonged reference\nto the Hebrew Scriptures, which would be even out of place here.)\n\n[154] See pp. 234-5.\n\n[155] Rev. Ralph Churton's Sermon \"On the Quotations in the Old\nTestament,\" (1807,) published in Townson's _Works_, vol. i.\np. cxxxiv.,--where see the interesting note.\n\n[156] Rev. Ralph Churton's Sermon, quoted in note (t, [our 155]), pp.\ncxliv-v.\n\n[157] E.g. Gen. xxviii. 11, 12: xxxii. 1-3. Exod. xxiv. 10.--St. Luke\nxxii. 43-45. St. Matth. xxvii. 52, 53. St. Jude ver. 9.\n\n[158] E.g. Jacob, Joseph, David.--St. Paul, St. Peter, St. John.\n\n[159] E.g. Gen. viii. 9: xxxvii. 15-17: xlviii. 17, 18. Exod. ii.\n6.--St. Luke viii. 55. St. John xiii. 4, 5: xxi.\n\n[160] E.g. in Heb. viii. 8-12, where Jer. xxxi. 31-36 is quoted. See\nActs ii. 17-21, where Joel ii. 28-32 is quoted.\n\n[161] It is supposed that the three well-known references to profane\nwriters, (Acts xvii. 28. 1 Cor. xv. 33. Tit. i. 12, [concerning which\nsee Jerome, _Opp._ i. 424: vii. 471,])--the place in St. Matthew,\n(xxvii. 9,)--and St. James iv. 5,--are scarcely exceptions to the\nstatement in the text.\n\n[162] See above,--(=4=).\n\n[163] Only given by St. Matthew and St. Luke.\n\n[164] Only found in St. Luke iii. 36.\n\n[165] Only found in St. Matth. i. 5.\n\n[166] Only found in Acts vii. 16.\n\n[167] Only found in Acts vii. 23.\n\n[168] St. James v. 17,--mentioned also by our LORD, St. Luke iv. 25; who\ninforms us that Jonah _was a sign_ to the Ninevites. This is only\nrevealed in St. Luke xi. 30.\n\n[169] 2 Cor. xi. 3.\n\n[170] St. Jude ver. 9.\n\n[171] 2 Tim. iii. 8.\n\n[172] See Heb. xi. 19. Consider Rom. iv. 19.\n\n[173] Acts vii. 16.\n\n[174] Compare Exod. ii. 2, 3 with Acts vii. 20. Consider Rev. ii. 14:\nalso Heb. xii. 21: also Heb. ix. 19, &c.\n\n[175] _Sermons_, by the Rev. C. P. Eden, p. 185.\n\n[176] =Ti gar estin ho Nomos? Euangelion prokat\u00eangelmenon\u00b7 ti de to\nEuangelion? Nomos pepl\u00ear\u00f4menos.= Justin: _Qu\u00e6st._ ci. p. 456.\n\n[177] Eadem sunt in Vetere et Novo: ibi obumbrata, hic revelata; ibi\npr\u00e6figurata, hic manifesta. (Augustine: _Qu\u00e6st._ xxxiii., in Num. \u00a7 1.\nm. iii. p. 541.)--In Veteri Testamento est occultatio Novi: in Novo\nTestamento est manifestatio Veteris. (_Id. De Catechiz. Rudibus_, \u00a7\n8.--See also Qu\u00e6st. lxxiii. in Exod.)\n\n[178] See below, from the foot of p. 174 to the beginning of p. 176.\n\n[179] Below, p. 108. The reader is requested to refer to the place.\n\n[180] E.g. Gen. xi. 5-8: xviii. 17-21.\n\n[181] E.g. Gen. vi. 6. 2 Sam. xi. 27.\n\n[182] E.g. 2 Kings xix. 35. St. Matth. xxviii. 2, 3.\n\n[183] Rev. i. 10, 11.\n\n[184] _Analogy_, P. II. ch. vii.\n\n[185] Butler's _Analogy_, P. II. ch. vii.\n\n[186] Heb. viii. 1.\n\n[187] St. Luke iv. 21.\n\n[188] St. John v. 46.\n\n[189] St. Luke xxiv. 27.\n\n[190] St. Luke xxiv. 44.\n\n[191] Dr. Wordsworth (Occasional Sermon 54,) _On the Inspiration of the\nOld Testament_, (1859.)--p. 70.\n\n[192] 2 Tim. ii. 2.\n\n[193] See the middle of p. cxcvii.\n\n[194] Photius, p. 195, ed. Bekker.--\"Eos simul jungendos\ncensui,--Polycarpum, Iren\u00e6um, Hippolytum; cum Hippolytus discipulus\nIren\u00e6i fuisset, Iren\u00e6usque Polycarpum, Joannis Apostoli discipulum,\naudivisset.\"--Routh, Preface to _Opuscula_, p. x.\n\n[195] St. Luke xxiv. 27.\n\n[196] St. John xiv. 26. The fulfilment of this promise repeatedly\noccurs: as in St. John ii. 17, 22: xii. 16: xiii. 7: St. Luke xxiv. 8.\nConsider St. John xx. 9.\n\n[197] 1 Cor. xii., xiii., xiv., &c.\n\n[198] St. Luke xxiv. 45.\n\n[199] Acts ii. 4-21.\n\n[200] See Mr. Jowett's Essay, p. 354.\n\n[201] Ps. xcii. 5.\n\n[202] Acts viii. 30, 31.--\"'Revela,' inquit David, 'oculos meos, et\nconsiderabo mirabilia de Lege Tu\u00e2.' Si tantus Propheta tenebras\nignoranti\u00e6 confitetur, qu\u00e2 nos putas parvulos, et pene lactantes,\ninsciti\u00e6 nocte circumdari? Hoc autem velamen non solum in facie Moysi,\nsed et in Evangelistis et in Apostolis positum est.\"--Hieronymus, _Ep._\nlviii. vol. i. p. 323.\n\n[203] Dr. Moberly, as before, pp. liii.-iv.\n\n[204] _Minor Works_, vol. ii. p. 10.\n\n[205] _Ibid._ p. 6.\n\n[206] See Serm. I. pp. 10-11, 13, &c.\n\n[207] See below, p. 142.\n\n[208] From a Sermon by the Rev. F. Woodward, quoted below, at p.\n249.--In illustration of the learned writer's concluding remark, take\nthis from the Creed of Lyons, contained in Iren\u00e6us (A.D. 180),--=Kai eis\nPneuma HAgion, to dia t\u00f4n Proph\u00eat\u00f4n kek\u00earychos tas oikonomias, kai tas\neleuseis.= In the Creed of Constantinople, we read, =To Pneuma to HAgion\n... to lal\u00easan dia t\u00f4n Proph\u00eat\u00f4n.=\n\n[209] The Creed of Lyons begins by describing itself as that which =h\u00ea\nmen Ekkl\u00easia, kaiper kath' hol\u00eas t\u00eas oikoumen\u00eas he\u00f4s perat\u00f4n t\u00eas g\u00eas\ndiesparmen\u00ea, para de t\u00f4n Apostol\u00f4n kai t\u00f4n ekein\u00f4n math\u00eat\u00f4n paralabousa,\nk.t.l.= Most refreshing of all, however, are the concluding words of\nthat Creed: so comfortable are they that I _cannot_ deny myself the\nconsolation of transcribing them here, where indeed they are very much\n_ad rem_:--\n\n=Touto to k\u00earygma pareil\u00eaphyia, kai taut\u00ean t\u00ean pistin, h\u00f4s proephamen, h\u00ea\nekkl\u00easia, kaiper en hol\u00f4 t\u00f4 kosm\u00f4 diesparmen\u00ea, epimel\u00f4s phylassei, h\u00f4s hena\noikon oikousa\u00b7 kai homoi\u00f4s pisteuei toutois, h\u00f4s mian psych\u00ean kai t\u00ean aut\u00ean\nechousa kardian\u00b7 kai symph\u00f4n\u00f4s tauta k\u00earyssei, kai didaskei, kai\nparadid\u00f4sin, h\u00f4s hen stoma kekt\u00eamen\u00ea. Kai gar hai kata ton kosmon dialektoi\nanomoiai, all' h\u00ea dynamis t\u00eas paradose\u00f4s mia kai h\u00ea aut\u00ea. Kai oute hai en\nGermaniais hidrymenai ekkl\u00easiai all\u00f4s pepisteukasin, \u00ea all\u00f4s\nparadidoasin, oute en tais Ib\u00eariais, oute en Keltois, oute kata tas\nanatolas, oute en Aigypt\u00f4, oute en Liby\u00ea, oute hai kata mesa tou kosmou\nhidrymenai. All' h\u00f4sper ho h\u00ealios, to ktisma tou Theou, en hol\u00f4 t\u00f4 kosm\u00f4\nheis kai ho autos, hout\u00f4 kai to k\u00earygma t\u00eas al\u00eatheias pantach\u00ea phainei, kai\nph\u00f4tizei pantas anthr\u00f4pous tous boulomenous eis epign\u00f4sin al\u00eatheias\nelthein. Kai oute ho pany dynatos en log\u00f4 t\u00f4n en tais ekkl\u00easiais proest\u00f4t\u00f4n\nhetera tout\u00f4n erei, (oudeis gar hyper ton didaskalon,) oute ho asthen\u00eas en\nt\u00f4 log\u00f4 elatt\u00f4sei t\u00ean paradosin. Mias gar kai t\u00eas aut\u00eas piste\u00f4s ous\u00eas, oute\nho poly peri aut\u00eas dynamenos eipein epleonasen, oute ho to oligon\n\u00ealatton\u00ease.=--See Heurtley's _Harmonia Symbolica_, p. 9.\n\n[210] Abridged from Dr. Moberly, as before, pp. lii.-v.\n\n[211] =Kai honper tropon ho tou sinape\u00f4s sporos, en mikr\u00f4 kokk\u00f4, pollous\nperiechei tous kladous, hout\u00f4 kai h\u00ea Pistis haut\u00ea, en oligois rh\u00eamasi,\npasan t\u00ean en t\u00ea Palaia kai Kain\u00ea t\u00eas eusebeias gn\u00f4sin\nenkekolpistai.=--Cyril. Hieros. Cat. v. \u00a7 12,--quoted by Heurtley.\n\n[212] _Answer._ He certainly does not employ _the identical language_ of\nthe Nicene Council, or of the (so called) Athanasian Creed. But what\nthen?\n\n[213] _Ans._ Passages of the Epistles \"distributed in alternate clauses\nbetween our Lord's Humanity and Divinity,\" begging Mr. Jowett's pardon,\nis nonsense. But _no_ passage in St. Paul's Epistles which relates to\nthe Humanity, or to the Divinity of CHRIST, could be said to \"lose its\nmeaning\" by being unlocked by its own proper clue: or, if the statement\nbe complex, by being distributed under two heads.\n\n[214] _Ans._ But not, I suppose, to _reconcile_ them? Why use inaccurate\nlanguage on so solemn a subject?\n\n[215] _Ans._ Doubtless we have to suppose this!\n\n[216] _Ans._ Not so. For \"there is one Person of the FATHER, and another\nof the SON.\"\n\n[217] _Ans._ Doubtless we have to suppose this!\n\n[218] _Ans_. But He did _not_ doubt!\n\n[219] 1 St. John iv. 2, 3.--2 St. John ver. 7.\n\n[220] Dr. Moberly, as before, p. xlvii.\n\n[221] E.g. \"We should observe how the popular explanations of Prophecy,\nas in heathen (Thucyd. ii. 54,) so also in Christian times, had adapted\nthemselves to the circumstances of mankind.\" (The Reverend writer can\n_never for a moment_ divest himself of his theory that Thucydides and\nthe Bible stand on the same footing!) \"We might remark that in our own\ncountry, and in the present generation especially, the interpretation of\nScripture had assumed an apologetic character, as though making an\neffort to defend itself against some supposed inroad of Science and\nCriticism.\" (p. 340.) ... Just as if any other attitude was _possible_\nwhen one has to do with 'Essayists and Reviewers!'\n\n[222] One would imagine that the Essayist and his critic were entirely\nagreed. See below, p. 74,--\"I refuse to accept any _theory_ whatsoever.\"\nAnd p. 115,--\"_Theory_ I have none.\"\n\n[223] Had the following passage occurred sooner to my recollection, it\nshould have been sooner inserted:--\"Are we to conduct the Interpretation\nof Holy Scripture as we would that of any other writing? We are and we\nare not. _So far_ as THE WORDS _are concerned, the mere words of\nScripture_ have the same office with those of all language written or\nspoken in sincerity.\" They must be studied \"by the same means and the\nsame rules which would guide us to the meaning of any other work; by a\nknowledge of the languages in which the books were written, the Hebrew,\nthe Chaldee, the Greek, and of those other languages, as the Syriac and\nArabic, which may illustrate them; and of all the ordinary rules of\nGrammar and Criticism, and the peculiar information respecting times and\ncircumstances, history and customs,--all the resources, in a word, of\nthe Interpretation of any work of any kind. _The Grammatical and\nHistorical interpretation of profane or sacred writings is the same_....\n\"All Scripture,\" meanwhile, \"_is given by Inspiration of GOD_:\" and this\nat once introduces several important differences; which whoever neglects\nmay yet, with whatsoever advantages of learning and talent, fail to\ndiscover the real meaning of the Word of GOD.\"--From Dr. Hawkins\n(Provost of Oriel)'s _Inaugural Lecture_ as Dean Ireland's Professor,\ndelivered in 1847,--pp. 29-30.\n\nIt is but fair to Mr. Jowett to add that, _in terms_, he has very nearly\n(not quite) said the self-same thing himself, at p. 337, (upper half the\npage.) But it is the peculiar method of this most slippery writer, or\nmost illogical thinker, occasionally to grant almost all that heart can\ndesire, as far as _words_ go; but straightway to deny, or evacuate, or\nexplain away, _the thing_ which those words ought to signify.--Thus, at\np. 337, he volunteers the remark that \"No one who has a Christian\nfeeling would place Classical on a level with Sacred Literature;\" and at\np. 377, he observes that, \"There are many respects in which Scripture is\nunlike any other book.\" And yet, (as I have shown, p. cxliii. to p.\ncl.,) Mr. Jowett _puts_ the Bible on a level with Sophocles and Plato;\nand argues throughout as if Scripture were in _no_ essential respect\nunlike any other book!\n\n[224] \"Had this writer reminded us that the New Testament Greek is a\nGreek of different age from that of the classical writers; had he simply\nwarned us that we must not press our Attic Greek scholarship too far,\nbut study the Alexandrian Greek of the Septuagint, Philo, &c. in order\nto ascertain the exact meaning of the words and phrases of the writers\nof the New Testament;--still more, if, as the result of such study on\nhis own part, he had offered us some well-digested observations on the\nuse of tenses, articles, or particles in the sacred writings;--he would\nhave done some service. But this talk about 'excessive attention to the\narticle,' and 'particles being often mere excrescences of style,' is of\nno effect except to expose the writer to ridicule. It sounds as if he\nhad been accustomed to lay down the law to an admiring audience of\n'clever young men,' and had forgotten that there were still 'men in\nDenmark' who understood Greek.\"--_Some Remarks on Essays and Reviews_,\nprefixed to Dr. Moberly's 'Sermons on the Beatitudes.' (1861.) pp.\nlxii.-iii.\n\n[225] _Quarterly Review_, No. 217, p. 298.\n\n[226] _Quarterly Review_, No. 217, pp. 265-6.\n\n[227] St. Matth. ii .1, 22.\n\n[228] St. Luke ii. 41.\n\n[229] See Sermon VII., pp. 222-232.\n\n[230] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 109.\n\n[231] See Dr. Moberly, (as before,) p. lv.-lx.\n\n[232] _Edinburgh Review_, (April, 1861,) p. 476.\n\n[233] The Rev. H. B. Wilson says,--\"If those who distinguish themselves\nin Science and Literature cannot, in a scientific and literary age, be\neffectually and cordially attached to the Church of their nation, they\nmust sooner or later be driven into a position of hostility to it.\"\n(p. 198.) This is one of the many notes, if not of \"concert and\ncomparison,\" at least of _intense sympathy_ between the Essayists and\nReviewers.\n\n[234] _Quarterly Review_, No. 217, p. 266.\n\n[235] See at pp. 351, 352, 357, 358, 361, 365, 367, 413, &c.\n\n[236] _Quarterly Review_, as before, p. 282.\n\n[237] Take a few instances:--Mr. Wilson and Mr. Jowett speak of the\nGospels as more or less accurately embodying a common _tradition_, pp.\n161 and 346.--Dr. Temple and Mr. Jowett propose the heart and\nconscience, as _the overruling principle_, pp. 42-5, and 410:--and\ninsist that the Bible is \"a Spirit, not a Letter,\" pp. 36 and 357, 375,\n425.--Dr. Temple and Dr. Williams regard the Bible as _the voice of\nconscience_, pp. 45 and 78:--look for _a verifying faculty_ in the\nindividual, pp. 45 and 83:--dwell on the \"interpolations\" in Scripture,\npp. 47 and 78.--Mr. Wilson and Mr. Jowett insist on the meaning which\nScripture had _to those who first heard it_, as its true meaning, pp.\n219, 223, 230, 232, and 338, 378:--on the necessity of _reconciling\nIntellectual men to Scripture_, pp. 198 and 374.--Professor Powell and\nMr. Jowett are of one mind as to Miracles, pp. 109 and 349.--Dr. Temple\nand Mr. Jowett delight in the same image of the Colossal Man, pp. 1-49\nand 331, 387, 422.--Dr. Williams and Mr. Jowett coincide in their\nestimate of the German Commentators, pp. 67 and 340.--Dr. Temple and Dr.\nWilliams are of one mind as to the past training of our Race, pp. 1-49,\nand 51. They are generally agreed as to the untrustworthiness of\nGenesis, and of the Scripture generally, the hopeless contradictions\nbetween the Evangelists, &c., &c. They hold the same language about our\nhaving outlived the Faith, ('Traditional Christianity,' as it is\ncalled;) the impossibility of freedom of thought; the necessity of\nproviding some new Religious system; the effete nature of Creeds and\nformularies of Belief; the advance in Natural Science as likely to prove\nfatal to Theology, &c., &c.\n\n[238] See St. John iii. 2: v. 36: x. 25, 37-8: xiv. 11: xv. 24: St. Luke\nvii. 20-22, &c., &c.\n\n[239] Creed of Lyons, A.D. 180; see above, p. clxxx., note.\n\n[240] pp. cxciv.-v.\n\n[241] See pp. 57 and 170.\n\n[242] _Some Remarks, &c._, pp. xxiii.-xxv.\n\n\n\n\n$Seven Sermons.$\n\n\nSUBJECTS OF THE SERMONS.\n\n  (_For a detailed account of the Contents of these Sermons,\n    the Reader is referred to the beginning of the Volume._)\n\n  I.--THE STUDY OF THE BIBLE RECOMMENDED; AND A METHOD OF\n    STUDYING IT DESCRIBED                                            p. 1\n\n  II.--NATURAL SCIENCE AND THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE                      p. 23\n\n  III.--INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE.--GOSPEL DIFFICULTIES.--THE\n    WORD OF GOD INFALLIBLE.--OTHER SCIENCES SUBORDINATE TO\n    THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE                                             p. 53\n\n  IV.--THE PLENARY INSPIRATION OF EVERY PART OF THE BIBLE,\n    VINDICATED AND EXPLAINED.--NATURE OF INSPIRATION.--THE TEXT\n    OF SCRIPTURE                                                    p. 91\n\n  V.--INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.--INSPIRED\n    INTERPRETATION.--THE BIBLE IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED LIKE ANY\n    OTHER BOOK.--GOD, (NOT MAN,) THE REAL AUTHOR OF THE BIBLE      p. 139\n\n  VI.--THE DOCTRINE OF ARBITRARY SCRIPTURAL ACCOMMODATION\n    CONSIDERED                                                     p. 183\n\n  VII.--THE MARVELS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, MORAL AND\n    PHYSICAL.--JAEL'S DEED DEFENDED.--MIRACLES VINDICATED          p. 221\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPR\u00c6VENERUNT OCULI MEI AD TE DILUCULO, UT MEDITARER ELOQUIA TUA.\n\nQUAM DULCIA FAUCIBUS MEIS ELOQUIA TUA: SUPER MEL ORI MEO.\n\nLUCERNA PEDIBUS MEIS VERBUM TUUM, ET LUMEN SEMITIS MEIS.\n\n=\u00d4 KAL\u00d4S POIEITE PROSECHONTES, \u00d4S LYCHN\u00d4 PHAINONTI EN AUCHM\u00caR\u00d4 TOP\u00d4, E\u00d4S OY\n\u00caMERA DIAUGAS\u00ca, KAI PH\u00d4SPHOROS ANATEIL\u00ca EN TAIS KARDIAIS UM\u00d4N.=\n\nDOMINE DEUS meus, ... sint cast\u00e6 delici\u00e6 me\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6 Tu\u00e6. Nec fallar\nin eis, nec fallam ex eis.--AUGUSTINUS, _Confessiones_, lib. xi. c. ii.\n\u00a7 3.\n\nThe Book of this Law we are neither able nor worthy to look into. That\nlittle thereof which we darkly apprehend we admire: the rest with\nreligious ignorance we humbly and meekly adore.--HOOKER, _Eccl. Pol._,\nB. I. ch. ii. \u00a7 5.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nSERMON I.[243]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTHE STUDY OF THE BIBLE RECOMMENDED; AND A METHOD OF STUDYING IT\nDESCRIBED.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nST. JOHN vi. 68.\n\n_LORD, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of Eternal Life._\n\n\nIt was probably in that synagogue which the faithful Centurion built at\nCapernaum[244] that our SAVIOUR had been discoursing. At the end of His\ndiscourse, it is related that \"many of His Disciples went back, and\nwalked no more with Him.\" Thereupon, He asked the Twelve, \"Will ye also\ngo away?\" the very form of His inquiry (=M\u00ea kai hymeis=) implying the\nanswer which the Divine Speaker expected and desired. And to this\nchallenge of Love to Faith, St. Peter replied, not only on behalf of his\nfellow-Apostles, but on behalf of all faithful men to the end of\ntime:--\"LORD, to _whom_ shall we go? _Thou_ hast the words of Eternal\nLife!\"\n\nYou perceive that St. Peter's confession takes a peculiar form,--resting\nthe impossibility of unfaithfulness in the Apostles on the gracious\ndiscourse of Him to whom they had been listening. \"A hard saying,\" and\nunpalatable, it had proved to many; but to his own taste it had seemed\n\"sweeter than honey and the honeycomb.\" So that while, to those others,\nit had been an occasion of going back, and walking with CHRIST no\nmore,--to himself it had been a reason why he could never, as he felt,\nbe persuaded to forsake CHRIST. Nay, it was to himself, (and, as he\nboldly assumed, to his fellow-Apostles,) a sufficient evidence that the\nSpeaker was none other than the SON of GOD. \"And we believe, and are\nsure, that Thou art the CHRIST, the SON of the living GOD!\"\n\nHere then, surely, a very solemn picture is set before us. The same\nmessage proves, in the case of some, the savour of death unto death: in\nthe case of others, of life unto life. It is an image of what is still\ntaking place in the world. The Gospel, whether veiled in the Old\nTestament, or unveiled in the New, is confessedly \"a hard saying:\"--to\nsome, their very crown and joy; to others, only an occasion of distress\nand downfall. It was so, when proclaimed not by the tongue of men and of\nangels, but by the lips \"full of grace and truth\" of the Incarnate WORD\nHimself: and it is so still. The temper of mankind is still the same as\nit was of old, and the instrument of man's trial is still the same.\n\nOf the written Gospel, many of the self-same things are said in\nScripture which are said of Him by whom that Gospel was preached. Thus,\nit is proclaimed to be \"the power of GOD to salvation[245].\" It is\ndescribed as \"a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the\nheart[246].\" It is declared to be eternal,--a thing which \"shall never\npass away[247].\" \"In the last day,\" it is prophesied that the words\nwhich CHRIST has spoken \"shall judge\" men[248]. The very Name by which\nSt. John designates the Eternal SON, in the forefront of his\nGospel[249], is the appellation by which the Gospel is emphatically\nknown.--But even more remarkable are the analogies which subsist between\nthe written record of our LORD'S Life and Teaching, and the actual\nperson of our LORD. And proposing, as I now do, to say a few earnest\nwords to the younger men in recommendation of a more punctual,\nmethodical, as well as attentive study of the Bible, than, I am\npersuaded, is practised by one young man in a thousand,--it may not\nprove unavailing in awakening attention, if I advert, in passing, to\nsome of the circumstances whereby an even balance, (so to speak,) is\nestablished between the opportunities of the men of this generation, and\nof those who were blessed with the oral teaching of the Son of Man.\n\n1. Thus, if the record has its difficulties, and its seeming\ncontradictions, so had _He_. It did not appear that \"JESUS _of\nNazareth_\" was born, (according to the prophet Micah's prediction,) at\n_Bethlehem_[250]. His title perplexed even Nathanael[251].--He was\ncalled the son of _Joseph_, even _by the Blessed Virgin[252]_. How then\ncould He be the SON of GOD? And how was the famous prophecy of Isaiah\nfulfilled in Him[253]?--He grew up in a lowly estate. Once He is called\n\"the carpenter[254].\" How then could He be of the Royal House of David?\nAnd so, in many other respects, did He, in His own person, present the\nself-same class of difficulties to the world's eye which His Gospel\npresents to ours:--\"the sixteenth of Tiberius,\"--the two\ngenealogies,--\"Cyrenius,\"--\"the days of Abiathar,\"--\"Jeremy the\nprophet,\"--and so on.\n\n2. Somewhat less obvious, but not less true, is the unattractive aspect,\nat first sight, of the Gospel. Verily there is, until we become\nintimately acquainted with it, \"no beauty that we should desire\"\nit.--The style, (full of interest, to those who have tried to understand\nit a little,) is not, I suppose, what critics would call altogether a\ngood style.--The Greek is not what learned men call _pure_.--Many a\nword, (brimfull of meaning to those who will give to the words of the\nGospel their best care,) reminds one, that neither did _He_ speak what,\nin the capital of Jewry, was accounted a classical idiom. He employed\nthe accent of the despised Galilee.--The very reasoning, (until you give\nit your heart's homage and best attention,) often seems to be either\ninconsequential, or to contain a fallacy. Certain words of our LORD have\nbeen even _cited_ as fallacious by a celebrated Divine whose writings we\nare all familiar with[255]. Now, _His_ words were disregarded, cavilled\nat, made light of, in just the same manner.\n\n3. Most surprising of all is the analogy observable between the union of\nthe Divine and the human element in the Gospels,--and the strictly\nparallel union, as it seems, of the two natures, the Divine and the\nHuman, in the person of our LORD.--As _He_ was perfect and faultless, so\ndo we deem _it_ infallible also, without spot or blemish of any kind. We\nreject as monstrous any 'theory of Inspiration,' (as it is called,)\nwhich imputes blunders to the work of the HOLY GHOST.--As, further, we\nclaim for our LORD'S recorded human actions mysterious significancy, so\ndo we seem warranted in looking for a mysterious purpose, a divine\nmeaning, in every expression of the written Word.--Lastly, although we\nmay, nay we must, admit such a Divine and such a human element, we must\naltogether deny the possibility of separating the one from the other. We\ncannot separate Scripture into human and Divine. Like the Incarnate\nWORD, the Gospel is at once both human _and_ Divine, yet one and\nindivisible. And the method of its inspiration is as great a difficulty\nin its way, and as much beyond our ken, as the nature of the union of\nthe Godhead and the Manhood in the one person of CHRIST.\n\nFor whatever reason, and whether you please to accept the foregoing\nremarks or not, it is a plain fact that the Gospel is now in the world,\nfulfilling the same office towards mankind, which our Saviour CHRIST\nHimself fulfilled, and experiencing the same treatment at the hands of\nmen in return. It is leavening society indeed, and remodelling the\nworld, even while it is practically overlooked by politicians or\nexperiencing evil treatment from them. It wins its way silently and\nsecretly, yet surely; and it works miracles here and there. Moreover, it\ndivides opinion; separating, as it will for ever separate, the light\nfrom the darkness[256]. It is slighted, and overlooked, and neglected by\nsome; even while, by others, it is embraced with joy unspeakable. 'The\nhumble and meek' adore it; even while, by the proud and rebellious, it\nis after a most strange fashion cavilled at, called in question, and\ndenied. We specify _the Gospel_, instinctively, as that part of the\nInspired Word which chiefly concerns ourselves, as Christian men; but\nthe entire deposit shares the same fate. I do not think I am delivering\na paradox when I say that the Bible is generally very little read. That\nthe amount of _study_ commonly bestowed upon it bears no proportion\nwhatever to its transcendent importance and paramount value, shall not\nbe any paradox at all; but a mere truism.\n\nFor I entreat you to consider, (trite and obvious as it may sound,)\n_What_ have we, in the whole wide world, which may be put in competition\nwith that Book which contains GOD'S revelation of Himself to man? In its\nearly portions, how does it go back to the very birthday of Time, and\ndiscourse of things which were done in the grey of that early morning!\nHow mysterious is the record,--so methodical, so particular, so unique;\npreserving the very words which were syllabled in Paradise, and\ndescribing transactions which no one but the HOLY GHOST is competent to\ndeclare! Come lower down, and _where_ will you find more beautiful\nnarratives,--still fresh at the end of three and four thousand\nyears,--than those stories of Patriarchs, Judges, Kings, which wrap up\ndivinest teaching in all their ordinary details: where every word is\nweighed in a heavenly balance, fraught with a divine purpose, and\nintended for some glorious issue: where the very characters are\nadumbrations of personages far greater than themselves; and where the\ncourse of events is made to preach to us, at this distant day, of the\nthings which concern our peace! Is it a light thing again to know in\nwhat terms Isaiah, and the rest of \"the goodly fellowship,\" when they\nopened their lips to speak in that remote age, foretold of the coming of\nthe Son of Man?... But all seems to grow pale before the Everlasting\nGospel, and the other writings of the New Testament. Surely we have\nbecome too familiar with the providence which has preserved to us the\nvery words of the four Evangelists, if we can bend our thoughts in the\ndirection of the Gospel without a throb of joy and wonder not to be\ndescribed, at having so great a treasure placed within our easy reach.\nCan it indeed be, that I may listen while the disciple whom JESUS loved\nis discoursing of the miracles, and recalling the sayings of his LORD?\nMay I hear St. Peter himself address the early Church,--or know the\nprecise words of the message which St. Jude sent to the first\nbelievers,--or be shown the Epistle which the LORD'S cousin addressed\n\"to the Twelve Tribes scattered abroad\"? How does it happen that the\nBook is not for ever in our hands which comes to us with such claims to\nour undivided homage?\n\nBut, on the contrary, it has become the fashion in certain quarters, on\nevery imaginable pretext, to call in question the credibility of the\nBible. It seems to be the taste of the age to invent hazy difficulties\nand dim objections to its statements. Inspiration, under a miserable\nattempt to explain it, is openly explained away. And the theory, however\ncrude and preposterous, is tolerated: at least it escapes castigation.\nIt cannot fail but that the unlearned and thoughtless ones of this\ngeneration will be growing up in a notion that these are open questions\nafter all, and that \"Truth\" is but a name,--not a thing worth\ncontending, aye _dying_ for, if need be! The reason is but too obvious.\nIt must be, partly, because we do not in reality prize the deposit\nnearly so much as we suppose. Partly, because of the indifferentism\nwhich is everywhere so prevalent. Partly too because, notwithstanding\nour intellectual activity, we are not a really learned body. And partly,\nit must be confessed, the reason is, because Theology has become so\nnearly a prostrate study with us, and because men really able to do\nbattle for the Truth are somewhat hard to find. Nor is there any\nreasonable prospect of improvement either; for those who go forth from\nthis place into the Ministry, go with such slender preparation, that it\nwould be truer to say that they go with none at all.\n\nNow, it would be a mere waste of time, to inveigh for half an hour\nagainst the indifferentism, or the spurious liberality, of the age: and\nit would be a most unbecoming proceeding, (not to say a highly\ndistasteful one,) from this place to be suggesting remedies for an evil\nwhich already lies very near the heart of every serious man among us;\nand which, if discussed at all, must be discussed elsewhere. To say the\ntruth, while the neglect of Theology, and the low ebb of Theological\nattainments in our Clergy, is generally recognized, the remedy for the\nevil is by no means so clear. From this subject, then, I pass at once:\nand I shall content myself with the far humbler task, of urging upon the\nyounger men present,--those especially who are destined for the\nMinistry,--one act of preparation, one duty, about which, at all events,\nthere cannot be any difference of opinion: I mean the duty of applying\nthemselves, _now_, to the patient study of the Bible.\n\nThe thing is soon said; but the hint requires expanding a little, in\norder that it may become of any practical use.--By the \"study of the\nBible,\" I do not mean a chapter occasionally read with care: nor even a\nchapter regularly conned over at night; when a convivial meeting has\nblunted the edge of observation, or severe study has exhausted the\npowers of the brain. The _devotional_ use of a portion of Holy\nScripture is quite a distinct affair. Still less would the practice\nsatisfy me of following the lessons in the College Chapel: and this for\nreasons so obvious that I will not stop to point them out. Nor even is\nthe reading of the Bible in College Lecture, the thing I mean; for\nreasons also which any acute person will readily ascertain for himself.\nNone of these methods of acquainting yourselves with the contents of the\nBible come up to the thing I contemplate, although each is good in its\nway; and of course I am not speaking in disparagement of any.\n\nNo. The thing I would so strenuously urge upon you, is,--that, during\nyour undergraduate period, you should read the whole Bible consecutively\nthrough, from one end to the other, _by_ yourself and _for_ yourself,\nwith consummate method, care, and attention. The fundamental conditions\nof such a study of the Bible, in order to make it of any real use, are\nthese:--\n\n1. First, that you should deliberately apportion to this solemn duty the\nbest and freshest and quietest half-hour in the whole day; and then,\nthat you should determine, let what will go undone, never to abridge\n_that_ half-hour. You may sometimes be enabled to afford a little _more_\ntime to the chapter: but you will find it quite fatal ever to devote a\nshorter period to it. And half an hour, if you employ it in right good\nearnest, at present, must be thought enough.\n\n2. Next, (except on Sundays and in Vacation, when you may safely double\nyour daily task and your daily time,) be persuaded to read each day\nexactly one chapter. On no account attempt to go reading on; but rather\nspend the moments which remain over, (they _cannot_ be many!) in\nreviewing that day's portion; or referring to some of the places\nindicated in the margin; or glancing over yesterday's chapter.\n\nThe effect of building up your Bible knowledge in this manner, bit by\nbit, is what you would not anticipate. The whole acquires a solidity and\ncompactness not to be attained by any other method. You will find at the\nend of many days, not only that the structure has attained to symmetry\nand beauty,--but that the disposition of its several parts, in some\nrespects, has become intelligible also: while, (what is not of least\nimportance,) the foundation on which all the superstructure rests,\nproves wondrous secure and strong.\n\n3. Then, while you read,--safe from the risk of interruption, (as I\nbegan by supposing,) and with every faculty intent on your task,--try,\nas much as possible, to go over the words as if they were new to you;\nand watch them, one by one, so that nothing may by any possibility\nescape your notice. Do not slumber over a single word. Nothing can be\nunimportant when it is the HOLY GHOST who speaketh. It is an excellent\npractice to mark the expressions which strike you; for it is a method of\npreserving the memory of what is sure else soon to pass away.\n\n4. And next, be persuaded to read without extraneous helps of any kind;\nexcept, of course, such help as a map, or the margin of your Bible,\nsupplies. Pray avoid Commentaries and notes. First, you cannot afford\ntime for them: and secondly, if you could, they would be as likely to\nmislead you as not. But the real reason why you are so strenuously\nadvised to avoid them, is, because they will do more to nullify your\nreading, than anything which could be imagined. Your object is to\nobtain an insight into Holy Scripture, by acquiring the habit of reading\nit with intelligence and care: _not_ to be saved trouble, and to be\nshown what _other persons_ have thought about it.\n\n5. But then, though you are entreated not to have recourse to the notes\nof others, you are as strongly advised to make brief memoranda of your\nown: and the briefer the better. Construct _your own_ table of the\nPatriarchs,--_your own_ analysis of the Law,--_your own_ descent of the\nKings,--_your own_ enumeration of the Miracles. A pedigree full of\nfaults, made by yourself, will do you more good than the most accurate\ntable drawn up by another: but if you are at all attentive and clever,\n_it will not be_ full of faults.--_You_ will perhaps make the parables\n56 instead of 30: you will have gained 26 by your honest industry. Nay,\nkeep a record of your difficulties, if you please; or of anything which\nstrikes you, and which you would be sorry to forget. But, as a rule, it\nis well to write little, and to give your time and thought to the record\nbefore you.\n\n6. Above all, is it indispensable that your reading of the Bible should\nbe strictly consecutive; and on no account may any one pretend to begin\nsuch a study of that book as I am here recommending, except at _the\nfirst Chapter of Genesis_. It is a great mistake, (though one of the\ncommonest of all,) for a man to imagine that he knows the beginning of\nthe Bible pretty well. I say it advisedly, that it would be easy to\nwrite down twelve interesting questions on that first chapter, of which\nnone of the younger men present would be able to answer three,--and yet,\nthey should all be questions of such a sort that a labouring man's child\nwith an open Bible would be able infallibly to answer them every one.\n\n7. It will follow from what has been offered, that you are invited to\nread every book in the Bible in the order in which it actually\nstands,--never, of course, skipping a chapter; much less a Book. In\nevery mere catalogue of names, be resolved to find edification. Feel\npersuaded that details, seemingly the driest, are full of GOD. Remember\nthat the difference between every syllable of Scripture and all other\nbooks in the world is, not a difference of _degree_, but of _kind_. All\nbooks but one, are _human_: that one book is _Divine_!\n\nNow, you will perceive that the kind of study of the Bible here\nrecommended, is somewhat different from what is commonly pursued. I\ncontemplate the continued exercise of a most curious and prying, as well\nas a most vigilant and observing eye. _No_ difficulty is to be\nneglected; _no_ peculiarity of expression is to be disregarded; _no_\nminute detail is to be overlooked. The hint let fall in an earlier\nchapter is to be compared with a hint let fall in the later place. Do\nthey tally or not? and what follows? The chronological details\nspontaneously evolved by the narrative, are to be unerringly discovered\nby the student _for himself_. The course of every journey is to be\nattentively noted. Things omitted are to be spied out as carefully as\nthings set down; and whatever can possibly be gathered in the way of\nnecessary inference, is to be industriously ascertained. The imagination\nis not to slumber either, because no pains are taken by the sacred\nwriter to move the feelings or melt the heart.\n\nHow _soon_ will any one who takes the trouble to read the Bible after\nthis fashion, be struck with a hundred things which he never knew\nbefore,--indeed, which are not commonly known! How will he be for ever\neliciting unsuspected facts,--detecting undreamed of coincidences, but\nwhich are as important as they are true,--accumulating materials of\nvalue quite inestimable for future study in Divine things! However\nunpromising a certain collection of references may be, he is careful to\nextend it,--convinced, like a wise householder, that there will come an\nuse for it after many days. His whole aim is to _master thoroughly_ the\nrecord which he has undertaken to study.\n\nLet me not be misunderstood if it is added that the Bible should be\nread,--I do not say _in the same manner_,--that is, in the same temper\nand spirit,--but at least _with the same attention_, as is bestowed upon\na merely human work. In truth, it should be read with much more\nattention. But _that_ diligence which a student commonly bestows on a\ndifficult moral treatise, or an obscure drama, or a perplexed\nhistory,--analyzing it, comparing passage with passage, and learning a\ngreat deal of it by heart,--I am quite at a loss to understand why a\nstudent of the Bible should be a stranger to.--\"I do much condemn,\"\n(says Lord Bacon), \"I do much condemn that Interpretation of the\nScripture which is only after the manner as men use to interpret a\nprofane book.\" So do I. Scripture is to be approached and handled in\nquite a different spirit from a common history. The mind, the heart\nrather, must bow down before its revelations, in the most suppliant\nfashion imaginable. The book should ever be approached with\nprayer:--\"LORD, open Thou mine eyes that I may see the wondrous things\nof Thy Law!\" The very printed pages should be handled with reverence,\nin consideration of the message they contain. But what I am saying is,\nthat none of the methods which diligence and zeal have ever invented to\nsecure a complete mastery of the contents of any merely _human_\nperformance, may be overlooked by a student of _the Bible_.\n\nTo what has gone before I will add one caution, and will trouble you\nwith one only. It would be easy to multiply cautions: but I am talking\nto highly intelligent men; and there is only one rock which I am really\nfearful of your running against.\n\nIt was the advice of a great and good man, (to his clergy, I suspect,)\nthat they should read the Bible _with a special object_: and an\nexcellent recent writer has repeated the same advice; namely that men\nshould \"read with a view to some particular inquiry, with purpose to\nclear up some peculiar question of interest, which,\" (says he,) \"you may\ncreate for yourselves[257].\" I entreat _you_ to do nothing of the kind.\nWhatever advantages may result to an advanced student from adopting this\npractice, to _you_ it _must_ be fraught with unmingled evil. You will be\ntempted to overrate the importance of everything you discover which\nsuits your present purpose: you will disregard all that looks in a\ndifferent direction: you will be disappointed if you meet with nothing\n_ad rem_: you will get a habit of slurring over many chapters, many\nwhole books of the Bible. A very little reflection will convince you\nthat it must be as I say. _Who_, for example, could be expected to find\ndelight and edification in the calendar of the Deluge, who had\ndetermined to read Genesis with a view to discovering what knowledge\nexisted in the patriarchal age of a future life? No. Your wisdom will\nbe to divest your minds, as much as possible, of _any_ preconceived\nnotion as to what the Bible contains, or was intended to teach you. You\nshould wish to find there nothing so much as the authentic evidence of\n_what_ Divine Wisdom hath seen fit to communicate to man. Read it\ntherefore, if you are wise, with unaffected curiosity: settling down\nupon every flower, in order to find out, if you can, _where_ the honey\n_is_: clinging to it rather, _until you have found_ the honey. Say to\nyourself,--\"It cannot be that all these details of months and days\nshould be given in vain[258]. I _must_ find out the reason of it.\" And,\nat last, you will find,--what you will find.--\"Very strange,\" (you will\nlearn to say to yourself,) \"that the history of nearly 1600 years should\nbe curdled into one short chapter[259]; and yet that three verses of the\nBible should be devoted to the history of a man's losing his way in a\nfield, and then finding it again[260]!\" The subject may be worth\nthinking about. You are perhaps naturally disposed to take what you are\npleased to call \"a common sense view\" of the meaning of Holy Scripture;\nand to interpret it after a very dry unlovely fashion of your own: to\nevacuate its deeper sayings, and to doubt the mysterious significancy of\nits historical details. You will speedily perceive, however, that the\nApostles and Evangelists of CHRIST,--as many as were moved by the HOLY\nSPIRIT of GOD, and spoke not their own words but _His_,--that all these\nare against you: and the effect of this discovery on an honest and good\nheart, reading not in order to be confirmed in some preconceived\nopinion, but with a sincere desire of enlightenment in Divine\nthings,--may be anticipated. Bishop Horsley relates that by a yet\nsimpler process he became disabused of a favourite fancy with which he\nset out,--namely, that prophecy must of necessity carry a single\nmeaning[261].--The attitude of mind which I so strongly recommend you to\nassume, (and it depends on an act of the Will, whether you assume it or\nnot,) is very exactly represented by the cry of the child\nSamuel,--\"Speak LORD, for Thy servant heareth!\"\n\nIt seems right, in the fewest words, to state what we _do_,--and what we\ndo _not_,--expect to result from such a study of the Bible as this; in\nother words, to assign the office of unassisted Biblical study. I would\nnot willingly have my meaning mistaken _here_.\n\nIt is not implied then, for a moment, that a man is either at liberty,\nor able, to gather his own Religion for himself out of the Bible. The\nvery thought were monstrous. But it is a widely different thing for one\nof yourselves to read his Bible patiently, and humbly, and laboriously,\nthrough,--without prejudice or theory,--unmolested by critical notes,\nundistracted by human comments, uninfluenced by party views:--all this,\nI say, is a widely different thing from a man's inventing his own system\nof Divinity. Members of the Catholic Church,--born in a Christian\ncountry,--educated amid the choicest influences for good,--_you_ are by\nno means so left to yourselves. THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER is your\nsufficient safeguard. The framework of the Faith,--the conditions under\nwhich you may lawfully speculate about Divine mysteries,--are all\nprescribed for you: and within those limits you cannot well go wrong.\n\nOn the other hand, the outlines of _Moral Theology_, (as it may be\ncalled), you are fully competent to detect for yourselves. GOD'S\nstrictness in punishing sin, as in the case of Moses[262];--the efficacy\nof repentance, as in the case of Ahab[263];--the sure answer to prayer,\n(to _forgotten_ prayer, it may be!) as in the case of\nZacharias[264];--the seemingly roundabout methods of GOD'S providence,\n(as in the case of Abraham,) yet conducting inevitably to a blessed\nissue at the last;--the rewards of obedience[265];--the faithfulness of\nthe Divine promises;--the boundless wealth of the Divine contrivance,\nwhich, on man's repentance, is able to convert even a curse into a\nblessing, as in the case of Levi[266];--the peace and joy surely in\nreserve for those who fear GOD, as in the case of Joseph;--the extent to\nwhich things seemingly trivial are noticed by the Ancient of Days, as\nevery page of the Bible shows;--these, and a hundred points like these,\nnot only a man can gather for himself out of the Book of God's Law, but\nno one else can do the work for him. He _must_ discover all such matters\nfor himself.\n\nAnd need I point out, for a minute, the immense advantage with which a\nmind so stored with Divine knowledge will approach the Ministry; and\nfinally take in hand the actual oversight of the flock? It is really not\nto be expressed. The Bishop's examination for Orders will become nothing\nbut an agreeable exercise, instead of an object of dread. You are quite\nsure of a few approving words in _that_ quarter. But, (what is a\nthousand times more important,) you yourself feel safe and strong. You\nbegin to read some treatise on Divinity; and you find yourself in some\ndegree competent to test the writer's statements, to endorse or to\nsuspect his conclusions, because you are familiar with the Rule of Faith\nwhich he himself employed. It becomes your turn at last to instruct\nothers,--from the pulpit for example; and instead of timid truisms, and\nvague generalities, you are able to draw a bold clear outline round\nalmost any department of Christian doctrine. You can explain with\nauthority.--You are not afraid to catechize before the congregation: for\nalthough your Theological attainments are but slender after all, yet,\nyou know your Bible well; and even if an absurdly wrong answer is given\nyou, you know how to single out from the hank the golden thread of\nTruth, and to display it before the eyes of men and Angels. And let me\ntell you, by way of ending the subject, we should hear less about dull\nsermons, and inattentive congregations, and badly filled churches,--as\nwell as about the astounding ignorance of many among the upper classes,\nin Divine things,--if our younger Clergy knew the Bible a great deal\nbetter than they do.--Aye, and we should not have so many unsound\nremarks about Holy Scripture either,--so many mistaken views of\ndoctrine,--so many crude remarks about Inspiration,--made _by persons\nwho ought to know better_.\n\nYou will perceive that I am saying all this, (except the last few\nwords,) _at_ you, (the younger men present;) because in _you_ I see many\nof the future Clergy of England. And I say it, because, (for the last\ntime,) I do entreat you, one and all, to follow the advice I have been\ngiving you; and to set about such a careful study of the Bible, _at\nonce_. Do not put it off for a single day. Begin it tomorrow morning.\nYou will then have mastered Genesis this term, finishing the last\nchapter on Sunday the 10th of December; and on Monday, the 11th, you\nwill have to read the first chapter of Exodus. I am confident that you\nwill remember _this_ day and hour with gratitude to the end of your\nlives, if you will but make the experiment and persevere.\n\nAnd just one word to those who aspire, (and all _should_ aspire,) to\nUniversity honours. You will not find what I have been recommending any\nhindrance to you at all. But even supposing you _do_, now and then, find\nthe inexorable daily half-hour stand in the way of something\nelse,--shall not the very thought of Him whose Voice you have\ndeliberately resolved to hear daily at that fixed time, make you full\namends? Shall you resolve to pluck so freely of the Tree of Knowledge,\nand yet begrudge the approach once a day to the _Tree of Life_, which\ngrows in the midst of the Paradise of GOD? Shall ample time be found for\nworks of fiction,--for the Review, and the Magazine, and the\nnewspaper,--yet half an hour a day be deemed too much to be given to the\nWord of GOD? What? room for everything and everybody; yet still \"no room\nin the Inn\" for _CHRIST_!... I have, (I speak honestly,) I have far too\nhigh an opinion of your instincts for good, to think it possible. You\nhave plenty of faults,--(_God_ knoweth!),--but I am very much deceived\nindeed if there be not a spirit stirring among the young men of this\nplace, overflowing with promise; a real inclination, (obscured at times,\nbut still very energetic,) for whatever things are pure, and lovely, and\nof good report.\n\nOf course, it is implied by what goes before, that you will read _no_\nwork _of Divinity_ just at present. Be counselled, on no account, to\nread any. Above all, shun the partial, ill-digested pamphlet,--and the\none-sided review,--and the controversial letter,--and the Essay which\nseems to have been written in order to prove nothing. Be content, for\nthe next three years, to study no book of Divinity but the Bible.\n\nAnd the study of _that_ Book, I repeat, you will find no hindrance, no\nimpediment, no burthen to you at all. On the contrary. It will render\nyou a very singular service,--let your classical and logical studies be\nas severe as they will; (and they cannot well be too severe, too\nengrossing,--for this is your golden opportunity which never will, never\n_can_, come back again!) The undersong of \"Siloa's brook that flows,\nfast by the oracle of GOD,\" will many a time soothe and refresh your\nelse dry and weary spirit. What was begun as a task will soon come to be\nregarded as a privilege. _That_ jealously-guarded half-hour will be\nfound to be the one green spot in the whole day,--like Gideon's fleece,\nfresh with the dew of the early morning, when it is \"dry upon all the\nearth beside.\" Your secret study of that Book of Books, I say, will\nrender you a very singular service. The contrast between the Divine and\nHuman method will strike you with ever-recurring power. Unlike every\nother History, the Bible removes the veil, and discovers the causes of\nthings,--including the First Great Cause of all, who dwelleth in Light\nunapproachable, but who yet humbleth Himself to behold, and to controul,\nand to overrule for good, the things which are done in Heaven and on\nEarth. And thus, it is not too much to say that the Bible, to one who\nreads its pages aright, is a certain clue to every other History,--as\nwell as a perpetual commentary on every other Book. It informs the\njudgment, and cleanses the eye, throughout the whole department of\nMorals: and as for History, what is it all, but the evidence of GOD in\nthe world,--\"traces of _His_ iron rod, or of _His_ Shepherd's\nstaff[267]?\"\n\nProfoundly sensible am I, that these have been very unintellectual, and\nsomewhat common-place remarks: but I would rather, a hundred times, be\nof use to the younger men present; I would rather, a hundred times,\nsucceed in persuading one of _them_, to adopt that method of reading the\nBible which I have been recommending;--than try to say something which\nmight be thought fine and clever.... Let me only, in conclusion,\nfaithfully remind them, that the _true_ office of the study of Divine\nthings is not, by any means, that which, for obvious reasons, I have\nbeen rather dwelling and enlarging upon. It is _not_ merely to inform\nthe understanding, that Holy Scripture is to be read with such\nconsummate attention, and studied with such exceeding care. It is _not_\nfor the illustration of History, or in order that it may be made a test\nof the value of other systems of Morals. _Not_, by any means, in order\nto facilitate admission into Holy Orders, (for which only some of you\nare destined;)--or to render a man's pulpit-addresses attractive and\nagreeable;--or even to enable a parish priest to teach with confidence\nand authority;--is he entreated now to \"prevent the night watches,\" if\nneed be, that he may be occupied (like one of old time[268],) with GOD'S\nWord. O no! It is,--in order that his inner life may be made\nconformable to that outer Law[269]: that his aims may be ennobled, and\nhis motives purified, and his earthly hopes made consistent with the\nwinning of an imperishable crown! It is in order that when he wavers\nbetween Right and Wrong, the unutterable Canon of GOD'S _Law_ may\nsuggest itself to him as a constraining motive. Its aim, and purpose,\nand real function, is, that the fiery hour of temptation may find the\nChristian soldier armed with \"the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word\nof GOD[270]:\"--that the dark season of Adversity may find his soul\nanchored on the Rock of Ages,--which alone can prove his soul's\nsufficient strength and stay.... Of a truth, as Life goes on, Men will\nfind the blessedness of their Hope; if they have not found it out\nalready. Under every form of trial,--and under every strange\nvicissitude;--in sickness,--and in perplexity,--and in bereavement,--and\nin the hour of death;--\"LORD,--to _whom_ shall we go? Thou,--_Thou_ hast\nthe words of Eternal Life!\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[243] Preached in Christ-Church Cathedral, Oct. 21st, 1860.\n\n[244] =t\u00ean synag\u00f4g\u00ean=,--from which it would appear that there was but\n_one_. See Bishop Middleton on St. Luke vii. 5.\n\n[245] Rom. i. 16.\n\n[246] Heb. iv. 12.\n\n[247] St. Matth. xxiv. 35, &c.\n\n[248] St. John xii. 48.\n\n[249] St. John i. 1, &c.\n\n[250] Ibid. vii. 40-43.\n\n[251] Ibid. i. 45, 46.\n\n[252] St. Luke ii. 48.\n\n[253] Is. vii. 14.\n\n[254] St. Mark vi. 3.\n\n[255] Our Lord's words in St. John viii. 47 are so cited by Archbishop\nWhately in the Appendix of his Logic.--(App. II. No. 12, p. 418.)\n\n[256] Consider all such places as St. John xi. 45, 46.\n\n[257] Blunt's _Duties of a Parish Priest_,--p. 81.\n\n[258] Gen. vii. 4 to viii. 14.\n\n[259] Ibid. v.\n\n[260] Ibid. xxxvii. 15, 16, 17.\n\n[261] See Appendix A.\n\n[262] Deut. iii. 25, 26.\n\n[263] 1 Kings xxi. 27-29.\n\n[264] St. Luke i. 13.\n\n[265] Jerem. xxxv. 18, 19.\n\n[266] Comp. Gen. xlix. 5-7, with Exod. xxxii. 26-28, (alluded to in\nDeut. xxxiii. 9,) and finally Numb. iii. 9 and 45, and Josh. xxi. 3-8.\n\n[267] The Rev. C. Marriott's _Sermons_,--vol. I. p. 441.\n\n[268] Ps. cxix. 148.\n\n[269] Not so _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 36 and 45.\n\n[270] Eph. vi. 17.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON II.[271]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNATURAL SCIENCE AND THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHEBREWS xi. 3.\n\n_Through Faith, we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of\nGOD._\n\nSt. Paul, in a famous and familiar chapter of his Epistle to the\nHebrews, having declared \"what Faith is,\" proceeds, (as the heading of\nthe chapter expresses it), to note \"the worthy fruits thereof in the\nFathers of old time.\" The Book of Genesis was obviously in his hands, or\nin his heart, while he wrote: for he appeals to the transactions there\nrecorded, in the very order, and often in the very words, of Moses. The\nHOLY GHOST, I say, directs our attention to what is contained in the\nivth,--vth,--vith,--xiith,--xviith,--xxiind,--xxviith,--xlviiith,--and\nlth chapters of Genesis. But He begins with a yet earlier chapter. _He\nbegins with the first._ Abel,--Enoch,--Noah,--Abraham,--Sarah,--Isaac,\n--Jacob,--Joseph;--these stand forward as samples of God's faithful\nones. But with them, the HOLY GHOST proposes to associate _us_.\nMoreover, He gives _us_ the place of honour. Before mentioning one of\n_their_ acts of Faith, He mentions one of _ours_. We come first,--then\nthey. And the particular field in which _we_ shine out so\nconspicuously,--the special province which is assigned to _us_,--that\nportion of the inspired Narrative wherein _you and I_ are supposed to\nshew a degree of undoubting faith which entitles us to rank with those\n\"Fathers of old time,\"--is found to be _the first chapter of the Book of\nGenesis_. \"Through Faith _we_ understand that the worlds were framed by\nthe Word of God.\" An honourable place, and an honourable function truly!\nI would to GOD that it might be as gratifying to every one of the\ncongregation, as it is to the preacher, to discover that _this_ is the\nspecial stand-point which has been reserved for him and for them.\n\nSince, however, it is impossible to forget that we have sometimes seen\nheads, which are supposed to be very much indeed in advance of the age,\nshaken ominously at the very chapter which the text bequeaths and\ncommends to the special acceptance of you and me,--I propose that, in\nthe very briefest manner, we now review the contents of that chapter; in\norder that we may discover what is the special absurdity, or\nimpossibility, or improbability, or by whatever other name the thing is\nto be called,--which makes it quite out of the question that you or I\nshould undertake the act of Faith here assigned us.\n\nI read then, that \"In the beginning, GOD created the Heaven and the\nEarth:\"--by which I understand, that, at some remote period,--which may\nor may not baffle human Arithmetic[272],--it was the pleasure of GOD\nthe FATHER, GOD the SON, GOD the HOLY GHOST,--_three_ Persons, coeternal\nand coequal,--_one_ GOD,--out of nothing, to create the entire Universe.\n\"All things that are in Heaven, and that are in Earth, visible and\ninvisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or\npowers: all things were created by Him[273];\" and they were created out\nof nothing. The word in the original does not indeed necessarily imply\nas much: but since there is _no_ word in Hebrew, (any more than there is\nin Greek, Latin, or English,) peculiarly expressive of the notion of\ncreating out of nothing, it need not excite our surprise that Moses does\nnot employ such a word to describe what God did \"in the\nbeginning.\"--_Then_ it was, in the grey of that far distant morning I\nmean, that all those glittering orbs which sow the vault of Heaven with\nbrightness and with beauty, flashed into sudden being. \"Thou, even Thou,\nart LORD alone: Thou hast made Heaven, the Heaven of Heavens, _with all\ntheir host[274]_.\" Suns, the centres of systems, many of them so distant\nfrom this globe of ours, that sun and system scarce shew so bright as a\nsingle lesser star: suns, I say, with their marvellous equipage of\nattendant bodies,--_our_ sun among the rest, with all those wandering\nfires which speed their unwearied courses round it: suns, and planets\nwith their moons, bathed once and for ever in the fountain of that Light\nwhich GOD inhabited from all Eternity, then marshalled themselves in\nmysterious order, according to \"the counsel of His will[275]:\" yea, and\nwith their furniture, unimagined and unimaginable, went careering\nthrough the untrodden realms of space, each on its several errand of\nglory, because of obedience to its Maker's sovereign Law[276]. \"By the\nWord of the LORD,\" (as it is written,) \"were the Heavens made; and all\nthe hosts of them by the breath of His mouth[277]!\"\n\nNow, it is reserved to the geologist,--(Nature's High-priest!)--to guess\nat the condition of this Earth of ours throughout all the long period of\nunchronicled ages which immediately succeeded the birthday of Time. It\nis for _him_ to guess at the successive changes which this globe of ours\nunderwent; and the progressive cycles of Creation of which it was the\ntheatre; and the many strange races of creatures which, one after\nanother, moved upon its surface,--walking the dry, or inhabiting the\nmoist. _He_ shall guess; and _I_ will sit at his feet and listen, with\nunfeigned gratitude, wonder, and delight, while he reports to me his\nguesses: (for the really great man is eager to assure me that they are\nno more.)--But when his tale of perplexity is ended, and the last 6,000\nyears of this world's History have to be discussed, the geologist's\nfunction is at an end. I bid him, in GOD'S Name, be silent; for now it\nis GOD that speaketh. If any question be moved as to how _that actual\nsystem of things to which Man belongs_, began,--I bid him come down, and\ntake the learner's place; for now _I_ mean to assume his vacant chair.\n_This_ time, there shall at least be no guess-work. GOD is now the\nSpeaker: and what GOD revealeth unto _me_, _that_ I promise faithfully\nto report to _him_.\n\nThere was a time, then,--and it was certainly less than 6,000 years\nago,--when \"the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon\nthe face of the deep.\" What catastrophe it was which had caused that the\nfountains of the abyss should be broken up, and the solid Earth\nsubmerged, I am not concerned to explain:--nor how it had come to pass\nthat from a world of seas and continents, it had become a watery ball,\nwrapped about with superincumbent vapour:--nor how the blessed sunlight\nhad suffered dire eclipse;--so that the Earth revolved in a horror of\ngreat darkness. _My faith_ however is not troubled,--nor even\nperplexed,--by the strangeness of these things. Shall I think it a mere\nmatter of course that one little flaw in a pipe shall, in a second of\ntime, transform the orderly well-compacted seats of a goodly Church to\none unsightly mass of shapeless and disordered ruin[278]; and shall I\npretend to stand aghast at the strangeness of a similar overthrow of\nthis Earth's furniture at the mere fiat of the Most High?... Behold, \"He\nmeasureth the waters in the hollow of His Hand, and weigheth the\nmountains in scales[279].\" What if the Creator of the earth and the sea\nshall bid them of a sudden change places? Think you that they would\nhesitate to obey Him? Or what if He \"calleth for the waters of the Sea,\nand _poureth them out upon the face of the Earth_[280]?\"--Then further,\nif I believe, (as I do believe,) that when the Jews crucified the LORD\nof Glory \"there was darkness over all the land\" from the sixth hour unto\nthe ninth[281];--nay, that when \"Moses stretched forth his hand toward\nHeaven, there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt,\" even\ndarkness which might be felt, for three whole days[282]:--more than\n_that_; if I believe, (as I _do_ believe,) the solemn prediction of my\nLORD, that at the consummation of all things, \"The Sun shall be\ndarkened, and the Moon shall not give her light, and the Stars shall\nfall from Heaven[283]:\"--shall it move me to incredulity, if God tells\nme, that six thousand years ago it was His Divine pleasure that the same\nphenomenon should prevail for a season? Surely,--(I say to\nmyself,)--surely this is He \"which removeth the mountains, and they know\nnot: which shaketh the Earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof\ntremble. _Which commandeth the Sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up\nthe Stars[284]!_\"\n\n1. But it was now GOD'S pleasure to bring Beauty out of Chaos, and to\nestablish a fresh order of things upon the surface of our Earth. And, as\nthe first step thereto, \"the SPIRIT of GOD moved upon the face of the\nwaters.\" The Hebrew phrase implies no less than the tremulous brooding\nas of a bird,--causing the dreary waste to heave and swell with coming\nlife. \"And GOD said, Let there be Light. And there was Light.\" \"He spake\nand it was done[285].\" From Himself, who is \"the true Light,\" (not from\nthe Sun, which,--like the rest of the orbs of Heaven,--is but a lamp of\nHis kindling);--from Himself, I say, a ray of Light went forth; and\n_that_ is why He was pleased to praise it. Look through the chapter, and\nyou will find that it is the only one of His creatures of which it is\nspecially said that \"GOD saw that it was good[286].\" ... Thus, one\nhemisphere was illumined,--whereby \"GOD divided the light from the\ndarkness;\" and when the Earth had completed a single revolution, there\nhad been a Day and there had been a Night,--so named by the Word of\nGOD: \"and the evening and the morning were the first Day[287].\" ... Do\nyou see any impossibility so far? I, certainly, see none. It does not\nseem to me absurd that \"the Light of the world[288],\" \"dwelling in the\nlight which no man can approach unto[289],\" should cause \"the light to\nshine out of darkness[290].\" We shall perhaps come upon the absurdity by\nand by. Let us hasten forward.\n\n2. \"And GOD said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,\nand let it divide the waters from the waters.\" The Hebrew word (_an\nexpansion_), and the context, shew plainly enough what is meant. The\natmosphere was now created,--whereupon the watery particles either\nsubsided into sea, or rose aloft in the form of clouds. \"And the evening\nand the morning were the second Day,\"--which is the only day of which it\nis not said that GOD saw that it was good.\n\n3. \"And GOD said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together\nunto one place, and let the dry land appear.\" Then it was that these\ncontinents were upheaved,--other than those which had been continents\nbefore; and the sea sank into the cavities which had been ordained for\nits reception. _Then_, \"GOD saw that it was good.\" The sentence of\napproval which had been withheld from the work of yesterday, because\nthat work, (namely, of dividing the waters from the waters,) was\nincomplete,--is freely bestowed to-day. And it may have been to teach us\nthat no incomplete work is \"good,\" in GOD'S sight.--Next, the Creator\ncalled into being every extant form of vegetable life. So that, instead\nof a world of waters, which was all that was to be seen yesterday,--not\nonly cliffs, and mountains, and bays,--but green hills, and fertile\nvalleys, and grassy meadows had come to view,--with lakes, and rivers,\nand fountains, and falls of water. Again it is written, concerning\nEarth's green furniture, \"GOD saw that it was good.\" \"And the evening\nand the morning were the third Day.\"\n\n4. \"And GOD said, Let there be Lights in the firmament of the Heaven to\ndivide the day from the night: and let them be for signs, and for\nseasons, and for days, and for years.\" And so it was. Sun, moon, and\nstars, came to view[291]; and this globe of ours, no longer illumined,\nas, for three days, it had been, rejoiced in the sun's genial light by\nday,--and by night in the splendours of the paler planet. And thus was\nalso gained an easy measure for marking time,--the succession of months\nand years, as well as of days. \"And GOD saw that it was good.\" \"And the\nevening and the morning were the fourth Day.\"\n\n5. \"And GOD said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving\ncreature that hath life.\" Thus the inhabitants of the sea and of the air\nwere called into existence; and it was from the sea that GOD seems to\nhave commanded that they should derive their being. He saw that it was\ngood, and He blessed the fish and the winged fowl; \"and the evening and\nthe morning were the fifth Day.\"\n\n6. It remained only to provide for the dry land its occupants; and the\nEarth was accordingly commanded to bring forth the living creature after\nhis kind,--beast and cattle and creeping thing. Unlike that first\nCreation which was of all things out of nothing, the work of the six\ndays was a creation of new things out of old.--To the Creation of Man,\nHis crowning work, GOD is declared to have come with deliberation; as\nwell as to have announced His purpose with significant solemnity of\nallusion. \"Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness; and let\nthem have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the\nair, and over the cattle.\" \"And the LORD GOD formed Man of the dust of\nthe ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man\nbecame a living soul.\"--Transferred to the Garden of GOD'S planting in\nEden, to dress it and to keep it, (for inactivity is no part of\nbliss!)--and brought into solemn covenant with GOD,--to Adam, GOD brings\nthe beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, of set purpose that\nGOD may \"see _what he will call them_:\" a wondrous tribute, truly, to\nthe perfection of understanding in which Man had been created!... \"And\nthe LORD GOD caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He\ntook one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the\nrib which the LORD GOD had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought\nher unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh\nof my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of\nman. Therefore shall a Man leave his Father and his Mother, and shall\ncleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.\" ... Man's creation\nwas the crowning wonder, to which all else had, in a manner, tended....\nTruly when we think of him,--newly made in GOD'S image,--surveying this\nworld, yet fresh with the dew of its birth, and beautiful as it came\nfrom the Hands of its Maker,--it seems scarcely the language of poetry\nthat then \"the morning stars sang together and all the sons of GOD\nshouted for joy[292].\"\n\nI have preferred thus to complete the history of Man's Creation; which\npresents us with the primal institution of all,--that, namely, of\nMarriage.--\"On the seventh Day, GOD rested from all His work which He\nhad made; and blessed the seventh Day, and sanctified it; because that\nin it He had rested from all His work.\"--This then is the other great\nprim\u00e6val institution; more ancient than the Fall,--the Law of the\nSabbath;--which in the sacred record is brought into such august\nprominence. And never do we ponder over that record, without\napprehension at what may be the possible results of relaxing the\nstringency of enactments which would seem to be, to our nature, as the\nvery twin pillars of the Temple,--its establishment and its\nstrength[293].\n\nNow, on a review of all this wondrous History, I profess myself at a\nloss to see what special note of impracticability it presents that I\nshould hesitate to embrace it, in the plain natural sense of the words,\nwith both the arms of my heart. That it is not such an account of the\nmanner of the Creation as you or I should have ourselves invented, or\nanticipated, or on questionable testimony have felt disposed to\naccept,--is very little to the purpose. Apart from Revelation, we could\nreally have known nothing at all about the works of the Days of the\nfirst Great Week. Ejaculations therefore concerning the strangeness of\nthe record, and cavils at the phraseology in which it is propounded, are\nsimply irrelevant.\n\nThere exists however a vague suspicion after all that the beginning of\nGenesis is a vision, or an allegory, or a parable,--or anything you\nplease, except true History. It is hard to imagine _why_. If there be a\nbook in the whole Bible which purports to be a plain historical\nnarrative of actual events, _that_ book is the book of Genesis. In\nnine-tenths of its details, it is as _human_, and as matter of fact, as\nany book of Biography or History that ever was penned. _Why_ the first\npage of it is to be torn out, treated as a myth or an allegory, and in\nshort explained away,--I am utterly at a loss to discover. There is no\ndifference in the style. Long since has the theory that Genesis is\ncomposed of distinguishable fragments, been exploded[294]. There is no\npretence for calling this first chapter poetry, and treating it by a\ndistinct set of canons. It is a pure _Revelation_, I admit: but I have\nyet to learn why the revelation of things intelligible, where the method\nof speech is not such as to challenge a figurative interpretation, is\nnot to be taken literally: unless indeed it has been discovered that a\nnarrative must of necessity be fabulous if the transactions referred to\nare unusually remote and extraordinary. The events recorded are unique\nin their character,--true. But this happens from the very necessity of\nthe case. The creation of a world, to the inhabitants of that world is\nan unique event.\n\nBut we are assured that some of the statements in this first chapter of\nGenesis are palpably untrue;--as when it is said that the Sun, Moon, and\nStars were created on the fourth Day,--which, it is urged, is a physical\nimpossibility: for what forces else sustained, and kept this world a\nsphere? The phenomena of Geology again prove to demonstration, it is\nsaid, that the structure of the earth is infinitely more ancient than\nthe Mosaic record states: and also that there must have been Light, and\nsunshine too, at that remote epoch,--which fostered each various form of\nanimal and vegetable life.--Further, we are assured that it is\nunphilosophical to speak of the creation of Light before the creation of\nthe Sun.--Then, the simplicity of the language is objected to:--\"the\ngreater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the\nnight:\"--\"dividing the light from the darkness:\"--\"waters above the\nfirmament:\" and so forth. The very ascription of speech to GOD, gives\noffence.--Again, some raw conceit of the advanced state of the human\nintellect rejects with scorn the notion of Adam oracularly bestowing\nnames on GOD'S creatures. Finally, the creation of Eve, moulded by GOD\nfrom the side of the Protoplast, is declared to savour so plainly of the\nmythical, allegorical, or figurative; that the narrative must be allowed\nto be altogether unworthy of such wits as ours.\n\nBut we have seen that _the creation_ of Sun, Moon, and Stars is _not_\nassigned to the fourth day--but to \"_the beginning_\"--The antiquity of\nthis Earth we affirm to be a circumstance left wholly untouched by the\nMosaic record: or, if touched, it is rather confirmed; for, before\nbeginning to describe the work of the first Day, Moses describes the\nstate of \"the Earth\" by two Hebrew words of most rare occurrence[295],\nwhich denote that it had become waste and empty: while \"the deep\" is\nspoken of as being already in existence.--There is nothing at all\nunphilosophical in speaking of Light as existing apart from the Sun.\nRather would it be unphilosophical to speak of the Sun as the source and\ncentre of Light.--I see nothing more childish again in the mention of\n\"the greater and the lesser light,\" than in the talk of \"sun-rise\" and\n\"sun-set,\"--which is to this hour the language of the Observatory.--As\nfor attributing speech to GOD, I am content to remind you of Hooker's\nexplanation of the design of Moses therein, throughout the present\nChapter. \"Was this only his intent,\" (he asks,) \"to signify the infinite\ngreatness of GOD'S power by the easiness of His accomplishing such\neffects without travail, pain, or labour? Surely it seemeth that Moses\nhad herein besides this a further purpose; namely, first to teach that\nGOD did not work as a necessary, but a voluntary agent, intending\nbeforehand and decreeing with Himself that which did outwardly proceed\nfrom Him; secondly, to shew that GOD did then institute a Law natural to\nbe observed by Creatures, and therefore according to the manner of laws,\nthe institution thereof is described, as being established by solemn\ninjunction. His commanding those things to be which are, and to be in\nsuch sort as they are, to keep that tenure and course which they do,\nimporteth _the establishment of Nature's Law_.... And as it cometh to\npass in a kingdom rightly ordered, that after a Law is once published,\nit presently takes effect far and wide, all states framing themselves\nthereunto; even so let us think that it fareth in the natural course of\nthe world. Since the time that GOD did first proclaim the edicts of His\nLaw upon it, Heaven and Earth have hearkened unto His voice, and their\nlabour hath been to do His will[296].\"--\"_He spake the word_, and they\nwere made: He commanded and they were created. He hath made them fast\nfor ever and ever. _He hath given them a law which shall not be\nbroken[297]._\"\n\nWhether or no South overestimated Adam's knowledge, I will not pretend\nto decide: but I am _convinced_ the truth lies more with him than with\ncertain modern wits, when he says concerning our first Father:--\"He came\ninto the world a philosopher; which sufficiently appeared by his writing\nthe nature of things upon their names.... His understanding could almost\npierce into future contingents; his conjectures improving even to\nprophecy, or the certainties of prediction. Till his Fall, he was\nignorant of nothing but sin.... There was then no struggling with\nmemory, no straining for invention. His faculties were ready upon the\nfirst summons.... We may collect the excellency of the understanding\n_then_, by the glorious remainders of it now: and guess at the\nstateliness of the building by the magnificence of its ruins.... And\ncertainly that must _needs_ have been very glorious, the decays of which\nare so admirable. He that is comely when old and decrepit, surely was\n_very_ beautiful when he was young! An Aristotle was but the rubbish of\nan Adam; and Athens but the rudiments of Paradise[298].\"\n\nAnd lastly, as for so much of the Divine narrative as concerns the\nCreation of the first human pair, I am content to remind you of a\ncircumstance which in addressing believers ought to be of overwhelming\nweight: namely, that our SAVIOUR and His Apostles, again and again,\nrefer to the narrative before us in a manner which precludes the notion\nof its being anything but severest History. Our SAVIOUR CHRIST even\nresyllables the words spoken by the Protoplast in Paradise; and therein\nfinds a sanction for the indissoluble nature of the marriage bond[299].\n\nI take leave to add that even the respectful attempt to make Genesis\naccommodate itself to the supposed requirements of Geology, by boldly\nassuming that the days of Creation were each a thousand years\nlong,--seems inadmissible. Even were such an hypothesis allowed, nothing\nwould be gained: for _Geology_ does not by any means require us to\nbelieve that after a thousand years of misty light, there came a\nthousand years of ocean deposit: and again, a thousand years of moist\nand dry, during which vegetable life alone prevailed: and then a\nthousand years of sun, moon, and stars. The very notion seems\nabsurd[300].--But, what is more to the purpose, such an interpretation\nseems to stultify the whole narrative. A _week_ is described. _Days_ are\nspoken of,--each made up of an evening and a morning. GOD'S cessation\nfrom the work of Creation on the Seventh Day is emphatically adduced as\nthe reason of the Fourth Commandment,--the mysterious precedent for\n_our_ observance of one day of rest at the end of every six days of\ntoil,--\"_for_ in six days\" (it is declared,) \"the LORD made Heaven and\nEarth[301].\" You may not play tricks with language plain as this, and\nelongate a week until it shall more than embrace the span of all\nrecorded Time.\n\nNeither am I able to see what would be gained by proposing to prolong\nthe Days of Creation indefinitely, so as to consider them as\nrepresenting vast and unequal periods; (though I am far from presuming\nto speak of _any_ pious conjecture with disrespect.) My inveterate\nobjection to this scheme is again twofold. (1) The best-ascertained\nrequirements of Geology are _not satisfied_ by a _sixfold_ division of\nphenomena corresponding with what is recorded in Genesis of the Six Days\nof Creation. (2) This method does even greater violence to the letter of\nthe inspired narrative than the scheme of reconcilement last hinted at.\n\nI dare not believe that what has been spoken will altogether meet the\nrequirements of minds of a certain stamp. A gentleman, who certainly\nhas the advantage of appearing in good company, has lately favoured the\nworld with the information that the first chapter of Genesis is the\nuninspired speculation of a Hebrew astronomer, who was bent on giving\n\"the best and most probable account that could be then given of GOD'S\nuniverse[302].\" The Hebrew writer asserts indeed \"solemnly and\nunhesitatingly that for which he must have known that he had no\nauthority[303];\" but we need not therefore \"attribute to him wilful\nmisrepresentation, or consciousness of asserting that which he knew not\nto be true[304].\" If this \"early speculator\" \"asserted as facts what he\nknew in reality only as probabilities,\" it was because he was not\nharassed by the scruples which result \"from our modern habits of\nthought, and from the modesty of assertion which the spirit of true\nscience has taught us[305].\" The history of this important discovery and\nof others of a similar nature, (which, by the way, are one and all\nannounced with the same \"modesty of assertion\" as what goes before,)\nwould appear to be this.--Natural science has lately woke up from her\nlong slumber of well nigh sixty ages; and with that immodesty for which\nyouth and inexperience have ever been proverbial, she is impatient to\nmeasure her crude theories against the sure revelation of GOD'S Word.\nWhere the two differ, she assumes that of course the inspired Oracles\nare wrong, and her own wild guesses right. She is even indecent in her\neagerness to invalidate the testimony of that Book which has been the\nconfidence and stay of GOD'S Servants in all ages. On any evidence, or\non none, she is prepared to hurl to the winds the august record of\nCreation. Inconveniently enough for the enemies of GOD'S Word, every\nadvance in Geological Science does but serve to corroborate the record\nthat the Creation _of Man_ is not to be referred to a remoter period\nthan some six thousand years ago. But of this important fact we hear but\nlittle. On the other hand, no trumpet is thought loud enough to bruit\nabout _a suspicion_ that Man may be a creature of yet remoter date.\nThus, fragments of burnt brick found fifty feet below the surface of the\nbanks of the Nile, were hailed as establishing Man's existence in Egypt\nmore than 13,000 years; until it was unhappily remembered that _burnt_\nbrick in Egypt belongs to the period of the Roman dominion.--More\nrecently, implements of chipped flint found, with some bones, in a bed\nof gravel, have been eagerly appealed to as a sufficient indication that\nthe Creation of Man is to be referred to a period at least 10,000 years\nmore remote than is fixed by the Chronology of the Bible.... Brick and\nflint! a precious fulcrum, truly, for a theory which is to upset the\nWorld!\n\nBut I shall be told,--with that patronizing air of conscious\nintellectual superiority which a certain class of gentlemen habitually\nassume on such occasions,--that I mistake the case completely: that no\nwish is entertained in any quarter to invalidate the truth of\nRevelation, or to shake Men's confidence in the Bible as the Word of\nGOD: that it has been the way of narrow-minded bigots in all ages, and\nis so in this, to raise an outcry of the Bible being in danger, and so\nto rouse the prejudices of mankind: that the error lies in claiming for\nthe Bible an office which it nowhere claims for itself, and which it was\nnever meant to fulfil: that the harmony between the Bible and Nature is\ncomplete, but that it is not _such_ a harmony as is sometimes imagined:\nthat the Bible is not a scientific book, and was never meant to teach\nNatural Science: that it was designed to inculcate moral goodness, and\nis clearly full of unscientific statements, which it is the office of\nScience to correct; and, if need be, to remove. All this, and much\nbeside, I shall be told. Such fallacious platitudes have been put forth\nby men who are neither Divines nor Philosophers, _ad nauseam_, within\nthe last forty or fifty years.\n\nNow, in reply, we have a few words to say. The profession of\nfaithfulness we hail with pleasure: the imputation of imbecility we\naccept with unconcern. But when gentlemen tell us that the Bible was\nnever meant to teach Science; and that wherever its statements are\nopposed to the clear inductions of reason, they must give way; and so\nforth: we take the liberty of retaliating their charge. We inform them\nthat _they_ really mistake the case entirely. When they go on to tell us\nthat they believe in the truth of the Bible as sincerely as ourselves:\nthat its harmonies are complete, but not such as we imagine; and so\nforth;--we venture to add that they really know not what they assert. In\nplain language, they talk nonsense. Of a simple unbeliever we know at\nleast what to think. But what is to be thought of persons who disbelieve\njust whatever they dislike, and yet profess to be just as hearty\nbelievers as you or I?\n\nThat the Mosaic record of Creation has been thought at variance with\ncertain deductions of modern observation, is not surprising: seeing that\nthe deductions of each fresh period have been at variance with the\ndeductions of that which went before; and seeing that the theory of one\nexisting school is inconsistent with the theory of another.--That the\nBible is not, in any sense, _a scientific treatise_ again, is simply a\ntruism: (who ever supposed that it was?). Moses writes \"the history of\nthe Human Race as regards Sin and Salvation: not a cosmical survey of\nall the successive phenomena of the globe[306].\" Further, that he\nemploys popular phraseology when speaking of natural phenomena, is a\nstatement altogether undeniable. But such remarks are a gross fallacy,\nand a mere deceit, if it be meant that the statements in the Bible\npartake of the imperfection of knowledge incident to a rude and\nprimitive state of society. To revive an old illustration,--Is a\nphilosopher therefore a child, because, in addressing children, he uses\nlanguage adapted to their age and capacity? GOD speaks in the First\nChapter of Genesis,--_hath_ spoken for three and thirty hundred\nyears,--as unto children: but there is no risk therefore that in what He\nsaith, He either hath deceived, or will deceive mankind.\n\nYou are never to forget the great fundamental position, that the Bible\nclaims to be the Word of GOD; and that _GOD'S Word can never contradict\nor be contradicted by GOD'S works_. We therefore reject, _in limine_,\nall insinuations about the \"unscientific\" character of the Bible. A\nscientific man does not cease to be scientific because he does not\nchoose always to express himself scientifically. Again. A man of\nuniversal Science does not forfeit his scientific reputation, if, in the\ncourse of a _moral_ or _religious_ argument, his allusions to _natural_\nphenomena are expressed in the ordinary language of mankind. Even so,\nAlmighty God, \"in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and\nknowledge[307],\"--speaking to us by the mouth of His holy Prophets,\nnever, that I am aware, teaches them to speak a strictly scientific\nlanguage,--_except when the Science of Theology is being discoursed of_.\nOn other occasions, He suffers their language to be like yours or mine.\n\"Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon[308]:\"--\"The clouds drop down the\ndew[309]:\"--\"The wind bloweth where it listeth[310].\"--Not so when\n_Theology_ is the subject. _Then_ the language becomes scientific.\n\"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into\nthe Kingdom of GOD[311]:\"--\"Take, eat, This is My Body[312]:\"--\"Before\nAbraham was, I am[313]:\"--\"I and the FATHER are One[314].\"\n\nBut there is this great difference between the cases supposed. A man of\nuniversal scientific attainment will be less strong in one subject than\nanother: and in the course of his _Geological_ allusions, if\n_Mechanical_ Science be his forte,--in the course of his _Metaphysical_\nallusions, if _Mathematical_ Science be his proper department,--he may\neasily err. Above all, the limits of the knowledge of unassisted Man\nmust infallibly be those of the age in which he lives. But, with the\nAncient of Days, it is not so. _He_ at least _cannot_ err. Nothing that\nman has ever discovered by laborious induction was not known to Him from\nthe beginning: nothing that _He_ hath ever commissioned His servants to\ndeliver, will be found inconsistent with the anterior facts of History.\n\"He that _made_ the eye, shall _He_ not see[315]?\" The records of\nCreation then _cannot_ be incorrect. The course of Man's history _must_\nbe that which, speaking by the mouth of His Prophets, GOD hath\ndescribed.\n\n\"I never said the contrary,\" is the reply. \"All I say is that you\ninterpret the records of Creation wrongly: and that you are disposed to\nlay greater stress on the historical accuracy of the Bible than the\nnarrative will bear.\"\n\nO but, sir, whoever you may be who censure me thus, let me in all\nkindness warn you of the pit, at the very edge whereof you stand!\n\nFar be it from such an one as the preacher to assume that he so\napprehends the First Chapter of Genesis, that if an Angel were to turn\ninterpreter, he might not convince me of more than one misapprehension\nin matters of detail. But of this, at least, I am _quite_ certain; that\nwhen I find it recorded that GOD took counsel about Man's Creation: and\nmade him in \"His own image,\" and \"breathed into his nostrils the breath\nof life,\" whereby man became \"a living soul:\" and further, when I find\nit stated that Adam bestowed names upon all creatures: and spake\noracularly of his spouse:--I am _certain_, I say, when I read such\nthings, that GOD intended me to believe that Man was created with a\nGodlike understanding, and with the perfect fruition of the prim\u00e6val\nspeech. Further, I boldly assert that he who could prove the\ncontradictory, would make the Bible, even as a Theological Book, nothing\nworth, to you and me.\n\nThe same must be said of the Bible chronology. And here I will adopt the\nwords of one who is justly entitled to be listened to in this place; and\nwho must at least be allowed to be a competent judge of the matter, for\nhe made Chronology his province. Mr. Clinton says:--\"Those who imagine\nthemselves at liberty to enlarge the time [which elapsed from the\nCreation to the Deluge, and from the Deluge to the Birth of Abraham,] to\nan indefinite amount,--mistake the nature of the question. The\nuncertainty here is not an uncertainty arising from want of testimony:\n(like that which occurs in the early chronology of Greece, and of many\nother countries; when the times are uncertain because no evidence is\npreserved.) ... The uncertainty here is of a peculiar character,\nbelonging to this particular case. The evidence exists, but in a double\nform; and we have to decide which is the authentic and genuine copy. But\nif the one is rejected, the other is established:\" the difference\nbetween the two being exactly 1,250 years.--Men are free to _reject_ the\nevidence, to be sure; but we defy them to _explain it away_. The\nchronological details of the Bible are as emphatically set down as\nanything can be; and,--(with the exception of a few particulars, chiefly\nin the Book of Kings, which are to the record what misprints are to a\nprinted book,)--they are entirely consistent; and hang perfectly well\ntogether. Let us not be told, then, that we entertain groundless\napprehensions for the authority of GOD'S Word when we hear it proposed\nto refer the Creation of Man to a period of unheard-of antiquity.\nDestroy my confidence in the Bible as an historical record, and you\ndestroy my confidence in it altogether; for by far the largest part of\nthe Bible _is_ an historical record. If the Creation of Man,--the\nlongevity of the Patriarchs,--the account of the Deluge;--if _these_ be\nnot true histories, what is to be said of the lives of Abraham, of\nJacob, of Joseph, of Moses, of Joshua, of David,--of our _Saviour\nChrist_ Himself?\n\nBut there is a scornful spirit abroad which is not content to\nallegorize the earlier pages of the Bible,--to scoff at the story of the\nFlood, to reject the outlines of Scripture Chronology;--but which would\ndispute the most emphatic details of Revelation itself. Consistent, this\nmethod is, at all events. Let it have the miserable praise which is so\nrichly its due. To logical consistency, it may at least lay claim. It\nrefuses to stop anywhere: as why should it stop? Faith is denied her\noffice, because Reason fails to see the reasonableness of Faith: and\naccordingly, unbelief enters in with a flood-tide. Miracles, for\nexample, are now to be classed, (we learn,) among \"the difficulties\" of\nChristianity[316]. It was to have been expected. (_Who_ foresees not\nwhat must be the fate of such \"difficulties\" as these?) And will you\ntell me that you may reject the miraculous transactions recorded in the\nOld and New Testaments, and yet retain the narrative which contains\nthem? That were indeed absurd! Will you then reject one miracle and\nretain another? Impossible! You can make no reservation, even in favour\nof the Incarnation of our LORD,--the most adorable of all miracles, as\nit is the very keystone of our Christian hope. Either, with the best and\nwisest of all ages, you must believe _the whole_ of Holy Scripture; or,\nwith the narrow-minded infidel, you must _dis_believe the whole. There\nis no middle course open to you.\n\nDo we then undervalue the discoveries of Natural Science; or view with\njealousy the progress she has of late been making? GOD forbid! With\nunfeigned joy we welcome her honest triumphs, as so many fresh evidences\nof the wisdom, the power, the goodness of GOD. \"Thou, LORD, hast made me\nglad through Thy works[317]!\" The very guesses of Geology are precious.\nWhat are they but noble endeavours to unfold a page anterior to the\nfirst page of the Bible; or rather, to discover what secrets are locked\nup in the first verse of it? But when, instead of being a faithful\nServant, Natural Science affects the airs of an imperious\nMistress,--what can she hope to incur at the hands of Theology, but\ndispleasure and contempt? She forgets her proper place, and overlooks\nher lawful function. She prates about the laws of Nature in the presence\nof Him who, when He created the Universe, invented those very laws, and\nimpressed them on His irrational creatures.--Does it never humble her to\nreflect that it was but yesterday she detected the fundamental Law of\nGravitation? Does she never blush with shame to consider that for well\nnigh six thousand years men have been inquisitively walking this Earth's\nsurface; and yet, that, one hundred years ago, the provident notions\nconcerning fossil remains, and the Earth's structure, were such as\nnow-a-days would be pronounced incredibly ridiculous and absurd?\n\nTo conclude. The very phraseology with which men have presumed to\napproach this entire question, is insolent and unphilosophical. The\npopular phraseology of the day, I say, hardly covers, so as to conceal,\na lie. We constantly find SCIENCE and THEOLOGY opposed to one another:\njust as if Theology were _not_ a Science! History forsooth, with all her\ninaccuracy of observation, is a Science: and Geology, with all her weak\nguesses, is a Science: and comparative Anatomy, with nothing but her\nlaborious inductions to boast of, is a Science: but Theology,--which is\nbased on the express revelation of the Eternal,--is some other thing!\nWhat do you mean to tell us that Theology is, but the very queen of\nSciences? Would Aristotle have bestowed on Ethic the epithet\n=architektonik\u00ea=, think you, had he known of that =theios logos=, which\nhis friend,--\"not blind by choice, but destined not to see[318],\"--felt\nafter yet found not? that \"more excellent way,\" which you and I, by\nGOD'S great mercy, possess? Go to! For popular purposes, if you will,\nlet the word \"Science\" stand for the knowledge of the phenomena of\nNature; somewhat as, in this place, the word stands for the theory of\nMorals, and some of the phenomena of Mind: and so, let Science be\ncontrasted with THEOLOGY, without offence taken, because none is\nintended. But let it never be forgotten that Theology is _the_ great\nScience of all,--the only Science which really deserves the name. What\nhave other sciences to boast of which Theology has not? Antiquity,--such\nas no other can, in any sense, lay claim to: a Literature,--which is\nabsolutely without a rival: a Terminology,--which reflects the very\nimage of all the ages: Professors,--of loftier wit, from the days of\nAthanasius and Augustine, down to the days of our own Hooker and\nButler,--men of higher mark, intellectually and morally,--than adorn the\nannals of any other Science since the World began: above all things, a\nsubject-matter, which is the grandest imagination can conceive; and a\nfoundation, which has all the breadth, and length, and depth and\nheight[319], which the Hands of GOD Himself could give it.\n\nFor subject-matter, what Science will you compare with this? All the\nothers in the world will not bring a man to the knowledge of GOD and of\nCHRIST! They will not inform him of the will of GOD, although they may\nteach him to observe His Works. \"The Heavens declare the glory of\nGOD,\"--but, as Lord Bacon remarked long since, we do not read that they\ndeclare His will. Neither do the other sciences of necessity lead to any\nbelief at all in the GOD of Revelation[320].\n\nAnd, for that whereon they are built, what Science again will you\ncompare with this? Let the pretender to Geological skill,--(I say not\nthe true Geologist, for _he_ never offends!)--let the conceited\nsciolist, I say, go dream a little longer over those implements of\nchipped flint which have called him into such noisy activity,--and\ndiscover, as he _will_ discover, that the assumed inference from the\ngravel and the bones is fallacious after all[321].--Let the Historian go\nspell a little longer over that moth-eaten record of dynasties which\nnever were, by means of which he proposes to set right the clock of\nTime[322]. Let the Naturalist walk round the stuffed or bleached wonders\nof his museum, and guess again[323]. Theological Science not so! _Her_\nevidence is sure, for her Rule is GOD'S Word. No laborious Induction\nhere,--fallacious because imperfect; imperfect because human: but a\ndirect message from the presence-chamber of the LORD of Heaven and\nEarth,--decisive because inspired; infallible because Divine. The\nexpress Revelation of the Eternal is that whereon Theological Science\nbuilds her fabric of imperishable Truth: _that_ fabric which, while\nother modes change, shift, and at last become superseded, shines\nout,--yea, and to the very end of Time will shine out,--unconscious of\ndecay, incapable of improvement, far, far beyond the reach of fashion: a\nthing unchanged, because in its very nature unchangeable[324]!\n\nO sirs,--we are constrained to be brief in this place. The field must\nperforce be narrowed; and so, for this time, it must suffice to have\nwarned you against the men who resort to the armoury of Natural Science\nfor weapons wherewith to assail GOD'S Truth. Regard them as the enemies\nof your peace; and learn to reject their specious, yet most\ninconsequential reasonings, with the scorn which is properly their due.\nContempt and scorn GOD implanted in us, precisely that we might bestow\nthem on reasonings worthless in their texture, and foul in their object,\nas these; which teach distrust of the earlier pages of GOD'S Word, on\nthe pretence that they are contradicted by the evidence of GOD'S Works.\nLearn to abhor that spurious liberality which is liberal only with what\nis _not its own_; and which reminds one of nothing so much as the\nconduct of leprous persons who are said to be for ever seeking to\ncommunicate and extend their own unhappy taint to others. I allude to\nthat sham liberality which under pretence of extending the common\nstanding ground of Christian men, is in reality attenuating it until it\nproves incapable of bearing the weight of a single soul. There is room\non the Rock for all; but it is only on the Rock that we are safe. To\nspeak without a figure,--He who surrenders the first page of his Bible,\nsurrenders all. He knows not where to stop. Nay, you and I cannot in\nany way _afford_ to surrender the beginning of Genesis; simply because\nupon the truth of what is there recorded depends the whole scheme of\nMan's salvation,--the need of that \"second Man\" which is \"the LORD from\nHeaven[325].\" It is not too much to say that the beginning of Genesis is\nthe foundation on which all the rest of the Bible is built[326]. We may\nnot go over to those who would mutilate the Book of Life, or evacuate\nany part of its message. It is they, on the contrary, who must come over\nto us.--Much has it been the fashion of these last days, (I cannot\nimagine why,) to vaunt the character and the Gospel of St. John, \"the\ndisciple of Love,\" as he is called; as if it were secretly thought that\nthere is a latitudinarianism in Love which would wink at Doctrinal\nobliquity; whereas _St. John is the Evangelist of Dogma_; and if there\nbe anything in the world which is _jealous_, that thing is _Love_.\nIndifference to Truth, and laxity of Belief, are the growing\ncharacteristics of the age. But you will find that St. John has about\nfour or five times as much about TRUTH as all the other three\nEvangelists; while _the act_ of Faith receives as frequent mention in\nhis writings alone as in all the rest of the New Testament Canon put\ntogether[327].\n\nLet me end, as the manner of preachers is, by gathering out of what has\nbeen spoken one brief practical consideration.--This whole visible frame\nof things wherein we play our part, is hastening to decay. Everything we\nbehold,--ourselves included,--carries with it the prophecy of its own\nspeedy dissolution.--What, amid the wreck of worlds, will be our\nconfidence?... It is an inquiry worth making, in these the days of\nhealth, and vigour, and security, and peace. O my soul, (learn to ask\nyourselves,)--O my soul, when the Heavens shall depart, and the Earth\nreel before the Second Advent of its Maker;--when the Sun puts on\nmourning, and the very powers of Heaven are shaken;--what shall be _our_\nconfidence,--_our_ hope,--in that tremendous day? Whither shall we\nbetake ourselves, amid the overthrow of universal Nature, but to the\nsure mercies of Him who \"in the beginning created the Heaven and the\nEarth?\"--To those strong Hands, we intend, (GOD helping us!) with\nunswerving confidence to commend our fainting spirits[328].... _Him_,\nthen, in life let us learn to reverence, on whom in death we propose so\nimplicitly to lean! And we only know Him in, and through, and by His\nWORD. Nor can we in any surer way shew Him reverence or dishonour, than\nby the manner in which we receive His message,--yea, by the spirit in\nwhich we unfold this, the first page of it,--where stands recorded that\nprim\u00e6val act of Almighty power which is the ground of all our\nconfidence,--the very warrant for our own security.... \"Blessed\" of a\ntruth, in that day, will he be, \"that hath the GOD of Jacob for his\nhelp, and whose hope is in the LORD his GOD:--_who made the Heaven and\nthe Earth,--the Sea and all that therein is:--who keepeth His promise\nfor ever_[329]!\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[271] Preached in Christ-Church Cathedral, Nov. 11th, 1860.\n\n[272] \"The whole period, from the beginning of the primary fossiliferous\nstrata to the present day, _must be great beyond calculation_, and only\nbear comparison with the astronomical cycles, as might naturally be\nexpected; the earth being without doubt of the same antiquity with the\nother bodies of the solar system.\"--Mrs. Somerville's _Physical\nGeography_.\n\n[273] Col. i. 16.\n\n[274] Neh. ix. 6.\n\n[275] Eph. i. 11.\n\n[276] Hooker's _Eccl. Pol._, B. I. c. iii. \u00a7 2.\n\n[277] Ps. xxxiii. 6.\n\n[278] Alluding to a catastrophe which had recently occurred at St.\nMary's Church, and which necessitated considerable repairs; in\nconsequence of which, the first four of these Sermons were preached in\nthe Cathedral.\n\n[279] Is. xl. 12.\n\n[280] Amos v. 8 and ix. 6.\n\n[281] St. Matth. xxvii. 45.\n\n[282] Exod. x. 21-23.\n\n[283] St. Matth. xxiv. 29.\n\n[284] Job ix. 5-7.\n\n[285] Ps. xxxiii. 9.\n\n[286] Gen. i. 4.\n\n[287] \"Can any one sensible of the value of words suppose,\" (asks Mr.\nGoodwin,) \"that nothing more is here described, or intended to be\ndescribed, than _the partial clearing away of a fog_?\" (_Essays and\nReviews_, pp. 227-8.) No one,--we answer. But to the question, we\nventure to rejoin another. To _whom_ does this philosopher suppose his\npleasantry likely to prove injurious? Is he making Moses ridiculous,\nor--himself?\n\n[288] St. John ix. 5, &c.\n\n[289] 1 Tim. vi. 16.\n\n[290] 2 Cor. iv. 6.\n\n[291] \"Whether the writer regarded them as already existing, and only\nwaiting to have a proper place assigned them, may be open to question.\"\n(_E. and R._, p. 221.) We accept the alternative given us by Mr.\nGoodwin.\n\n[292] Job xxxviii. 7.\n\n[293] Alluding to 1 Kings vii. 21.\n\n[294] The test of _Elohim_ and _Jehovah_ has been, by the Germans\nthemselves, given up; \"and for this plain reason,--that in many parts of\nGenesis, [e.g. ch. xxviii. 16-22: xxxi.: xxxix., &c.] it is utterly\nuntenable; the names being so intermingled as to admit of no such\ndivision.\" See the Appendix (C) to the Rev. Henry John Rose's _Hulsean\nLectures_ for 1833,--p. 233.\n\n[295] Besides in Gen. i. 2, the expression (_tohu bohu_) recurs in Jer.\niv. 23 and Is. xxxiv. 11,--both times with clear reference to the\nearlier place. Jeremiah in fact _quotes_ Genesis.\n\n[296] _Eccl. Pol._, B. I. c. iii. \u00a7 2.\n\n[297] Ps. cxlviii. 5, 6.\n\n[298] South's _Sermons_, (Serm. II.)\n\n[299] See St. Matth. xix. 4 to 6,--where Gen. i. 27 as well as Gen. ii.\n24, are quoted by our SAVIOUR.\n\n[300] \"Holding,\" (says Hugh Miller,) \"that the _six_ days of the Mosaic\naccount were not natural days, but lengthened periods, I find myself\ncalled on, as a geologist, to account for but three out of the six. Of\nthe period during which light was created; of the period during which a\nfirmament was made to separate the waters from the waters; or of the\nperiod during which the two great lights of the earth, with the other\nheavenly bodies, became visible from the Earth's surface;--we need\nexpect to find no record in the rocks.\"--_Testimony_, &c., p. 134.--This\nis ingenious, and is piously meant. But the first three days remain to\nbe accounted for _by somebody_, all the same. If the last three days\nrepresent \"lengthened periods,\" so, I suppose, do the _first_ three.\n\n[301] Exod. xx. 11.\n\n[302] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 252.\n\n[303] _Ibid._\n\n[304] _Id._ p. 253.\n\n[305] _Id._ p. 252.\n\n[306] Pattison's _The Earth and the World_, p. 99.\n\n[307] Col. ii. 3.\n\n[308] Josh. x. 12.\n\n[309] Prov. iii. 20.\n\n[310] St. John iii. 8.\n\n[311] St. John iii. 5.\n\n[312] St. Matth. xxvi. 26.\n\n[313] St. John viii. 58.\n\n[314] St. John x. 30.\n\n[315] Ps. xciv. 9.\n\n[316] On this subject, the reader is referred to Serm. VII.\n\n[317] Ps. xcii. 4.\n\n[318] Cowper.\n\n[319] Eph. iii. 18.\n\n[320] This paragraph is mostly copied from a Sermon (MS.) preached\nbefore the University by the late Professor Hussey, Oct. 12, 1856.\n\n[321] Professor Phillips refers me to a paper by Mr. Prestwich in the\n_Proceedings of the Royal Society_, 1859, vol. x. No. 35, p. 58. Also in\nthe _Transactions of the R. S._ for 1860, p. 308.\n\n[322] I allude to the supposed disclosures of Egyptian monuments.\n\n[323] I allude to a recent work on the Origin of Species.\n\n[324] The reader is requested to read what Bishop Pearson has most\neloquently written on this subject. It will be found in the Appendix\n(B).\n\n[325] 1 Cor. xv. 47.\n\n[326] Ibid. xv. 22, &c.\n\n[327] =Pistis= _does not occur once_ in St. John's Gospel: =pisteu\u00f4=\n(which is found about thirty-five times, in all, in the first three\nGospels,) occurs about _one hundred times_, in the Gospel of St. John\nalone.\n\n[328] St. Luke xxiii. 46, (quoting Ps. xxxi. 5:) words which are alluded\nto in 1 St. Pet. iv. 19.\n\n[329] Ps. cxlvi. 5,--words quoted by the early Church of Jerusalem, Acts\niv. 24.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON III.[330]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE.--GOSPEL DIFFICULTIES.--THE WORD OF GOD\nINFALLIBLE.--OTHER SCIENCES SUBORDINATE TO THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n2 Tim. iii. 16.\n\n     _All Scripture is given by inspiration of God._\n\n\nBut _that_ is not exactly what St. Paul says. The Greek for _that_,\nwould be =pasa H\u00ea graph\u00ea=--not =pasa graph\u00ea--theopneustos=. St. Paul does\nnot say that _the whole_ of Scripture, collectively, is inspired. More\nthan _that_: what he says is, that _every writing_,--every _several\nbook_ of those =hiera grammata=, or Holy Scriptures, in which Timothy had\nbeen instructed from his childhood,--is inspired by God[331]. It _comes_\nto very nearly the same thing; but it is _not_ quite the same thing. St.\nPaul is careful to remind us that every Book in the Bible is an inspired\nBook[332]. And this statement is not confined to one place.--Elsewhere,\nhe calls his message \"the Word of GOD;\" and says that it had been\nreceived by the disciples not as the Word of Men, but as it is in truth,\nthe Word of GOD[333].--Elsewhere, \"Which things also we speak, not in\nthe words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the HOLY GHOST\nteacheth[334]:\"--where, if I at all understand the Apostle, (and he\nspeaks very plainly!) he says that _his words_ were inspired by the HOLY\nGHOST.--Accordingly, St. Peter declares that the Epistles of his\n\"beloved brother Paul\" are part of the Holy Scriptures[335];--Divinely\ninspired, therefore, like all the rest.\n\nBut does not St. Paul himself in a certain place express a doubt--saying\n\"I _think_ that I have the Spirit of GOD[336]?\" and does he not contrast\nhis own sayings with the Divine sayings, (\"not I but the LORD[337]\"),\nclearly implying that his own were _not_ Divine? and does he not say\nthat he delivers certain things \"by permission, and not of\ncommandment[338],\" whereby he seems to insinuate a gradation of\nauthority in what he delivers?--No. Not one of these things does he do.\nHe says, indeed, of a certain hint to married persons that he offers it\n\"by way of _advice_ to them not by way of _precept_:\" but _giving\nadvice_ to _men_ is a very different thing from _receiving permission_\nfrom GOD. Again, \"Unto the married,\" (he says,) \"I command, yet not I\nbut the LORD,\"--alluding to our LORD'S words, as set down by St.\nMatthew, chap. xix. verse 6[339]; which is simply an historical allusion\nto the Gospel.--So far from \"_thinking_\" he had the Spirit of GOD, (as\nif it were an open question whether he had it or not,) he says the very\ncontrary. =Doke\u00f4=, in all such places, implies, not _doubt_ but\n_certainty[340]_: (as when our LORD asks,---\"Doth he thank that servant\nbecause he did the things commanded him? =ou dok\u00f4=,\"--I fancy not\nindeed[341]!) On St. Paul's lips, as every scholar knows, the phrase is\nnot one of doubt, but one of indignant, or at least emphatic\nasseveration[342].--A man had need be very sure he _understands_ the\nrecord, (let me just remark in passing,) before he presumes to criticize\nit.\n\n\"_The Spirit of CHRIST_\" is said by St. Peter to have been \"_in the\nprophets_[343]:\" and in another place he declares that they \"_spake as\nthey were moved by the HOLY GHOST_[344].\" The HOLY GHOST accordingly is\nsaid to have spoken the xlist Psalm \"by the mouth of David[345].\" The\nxcvth Psalm is declared absolutely to be the utterance of the HOLY\nGHOST[346]. Once, the cxth Psalm is ascribed simply to GOD[347]; and\nonce, to David speaking under the influence of _the HOLY GHOST_[348]. The\niind Psalm is described as the language of GOD the FATHER \"by the mouth\nof His Servant David[349].\" \"_Well spake the HOLY GHOST_ by Esaias the\nProphet unto our Fathers[350],\"--was the exclamation of the Apostle\nPaul, quoting the 9th and 10th verses of his vith chapter. When Jeremiah\nspeaks, the HOLY GHOST is declared, (not Jeremiah, _but the HOLY GHOST_)\nto witness unto us[351]. The assertion is express that it was \"GOD\" who,\n\"_by the mouth of all His Prophets_,\" foretold the Death of CHRIST[352]:\n\"_the LORD GOD of Israel_\" who, \"_by the mouth of His holy Prophets of\nold_,\" gave promise of CHRIST'S coming[353]. \"_The HOLY GHOST\nsignified_\" what the Mosaic Law enjoined[354]. \"It is not ye that\nspeak, _but the HOLY GHOST_[355]\"--was our SAVIOUR'S word of promise and\nof consolation to the Twelve: and, on an earlier occasion,--\"It is not\nye that speak; but the SPIRIT of your Father, _which speaketh in\nyou_[356].\" And this promise became so famous, that St. Paul says the\nCorinthians challenged him to _prove_ that CHRIST was speaking in\nhim[357].... But why multiply places? The use which our SAVIOUR makes in\nthe New Testament of the words of the Old,--from the writings of Moses\nto the writings of Malachi,--would be simply nugatory unless those words\nwere much more than human. And the record of the Apostle is express and\nemphatic:--\"All Scripture--every Book of the Bible,--is given _by\nInspiration of GOD_.\"--In the face of such testimony, by the way, we\ndeem it not a little extraordinary to be assured (by an individual who\nhas acquired considerable notoriety within the last few months) that\n\"for any of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration there is no\nfoundation in the Gospels or Epistles[358].\"\n\nStrange to say, there is a marvellous indisposition in Man to admit the\nnotion of such a heaven-sent message. Not to dispute with those who deny\nInspiration altogether, (for that would be endless,) there are\nmany,--and, we fear, a daily increasing number of persons,--who,\nadmitting Inspiration in terms, yet so mutilate the notion of it, that\ntheir admission becomes a practical lie. \"St. Paul was inspired, no\ndoubt. So was Shakspeare.\" He who says this, intending no quibble,\ndeclares that in his belief St. Paul was _not inspired at all_.\n\nBut this is a monstrous case, with which I will not waste your time. Far\nmore numerous are they, who, admitting that the Authors of the Bible\nwere inspired in quite a different sense from Homer and Dante, are yet\nfor modifying and qualifying this admission after so many strange and\narbitrary fashions, that the residuum of their belief is really worth\nvery little. One man has a mental reservation of exclusion in favour of\nthe two Books of Chronicles, or the Book of Esther, or of\nDaniel.--Another, is content to eliminate from the Bible those passages\nwhich seem to him to run counter to the decrees of physical\nScience;--the History of the Six Days of Creation,--of the Flood,--of\nthe destruction of Sodom,--and of Joshua's address to Sun and\nMoon.--Another regards it as self-evident that nothing is trustworthy\nwhich savours supremely of the marvellous;--as the Temptation of our\nfirst Parents,--the Manna in the Wilderness,--Balaam reproved by the\ndumb ass,--and the history of Jonah.--There are others who cannot\ntolerate the Miracles of the Old and the New Testament. The more timid,\nexplain away as much of them as they dare. What remains, troubles them.\nThe more logical sweep them away altogether. A miracle (they say) cannot\nbe true because it implies a violation of the fixed and immutable laws\nof Nature.\n\nAnd then,--(so strangely constituted are some men's minds,)--there are\nnot a few persons who, without exactly denying the inspiration of the\nBible in any of its more marvellous portions,--(for _that_ would be an\ninconvenient proceeding,)--are yet content to regard much of it as a\nkind of inspired myth. This is a class of ally (?) with whom one really\nknows not how to deal. The man does not reason. He assumes his right to\ndisbelieve, and yet will not allow that he is an unbeliever. The world\nis singularly indulgent toward persons of this unphilosophical,\nillogical, presumptuous class.\n\nNow, I shall have something to say to all these different kinds of\nobjectors, on some subsequent occasion. But I shall be rendering the\nyounger men a far more important service if to-day I address my remarks\nto a different class of objectors altogether: _that_ far larger body, I\nmean, who without at all desiring to impugn the Inspiration of GOD'S\nOracles, yet make no secret of their belief that the Bible is full of\ninaccuracies and misstatements. These men ascribe a truly liberal amount\nof human infirmity to the Authors of the several Books of the\nBible;--slips of memory, misconceptions, imperfect intelligence, partial\nillumination, and so forth;--and, under one or other of those heads,\ninclude whatever they are themselves disposed to reject. The writers who\ncome in for the largest share of this indulgence, are the Evangelists;\nbecause the Historians of our LORD'S life, having happily left us four\nversions of the same story, and often three versions of the same\ntransaction, the evidence whereby _they_ may be convicted of error is in\nthe hands of all. Truly, mankind has not been slow to avail itself of\nthe opportunity. You will seldom hear a Gospel difficulty discussed,\nwithout a quiet assumption on the part of the Reverend gentleman that\n_he_ knows all about the matter in question, but that the Evangelist did\n_not_. His usual method is, calmly to inform us that it is useless to\nlook for strict consistency in matters of minute detail; that _general\nagreement_ between the four Evangelists there does exist, and _that_\nought to be enough. The inevitable inference from his manner of handling\nthe Gospels, is, that if his actual thoughts could find candid\nexpression, we should hear him address their blessed authors somewhat as\nfollows:--\"You are four highly respectable characters, no doubt; and you\n_mean_ well. But it cannot be expected that persons of your condition in\nlife should have described so many intricate transactions so minutely\nwithout making blunders. I do not say it unkindly. I often make blunders\nmyself,--_I_, who have a \"clearness of understanding,\" \"a power of\ndiscrimination between different kinds of Truth[359]\" unknown to the\nApostolic Age!\" ... Of course the preacher does not _say_ all this. He\nhas too keen a sense of \"the dignity of the pulpit.\" And so he puts it\nsomewhat thus:--\"While we are disposed to recognize substantial\nagreement, and general conformity in respect of details, among the\nsynoptical witnesses, in their leading external outlines, we are yet\nconstrained to withhold our unqualified acceptance of any theory of\nInspiration which should claim for these compilers exemption from the\noscitancy, and generally from the infirmities of humanity.\" ... This\nsounds fine, you know; and is thought an ingenious way of wrapping up\nthe charge which the Reverend preacher brings against the\nEvangelists;--of having, in plain terms,--_made blunders_.\n\nIt will be convenient that we should narrow the ground to this single\nissue: for the time is short. And in the remarks I am about to offer, I\nshall not imitate the example of those preachers who dress out an easy\nthought in a superfluity of inflated language, only in order that its\ndeformity may escape detection. Be not surprised if I speak to you this\nmorning in uncommonly plain English; for I am determined that the\nsimplest person present shall understand at least what _I_ mean. The\ndignity of the Blessed Evangelists, who walked with JESUS, and whom\nJESUS loved,--the dignity of that Gospel which I believe to be\npenetrated through and through with the Holy Spirit of GOD,--for _that_,\nI confess to a most unbounded jealousy. As for the \"dignity of the\npulpit,\"--I hate the very phrase! It has been made too often the shield\nof impiety and the cloak of dulness.\n\nTo begin, then,--Is it, I would ask you, a reasonable anticipation that\nthe narrative of one inspired by GOD would prove full of\ninconsistencies, misstatements, slips of memory:--or indeed, that it\nshould contain _any_ misstatements, _any_ inaccuracies at all? What then\nis the difference between an inspired and an uninspired writing,--the\nWord of GOD and the Word of Man?\n\nThe answer which I shall receive, is obvious. As a matter of fact (it is\nreplied) there _are_ these inaccuracies: that is, the same transaction\nis described by two or more writers, and their accounts prove\ninconsistent. Thus, St. Matthew begins his account of the healing of the\nblind at Jericho, with the words,--\"And as they were _going out_ of\nJericho:\" but St. Luke, \"While He was _drawing nigh_ to Jericho.\"--There\n_are_ these slips of memory; as when St. Matthew ascribes to \"Jeremy the\nprophet\" words which are found in the prophet Zechariah.--There _are_\nthese misstatements, as where the Census of the Nativity is said to\nhave taken place under the presidentship of Cyrenius.--And these are but\nsamples of a mighty class of difficulties, (it is urged:)--the two\nGenealogies; the Call of the four Disciples; the healing of the\nCenturion's servant; the title on the Cross; the history of the\nResurrection:--and again, \"the sixteenth of Tiberius;\" \"the days of\nAbiathar;\" with many others.--Let me then briefly discuss the three\nexamples first cited,--which really came spontaneously. Each is the type\nof a class; and the answer to one is, in reality, applicable to all the\nrest. I humbly ask for your patience and attention; promising that I\nwill abuse neither, though I must tax both.\n\nThe great fundamental truth to be first laid down, is _this_--that the\nGospels are not _four_--but _one_. The Ancients knew this very well.\n=Euangelistai men tessares,--Euangelion de hen=--says Origen[360]: \"the\nGospel-_writers_ are four,--but the _Gospel_ is one.\" And the ancients\nrecorded this mighty verity four times over on the first page of the\nGospel, lest it should ever be forgotten; and there it stands to this\nday:--the Gospel,--the _one_ Gospel =kata=,--_according to_--St.\nMatthew,--_according to_ St. Mark,--_according to_ St. Luke,--_according\nto_ St. John. Like that river which went out of Eden to water the\nGarden,--it was by the HOLY GHOST \"parted, and became into four\nheads.\"--The Gospels therefore, (to call them by their common name,) are\nnot to be regarded as four witnesses, or rather as four culprits,\nbrought up on a charge of fraud. Rather are they Angelic voices singing\nin sweetest harmony, but after a method of Heavenly counterpoint which\nmust be studied before it can be understood of Men.\n\nAnd next,--There is one great principle, and one only, which needs to be\nborne in mind for the effectual reconciliation of _every discrepancy_\nwhich the four narratives present: namely, that you should approach them\nin exactly the same spirit in which you approach the statement of any\nman of honour of your acquaintance. Whether the Apostles of the\nLAMB,--men whom we believe to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit of\nthe Everlasting GOD,--are not entitled to far higher respect, far higher\nconsideration, at our hands,--I leave _you_ to decide. As one whose joy\nand crown it has been to weigh every word in the Gospel in hair-scales,\nI am prepared to risk the issue. Be only as fair to the four Evangelists\nas you are to one another; and I am quite confident about the result.\n\nI appeal to the experience of every thoughtful man among you who has at\nall given his mind to the subject of evidence, whether it be not the\nfact,--(1st) That when two or more persons are giving true versions of\nthe same incident, their accounts will sometimes differ so considerably,\nthat it will seem at first sight as if they could not possibly be\nreconciled: and yet (2ndly), That a single word of explanation, the\ndiscovery of one minute circumstance,--perfectly natural when we hear it\nstated, yet most unlikely and unlooked-for,--will often suffice to\nremove the difficulty which before seemed unsurmountable; and further,\nthat when this has been done, the entire consistency of the several\naccounts becomes apparent; while the harmony which is established is\noften of the most beautiful nature. (3rdly) That when (for whatever\nreason) two or more versions of the same incident are _not_ correct, no\ningenuity can ever possibly reconcile them, _as they stand_. They lean\napart in hopeless divergence. In other words, they _contradict_ one\nanother.\n\nNow, these principles are fully admitted in daily life. If your friend\ncomes to you with ever so improbable a tale, the last thing which enters\ninto your mind is to disbelieve him. Is he in earnest? Yes, on his\nhonour. Is he sure he is not mistaken? _That_ very doubt of yours\nrequires an apology: but your friend says,--\"I am as sure as I am of my\nexistence.\" \"Give it me under your hand and seal then.\" Your friend\nbegins to suspect your sanity; but the matter being of some importance,\nhe complies. \"It must be so then,\" you exclaim, \"though I _cannot_\nunderstand it.\".... I only wish that men would be as fair to the\nEvangelists as they are to their friends!\n\nYou are requested to observe,--for really you _must_ admit,--that _any_\npossible solution of a difficulty, however _improbable_ it may seem, any\n_possible_ explanation of the story of a competent witness, is enough\nlogically and morally to exempt that man from the imputation of an\nincorrect statement. The illustration which first presents itself may\nrequire an apology; but the dignity of the pulpit shall not outweigh the\ndignity of _His_ Gospel after whose blessed Name this House is\ncalled[361]: and I can think of nothing as apposite as what follows.\n\nIt is a conceivable case, that, hereafter, three persons of known\ntruthfulness should meet, in a Court of Justice at the Antipodes; where\nthe entire difficulty should turn on a question of time. The case is\nconceivable, that the first should be heard to declare that at Oxford,\non such a day, of such a year, he had seen such an one standing before\nCarfax Church while the clock _was striking one_:--that the second\nshould declare that he also, on the same day of the same year, had seen\nthe same person passing by St. Mary's, when the clock of _that_ Church\nwas also striking one:--that the third should stand up and assert,--\"I\nalso saw the same person on that same day, but it was on the steps _of\nthe Cathedral_ I met him; and I also remember hearing the clock at that\nmoment strike one.\"--Now I can conceive that the result of such evidence\nwould be adverted upon in some such way as the following:--\"While we are\ndisposed to recognize the substantial agreement, and general conformity\nin respect of details, among the synoptical witnesses, in their leading\nexternal outlines, we are yet constrained,\"--and the rest of the\nimpertinence we had before. Whereas you and I know perfectly that the\nthree clocks in question were, till lately, _kept five minutes apart_: a\nsufficient interval, (I beg you to observe in passing,) for the\nindividual in question to have been seen _by you_ walking in an easterly\ndirection; and _by me_ due west; and by a third person, due east again.\nHighly improbable circumstances, I freely grant, every one of them; and\nyet, by the hypothesis, all perfectly _true_! Meantime, it is\nconceivable that Judge and jury would have the indecency openly to tax\nthe three men I spoke of with inexactitude in their statements: and it\nis conceivable that those three honest men--(the _only_ true men, it\nmight be, in the Colony, after all,)--would carry to their grave the\nimputation of untruth. Here and there, a generous heart would be found\nto say to them,--_I_ share not in the vulgar cry against you! _I_\nnothing doubt that it all fell out precisely as you assert. Either, the\nclocks in Oxford went wrong that day;--or there had been some trick\nplayed with the clocks;--any how, _I_ believe _you_, for I have evidence\nthat you are marvellously exact in all your little statements; and you\ncannot have been mistaken in a plain matter like this. I have heard too\nthat you are not the ordinary men you seem.... The men make no answer.\n_They_ care nothing for _your opinion_, and _my opinion_. The rashness\nof mankind may astonish the Angels perhaps; but the Apostles and\nEvangelists of CHRIST are already safe within the veil!\n\nThe difficulty supposed is not an imaginary one. St. John says that when\nPilate sat in judgment on the LORD of Glory, \"it was about the sixth\nhour[362].\" But since St. Mark says that at the third hour they\ncrucified Him[363],--the two statements seem inconsistent. The\nancients,--(giants at interpretation, babes in criticism,)--_altered the\ntext_. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 300, says that he had seen it\nin the very autograph of St. John[364]. A learned man of our own,\nhowever, a hundred years ago, ascertained that, in the Patriarchate of\nEphesus, the hours were not computed after the Jewish method: but,\n(strange to say,) exactly _after our own English method_[365]. And yet,\nnot so strange either; for the Gospel first came to us from there.--You\nsee at a glance that all the four mentions of time of day in St.\nJohn[366], which used to occasion so much difficulty, become beautifully\nintelligible at once.\n\nTo come then to the three samples of difficulty propounded a moment ago.\nAnd first, for the blind men of Jericho.\n\nI. The difficulty lies all on the surface. Listen to a plain tale.\n\nOur SAVIOUR, attended by His Disciples and followed by a vast concourse\nof persons, had reached the outskirts of Jericho. A certain blind man\nwas sitting by the roadside begging. He heard the noise of a passing\ncrowd, and inquired what it meant? He was told that Jesus of Nazareth\nwas passing by. He rose at once,--hastened down the main street through\nwhich, in due time, CHRIST perforce must come; joined another blind man,\n(named Bartim\u00e6us,--a well-known character, who, like himself, was\naccustomed to sit and beg by the road side;) and the two companions in\nsuffering, having stationed themselves at the exit of Jericho, waited\ntill the Great Physician should appear.\n\nThe crowd begins to approach; and the two blind men implore the Son of\nDavid to have pity on them. So importunate is their suit, that the\nforemost of the passers-by rebuke them. The men grow more urgent. Our\nSAVIOUR pauses, and orders that they shall be called. At this gracious\nsummons, both draw near; the more remarkable applicant flinging his\nouter garment from him as he rises from his seat; but both, when they\nappear in our SAVIOUR'S presence, making the same request. The Holy One,\ntouched with compassion, laid His Hands upon their eyes, and grants\ntheir prayer: whereupon they both follow Him in the way.\n\nWell, (you will ask,)--what then?--\"What then?\" I answer. _Then_ there\nis no difficulty in the three accounts about which you spoke so\nunbecomingly a moment ago. Assume this plain, and not at all improbable\nversion of the incident, to be true, and you will find that no\ndifficulty remains whatever. Every recorded circumstance is accounted\nfor, and fits in exactly with it. I wish there were time to enlarge on\nsome of the details, and to make some remarks on the manner of the\nEvangelists in relating events: but there _is_ no time.\nBesides,--without a huge copy of the Gospel open before us all, I could\nnot hope to make my meaning understood.\n\nFor of course you are to believe that he who would understand the Gospel\nmust first _study_ it. You must ascertain, by some crucial test,\nconfirmed by a large and careful induction, what the character of a\nnarrative purporting to be inspired, _is_. You have no right first to\nassume exactly _what_ Inspiration shall result in, and then to deny that\nthere is Inspiration because you fail to discover your assumed\nresult[367]. That were foolish.\n\nI shall perhaps be thought to lay myself open to the\nrejoinder,--\"Neither have _you_ any right to assume that Inspiration\nwill result in Infallibility.\" But the retort is without real point. I\ndo but assert that, just as every man of honour claims to be believed\nuntil he has been convicted of a falsehood,--inspired Prophets,\nEvangelists, and Apostles have a right to our entire confidence in the\nscrupulous accuracy of every word they deliver, until it can be _shewn_\nthat they have once made a mistake.\n\nIf you will take the trouble to compare any of the cases,--in Genesis\nfor example,--where a conversation is first set down, and then reported\nby one of the speakers,--you will find that it is deemed allowable to\nomit or to add clauses, even when the discourse is related in the first\nperson[368]. Something before inserted, is withheld: or something before\nwithheld, is inserted. No discourse was probably ever set down, word for\nword, as it was delivered. In sacred, as in profane writings, the exact\n_substance_, or rather, the real _purport_, of what was spoken, very\nreasonably stands for what was _actually_ spoken. The difference is\nthis;--that a narrative, by man abridged, _may_ convey a wrong\nimpression: whereas an inspired abridgement of any history soever\n_cannot_ mislead.\n\nOther characteristics of an inspired narrative,--the lesser Laws of the\nDivine Harmony, as they may be called,--will be discovered by the\nattentive reader. For example, that intervening circumstances are often\npassed over, without any notice taken of them whatever: while yet it is\nsingular how often the Evangelist shews himself conscious of what he\nomits by some very minute allusion to it[369]. This must suffice\nhowever. It would require a whole sermon, a whole volume rather, to\nenumerate all the features of the Evangelical method.\n\nII. The next sample of difficulty will not occupy us long. St. Matthew\nis charged with a bad memory, because he ascribes to \"Jeremy the\nprophet[370]\" words which are said to be found in Zechariah.--Strange\nthat men should be heard to differ about a plain matter of fact! _I_\nhave never been able to find these words in Zechariah yet!... There are\nwords _something like them_,--but not those very words, by any\nmeans,--in Zech. xi. 12. Why then is St. Matthew to be taxed with a bad\nmemory? Are there not other prophecies quoted in the New Testament not\nto be found in the Old? Yes[371]. Is not the self-same prophecy\nsometimes found in two different prophets,--as in Isaiah and Nahum?\nYes[372]. Are not some prophetic passages _common to Jeremiah and\nZechariah?_ Yes[373]. The Jews even had a saying that the Spirit of the\none was in the other. _Where_ then remains a pretence for supposing that\nSt. Matthew was troubled with a bad memory?\n\nIII. So, it is generally assumed that St. Luke made a mistake when he\nsaid that the census of the Nativity was made when Cyrenius was\nPresident of Syria,--because not Cyrenius but _Varus_ is known to have\nbeen President about that time.--Now, there are three fair\nconjectures,--each of which is sufficient to meet this difficulty: but\ninstead of developing them, I will simply remind you of a minute\ncircumstance in Jewish story which shews how dangerous it is to press a\ngeneral fact against a particular statement.--In the year 4 B.C.,\nMatthias was undeniably the Jewish High-priest. Now, if St. Luke,\ndescribing the events of a certain day in September, B.C. 4, had\nrecorded that the High-priest's name was _Joseph_, you would have\nthought him guilty of a misstatement: but the error would have been all\nyour own,--for it has been discovered that a person bearing that name\nheld the office of High-priest for _one single day_,--namely, the 10th\nof Tisri.... \"A very unlikely circumstance!\" you will exclaim. O\nyes,--_a very unlikely circumstance indeed_: but, you will have the\nkindness to observe that _that_ is not exactly the point in question.\n\nWhy then are difficulties of this, or of any kind, permitted in the\nGospel at all? it may be asked.--I answer,--that they may prove\ninstruments of probation to you and to me. The sensualist has _his_\ntrials; and the ambitious man, _his_. The difficulties in Holy\nScripture,--which are numerous, and diverse, and considerable,--are\nadmirable tests of the moral, the spiritual, the intellectual temper of\nMan[374]. Experience shews moreover that some of the minutest\ndiscrepancies of all, if they be but of a character almost hopeless, are\nmore potent to create perplexity in minds of a certain constitution,\nthan the gravest doubts which ever burthened the soul of Speculation.\n\nI have confined myself to one class of objections, for an obvious\nreason. Difficulties which arise out of the _matter_ of Scripture, as it\nis emphatically embodied in quotations from the Old Testament made in\nthe New, must be separately considered in one or more Sermons on\n_Interpretation_. I must be content to-day with repudiating, in the most\nunqualified way, the notion that a mistake of _any kind whatever_ is\nconsistent with the texture of a narrative inspired by the Holy Spirit\nof GOD. The allusion in St. Stephen's speech to \"the sepulchre that\nAbraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the son\" (not\n_the father_, but _the son_) \"of Sychem,\" is a good example of confusion\napparently existing in an inspired speaker; but, in reality, only in the\nwritings of those who have sat in judgment upon his words[375].\n\nTo keep to the case of the Evangelists,--I appeal to your sense of\nfairness, whether it be not reasonable to assume, that until those\nblessed writers have been convicted of _one_ single inaccuracy of\nstatement, their narratives ought to be accounted faultless, like Him\nwhose Life they record;--like Him by whose Spirit they are inspired. I\nwould to Heaven that men would have the decency to suspect themselves,\nand one another, rather than the Evangelists,--of mistake; or at least,\nbefore they venture publicly to impugn the Authors of the Everlasting\nGospel, that they would be at the pains to weigh the evidence with the\ncare _that_ evidence deserves, but which I am _sure_ that sermon-writers\nand essayists do not bestow. Let them spend the long summer days of many\na Long Vacation--from early morning until twilight,--dissecting every\nsyllable of the blessed pages; and then they will learn to adore instead\nof to cavil. They will deem them absolutely faultless, instead of daring\nto charge all their own pitiful misconceptions, and weak\nmisapprehensions, and miserable blunders, upon _them_.--They will be\ninclined, rather, to challenge the world to establish one blot in what\nthey love so well; and would gladly stake all upon the issue of a\nconflict before a fair tribunal,--if submission might follow upon\ndefeat.\n\nAs for mistakes of the paltry kind last noticed--(the days of Abiathar,\nthe sixteenth of Tiberius, and so forth,)--I wonder the glaring\nabsurdity of charging them against Evangelists, does not strike any\nmodest man of sane mind. To suppose that St. Matthew quoted the wrong\nprophet, or that St. Luke did not know the regnal years of the reigning\nEmperor; that St. Stephen confused Abraham with Jacob, and Sychem with\nHebron;--all this is really so _grossly_ absurd, that I can hardly\ncondescend to discuss the question. It is like maintaining that Sir\nIsaac Newton, after discovering the Law of Gravitation, and calculating\nthe pathway of a planet, persisted in saying that two and two make five:\nor that Columbus, after discovering America, despaired of finding the\nway to his own door. It is simply ridiculous!--Admirable as a subject\nfor men to exercise their wits upon,--as instruments of _cavil_,\nobjections like these are about as formidable as a child's sword of\nlathe in the day of battle.\n\nI hear some one say,--It seems to trouble _you_ very much that inspired\nwriters should be thought capable of making mistakes; but it does not\ntrouble _me_,--Very likely not. It does not trouble _you_, perhaps, to\nsee stone after stone, buttress after buttress, foundation after\nfoundation, removed from the walls of Zion, until the whole structure\ntrembles and totters, and is pronounced insecure. Your boasted unconcern\nis very little to the purpose, unless we may also know how dear to you\nthe safety of Zion is. But if you make indignant answer,--(as would to\nHeaven you may!)--that your care for GOD'S honour, your jealousy for\nGod's oracles, is every whit as great as our own,--_then_ we tell you\nthat, on _your_ wretched premises, men more logical than yourself will\nmake shipwreck of their peace, and endanger their very souls. There is\nno stopping,--no knowing where to stop,--in this downward course. Once\nadmit the principle of fallibility into the inspired Word, and the whole\nbecomes a bruised and rotten reed. If St. Paul a little, why not St.\nPaul much? If Moses in some places, why not in many? You will doubt our\nLORD'S infallibility next!... It might not trouble _you_, to find your\nown familiar friend telling you a lie, every now and then: but I trust\nthis whole congregation will share the preacher's infirmity, while he\nconfesses that it would trouble _him_ so exceedingly that after one\nestablished falsehood, he would feel unable ever to trust that friend\nimplicitly again.\n\nDo you mean to say then, (I shall be asked,) that you maintain the\ntheory of Verbal Inspiration?--I answer, I refuse to accept any _theory_\nwhatsoever[376]. But I believe that the Bible is the Word of GOD--and I\nbelieve that GOD'S Word must be absolutely infallible. I shall therefore\nbelieve the Bible to be absolutely infallible,--until I am convinced of\nthe contrary. \"_Theories of Inspiration_,\" (as they are called,) are the\ngrowth of an unbelieving age: and it is enough to disgust any one with\nthe term, to find how it has been understood in some quarters. A\nwell-known living editor of the Gospel[377], says,--\"According to the\nVerbal-Inspiration Theory, each Evangelist has recorded the exact words\nof the Inscription on the Cross;--not _the general sense_, but _the\nInscription itself_;--not a letter less nor more. This is absolutely\nnecessary to the theory.\" The advocates of the theory (he proceeds) \"may\nhere find an _undoubted_ example of the absurdity of their view.... Let\nus bear this in mind when the narrative of words spoken, or of events,\ndiffers in a similar manner.\"--It is certainly very kind of the learned\nwriter thus to apprize us of the danger of accepting a theory, which, so\nexplained, we certainly never heard of before,--and trust we may never\nhear of again.\n\nBut if, instead of the \"Theory of Verbal Inspiration,\" I am asked\nwhether I believe _the words_ of the Bible to be inspired,--I answer, To\nbe sure I do,--every one of them: and every syllable likewise. Do not\n_you?_--_Where_,--(if it be a fair question,)--Where do you, in your\nwisdom, stop? The _book_, you allow _is_ inspired. How about the\nchapters? How about the verses? Do you stop at the verses, and not go on\nto the words? Or perhaps you enjoy a special tradition on this subject,\nand hold that Inspiration is a general, vague kind of thing,--here more,\nthere less: strong, (to speak plainly,) where you make no objection to\nwhat is stated,--weak, when it runs counter to some fancy of your\nown.--O Sir, but this \"general vague kind of thing\" will not suffice to\nanchor the fainting soul upon, in the day of trouble, and in the hour of\ndeath! \"Here _more_, there _less_,\" will not satisfy a parched and weary\nspirit, athirst for the water of Life, and craving the shadow of the\ngreat Rock. What security can _you_ offer _me_, that the promise which\nhas sustained me so long occurs in the \"more,\" and not in the \"less?\"\nHow am I to know that your Bible is _my_ Bible: in other words, what\nproof is there that either of us possesses the Word of GOD,--the\nauthentic utterance of GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT,--_at all_?\n\nAnd do you not feel, that this \"will o' the wisp\" phantom of your brain,\ncan prove no guide to either of us in the pilgrimage of life? Perceive\nyou not that the unworthy spirit in which you approach the Book of GOD'S\nLaw must effectually prevent you from getting any wisdom from it? Why,\nthe pages which you look so coldly and carnally at, are written within\nand without, and burn from end to end with unutterable meaning! While\nyou are quarrelling about the title on the Cross, you are missing the\ncommon salvation! You keep us, Sunday after Sunday, disputing outside\nthe gates of Paradise, instead of bidding us enter in, and eat of the\ndelicious fruit! While _you_ are persisting that there is no beauty in\nthe garden, (because you choose to be deaf as well as blind,)--the\nshadows are lengthening out, and the glory is departing, and the angels\nare getting weary of harping upon their harps!\n\nNo, Sirs! The Bible (be persuaded) is the very utterance of the\nEternal;--as much GOD'S Word, as if high Heaven were open, and we heard\nGOD speaking to us with human voice. Every book of it, is inspired\nalike; and is inspired entirely. Inspiration is not a difference of\ndegree, but of kind. The Apocryphal books are not one atom more inspired\nthan Bacon's Essays. But the Bible, from the Alpha to the Omega of it,\nis filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit of GOD: the Books of it,\nand the sentences of it, and the words of it, and the syllables of\nit,--aye, and the very letters of it. \"Nihil in Scripturis est otiosum,\"\n(said the great Casaubon): \"non dictio, non dictionis forma, non\nsyllaba, non littera.\" ... The difficulty which attends quotations, I\nmust explain another day. It is _not_ a difficulty.--The seeming paradox\nof calling a pedigree inspired, is only seeming.--The _text_ of Holy\nScripture has nothing at all to do with the question. Is a dead poet\nresponsible for the clumsiness of him who transcribes his copy, or for\nthe carelessness of the apprentice in the printer's attic?--Least of all\ndo we overlook the personality of the human writers, when we so speak.\nThe styles of Daniel,--of St. John,--of St. Paul,--of St. James,--differ\nas much as the sounds emitted by organ pipes of wholly diverse\nconstruction. But those human instruments were fabricated, one and all,\nby the Hands of the same Divine Artist: and I have yet to learn that\nwhen the same man builds an organ, fills it with breath, and performs\nupon it a piece of his own composition with matchless skill,--I have yet\nto learn that any part of the honour, any part of the praise, any part\nof the glory of the performance is to be withheld from _him!_ ... The\nillustration is at least as old as Christianity itself. Pray take it in\nthe noble words of Hooker.--\"They neither spoke nor wrote one word of\ntheir own: but uttered syllable by syllable as the Spirit put it into\ntheir mouths; no otherwise than the harp or the lute doth give a sound\naccording to the discretion of his hands that holdeth and striketh it\nwith skill. The difference is only this: an instrument, whether it be\npipe or harp, maketh a distinction in the times and sounds, which\ndistinction is well perceived of the hearer, the instrument itself\nunderstanding not what is piped or harped. The prophets and holy men of\nGOD not so. 'I opened my mouth,' saith Ezekiel, 'and GOD reached me a\nscroll, saying, Son of Man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels\nwith this I give thee. I ate it, and it was sweet in my mouth as\nhoney,' saith the prophet[378]. Yea, sweeter, I am persuaded, than\neither honey or the honeycomb. For herein, they were not like harps or\nlutes, but they felt, they felt the power and strength of their own\nwords. When they spake of our peace, every corner of their hearts was\nfilled with joy. When they prophesied of mourning, lamentations, and\nwoes, to fall upon us, they wept in the bitterness and indignation of\nspirit, the Arm of the LORD being mighty and strong upon them[379].\"\n\nTo conclude. The first time I enjoyed this privilege, I urged the\nyounger men to a diligent and painful daily study of the Bible. On the\nnext occasion, opening the Bible at the first page, I attempted to\ndefine the provinces of Theological and of Physical Science. All that\nwas then offered may be summed up in one brief formula:--_GOD'S works\nCANNOT contradict GOD'S Word_. I adverted to the method of would-be\ngeologists, (a class all apart from the grave and learned few who give\ntheir days and nights to a truly noble branch of study,)--because from\n_them_ the most malignant attacks have proceeded: and I took my stand on\nthe first chapter of Genesis, because the enemies of GOD'S Truth have\nmade that chapter their favourite point of attack. But my argument was\nnot directed more against Geology than against any other of the physical\nSciences. They are all alike the handmaids of _Theological_ Science.\nGeology, however, singularly honoured by the Creator in that He hath\nbequeathed for her inspection so many marvels of prim\u00e6val\nTime,--evidences of how He was working in this remote planet before the\nCreation of Man;--Geology, I say, it especially behoves to be humble:\npartly, because she is the youngest of all the sciences; and partly,\nbecause the weak guesses of her childhood are yet in the memory of us\nall. If indeed she would _inherit the Earth_, let her remember that she\nasks for the blessing which CHRIST hath promised to none but _the\nmeek_[380].\n\nWe altogether repudiated, then, the contrast which is often implied\nbetween Theology and Science; as if Theology were _not_ a Science, but\nsome other thing. Theological Science we declared to be the noblest of\nthe Sciences,--the very Queen and Mistress of them all. And yet, supreme\nas she is, she not only admits, but desires, and thankfully accepts the\nministerial offices of the other Sciences; all of which, like dutiful\nservants in a household, have it in their power to render her most\nimportant acts of homage. Language, for example, carries the keys of the\ncasket wherein she keeps her treasures; and for that reason Theology\nhath promoted Language to great honour. History, and Geography, and\nChronology, have each had their respective tasks assigned them. It is\nfor Astronomy to make answer if question be raised of the date of\nPaschal full Moon, or of Eclipse. Let the physiologist explain, if he\ncan, Scriptural allusions to the vegetable and animal kingdoms. How\nprecious are the guesses of Geology, as she tries to fathom the Ocean of\nunrecorded Time!--_Who_ would desire the silence of the Professor of\n_any_ department of physical Science? Morals also have their place and\ntheir function assigned them; and a thrice blessed place,--a most holy\nfunction is theirs! Why should not Moral Science have an office even in\nthe Court of Theology? Was not Morality the Schoolmaster of the sons of\nJapheth, what time there was dew on the fleece only, but it was dry upon\nall the earth beside? What are Morals else but the echoes of the voice\nof GOD yet lingering in the Hall of Conscience, or rather in the\nChambers of Memory?.... Her function therefore is to bear willing\nwitness to the Goodness, the Wisdom, the Justice of the Eternal: and her\nplace,--the loftiest which can be imagined for a creature,--is somewhere\nbeneath the footstool of Almighty GOD.\n\nBut when, instead of the submissive manners of a well-ordered Court,\nsymptoms of insolence and insubordination are witnessed on every\nside,--then, the least and humblest takes leave, (time, and place, and\noccasion serving,) to speak out fearlessly on behalf of that which he\nloves with an unworthy, but a most undivided heart.--When Language\nimpugns those Oracles which she was hired to decypher,--and pretends to\ndoubt the Inspiration of that Book of which, confessedly, she barely\nunderstands the Grammar:--when History and Chronology cry out that the\nannals of Theology are false, and her record of Time a fable; that the\nDeluge, for instance, is an old wives' story, and the economy of times\nand seasons a human fabrication:--when Astronomical and Mechanical\nScience strut up to the Throne whereon sits the Ancient of Days,--prate\nto _Him_, (the first Author of Law,) about the \"supremacy of Law,\"--and\ntell Him to His face that His miracles are things impossible:--when\nPhysiology insinuates that Mankind cannot be descended from one prim\u00e6val\npair; and that the lives of the Patriarchs cannot be such as they are\nrecorded to have been:--when the pretender to Natural Philosophy\ngravely assures us that we ought not to pray for fair weather, because\nthe weather depends _not_ upon \"arbitrary changes in the will of GOD,\"\n_but_ upon laws as fixed and certain \"as the laws of\ngravitation[381],\"--which, mark you, Sirs, is no longer a dry verbal\nspeculation, but is nothing less than an invasion of that inner chamber\nwhere you or I have retired to pour out the fulness of an aching heart,\nin prayer that GOD would prolong, if it may be, the life of the dearest\nthing we have on earth; and rudely to bid us rise from our knees and be\nsilent, for that the health of Man depends not on the will of GOD, but\non fixed physiological laws:--lastly, when the pretender to Geological\nskill denies the authenticity of the First Chapter of Genesis; which is\nto deny the Inspiration of all the rest; and therefore of the whole\nBible;--and thus to rob Life's weary pilgrim of that rod and staff\nconcerning which he has many a time exclaimed,--\"they _comfort_\nme!\":--whenever, as now, such things are spoken and printed,--not in a\ncorner, and by insignificant persons, and in ambiguous language,--but in\nplain English, by clergymen and scholars in authority, openly in the\nface of GOD'S sun;--then it is high time, even for the humblest and\nleast among you,--if no man of mark will speak up, and speak out, for\nGOD'S Truth,--to deliver a plain message with that freedom which\nEnglishmen hold to be a part of their birthright. It should breed no\noffence, I say, if the most unworthy of GOD'S servants, here, before you\nall,--before these younger men especially, who have been drawn hither by\nthe fame of your piety and your learning,--and who have been entrusted\nto your guardianship through the precious years of early manhood, with a\nwell-grounded confidence that you would give them to eat not only of the\nTree of Knowledge, but also largely of the fruit of the Tree of\nLife:--in this Holy House too where he received his commission[382], and\nvowed before GOD and Man, that he would \"be ready,\" (the LORD being his\nhelper,) \"with all faithful diligence to drive away all erroneous and\nstrange doctrines contrary to GOD's Word:\"--before _such_ an audience,\nand in such a place, it must and _shall_ be lawful for me solemnly to\ndenounce as false and deadly,--full of nothing but pernicious\nconsequence,--that system of practical Infidelity which enjoys such\nunhappy popularity at this hour; which, under the mask of Science, and\nunder the specious name of Progress, is spreading like a fatal contagion\nthrough the length and breadth of the land; and which, if suffered to go\nunchastised and unchecked, will end by shaking both the Altar and the\nThrone!.... Look well to it, Sirs, if you care for the safety of the Ark\nof GOD. For my part,--like one of old time whose words I am not worthy\nto take upon my lips,--\"I cannot hold my peace: because thou hast heard,\nO my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war[383]!\"\n\nThe case is not altered,--rather is it made worse,--if this hostility to\nGOD's Truth proceeds from persons bearing Orders in the English Church.\n(\"O my soul, come not thou into their secret!\") The case is not altered:\nfor the requirements of Physical Science are still the plea; and\n_Divines_, in _no_ sense, these men are, however unsuccessful they may\nprove in establishing their claim to the title of _philosophers_ either.\nNay, Sirs,--suffer one of yourselves to ask you, whether these\ndisgraceful developments are not the lawful result of your own\nincredible system, of sending forth, year by year, men to be teachers\nand professors of Divinity,--to whom you have yet never imparted _any\nTheological training whatever_[384].\n\nYou are requested to observe, that not only cannot GOD's Works\ncontradict GOD's Word,--simply because they are twin utterances of one\nand the same Divine Intelligence;--but also the deductions of Physical\nScience cannot possibly run counter to the decrees of\nTheology[385],--simply because they are respectively in a wholly diverse\nsubject-matter. Had Theology even _once_ delivered a Geological decree,\nor pretended even _once_ to pronounce upon any Astronomical problem;\nthen, indeed, there would be reason why her disciples should watch with\nalarm the rapid advance of Physical Science,--instead of hailing it, as\nthey do, with wonder and delight. Then, indeed, we should be constrained\nto admit that the day might be coming when Theology would have to\nreconsider the platform whereon she stands; and possibly to \"give way.\"\nBut it is an undeniable fact that there exist _no_ Theological dogmas on\nmatters Geological,--no, _not one!_ Theology cannot retreat from ground\non which she has never set foot. She cannot retract, what she has never\nadvanced, or recal the words which she has never spoken. The decrees of\nTheology are all confined to the Science of Theology,--and with _that_\nsubject-matter, the other Sciences have simply _no concern_. Their\noffice _there_, as I have again and again explained, is simply\nministerial; and when they enter the presence chamber of the great King,\nthey are bid not to draw too nigh. \"Put off thy shoes from off thy feet;\nfor the place whereon thou standest is holy ground!\"\n\nAnd how about Moral Science,--whom we beheld, a moment since, shrouded\nin her mantle, beneath the footstool of the ALMIGHTY;--afraid to look up\ninto His awful Face,--and not presuming to speak, unless called upon to\nbear her solemn witness to what she learned of Him \"in the\nbeginning?\"--Must we imagine _her_ too rising from her lowly seat, and\npresuming to sit in judgment upon the Author of her Being? Are we to\npicture her arraigning the Goodness of Him who commanded Abraham to slay\nhis son;--or the Justice of Him who sent Saul to destroy the\nAmalekites;--or the Mercy of Him who inspired certain of David's\nPsalms;--or the Wisdom of Him who made the everlasting Gospel the\nmysterious four-fold thing it is?--Then, were she to do so, we should\nperforce exclaim,--This judgment of thine cannot possibly be just! For\nthe echo _must_ resemble the voice which woke it! Other spirits must\nhave been intruding here; and the unholy din of their voices must have\ndrowned the clear, yet still and small utterance of ALMIGHTY GOD within\nthy breast!.... In other words, if there _be_ antagonism, Ethics,--not\nTheology, _but_ (_that which calls itself_) _Moral Science_,--must\ninstantly and hopelessly give way.\n\nFor doubtless, that inference of ours as to what had happened, would be\na true inference.--It _will_ be the fact, I fear, before the end of all\nthings; for it seems to be implied,--(a more heart-sickening sentence in\nall Scripture, I know not!),--that when the Son of Man cometh, He will\nnot find the Faith on the Earth[386]. And if not _the Faith_ (=t\u00ean\npistin=),--what then? _The Moral Sense?_ Hardly! for where was the Moral\nSense when she _let go_ the Faith?--It was the fact, (if I read the\nrecord rightly,) eighteen centuries ago: for children had then forgotten\ntheir duty to their Parents; and the sanctity of Marriage was unknown;\nand (O prime note of a darkened conscience!) men not only _did_ things\nworthy of Death, but \"_had pleasure in them that did them_.\" Read the\nfirst chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and say what was\n_then_ the condition of the Moral Sense in man. Tell me, while your\ncheek is yet burning, whether you think Moral Science was _then_\ncompetent to sit in judgment on a Revelation sent from the GOD of\nPurity, until GOD's own SON had republished the sanctions of the Moral\nLaw, and informed Man's conscience afresh!... No Sirs. We are told\nexpressly, that \"as they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge,\nGOD gave them over to a reprobate mind,\"--\"gave them up unto vile\naffections.\" And why? Hear the Apostle! It was because \"when they knew\nGOD, they glorified Him not as GOD; neither were thankful:\"--hence, they\nwere suffered to become vain in their imaginations, and, \"_their foolish\nheart was darkened!_\"--In other words, the candle of the LORD, the light\nof conscience within them, was well nigh _put out_.\n\nThis will explain the reason why, when \"THE WORD was made flesh and\ndwelt among us,\" He so frequently delivered precepts,--yea, preached\nwhole Sermons,--on what would now-a-days be called mere \"Morality.\" He\nwas _republishing the Moral Law_. He was graving afresh those letters\nwhich had been wellnigh worn out through tract of Time, and the wear and\ntear of Man's ungoverned lusts.--Hence, to this hour, when question is\nraised of Right and Wrong,--the appeal is made, by the common consent of\nChristian men, _not_ to the inner consciousness of the creature, but to\nthe Creator's external Revelation of His mind and will. Let abler men\nexplain to us what we mean when we talk about Immutable Morality. I am\nby no means sure that I understand myself. Sure only am I that it will\ncarry us a very little way. Aristotle would never have made the average\nmoral sense of mankind his standard, had _he_ known of a =logos\ntheopneustos=. The principles of Morality do indeed seem to be fixed and\neternal;--=aei pote z\u00ea tauta=:--but it is no longer true, =oudeis oiden\nex hotou 'phan\u00ea=. Ever since the Gospel came into the world, _general\nopinion_ has ceased to be the standard of Truth: for the Bible has\nsimply superseded it; and put forth a standard to which \"general\nopinion\" itself must bow. \"_I_ am the Way, _the Truth_, and the Life.\"\nSo spake the Eternal SON while yet on Earth. And He foresaw that there\nwould come a day when the world would still ask, with Pilate, \"What is\nTruth?\" Accordingly, we heard his solemn reply in this Morning's Second\nLesson--\"THY WORD,\"--\"THY WORD is Truth.\" ... \"GOD made two great\nlights,\" I grant you: but what I maintain is, that He made \"_the greater\nLight_ to rule _the Day_.\"\n\nAnd therefore are we very bold to assert that it is all too late for\nmen _now_ to vaunt the authority of the Moral Sense, as a thing to be\nset up against the fixed and immutable Revelation of GOD'S mind and\nwill. \"The sufficiency of Natural Religion is a paradox of modern\ninvention, and the boast of it comes with an ill grace, and under great\nsuspicions, so late in the day of trial[387].\" Aye, it comes all too\nlate. Here in England, (GOD be praised!) the moral sense is indeed\nstrong. Is it _as_ strong, think you, among those continental nations\nwhich are under the spiritual yoke of Rome? Is it as strong among the\nHindoos? Is it as strong among the savage inhabitants of central\nAustralia?... Perceive you not that if Moral Science speaks with a loud\nand clear voice in Christian lands, it is because there the Moral Sense\nhas been in those lands informed afresh by Revelation? \"That the\nprinciples of Natural Religion have come to be so far understood and\nadmitted, may fairly be taken for one of the effects of the\nGospel[388].\" The echoes of the voice of GOD are now so distinct, only\nbecause GOD hath suffered His awful voice to be heard on earth again:\nand if among ourselves those echoes are the loudest and the clearest, is\nit not because among ourselves the Bible is read the most?\n\n\"The fact\" (says the thoughtful writer already quoted,)--\"the fact is\nnot to be denied; the Religion of Nature _has_ had the opportunity of\nrekindling her faded taper by the Gospel light,--whether furtively or\nunconsciously availed of. Let her not dissemble the obligation, and make\na boast of the splendour, as though it were originally her own; or had\nalways, in her hands, been sufficient for the illumination of the\nWorld.\"--\"It is not to be imagined that men fail to profit by the light\nthat has been shed upon them, though they have not always the integrity\nto own the source from which it comes; or though they may turn their\nback upon it, whilst it fills the very atmosphere in which they move,\nwith glory[389].\"\n\nI say, therefore, that it is _all too late_ to vaunt the supremacy of\nConscience as opposed to Revelation,--Moral as opposed to Theological\nScience. Moral Science owes all its renewed strength and vigour to\nTheology. And so, were Moral Science to dare call in question, (as she\nsometimes _has_ done, and may dare to do again!), the Morality of the\nBible,--we should find her monstrous image nowhere so fitly as in that\nof the man whose withered hand CHRIST healed in the Synagogue,--if the\nsame man had proved such a wretch, as straightway to lift up his arm\nwith intention to smite his Benefactor and his GOD.\n\nPhysical Science therefore, (for the last time!)--_all_ the other\nSciences,--Moral Science not excepted,--are the handmaids of Theological\nScience: and Morality, to which we omitted before to assign an office,\nwe have stationed somewhere beneath the footstool, which is before the\nThrone, of the Most High.--But this day's Sermon,--(and with these words\nI conclude, sorry to have felt obliged to detain you so long!)--_this_\nDay's Sermon has had for its object to remind you, that THE BIBLE is\nnone other than _the voice of Him that sitteth upon the Throne_! Every\nBook of it,--every Chapter of it,--every Verse of it,--every word of\nit,--every syllable of it,--(_where_ are we to _stop_?)--every letter of\nit--is the direct utterance of the Most High!--=Pasa graph\u00ea theopneustos=.\n\"Well spake the HOLY GHOST, by the mouth of\" the many blessed Men who\nwrote it.--The Bible is none other than _the Word of GOD_: not some part\nof it, more, some part of it, less; but all alike, the utterance of Him\nwho sitteth upon the Throne;--absolute,--faultless,--unerring,--supreme!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    =Eg\u00f4 men oun i\u00f4ta hen \u00ea mian keraian ou pisteu\u00f4 ken\u00ean einai thei\u00f4n\n    math\u00eamat\u00f4n.=\n\nORIGENES, Comment. in S. Matth. tom. xvi. c. 12. p. 734.\n\n    =Tauta moi eir\u00eatai ... pros systasin tou m\u00eaden mechri syllab\u00eas argon ti\n    einai t\u00f4n theopneust\u00f4n rh\u00eamat\u00f4n.=\n\nBASILIUS, in Hex. Hom. vi. c. 11. tom. i. p. 61 c.\n\n    Scriptur\u00e6 quidem perfect\u00e6 sunt, quippe a VERBO DEI, et SPIRITU ejus\n    dict\u00e6.\n\nIREN\u00c6US, Contr. H\u00e6r. lib. ii. c. xxviii. 2.\n\n    =M\u00eademia hypenanti\u00f4sis \u00ea atopia en tois theiois logois.=\n\nMETHODIUS, Tyrius Episcopus, ap. Routh Reliqq. t. v. p. 351.\n\n    =Esti gar en tois t\u00f4n Graph\u00f4n rh\u00eamasin ho Kyrios.=\n\nATHANASIUS, ad Marcellinum.\n\n    =HOsa h\u00ea theia graph\u00ea legei, tou Pneumatos eisi tou HAgiou ph\u00f4nai.=\n\nGREGORIUS NYSSEN, Contr. Eunom. Orat. vi.\n\n    Cedamus igitur et consentiamus auctoritati Sanct\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6, qu\u00e6\n    nescit falli nec fallere.\n\nAUGUSTINUS, De Peccator. Merit. lib. i. c. 22.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[330] Preached in Christ-Church Cathedral, 25th Nov. 1860.\n\n[331] =Pasai hai theopneustoi graphai=,--as it is worded in the Epistle\nsent by the Council of Antioch in the case of Paul of Samosata, A.D.\n269. (Routh _Reliqq._ iii. 292.) See Middleton _on the Greek Article_,\n(Rose's ed.) _in loc._ And so, in effect, Wordsworth and Ellicott.--It\nis right to add that it has been contended that =pasa graph\u00ea= = \"the\nwhole of Scripture.\" See Lee _on Inspiration_, p. 263, (note.) So\nAthanasius seems to have taken it: =Pasa h\u00ea kath' h\u00eamas graph\u00ea, palaia te\nkai kain\u00ea, theopneustos esti=. (_Ep. ad Marcell._ i. 982.)\n\n[332] That =theopneustos= is the predicate, seems sufficiently obvious.\nSo Athanasius, in the passage above quoted. So Gregory of Nyssa: =dia\ntouto pasa graph\u00ea theopneustos legetai, dia to t\u00eas theias empneuse\u00f4s=\n=einai didaskalian=. (_Contr. Eunom._ Orat. VI. ii. 605.) Amphilochius,\nBishop of Iconium, quotes the place in the same way.--Basil also,\nsaying--=Pasa graph\u00ea theopneustos kai \u00f4phelimos, dia touto syngrapheisa\npara tou Pneumatos=, (_Hom. in Psalm._ I. i. 90,)--clearly adopts the\nconstruction assumed in the text.--Ambrose (_De Spir. Sancto_, lib. II.\nc. 16. ii. 688,) says,--\"In Scriptura Divina, =theopneustos= omnis ex hoc\ndicitur, quod Deus inspiret qu\u00e6 locutus est Spiritus.\" (The above are\nfrom Lee _on Inspiration_, which see, pp. 260, 493, 599.)--Tertullian\n(quoted by Tisch.) says, \"Legimus omnem Scripturam \u00e6dificationi habilem,\ndivinitus inspirari.\"--A few modern scholars have suggested that\n=theopn.= may be an epithet, not a predicate. The _doctrine_ will remain\nthe same either way; for the meaning of the place can only be, \"Every\nScripture, _being_ inspired, is also _profitable_,\" &c. This is Origen's\nview: but his criticism is not in point, inasmuch as he read the text\ndifferently, (omitting the =kai=.) Lee aptly compares the construction\nof =pan ktisma Theou kalon, kai ouden apobl\u00eaton=. (1 Tim. iv. 4.)\n\n[333] Thess. ii. 13.\n\n[334] 1 Cor. ii. 13.\n\n[335] 2 St. Pet. iii. 16,--where see Wordsworth.\n\n[336] 1 Cor. vii. 40.\n\n[337] 1 Cor. vii. 10.\n\n[338] 1 Cor. vii. 6. (=Touto de leg\u00f4 kata syngn\u00f4m\u00ean, ou kat' epitag\u00ean.=)\n\n[339] St. Matth. xix. 6 (= St. Mark x. 9:) and the following\nplaces,--St. Matth. v. 32: xix. 9 (= St. Mark x. 11, 12.): St. Luke xvi.\n18.\n\n[340] Montfaucon, _pr\u00e6f. ad Euseb. Comm. in Psalm._, cap. x. See also\n\u00c6sch. Prom. V. v. 289.\n\n[341] St. Luke xvii. 9. So St. Mark x. 42. St. Luke viii. 18. St. John\nv. 39.\n\n[342] Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 9: Gal. ii. 9: Heb. iv. 1.\n\n[343] =To en autois Pneuma Christou=.--1 St. Pet. i. 11.\n\n[344] =hypo Pneumatos HAgiou pheromenoi elal\u00easan hoi hagioi Theou\nanthr\u00f4poi.=--2 St. Pet. i. 21. (_lit._ \"impelled,\"--like a ship before\nthe wind.)\n\n[345] =proeipe to Pneuma to HAgion dia stomatos Dabid=.--Acts i. 16.\n\n[346] =kath\u00f4s legei to Pneuma to HAgion=.--Heb. iii. 7.\n\n[347] =hypo tou Theou=.--Heb. v. 10.\n\n[348] =Dabid eipen en t\u00f4 Pneumati t\u00f4 HAgi\u00f4.=--St. Mark xii. 36.\n\n[349] =ho Theos ho poi\u00easas ton ouranon kai t\u00ean g\u00ean kai t\u00ean thalassan kai\npanta ta en autois, ho dia stomatos Dabid tou paidos sou eip\u00f4n=.--Acts\niv. 24, 25.\n\n[350] =to Pneuma to HAgion elal\u00ease dia H\u00easaiou tou proph\u00eatou=.--Acts\nxxviii. 25.\n\n[351] =martyrei de h\u00eamin kai to Pneuma to HAgion=--Heb. x. 15, quoting\nJer. xxxi. 33, 34.\n\n[352] =ho de Theos ... prokat\u00eangeile dia stomatos pant\u00f4n t\u00f4n proph\u00eat\u00f4n\nautou pathein ton Christon=.--Acts iii. 18.\n\n[353] =Kyrios ho Theos tou Isra\u00eal ... elal\u00ease dia stomatos t\u00f4n hagi\u00f4n t\u00f4n\nap' ai\u00f4nos proph\u00eat\u00f4n autou=.--St. Luke i. 68, 70.\n\n[354] =touto d\u00ealountos tou Pneumatos tou HAgiou.=--Heb. ix. 8.\n\n[355] =ou gar este hymeis hoi lalountes, alla to Pneuma to HAgion.=--St.\nMark xiii. 11.\n\n[356] =ou gar hymeis este hoi lalountes, alla to Pneuma tou Patros hym\u00f4n to\nlaloun en hymin.=--St. Matth. x. 20.\n\n[357] =epei dokim\u00ean z\u00eateite tou en emoi lalountos Christou.=--2 Cor.\nxiii. 3.\n\n[358] Rev. B. Jowett, in _E. and R._,--p. 345. Yet see Acts iii. 18, 21.\n\n[359] Dr. Temple, in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 25.\n\n[360] _Contra Marcion_, sect. I. p. 9.\n\n[361] See the first foot-note, p. 53. [Our 330]\n\n[362] St. John xix. 14.\n\n[363] St. Mark xv. 25.\n\n[364] The passage may be seen in John Bois' _Vet. Interpretis cum Bez\u00e2\naliisque recentioribus collatio_, (1655,) p. 333.\n\n[365] See a Dissertation by Dr. Townson at the end of his admirable book\non the Gospels.\n\n[366] Viz. St. John i. 39: iv. 6, 52: xix. 14.\n\n[367] And yet, we hear it asserted that we cannot \"suppose the Spirit of\nabsolute Truth\" \"to suggest accounts _only to be reconciled in the way\nof hypothesis and conjecture_.\"--_E. and R._, p. 179.\n\n[368] E.g. Gen. xxiv. 2-8, compared with ver. 37-41; and again, ver.\n12-14, compared with ver. 42-44. Again, Gen. xlii. 10-13, compared with\nver. 31, 32: and again, ver. 14-16, compared with ver. 33, 34. Again,\nGen. xlii. 36-8, compared with xliv. 27-29, &c., &c., &c.\n\n[369] Instances of this will be very familiar to every attentive student\nof the Gospels. Thus St. Matth. xxvi. 68 implies acquaintance with a\nminute circumstance which is stated in St. Luke xxii. 64:--St. Matth. x.\n13 _implies_ what is _expressed_ in St. Luke x. 5, &c., &c., &c.\n\n[370] St. Matth. xxvii. 9.\n\n[371] E.g. St. Jude ver. 14, 15.\n\n[372] Is. lii. 7, and Nahum i. 15.--Is. ii. 2, 3, 4, and Micah iv. 1, 2,\n3.--Micah iv. 6, and Zeph. iii. 19.--Is. xi. 9, and Hab. ii. 14.--Micah\niii. 12, and Jer. xxvi. 18, &c., &c.\n\n[373] E.g. Jer. xxiii. 5 and Zech. vi. 13.\n\n[374] See Appendix (C).\n\n[375] See Appendix (D).\n\n[376] See Appendix (E).\n\n[377] The Rev. H. Alford, Dean of Canterbury.\n\n[378] Ezek. iii. 2, 3.\n\n[379] Hooker, _Serm._ v. \u00a7 4. (_Works_, vol. iii. p. 663.)\n\n[380] St. Matth. v. 5.\n\n[381] Professor Kingsley's Sermon,--\"_Why should we pray for fair\nWeather?_\"\n\n[382] See at the foot of p. 53, note (a). [Our 330]\n\n[383] Jer. iv. 19.\n\n[384] The complaint is a very old one. See Pearson's _Minor Works_, vol.\ni. pp. 429-30.\n\n[385] It becomes necessary to explain, that on the Sunday after the\ndelivery of the foregoing Sermon, a Sermon was preached _directly\ncontravening its teaching_. Next week, it became the present writer's\nduty to address the same auditory,--which will explain as much of what\nfollows in the present Sermon, (including something at p. 79,) as may\nseem to require explanation. It was impossible to proceed with the\nargument, until what had been advanced of a directly opposite tendency\nhad been thus disposed of.\n\n[386] St. Luke xviii. 8.\n\n[387] Davison's _Discourses on Prophecy_,--p. 7.\n\n[388] _Ibid._\n\n[389] Davison's _Discourses on Prophecy_,--p. 8.--The following passage\nis from Bp. Horsley's _Primary Charge to the Clergy of Rochester_,\n(1796,):--\"The question in this case is not abstract,--what Reason _may\nhave_ the ability to do. The question is upon a matter of fact,--_what\nshe did_. Were these things, in point of fact, man's own discovery?--The\nsacred history is explicit that they were not. And notwithstanding the\nmany useful lessons of Morality we find in the writings of the heathen\nsages,--the many eloquent discourses upon providence, and the\nimmortality of the soul,--the many subtile disquisitions upon the great\nquestions of necessity and moral freedom, upon fate and chance,--I am\npersuaded, that had it not been for the early communications of the\nCreator with mankind, Man never would have raised the conceptions of his\nmind to the idea of a God; he never would have dreamt of the immaterial\nprinciple within himself; and he never would have formed any general\nnotions of Right and Wrong in the abstract; he would have had no\nReligion, perhaps no Morality.... The prudent dispensers of the Word\nwill resort to Revelation for his first principles, as well as for more\nmysterious truths. He will not trust to philosophy for any discoveries.\nHe will suffer philosophy to be nothing more than his assistant in the\nstudy of the inspired Word. She must herself be instructed by those\nlively oracles before she can be qualified to take part in the\ninstruction of men. To lay the foundation of Revelation upon any\nprevious discoveries of Reason, is in fact to make Reason the superior\nteacher. It is not improbable, that Idolatry itself had its first\nbeginning in an early adoration of this phantom of Natural\nReligion,--the idol, in later ages, of impolitic metaphysical\nDivines.\"--_Charges_, pp. 50, 51.--Bp. Butler says the same thing, but\nmore briefly, in his _Analogy_, P. II., c. ii.: also P. I., c. vi.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON IV.[390]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTHE PLENARY INSPIRATION OF EVERY PART OF THE BIBLE, VINDICATED AND\nEXPLAINED.--NATURE OF INSPIRATION.--THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nST. JOHN xvii. 17.\n\n_Thy Word is Truth._\n\n\nI thankfully avail myself of the opportunity which, unexpected and\nunsolicited, so soon presents itself, to proceed with the subject which\nwas engaging our attention when I last occupied this place.\n\nLet me remind you of the nature of the present inquiry, and of the\nprogress which we have already made.\n\nTaking Holy Scripture for our subject, and urging, as best we knew how,\nits paramount claims on the daily attention of the younger men,--who at\npresent are our hope and ornament; to be hereafter, as we confidently\nbelieve, our very crown and joy;--even while we held in our hands that\nvolume which our Fathers were content to call the volume of Inspiration,\nwe were constrained to recollect that its claim to be inspired has of\nlate years been repeatedly called in question. It has even become the\nfashion to cavil at almost everything which the Bible contains. We are\ngrown so exceedingly wise, have made so many strange discoveries, and\nhave become so clear-sighted, that the more advanced among us are kindly\nbent on disabusing the minds of their less gifted brethren of that most\nvenerable delusion of all,--(for it is coeval with Christianity,)--that\nthe Bible is in any special sense the Word of GOD. I do not say that\nTheologians talk thus. But pretenders to Natural Science, knowing\nnothing whatever of Divinity, and therefore intruding into a realm of\nwhich they do not understand so much as the language;--together with,\n(sad to relate!) men bearing a commission in the Church of CHRIST, (and\nwho ought therefore to be building up, where they are seeking to\ndestroy,)--are employing the powers which GOD has given them, in this\ndirection. It becomes indispensable, in consequence, that we should say\nsomewhat on behalf of those Oracles which have been so vigorously\nimpugned; and it should not seem strange if we oppose to such\ndestructive dogmatism, the most uncompromising severity of counter\nstatement.\n\nThe objections which have been raised against the Bible, although they\nhave been industriously gleaned from various quarters, will all be most\neffectually met, I am persuaded, by getting men to acquaint themselves\nwith the contents of the deposit itself. And yet, inasmuch as it is the\nnature of doubts, when once injected into the mind, to fester and to\nspread; inasmuch also as the bold confidence of plausible assertion,\nespecially when recommended by men of reputation, and set off with some\nability and skill, is apt to impose on youth and inexperience;--we seem\nreduced to a kind of necessity, to examine; and, as far as the limits of\na sermon will allow, to refute; the charges which have been so\nindustriously brought forward against the Bible.\n\nThe favourite objections of the day come partly from without,--partly\nfrom within. The classification is not exact, but it may serve to assist\nthe memory. One class of objections is, in a manner, destructive,--for\nit results in entire disbelief of the Bible:--the other class,\nsuggesting imperfections, results in a low and disparaging estimate of\nits contents. When exception is taken against certain portions of Holy\nScripture, on the ground of discoveries in Physical Science,--of the\ndictates of the Moral Sense,--of the supremacy of mechanical Laws,--and\nthe like,--we consider that the supposed difficulties come _from\nwithout_. As much as we care to say on this class of objections has\neither been already offered, or must be reserved for a subsequent\noccasion[391].--When doubts are insinuated, arising out of the\nsubject-matter of the Bible, we consider the difficulties to proceed\n_from within_. The apparent contradictions of the Evangelists, are of\nthis nature. Supposed errors or misstatements, come under the same head.\nVery imperfectly, yet sufficiently for our immediate purpose, we have\ntouched upon both subjects. Those portions of the Old Testament which\nsavour in the highest degree of the marvellous, must be reserved for\nseparate consideration[392]. To-day I propose to speak of another kind\nof objection; but which arises, like the others, out of the\nsubject-matter of the Bible. Moreover, it is the kind of difficulty\nwhich most readily presents itself to any who listened with unwilling\nears to my last discourse. Some here present may remember my repeated\nand unequivocal assertion that Holy Scripture is inspired from the Alpha\nto the Omega of it;--not some parts more, some parts less, but all\nequally, and all to overflowing;--that we hold it to be, not generally\ninspired, but particularly; that we see not how with logical consistency\nwe can avoid believing the words as well as the sentences of it; the\nsyllables as well as the words; the letters as well as the syllables;\nevery \"jot\" and every \"tittle\" of it, (to use our LORD'S expression,) to\nbe divinely inspired:--and further, that until the contrary has been\n_proved_, we shall maintain that no misapprehension or misstatement, no\nerror or blot of any kind, can possibly exist within its pages:--that we\nhold the Bible to be as much the Word of GOD, as if GOD spoke to us\ntherein with human lips;--and that, as the very utterance of the HOLY\nGHOST, we cannot _but_ think that it must be absolute, faultless,\nunerring, supreme.\n\nI. To this, it has been objected as follows:--\n\nYou cannot possibly mean what you say. You will not pretend to assert\nthat the list of the Dukes of Edom[393], is as much inspired,--inspired\nin _the same sense_,--as the Gospel of St. John.--To which I make\nanswer, that I believe one to be just as much inspired as the other: and\nbefore I leave off, I will endeavour to bring my hearers to the same\nopinion. In the meantime, it is only fair to the objector, to hear him\nout: to follow his guidance; and to see whither he would lead us. It\nwill be quite competent for us _then_ to retrace our steps; to point out\n\"a more excellent way;\" and to entreat him, with all a brother's\nearnestness, to reconsider the matter, and to follow _us_.\n\nThe objection may, I believe, be fairly stated as follows.--It is\nunreasonable to consider any part of Holy Scripture inspired which the\nauthor was competent to write without the aid of Inspiration. Just as\nyou would not multiply miracles needlessly, and ascribe to special\nDivine interference results which might be otherwise accounted for, so\nneither ought you to call in the aid of Inspiration where it may clearly\nbe dispensed with. A genealogy,--a catalogue of names, whether of places\nor persons,--whatever may reasonably be suspected to have been an\nextract from public Archives;--nothing of this sort need you, nor\nindeed, properly speaking, _can_ you, call \"inspired.\" More than that.\nAll mere narratives of ordinary transactions,--or indeed of transactions\nextraordinary;--whatever, in short, a writer, having first beheld it\nwith his eyes, appears to have simply described with his pen, it is\nunreasonable to regard as the work of Inspiration. For it is plain to\ncommon sense,--(so at least I have heard it said,) that there is much,\nboth in the Old and in the New Testament, the delivery of which required\nno other than the ordinary gifts of men:--actual observation, good\nmemory, high intellect, clearness of statement, honesty of purpose. Look\nat the preface to St. Luke's Gospel. It seems only to convey that the\nauthor of it believed himself to be bringing out a superior edition of a\nnarrative which had already been attempted by many. I would apply, (it\nis said,) to the whole of the Old Testament the same observations which\nI apply to the New. There are parts which evidently required nothing but\nopportunity of experience, or research, and the ordinary qualities of a\ntrustworthy historian.--This then is the way the case is put. There is\nno intentional irreverence on the part of the objector: no conscious\nhostility to GOD'S Truth. Very much the reverse. But having once\nassumed that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is not to be regarded as\nan inspired document, he has logical consistency enough to perceive that\nhe cannot exactly stop _there_. And so, he carries his speculations a\nlittle further. He tries to take (what he calls) a \"common sense\" view\nof the question. He says that he thinks it a dangerous proceeding on the\npart of the preacher to insist on the infallibility of Apostles and\nEvangelists. Meanwhile, I suspect that he is not by any means without a\nsuspicion that he is on a platform beset with _far greater dangers_,\nhimself. He has walked a little this way, and that way; and his \"common\nsense\" has shewn him that there is an ugly precipice on every side. Nay;\nhe perceives that the ground trembles, and cracks, and shakes,--and even\nyawns beneath his feet.\n\nFor I request you to observe, that there is absolutely no middle state\nbetween Inspiration and non-inspiration. If a writing be inspired, it is\nDivine: if it be not inspired, it is human. It is absurd to shirk the\nalternative. _Some_ parts of the Bible, it is allowed, _are_ inspired;\nother parts, it is contended, are _not_. Let it be conceded then, for\nthe moment, that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is _not_ an inspired\nwriting; and let it be ejected from the Bible accordingly. We must by\nstrict parity of reasoning, eject the xth chapter of Genesis, which\nenumerates the descendants of Japheth, of Ham, and of Shem, with the\ncountries which they severally occupied,--that truly venerable record\nand outline of the prim\u00e6val settlement of the nations! The ten\nPatriarchs before, and the ten after Noah: the many enumerations\ncontained in the Book of Numbers: much of the two Books of Chronicles:\ntogether with the Genealogies of our SAVIOUR as given by St. Matthew and\nSt. Luke.\n\nIt is clear that the history of the Flood,--very much of it at\nleast,--is of the same nature: a kind of calendar as it were, and record\nof dates.\n\nBut we may go on faster, and use the knife far more freely. Every thing\nin the Pentateuch of which Moses had been an eye or ear-witness, and\nwhich he set down from his own personal knowledge, may be eliminated\nfrom the Bible, as not inspired. According to the principle already\nenunciated by yourself, I call upon you to excise from the Book of GOD'S\nLaw, Exodus, and Leviticus, and Numbers, and Deuteronomy: those passages\nonly excepted which are prophetical,--as the xxxiiird of Deuteronomy.\nJoshua must go of course: for if the son of Nun did not write the Book\nwhich goes under his name,--(as the wise men in Germany say, or used to\nsay, he did not[394],)--of course the narrative is not authentic; and if\nhe _did_, _you_ say that it ought not to be regarded as inspired. Judges\nand Ruth cannot hope to stand; for they are mere stories,--narratives of\nevents which any contemporary author who enjoyed \"actual observation,\ngood memory, high intellect, clearness of statement, and honesty of\npurpose,\" was abundantly qualified--(according to _your_ view of the\nmatter)--to commit to writing. The Books of Samuel and of Kings cannot\nbe claimed as the work of Inspiration, of course. Chronicles we have got\nrid of already. No imaginable plea can be invented for the Books of\nEzra, of Nehemiah, and of Esther; those writings having evidently\nrequired nothing (to use your own phrase) but \"opportunity of experience\nor research, and the ordinary qualities of a trustworthy historian.\" The\nprophetical books you spare; natural piety suggesting that since\n\"Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of GOD\nspake as they were moved by the HOLY GHOST[395];\"--the writings of\nIsaiah and the rest, must be retained as inspired. We expunge those\nportions only which are simply historical and moral; since to these, by\nthe hypothesis, the spirit of Inspiration cannot be thought to have\nextended.\n\nWe come now to the New Testament; and two of the Gospels are found to be\nmutilated already, by the elimination of one chapter of St. Matthew and\none of St. Luke. But on the principle that personal observation, a good\nmemory, honesty of purpose, and so forth, are the only requirements\nnecessary, we may proceed to carry forward the work of excision with\nspirit, so that we be but careful to use discernment. For example, we\nmay begin with the Call of St. Matthew, and the Feast which he made to\nour LORD in his own house. _Who_ so competent to relate this, as the\nEvangelist himself? Whenever, in short, the Twelve were present, St.\nMatthew, (as one of the Twelve,) may be assumed to have written from\npersonal observation; and _that_ portion of his narrative is to be\nrejected accordingly as uninspired.\n\nIt is painful to anticipate what will be the fate of St. John's Gospel,\non this principle,--together with most of the Divine Discourses therein\nrecorded. Not, to be sure, that we shall lose the conversation with\nNicodemus, nor that with the woman of Samaria; because St. John was not\npresent when either of those conversations took place: but all, from the\nxivth to the xviith chapter inclusive; as well as the discourse in the\nvith chapter, must of course be dismissed. The matter of these\ndiscourses, it will be urged,--(with more of logical consistency, alas!\nthan of essential truth,)--might have been faithfully handed down by St.\nJohn without any extraordinary gift. He was bound to our LORD by more\nthan ordinary affection. He was ever nearest to Him. Is it not\nconceivable, (we are asked,) that these two causes, aided by a retentive\nmemory, would at least _enable_ him to give us the record which he has\ngiven?\n\nQuite superfluous must it be to state that the Acts of the Apostles,\nunder the expurgatory process which now engages our attention, will\ncease to be regarded as an inspired Book; and therefore must be at once\ndisconnected from the confessedly inspired portions of Holy\nScripture.--St. Paul's Epistles, you say, on the contrary, are probably\ninspired, and therefore are probably to be spared.... And I really think\nwe need go no further. If your own handling of Holy Scripture,--your own\nmethod, by yourself applied,--be not a _reductio ad absurdum_, I know of\nnothing in the world which is.... Look only at that handful of mutilated\npages in the hands of one who is supposed to be the impersonation of\n\"common sense;\" turn the tattered and mangled leaves over and over,\nwhich _you_ are pleased to call the Volume of Inspiration; and get all\nthe comfort and help out of it you can. But be not surprised to hear\nthat you are exposing yourself to the ridicule of the sane part of\nMankind,--even while haply you are acting a part which makes the Angels\nweep.... How much of the Bible will remain, when _Science_, (Physical,\nMoral, Historical,) has further done _her_ work, I forbear now to\ninquire: but I shrewdly suspect that she will leave you very little\nbeyond the back and the covers.\n\nLet us not be told, (as we doubtless shall,) that the human parts of\nScripture need not be _ejected_ from the Canon because they are human:\nthat they may be allowed to stand with the rest, although uninspired;\nand the like. About this, _we_ at least are competent judges. We are now\nbent on discovering how much of Holy Scripture is _the Word of GOD_; and\nwe refuse, for the moment, to regard as such, and to retain, a single\npassage which, being (as you say) uninspired, is simply _the word of\nMan_.\n\nII. Let me now be permitted to lay before you a somewhat different view\nof the office of Inspiration. Since the illumination of Science, falsely\nso called, and the process of Common Sense, would seem to have resulted\nin the extinction of the deposit, I ask your patience while I try to\nshew, that common sense, informed by a somewhat loftier Theological\nInstinct, may give such an account of the matter as will enable us to\npreserve every word of the deposit entire.\n\nYou call my attention to the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom, and tell me\nthat it required no supernatural aid to enable Moses to write it. How,\nmay I ask, do you ascertain that fact? No specimens of the documentary\nevidence of the land of Seir in the days of Moses, are known now to\nexist on the earth's surface. You therefore know absolutely nothing\nwhatever about the matter of which you speak so confidently.\n\nBut, that we may grapple with the question fairly, let us come down from\nan age concerning which neither of us knows anything beyond what the\nBible teaches, to a period with which all are familiar, and to documents\nof which we know at least a little. It will suit your purpose far better\nthat you should instance the two Genealogies of our LORD,--of which you\nalso say that it is impossible to maintain that they exhibit the work of\nInspiration in the same sense as when some lofty statement of Christian\ndoctrine comes before us. Indeed, you deny that they are inspired at\nall. I, on my side, am willing to admit that it is quite possible,--even\nprobable,--that the first and the third Evangelist had access to extant\ndocuments of which they respectively availed themselves, when they\nrecorded our LORD'S descent.\n\nBut, do you not perceive that the great underlying fallacy in all you\nhave been saying, is your own wholly gratuitous assumption that you are\na competent judge of what _did_,--what did _not_,--require supernatural\naid to deliver? that whatever _seems_ as if it might have been written\nwithout Inspiration, _was_ therefore written without it?--I see so many\npractical inconveniences, or rather I see such glaring absurdity,\nresulting from the supposition that Inspiration goes and comes before an\nauthentic document, that I am constrained to think that you are\naltogether mistaken in the office which you assign to Inspiration,--in\nthe kind of notion which you seem to entertain concerning its nature.\n\nAn Evangelist, if you please, is inspired. It becomes necessary to\nintroduce a genealogy. Following the Divine guidance, (the nature of\nwhich, neither you nor I know anything at all about,) he applies in a\ncertain quarter, and obtains access to a certain document. Or he repairs\nto a well-known repository of public archives, and out of the whole\ncollection he is guided to make choice of one particular writing. He\nproceeds to transcribe it,--omitting names (dropping three generations\nfor instance,)--or inserting names (the second Cainan for example,)--or,\nif you please, neither omitting nor inserting anything. The document,\n(suppose,) requires no correction whatever.--Well but, this man was\ninspired a moment ago, in what he was writing; and no reason has been\nshewn why he should not be inspired still. He has adopted a document, by\nincorporating it into his narrative. By transcribing it, he has made it\nhis own. I am at a loss to see that its claim to be an inspired writing,\nfrom that moment forward, is in any respect inferior to the rest of the\nnarrative in which it stands.\n\nYou are requested to remember that when we call the Bible an inspired\nbook, we mean nothing more than that the words of it are the very\nutterance of the HOLY SPIRIT;--that the Book is as much the Word of GOD\nas if high Heaven were open, and we heard GOD speaking to us with human\nvoice. All I am contending for _now_, is, that this is at least as true\nof one part of the Gospel as of another: that if it be true of anything\nin the Gospel, it is at least _as_ true of the Genealogy of CHRIST. The\n_subject-matter_ indeed is different; but it is a mere confusion of\nthought to infer therefrom a different degree of _Inspiration_. Let me\ntry and make this plainer by a few familiar illustrations.\n\n1. When the Sovereign reads a speech from the Throne, does she speak the\nwords of it in any _different sense_ from the words of a speech which\nshe has herself composed?--Nay, are words of investiture, mere words of\nform and state, in any _less degree spoken_, than words of confidence,\nand private friendship?\n\n2. Again. The substance of paper and the substance of gold, are widely\ndifferent. And yet, when paper has been subjected to a certain process,\nand stamped with a certain impress, there is practically _no difference\nwhatever_ between the value of what was, a moment ago, absolutely\nworthless, and an ingot of the purest gold.\n\n3. Consider how the case stands with a merely human author. An historian\nhas occasion to introduce into his narrative the descent of a House, or\nthe preamble of an Act, or any other lifeless thing. Does his\nresponsibility cease when he comes to it, and recommence immediately\nafterwards? Is he not responsible just to the same extent for _that_, as\nfor every other part of his story?\n\nThat he did not _compose it himself_, is certain: but _neither did he\ncompose the sayings which he has recorded of great men_.--True also is\nit that the edification to be derived from the pedigree is not so\ngreat,--certainly, not so obvious,--as from certain of the events which\nhe describes. But it is nevertheless henceforth an integral part of his\nhistory. He sought for it,--and he found it: he weighed it,--and he\napproved of it: he transcribed it,--and he interwove it into his\nnarrative. In a word, he adopted; and by adopting, he _made it his own_.\nHenceforth, it will be quoted as authentic, because it is found to have\nsatisfied _him_.\n\nThe utmost praise which can be accorded to any creature is, that it\nthoroughly fulfils the office whereunto God sends it. A genealogy is not\nintended to make men wise unto Salvation: the threats and promises of\nGOD'S Law are not intended to acquaint men with the descent of David's\nSon. But because _their offices_ are different, it does not follow that\n_their origin_ shall not he the same! Is a shoe-latchet in any sense\nless an article manufactured by Man, than a watch? Is the Archangel\nMichael, burning with glory, and intent on some celestial enterprise,\nwith twelve legions of glittering seraphs in his train;--is such a host\nas _that_, one atom more a creation of the ALMIGHTY than the handful of\nyellow leaves which flutter unheeded on the blast?\n\nNone of these figures present a strict parallel; and yet, successively,\nthey seem to set forth different aspects of the same case, with\nsufficient vividness and truth.... So bent am I on conveying to your\nminds the strong sense of certainty, the clear definite view, which I\ncherish for myself on this subject, that I take leave to add yet another\nillustration.\n\n4. If I commission a Servant to deliver a message,--is not the message\nwhich he delivers _mine_? If I give him words to deliver,--are not _the\nwords_ which he delivers _mine_? So obvious a proposition is no matter\nof opinion. You _cannot_ deny it. Nor,--(to apply the illustration to\nthe matter in hand,)--nor _do_ you deny it, probably, so far as\n_Prophecy_, (in the popular sense of the term,) is concerned: but you\nbegin to doubt, it seems, when any other function of the prophetic\noffice is in question. \"Any other function,\" I say; for, (as all men\nought to be aware,) a prophet,--(_nave_ in Hebrew, =proph\u00eat\u00eas= in\nGreek,)--does not, by any means, of necessity imply one who describes\n_future_ events. =Pro= does not denote futurity of time, but\nvicariousness of office. The =pro-ph\u00eat\u00eas= is one who speaketh =pro=, \"on\nbehalf of,\" \"in the person of,\" GOD; whether declaring things\npast,--(as when Moses describes the Creation of the World, the Fall of\nMan, the Patriarchal Age): things present,--(as when St. Luke, \"having\nhad perfect understanding of all things from the very first,\" writes of\nthem \"in order\"): things future,--(as when David, and Isaiah, and the\nrest of the goodly fellowship, \"testified beforehand the sufferings of\nCHRIST, and the glory that should follow[396].\") This is no arbitrary\nstatement, but a well-known fact, which modern unbelievers and ancient\nheathen writers have declared with sufficient plainness[397]. So long\nthen as the message which the Servant delivers is prophetic, you do not\nobject to the notion that it is GOD'S message; nay, that the words\nspoken are GOD'S words. You begin to doubt, it seems, when a collection\nof genealogies, (as the two Books of Chronicles;) or when a story like\nthat contained in the Book of Esther is concerned.\n\nBut what is this but very trifling, and mere childishness? The message\n_may_ be mine, it seems, if it be of a lofty character: it may _not_ be\nmine if it be of a homely, ordinary kind!--I send a message by my\nServant, and he delivers it faithfully: but whether it _is_ to be called\nmy message, or is _not_ to be called my message, is to depend entirely\non the subject-matter!... Thus, if a King, refusing to appear in person,\nshould issue a reprieve to prisoners under sentence of Death, a\nproclamation of Peace or of War, an address to the representatives of\nthe constitution, (Clergy, Lords, and Commons,) in parliament\nassembled,--the message would be _his_. But if, on the contrary, he were\nonly to send a few homely words, the expression of some wish or\nintention which has nothing that seems particularly royal in it,--then,\nthe message would _cease_ to be his!... I protest that as I am unable to\nsee the reasonableness of such a method of regarding things human, so am\nI at a loss to understand why men should so regard things Divine.\n\n5. This entire matter may be usefully illustrated by having recourse to\nan analogy which was established on a former occasion: namely, the\nanalogy between the _Written_ and the _Incarnate_ Word[398]. That our\nLORD JESUS CHRIST is at once very GOD and very Man, we all fully admit;\nalthough _the manner_ of the union of GODHEAD and Manhood in His one\nPerson we confess ourselves quite unable to comprehend. Even so, that\nthere is a human as well as a Divine element in Holy Scripture,--_who_\nso blind as to overlook? _who_ so weak as to deny? And yet, to dissect\nout that human element,--_who_ (but a fool) so rash as to attempt?... To\napply this to the matter before us. _Certain parts_ of Holy Scripture\nyou think, (for reasons to yourself best known,) are not to be looked\nupon as inspired in the same sense as the rest of the volume. Just as\nreasonably might you try to persuade me that our SAVIOUR was not _in the\nsame sense_ our SAVIOUR when He ate and drank at the Pharisees' board,\nas when He cast out devils and raised the dead. Was He not equally the\nIncarnate WORD at every stage of His earthly career; from the time that\nHe was laid in the manger, until the instant when He expired upon the\nCross? The degradation which He endured in Pilate's judgment-hall did\nnot affect the reality of the great truth that the GODHEAD was\nindissolubly joined to the Manhood in His Person. He was not less very\nGOD as well as very Man when some one spat upon Him, than at His\nTransfiguration and at His Ascension into Heaven!... Why then should the\nmean aspect and lowly office of certain parts of\nScripture,--(genealogical details and the narrative of what we think\nordinary occurrences,)--be supposed to disentitle those parts to the\npraise of being _as fully inspired as any thing in the whole compass of\nthe Bible?_\n\nI may remind you, in passing, that the narrative of Scripture, even in\nits humblest, and (to all appearance) most human parts, has a perpetual\nnote of Divinity set upon it. The historical portions are throughout\ninterspersed with indications that the writer is beholding the\ntransactions which he records, from a Divine, (not a human,) point of\nview. GOD is invariably, (sooner or later,) mentioned as the Agent; or\nthere is some reference made to GOD; or to GOD'S Word. As Butler\nexpresses it,--\"The general design of Scripture ... may be said to be,\nto give us an account of the world, in this one single view,--_as GOD'S\nworld_: by which it appears essentially distinguished from all other\nbooks, so far as I have found, except such as are copied from it[399].\"\n\nI entreat you therefore to disabuse your minds of the very weak,--aye\nand very fatal,--notion that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is\n_less_, or _in any different sense_, inspired, from the rest of the\nnarrative in which it stands. We may not multiply miracles needlessly,\nit is true; but neither may we deny the miraculous character of certain\ntransactions, (as the two Draughts of Fishes,) which, apart from the\nrecorded attendant circumstances, would not have been deemed\nmiraculous.--In truth, however, Holy Scripture, in one sense, is a\nmiracle from end to end; and if we may not multiply miracles needlessly,\ncertainly we are not at liberty to dismiss the recorded details of a\nsingle miracle, as of no account.--Consider also, I entreat you, whether\nit is credible that Inspiration should be a thing of such a nature, that\nit comes and goes,--is here and is gone,--once and again in the course\nof a single page. What? does it vanish, like lightning, when the\nEvangelist's pen has to record the title on the Cross,--to re-appear the\ninstant afterwards?\n\nThis allusion to the title on the Cross of our Blessed LORD, variously\ngiven by each of the four Evangelists, reminds me of the singular\nperversity of mankind when this subject of Inspiration is being treated\nof; and to this, I now particularly desire to invite your\nattention.--When a document is simply transcribed by the Evangelist, or\nmay be _supposed_ to have been merely transferred to his pages, men\nassert that so purely mechanical an act precludes the notion that\nInspiration has had any share in the transaction. Be it so!--Behold now,\nfour inspired writers exhibiting the brief title on our LORD'S Cross\nwith considerable verbal diversity; and you will hear the same critics\nopen-mouthed against the Evangelists' claim to Inspiration, for exactly\nthe opposite reason!--It is just so of places quoted from the Old\nTestament in the New. Faithful transcription, (we are told,) is in the\npower of all. What note of an inspired author have we here? But the\nplaces are _not_ faithfully transcribed. On the contrary. They exhibit\nevery possible degree of deflection from the original standard. And lo,\nthe Apostles of CHRIST are thought not to have quite understood\nGreek,--to have mistaken the sense of the Hebrew,--and to have been the\nvictims of a most capricious memory.--For the last time. Certain\nnarrative portions of Holy Scripture, (it is assumed,) could have been\nwritten without the aid of Inspiration; and therefore it is\nunphilosophical, (we are told,) to assign to them a divine original. But\nthe marvellous parts of Holy Scripture, which seem to claim a loftier\noriginal than man's unaided wit,--_these_ you view with suspicion, or\nyou deny!... \"Whereunto shall I liken the men of this generation?\"\n\nBefore dismissing the subject, I must ask you to observe, that this\narbitrary, irreverent method of approaching Holy Scripture, is\nabsolutely fatal; and can result in nothing but general unbelief. It\nconfessedly leaves the individual reader to decide what parts of the\nBible he thinks could, what parts could not, have been written without\nDivine assistance;--a point on which I am bold to say that he is not\ncompetent even to form an opinion. In other words, it constitutes every\nman the judge of how much of the Bible he will retain,--how much he will\nreject. To put the case yet more plainly, it makes every man a GOD to\nhimself, and the maker of his own Bible.--For, mark you, the exceptions\ntaken against a genealogy, or a catalogue of names, are just as\napplicable to the account of our LORD'S Discourses as given by St. John.\nOnce convince me that the function of Inspiration ceases when a\ngenealogy has to be set down,--because (say you) it requires no\nInspiration to enable an Evangelist to copy _written_ words;--and I\nshall have no difficulty in convincing myself that St. John's Gospel,\nfrom the xivth to the xviith chapters inclusive, is not\ninspired,--because I cannot _but_ infer that then neither can it require\nInspiration to enable an Evangelist to copy _spoken_ words.--The\noriginal fallacy, I repeat,--the =pr\u00f4ton pseudos=,--consists in your\nsupposing yourself a competent judge of the nature and office of\nInspiration; concerning which, in reality, you know nothing. You can but\nreverently examine the phenomena of the Book of Inspiration; remembering\nthat you have everything to learn.\n\nThe Bible, it cannot be too often repeated, too clearly borne in\nmind,--the Bible must stand or fall,--or rather, be received or\nrejected,--_as a whole_. A Divinity hath over-ruled it, that those many\nBooks of which it is composed should come to be spoken of collectively\nas if they were one Book. As it was formerly called =h\u00ea graph\u00ea=--\"the\nScripture,\"--so is it happily called \"the Bible\"--(the Book)--_now_.\n\"Moses--the Prophets--and the Psalms,\" was the recognized analysis of\nthe volume of the Old Testament. The Gospels, the Epistles, and the\nApocalypse, exhibits the sum of the contents of the New.--There is no\ndisjoining the Law from the Gospel. There is no disconnecting one Book\nfrom its fellows. There is no eliminating one chapter from the rest.\nThere is no taking exception against one set of passages, or supposing\nthat Inspiration has anywhere forgotten her office, or discharged it\nimperfectly. All the Books of the Bible must stand or fall together.\n\"Nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it[400].\" It is a\nfabric hard as adamant; and the gates of Hell will assuredly never\nprevail against it. But remove in thought a single stone; and in\nthought, that goodly work of Lawgivers and Judges--Kings and\nProphets--Evangelists and Apostles,--collapses into a shapeless and\nunmeaning ruin[401].\n\nNor may it occasion perplexity, or breed mistrust in any thoughtful mind\nto find this Book of GOD'S Law so complex in its character,--so various\nin its contents,--so fruitful in its difficulties. Might it not, on the\ncontrary, have been expected beforehand, that some analogy would have\nbeen recognizable between the general complexion of GOD'S Works and of\nGOD'S Word? While I behold the creatures of GOD so various,--their\nfunctions so marvellous,--their nature so little understood,--the very\npurpose of their creation so great a mystery;--shall I think it strange\nthat _that_ Book which is but another expression of GOD'S Mind and Will,\nproves diverse in texture, and difficult of interpretation?--Shall I\ngrow rebellious against the message, because the history of it is hid in\nthe long night of ages; say rather, in the counsels of GOD'S inscrutable\nwill? or shall I be incredulous that it comes from Heaven, because I see\nthe fingers of a Man's hand writing upon the plaister of the wall? or\nshall I despise those parts of it of which I cannot detect the medicinal\nvalue? As there are riddles in Nature, so are there riddles in Grace.\nAnomalies too, it may be, are discoverable in both worlds.--Give me\nleave to add, that as the microscope reveals unsuspected wonders in the\none, so does minute examination bring to light undreamed of perfections\nin the other also; unimagined proofs of divine wisdom, and skill.... But\nbeyond all things, there is perhaps this further thing which it behoves\nus to consider:--that the field of either is very vast; the\nsubject-matter very complex: and as, in one, many Professors are\nneeded,--(for the Animal kingdom and the Vegetable kingdom are realms\napart: the analysis of substances, and the structure of the Earth demand\nthe undivided attention of different minds;)--so does it fare with the\nother also. The languages of Scripture are in themselves a mighty study;\nand the collation of the Text is the portion of a long life. The Law of\nMoses would abundantly engross the time of one who should undertake to\nexplain its depths; as the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST would assuredly fill\nto overflowing the soul of another who should desire to appreciate its\nperfections. The Prophetic writings are a distinct field of labour. The\nsame may well be said of the Epistles of St. Paul. It would be easy to\nmultiply departments--; for I have said nothing yet of Sacred History;\nand above all, of Sacred Exegesis. But enough has been stated to\nintroduce the remark that considering how slenderly one man is able to\nlabour in all these various provinces, it behoves each one of us to be\nhumble; and certainly to be a vast deal more mistrustful of ourselves\nthan some of us unhappily seem to be; especially when the errand on\nwhich we propose to come abroad is the assailing of the authenticity, or\nthe morality, or the integrity, or the Inspiration, of any part of the\nBible. Our own amazing ignorance,--our many infirmities,--our faculties\nlimited on every side,--might well keep us humble in the presence of\nHim whose knowledge is infinite;--whose attributes are all\nperfections;--whose very Name is ALMIGHTY!--Shall we, on the contrary,\npresume to sit in judgment upon His Word, which claims to be none other\nthan the authentic record of His Providence,--the Revelation of His very\nmind and will?... Truly, in this behalf, beyond all others, we seem to\nstand in need of the solemn warning: \"Dangerous it were for the feeble\nbrain of Man to wade far into the doings of the Most High: whom although\nto know be life, and joy to make mention of His Name; yet our soundest\nknowledge is to know that we know Him not as indeed He is, neither can\nknow Him. And our safest eloquence concerning Him is our silence, when\nwe confess without confession that His glory is inexplicable; His\ngreatness above our capacity and reach. He is above, and we upon earth:\ntherefore it behoveth our words to be wary and few[402].\"\n\nAnd this brings me naturally back to the subject of my first Sermon from\nthis place; and enables me to conclude, as I began, with an earnest\nentreaty to the younger men present, that,--whatever their future\ndestination in life may be,--but especially if the Ministry is to be\ntheir high privilege, (and the blessedness of _that_ choice they can\nhave no idea of, until they prove it by experience!);--an entreaty, I\nsay, that they would _now_ be assiduous, and earnest, and regular, and\npunctual, and devout, in their daily study of one chapter of the\nBible.--And while you read the Bible, read it believing that you are\nreading an inspired Book:--not a Book inspired in parts only, but a Book\ninspired in _every_ part:--not a Book unequally inspired, but all\ninspired equally:--not a Book generally inspired,--the substance indeed\ngiven by the Spirit, but the words left to the option of the writers;\nbut the words of it, as well as the matter of it, all--all given by GOD.\nAs it is written,--\"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by _every\nword that proceedeth out of the mouth of GOD_.\"\n\nI illustrated sufficiently, last time, in what way fulness of\nInspiration is consistent with the expression of individual character:\neven while I availed myself of the ancient illustration that an inspired\nwriter is like an instrument in the harper's hand[403]. I did not, of\ncourse, \"intend thereby to affirm that the Writers of Holy Scripture\nwere _constrained_ to write, without any volition or consciousness on\ntheir part.... ALMIGHTY GOD, while He _inspired_ the Writers of\nScripture, did not impair their moral and intellectual faculties, nor\ndestroy their personal identity[404].\" Let me not be told therefore that\nthis is to advocate a mechanical theory of Interpretation. Theory I have\nnone[405]. The Bible comes to me as the Word of GOD; and, _as the Word\nof GOD_, (the LORD being my helper!) I will receive it. I should as soon\nthink of holding a theory of Providence and Freewill, as of holding a\ntheory of Inspiration. I _believe_ in Providence. I _know_ that I am a\nfree agent. And that is enough for me.--The case of Inspiration seems\nstrictly parallel. I _believe_ in the Divine origin of the Bible. I\n_see_ that the writers of the several books wrote like men.... _That_\nouter circle of causation, which, leaving each individual will entirely\nfree, so controuls without coercing, so overrules without occasioning,\nthe actions of men,--that all things shall work together for good in the\nend, and the great designs of GOD'S Providence find free\naccomplishment;--all this, far, far transcends your and my powers of\ncomprehension. It is as much beyond us as Heaven is higher than the\nEarth. And, in like manner, we must be content to own that\nInspiration,--the analysis of which is so favourite a problem with this\ninquisitive age,--is far, far above us likewise. To St. Luke \"it seemed\ngood\" to write a Gospel; and doubtless he held high communing on the\nsubject,--which may, or may not, have sounded like ordinary human\nconverse,--with St. Paul. St. Mark in like sort, beyond a question,\nenjoyed the help of St. Peter, while he wrote his Gospel. But St. Peter\nand St. Mark, and St. Paul and St. Luke, were all alike,--however\nunconsciously,--held by the Ancient of Days within the hollow of His\npalm; and, as Augustine says,--\"Whatsoever He willed that _we_ should\nread concerning His acts and sayings,--_that_ He commissioned the\nEvangelists to write,--as though it had been _Himself_ that wrote\nit[406].\"--The guidance was remote, I grant you. The mechanism which\nmoved the pens of those blessed writers was far above out of their\nsight; and complex beyond anything which the mind of man can imagine;\n(so that the publican lisped of \"gold, and silver, and brass[407];\"--and\nthe companion of St. Peter, at Rome, wrote Latin words in Greek\nletters[408];--and the Physician of Antioch withheld the statement that\nthe woman who had spent all that she had in consulting many physicians,\n\"was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse[409];\"--and the beloved\ndisciple perhaps indulged his own personal love while he recalled so\nlargely the discourses of his LORD:)--but, for all that, the long\nsequence of cause and effect existed; and the other end of that golden\nchain which terminated in the man, and the pen, and the ink, and the\npaper,--the other end of it, I say, was held fast within the Hand of\nGOD.--The method of Inspiration is but another of the many thousand\nmarvels which on every side surround me; one of the many things I cannot\nfully understand, much less pretend to explain. But I may at least\nbelieve it in silence, and adore[410].\n\nAnd,--(forgive me for keeping you so long; but I _cannot_ let you go\nuntil I have emptied my heart a little more on this great, and most\nconcerning subject;)--mark you, Sirs, however reluctant some of you may\nbe to admit that you agree with me, you _do_ agree with me,--almost to a\nman. For, what mean your reasonings on Holy Scripture,--your sermons,\nand your dissertations, and your catechizings,--your formul\u00e6 of belief,\nand your definitions of Faith,--except you believe in a vast deal more\nthan _the substance_ of Holy Scripture? How can you pretend to expound a\ntext, unless you hold _the words_ of that text to be inspired? What\ninferences can you venture to draw from words, the Divinity of which you\ndare not affirm? O, to what endless, hopeless scepticism are you\npointing the way! What a variety of most unanswerable questionings will\nyou provoke! How can you hope ever to convince or convict, if you begin\nby acquainting your adversary that it is only for the substantial verity\nof Scripture that you claim Inspiration; the verbal details being quite\na different matter! See you not that you put into his hands a weapon\nwith which he will infallibly slay _yourself?_ Did the Bishops and\nDoctors of the Church, when they met in solemn Council,--did _they_ hold\nsuch a theory concerning Holy Scripture, think you, as that the matter\nof it alone is Divine,--the language human? More briefly, that _the\nwords_ of Scripture are _not inspired?_ What then mean their weighty\ndefinitions of Doctrine;--GOD the FATHER, \"Maker of Heaven and\nEarth,\"--GOD the SON, \"by whom all things were made:\"--the SON, \"=Theos\nek Theou=,\"--\"being of _one substance_ with the FATHER:\"--\"incarnate by\nthe HOLY GHOST of the Virgin Mary:\"--who \"descended into Hell\"--\"whose\nkingdom shall have no end:\"--the HOLY GHOST, \"=to Kyrion kai to\nx\u00f4opoion=,\" \"who proceeded from the FATHER and the SON?\"--What means\nevery article of that Creed to which you and I have given our unfeigned\nassent, and which Athanasius would have gladly subscribed to,--the most\nprecious jewel in the Church's casket!--Nay, what means St. Paul's\ncommentary on the history of Melchizedek, if the very words _omitted_\nfrom Holy Scripture are not a _Divine_ omission?\n\nYou will perhaps be told hereafter, (I am speaking now to the younger\nmen,) that quite fatal to this view of the question, is the state of the\nText of Scripture: that no one can maintain that the words of Scripture\nare inspired, because no one can tell for certain what the words of\nScripture _are_; or something to that effect. Now I will not stop to\nexpose the falsity of this charge against the text of Scripture; (which\nis implied to be a very corrupt text, whereas, on the contrary, it is\nthe best ascertained text of any ancient writing in the world.) Rather\nlet me remind you, once and for ever, how to refute this silly\nsophism,--the transparent fallacy of which one would have thought\nunworthy of exposure before men of trained understandings; but that one\nhears it urged so often and so confidently. See you not that the state\nof the text of the Bible has no more to do with the Inspiration of the\nBible, than the stains on yonder windows have to do with the light of\nGOD'S Sun? Let me illustrate the matter,--(though it surely cannot need\nillustration!)--by supposing the question raised whether Livy did or did\nnot write the history which goes under his name. _You_, (suppose,) are\npersuaded that he _did_,--_I_, that he did _not_. So far, we should both\nunderstand, and perhaps respect one another. But what if I were to go on\nto condemn your opinion as untenable, because of the corrupt state of\nLivy's _text?_ Would you not reply that I mistook the question entirely:\nthat _you_ were speaking of the _authorship of the work_,--not about the\n_fate of the copies!_ ... Suppose, however, I were to contend that Livy\nmay indeed have furnished the matter of his history, but that the form\nof expression must needs have been supplied by some one else; _still_ on\nthe same ground of the corrupt state of the historian's text. What would\nyou think of me _then?_--a man who not only confounded two things\nutterly dissimilar,--(the authorship of a book, and the amount of care\nwith which it had been transcribed and printed;)--but who was for\ndistinguishing the mind of the writer from the expression of that mind;\nthe _thoughts_, from the _words_ which are essential to their\ntransmission! A hopelessly illogical person, surely!\n\nO no, Sirs! Banish the fancy at once and for ever from your minds. You\ncannot thus dissect Inspiration into substance and form. It is a mere\ndelusion of these last days,--prated of from man to man, until\nrespectable persons begin to give in to the fallacy; and persuade\nthemselves that they themselves believe it. They hope thus to avoid the\ndanger which is supposed to attach to hearty belief in the Bible as the\nvery Word of GOD; as well as to secure for themselves a side-door, (so\nto speak,) by which to escape, whenever they are inconveniently hard\npressed. How much more faithful, to leave GOD to take care of His own!\nHow much more manly, to be prepared sometimes to confess ignorance!...\nAs for _thoughts_ being inspired, apart from the _words_ which give them\nexpression,--you might as well talk of a tune without notes, or a sum\nwithout figures. No such dream can abide the daylight for a moment. No\nsuch theory of Inspiration, (for a theory it _is_, and a most audacious\none too!), is even intelligible. It is as illogical as it is worthless;\nand cannot be too sternly put down. The philosophical mind of Greece,\n(far better taught!), knew of only one word for both Reason and the\nexpression of it. Lodged within the chambers of the brain, or put forth\ninto living energy,--it was still, with them, the =Logos=.--I invite\nyou, as the only intelligible view of the matter,--your only\nalternative, unless you resolve to run the risk of the most irrational\nrationalism,--to take this high view of Inspiration: to believe,\nconcerning the Bible, that it is in the most literal sense imaginable,\nverily and indeed, _the Word_ of GOD.\n\nAnd do you,--(for I am still addressing myself to the younger\nmen,)--learn to put away from your souls that vile indifferentism which\nis becoming the curse of this shallow and unlearned age. Be as forgiving\nas you please of indignities offered to yourselves; but do not be\nashamed to be very jealous for the honour of the LORD of Hosts; and to\nresent any dishonour offered to Him, with a fiery indignation utterly\nunlike anything you could possibly feel for a personal wrong. Attend\never so little to the circumstance, and you will perceive that every\nform of fashionable impiety is one and the same vile thing in the\nessence of it: still Antichrist, disguise it how you will. We were\nreminded last Sunday that the sensualist, by following the gratification\nof his own unholy desires, in bold defiance of GOD'S known Law, is in\nreality setting himself up in the place of GOD, and becoming a GOD unto\nhimself[411]. The same is true of the Idolatry of Human Reason; and of\nPhysical Science: as well as of that misinformed Moral Sense which finds\nin the Atonement of our LORD nothing but a stone of stumbling and a\nsnare. It is true of Popish error also;--for what else is this but a\nsetting up of the Human above the Divine,--(Tradition, the worship of\nthe Blessed Virgin, the casuistry of the Confessional, and the\nlike,)--and so, once more substituting the creature for the\nCreator?--What again is the fashionable intellectual sin of the day, but\nthe self-same detestable offence, under quite a different disguise? The\nidea of Law,--(_that_ old idea which is declared to be only now\nemerging into supremacy in Science,)--takes the hideous shape of\nrebellion against its Maker; and pronounces, now Miracles, now Prophecy,\nnow Inspiration itself, to be a thing impossible; or is content to\ninsinuate that the disclosures of Revelation are at least untrue. What\nis this, I say, but another form of the self-same iniquity,--a setting\nup of the creature before the Creator who is blessed for evermore; a\nsubstitution of some created thing in the place of GOD!\n\nThe true antidote to all such forms of impiety, believe me, is not\ncontroversy of any sort; but the childlike study of the Bible, each one\nfor himself,--not without prayer.--Humble must we be, as well as\nassiduous; for the powers of the mind as well as the affections of the\nheart should be prostrated before the Bible, or a man will derive little\nprofit from his study of it. Humble, I repeat, for mysteries,\n(remember), are revealed unto the meek[412]; and the fear of the LORD is\nthe beginning of Wisdom[413]; and he that would understand more than the\nAncients must keep GOD'S precepts[414]; and it is the commandments of\nthe LORD which give light unto the eyes[415].--The dutiful student of\nthe Bible is permitted to see the mist melt away from many a speculative\ndifficulty; and is many a time reminded of that saying of his LORD,--\"Do\nye not therefore err, _because ye know not the Scriptures_, neither the\npower of GOD[416]?\" ... The humble and attentive reader of the Bible\nbecomes impressed at last with a sense of its Divinity, analogous I\nsuppose to the conviction of Eleven of the Apostles that the Man they\nwalked with was none other than the SON of GOD. _That_ similarity of\nallusion,--_that_ sameness of imagery,--_that_ oneness of\ndesign,--_that_ uniformity of sentiment,--_that_ ever-recurring\nanticipation of the Gospel message;--_all_ goes to produce a secret and\nsure conviction that every writer, under whatever variety of\ncircumstances, had access to but one Treasury,--drew from but one and\nthe same Well of living water. Marks of purpose, shewn in the choice or\ncollocation of single words, often strike an attentive reader; which,\nsingly, might be thought fortuitous; but which, collectively, can only\nbe accounted for on a very different principle. The beautiful structure\nof the Gospels strikes him especially; and he could as soon believe that\na song harmonized for four Angel voices had been the result of accident,\nas that the Evangelists had achieved their task without special aid,\nthroughout, from Heaven. A lock of very complicated mechanism, which\nfour keys of most peculiar structure will open simultaneously,--must\nhave been as evidently made for them, as they for it.\n\nIt is almost treason, in truth, to the Majesty of Heaven to discuss the\nBible on the low ground which I have been hitherto forced to occupy. It\nis quite monstrous, in the first University of the most favoured of\nChristian lands, that a man should be compelled thus to lift up his\nvoice in defence of the very Inspiration of GOD'S Word. O that Divine\nnarrative, which is for ever rending aside the veil, and disclosing to\nus the counsels of the presence-chamber of the ALMIGHTY!--O those human\ncharacters, beset with all the infirmities of our fallen nature,--whose\nwords and actions yet are shadows of things heavenly and eternal!--O\nthat majestic retinue of types which, from the very birthday of recorded\nTime, heralded the approach of the King of Glory!--O that scarlet\nthread which runs through all the seemingly tangled web of Scripture, to\nterminate only in the cross of CHRIST!--How do the features of the\nGospel struggle into sight through the veil of the Law! How do the holy\nand humble men of heart ever and anon break out into speech, as it were,\nbefore the time;--as if they felt the burden of silence too great to be\nendured!... Whence is it that we dare to handle the pages of GOD'S Book\nas if they were a common thing,--doubting, questioning, cavilling,\ndisbelieving, denying? Why choose for ourselves the soldiers' part, who\nbuffeted, reviled, smote, spat upon Him?... O my friends, far, far be\nall this from you and from me! Never imagine, because this day we have\nthus spoken, that such discussions are congenial to us; or that we deem\nthem the proper theme for addresses from the pulpit; although the\ncoincidence of this day's Collect seems, for once, to lend a kind of\nsanction to our present endeavours. Look through the whole range of\npatristic homilies, and you will not find _one_ of the kind, with which,\nunhappily, our ears are grown so familiar in this place,--ingenious\nattempts to evacuate Holy Writ of its fulness, on the one hand;--or\napologies of some sort for its Divinity and Inspiration, on the other.\nYou will take, if you are wise, far, far higher ground, in your private\nstudy of its pages; remembering that \"the most generous faith is\ninvariably the truest;\"--nor ever stoop so low as _we_ have been this\nday doing. Waste not thy precious time in cavil about the structure of\nthe casket which contains thy treasure; but unlock it once with the Key\nof Faith, and make thyself rich indeed.--Already,--(as we were last week\nreminded),--already the Judge standeth at the door; and assuredly, thou\nand I, (to whom GOD hath entrusted so much!) shall have to render a very\nstrict account of the use we have made of the Bible,--when we shall\nstand face to face with its undoubted Author. The season of the year\nreminds us, as with a trumpet, of that tremendous hour when the veil\nwill be withdrawn from our eyes,--and the office of Faith will be\nended,--and we shall be confronted with One who hath \"a vesture dipped\nin blood, and whose Name is called THE WORD OF GOD.\" ... \"I _have heard\nof Thee_,\" (we shall, every one of us, exclaim),--\"I _have heard of\nThee_, by the hearing of the ear; but _now_,--mine eye _seeth_\nThee[417]!\"\n\n\nSUPPLEMENT TO SERMON IV\n\n\nThere is yet another view of the nature and office of\nInspiration,--another 'Theory' as it would perhaps aspire to be\ncalled,--which limits _the extent_ of the Divine help and guidance which\nthe writers, confessedly inspired, may be supposed to have enjoyed.\nAccording to this view, it is admitted that Inspiration was, from first\nto last, a continuous influence; exerted equally throughout: but then,\nit has been suggested that perhaps _its office_ was not to protect a\nWriter against a certain class of errors. The office of the Bible, (it\nis argued,) is to make men wise unto Salvation. It does not follow that\nInspiration, because it guided a sacred writer so long as he wrote of\nChristian Doctrine, so as to make what he wrote unerringly true, should\nhave protected him against slips of memory; preserved him from\ninaccuracies of statement; from inconclusive reasonings; from incorrect\nquotations; from mistaken inferences; from scientific errors.--This is\nwhat is said: and because this is a view of the question which is\nobserved to recommend itself occasionally to candid, and even to\nreverential minds, it seems to deserve distinct and careful\nconsideration.\n\nBut I must preface all I have to reply by remarking that \"a Book cannot\n[properly] be said to be inspired, or to carry with it the authority of\nbeing GOD'S Word, if only _portions_ come from Him, and there exists no\nplain and infallible sign to indicate _which_ those portions are; and\nif the same Writer may give us in one verse of the Bible a revelation\nfrom the MOST HIGH, and in the next verse a blunder of his own. How can\nwe be certain, that the very texts, upon which we rest our doctrines and\nhopes, are not the _uninspired_ portions? What can be the meaning or\nnature of an Inspiration to teach Truth, which does not guarantee its\nrecipient from error?\"--So far a living sceptical writer.\n\n1. Now, the first thing which strikes one in this theory, is its extreme\nvagueness. We hardly know what we have to consider; for nothing is\ndefinitely stated. Neither are we informed how many of the phenomena of\nInspiration, this view is intended to explain. Again, does the theory\napply equally to the Old Testament and to the New? If it does apply\nequally to the Old Testament, (and I can see no possible reason why it\nshould _not_,) then, I apprehend this theory will be found _practically_\nto run up into, and to identify itself with, that last described[418].\nFor a guidance _which has failed to guide_, has been no guidance at all;\nand since whole chapters of the Old Testament will occur to every one's\nmemory which may be thought to have no connexion whatever with\n'Christian Doctrine,'--to conduce wondrous little to the 'making men\nwise unto Salvation,'--it will follow that Inspiration is, according to\nthis theory, in effect, of the nature already described,--namely, a\nquality which can never be predicated of any passage of Scripture with\nentire certainty. The larger part of the Old Testament in fact, by this\ntheory, is exhibited in the light of a common book; having no pretension\nto be regarded as part of the Inspired Canon.\n\nBut if this theory simply shirks the question of the Old Testament,\nthen, those who are inclined to accept it, are bound to explain why\nthere should be one theory of Inspiration applicable to the Old\nTestament, and another for the New:--in which difficulty, I must\ncandidly profess that I am not able to render any assistance at all. It\nis clearly not allowable to overlook the intimate connexion which\nsubsists between the two great divisions of Holy Scripture; the habitual\nreferences of the Writers of the New Testament to the writers of the\nOld,--Moses, David, Isaiah, and the rest;--or rather, _to the utterance\nof the_ HOLY GHOST, _speaking by the mouth of those writers_. Whatever\nmay have been the Inspiration of the Authors of the New Testament must\nbe assumed to have been that of the Authors of the Old Testament also.\n\n2. But further,--(to confine our remarks to the Scriptures of the New\nTestament; which, it is manifest, the view under consideration specially\ncontemplates;)--however plausible in the abstract a theory may sound,\nwhich would account for a Chronological difficulty,--the insertion of\nwhat seems to be a wrong name,--a quotation made with singular\nlicense,--an unscientific statement,--the apparent inconsistency of two\nor more accounts of one and the same transaction, in respect of lesser\ndetails,--a (supposed) inconclusive remark, or specimen of reasoning\nwhich seems to be fallacious;--on the supposition that it is not the\noffice of Inspiration to enlighten the understanding on points like\nthese, or to preserve the pen from error;--however plausible, I say,\nthis theory, abstractedly considered, may appear;--it will be found that\nit will not bear the searching test of a practical application.\n\nIt would indeed be a great advantage to the cause of Truth, and a great\nhelp to individual minds, as well as wonderfully promote the arriving at\na sound conclusion in this perilous department of speculative\nDivinity,--if, instead of putting up with a vague theory, (like the\npresent,) regardless of its logical bearings and necessary issues;--men\nwould compel themselves to apply their view to the actual phenomena of\nHoly Scripture: to carry it out to its legitimate consequences, and\nsteadily to contemplate the result. I venture to predict that the theory\nwhich we are now considering, when submitted to such a test, would be\nfound not only inconvenient, but absolutely untenable. The inconsistency\nand absurdity which results from it, can, I think, easily be made to\nappear.\n\nFor if any one who is disposed to regard it with favour,--instead of\nidly, (as is the way with nine-tenths of mankind,) repeating the formula\nin terms more or less vague and indefinite; and straightway wincing,\nfalling back on generalities, and in a word shirking the point, the\ninstant it is proposed to bring the question to a definite issue;--if a\nfavourer of the present theory I say, instead of so acting, would take\nup a copy of the New Testament, and proceed, with a pen in his hand, to\n_apply_ the theory, by running his pen through the places, (and they\n_must_ be capable of individual specification!), which he suspects of\nbeing external to the influence of Inspiration;--or, if you please,\nwhich he thinks have been penned without that Divine help which makes\nwhat is written infallible;--I venture to predict that such an one will\nspeedily admit that his erasures are either so very few, or so very\nmany, as to be fatal to the theory of which they are the expression.\n\nIf they be confined to \"the fifteenth year of Tiberius[419]; to the\nnames of the second Cainan[420], Cyrenius[421], Abiathar[422], 'Jeremy\nthe prophet[423];'\" to \"the sixth hour[424],\" and so on;--no great\ninconvenience truly will result. But the instant you go a step further,\nthe difficulty begins. Many of the quotations from the Old Testament may\nbe made to correspond with the Hebrew, doubtless, without sensible\ninconvenience: but there are others which refuse the process. However,\nlet it be supposed that all such indications of imperfect memory, or\nmisapprehension of the sense of the Hebrew Scriptures, have been\nremoved; and here and there, that an irrelevant clause in the reasoning\nhas been lopped off, or an unscientific remark expunged.--After all this\nhas been done, I venture to say that the result will be the reverse of\nsatisfactory, even to the theorist himself. He will infallibly exclaim\nsecretly,--I seem to have gained wondrous little by this corrective\nprocess. Was it worth while, in order to achieve _this_, to tamper with\nthe Divine Oracles? The great body of Scripture remains after all, in\nall its strangeness, all its perplexing individuality. Meanwhile, piety\nand wisdom modestly suggest,--Is it reasonable to think that Evangelists\nand Apostles should have stumbled, like children, before dates, and\nnames, and quotations from their own Scriptures? Surely if _this_ be all\nthat can be objected against the Bible, the very slenderness of the\ncharge becomes its sufficient refutation!... _The erasures are so few,\nin fact, that they refute the theory._\n\nBut if, on the other hand, the pen be freely used, then the result will\nbe fatal to the theory, _because it will be fatal to the record_. If\nan 'Essayist and Reviewer' were to reduce the Gospels to consistency,\naccording to _his_ view of consistency, the Gospels would scarcely be\nrecognizable. If he were to reject from St. Paul's writings every\ninstance of what _he_ thinks fanciful exposition, illogical reasoning,\ninexact quotation, and mistaken inference; the result would be\naltogether unmanageable. For any one who attends to the matter will\nperceive that such things run into the very staple of the Apostle's\nargument; and therefore cannot be detached without destroying the whole.\nThe householder's reason for not removing the tares, (\"lest while ye\ngather up the tares ye root up also the wheat with them[425],\") applies\nexactly. If St. Paul's exposition of Melchizedek be fanciful and\nuntrustworthy, then does the proof of the superiority of our SAVIOUR'S\nPriesthood over that of Aaron, fall to the ground. If his handling of\nthe story of Sarah and Hagar be an uninspired allegory, then does his\nargumentation respecting the rejection of the Jews and the calling of\nthe Gentiles disappear. If the furniture of the Temple, and the\nprovisions of the Jewish ritual, were not dictated by the SPIRIT of\nGOD[426], then will the Epistle wherein it is found be reduced to\nproportions which make it meaningless. If Deuteronomy xxv. 4 has no\nreference to the Christian Ministry, then the entire context (in two of\nSt. Paul's Epistles) must go at once[427].... It is useless to multiply\nsuch instances. Any one familiar with the writings of St. Paul will know\nthe truth of what has been offered; and will admit that the erasures\nrequired by the theory before us will become so numerous as to\nprove,--(to a devout mind at least, or indeed to any one of sense and\ncandour,)--that the theory is altogether untenable.\n\nIt cannot escape observation, therefore, that however plausible this\nview of Inspiration may sound, as long as some few petty historical,\nchronological, and scientific inaccuracies are all that have to be\naccounted for;--the theory (unhappily) proves worthless when it comes to\nbe practically applied; inasmuch as in the writings of St. Paul, for\nexample, there is little or nothing of the kind just specified, to be\ncondoned. Erroneous dates, unscientific statements, wrong names, and the\nlike, form no part of the staple of the New Testament. Such instances\nmay be counted on one's fingers; and are to be sufficiently explained to\nrender any special theory of Inspiration in order to meet them, quite a\ngratuitous exercise of ingenuity.\n\n3. On the other hand, if a wider class of phenomena is to be dealt with\nby this theory, the reader is requested to observe that we involve\nourselves in a gross contradiction; for we forsake the very principle on\nwhich it pretends to be built. The theory set out by reminding us that\n\"the office of the Bible is to make men wise unto Salvation,\"--not to\nteach physical Science, nor to deal with facts in chronology and the\nlike: and the plea was allowed. But the theory which was devised to\naccount for one class of phenomena is now most unwarrantably applied to\naccount for another. We have travelled into a widely different\nsubject-matter,--namely, _Divinity proper!_ Let it therefore be\nrespectfully asked,--If the Inspiration which the Apostles enjoyed did\nnot preserve them against unsound inferences in respect of _Holy\nScripture_; and illogical, inconclusive argumentation in _things\nDivine_;--pray, of what use was it? We have not been reviewing a set of\n_Geological_ mistakes on the part of the great Apostle. To Physical\nScience, he has scarcely so much as a single allusion. He deals with\n_Christian Doctrine_; with _Divinity_, properly so called; and _with\nthat only_. Pray, was not Inspiration a sufficient guide to him,\n_there_?\n\n4. It is high time also to remind the reader that although the office of\nthe Bible, confessedly, is \"to make men wise unto Salvation,\" it does\nnot by any means follow that _that_ is its _only_ office. In other\nwords, we have no right to assume that we know all the possible ends for\nwhich the Bible was designed; and to lay it down, as if it were an\nascertained fact, that it was _not_ designed to enlighten men in matters\nof Chronology, History, and the like; seeing, on the one hand, that all\nthe evidence we are able to adduce in support of such an opinion, does\nnot establish so much as a faint presumption that any part of Scripture\nis uninspired; and seeing that, on the other, as a plain matter of fact,\nhistorical details constitute so large a part of the contents of the\nBible; and that the sacred volume is _the sole depository_ of the\nHistory and Chronology of the World for by far the largest portion of\nthe interval since that World's Creation.\n\n5. In passing, it may also be reasonably declared, that it is to take a\nvery derogatory view of the result of the HOLY SPIRIT's influence, to\nsuppose that imperfections and inaccuracies can freely abound,--nay, can\nexist at all,--in a Revelation which the same HOLY SPIRIT is believed to\nhave inspired. They ought surely to be _demonstrated_ to exist, before\nwe are called upon to listen to the apologies which have been invented\nto account for their existence!\n\n6. Let me also advert to a dilemma which seems hardly ever to obtain\nfrom a certain class of critics the attention it deserves. If a writing\nbe not inspired, _it is of no absolute authority_. If a part of a\nwriting be not inspired, that part is of no absolute authority. If a\nsingle word in the text of Holy Scripture be even uncertain,--(as, for\nexample, whether we are to read =OS= or =THEOS= in 1 Tim. iii.\n16,)--_that word becomes without absolute authority_. We cannot venture\nto adduce it _in proof_ of anything. Without therefore, in the remotest\ndegree, desiring to discourage the application of a _true_ theory of\nInspiration to the phenomena of Holy Scripture, through fear of the\nnecessary consequences,--may we not call attention to the manifest\nawkwardness of a theory which no one knows how to apply, and about the\napplication of which no two men will ever be agreed?--the issue of the\ndiscussion being, in every case, neither more nor less than\nthis,--whether the portion of Scripture under consideration is Human,\nand therefore _of no absolute authority_; or Divine, and therefore\n_infallible_!\n\n7. A far more important consideration remains to be offered, and with\nthis I shall conclude. Although, when St. Paul appears to reason\ninconclusively, some of us do not hesitate to refer the Apostle's\n(supposed) imperfect logic to his personal infirmity,--yet, common piety\nrevolts against the proposal to apply the same solution to the same\nphenomenon when it is observed to occur in the Discourses of our Blessed\nLORD Himself. It seems to have been providentially ordained, however,\nthat the discourses of CHRIST Himself should supply examples of every\none of those difficulties which it is thought lawful to account\nfor,--when an Apostle or an Evangelist is the speaker,--on the\nhypothesis of partial, imperfect, or suspended Inspiration. Now, since\n_I_, at least, shall not be permitted to be either vague or general, I\nproceed to subjoin the proof of what has been thus advanced:--\n\n=1=. The well-known difficulty about \"the days of Abiathar,\" _is found\nin one of our LORD'S discourses_[428]. Here then is a case of what, if\nan Evangelist or an Apostle had been the author of the statement, would\nhave been called an historical inaccuracy.\n\n=2=. However unworthy of scientific attention the Mosaic account of the\ndescent of Mankind from a single pair may be deemed,--the universality\nof 'the Noachian Deluge,'--the destruction of the Cities of the\nplain,--the fate of Lot's wife,--Jonah in the fish's belly,--and so\nforth;--to all these (supposed) unscientific statements our Blessed LORD\ncommits Himself unequivocally[429].\n\n=3=. When the Holy One inferred the Resurrection of the Dead from the\nwords spoken to Moses \"in the bush[430];\"--when He proved that CHRIST is\nnot the son of David, because \"David in spirit calls Him\n'LORD[431];'\"--and when He shewed from a clause in the 6th verse of the\nlxxxiind Psalm, (\"I said ye are gods,\") that it was not unlawful for\nHimself to claim the title of SON of GOD[432];--I humbly think that the\nargumentation is of such a nature as would not produce conviction in\ncaptious minds cast in a modern mould[433]. I desire not to dwell\nlonger upon this subject; and only hope in what I have ventured to say\nconcerning some of the recorded sayings of Him to whose creative Power\nand Goodness I am indebted for the exercise of my own reason,--I have\nnot written amiss. But the point of what I am urging is, that I defy any\none to bring a charge of faulty logic against passages in St. Paul's\nEpistles which might not, _with the same show of reason_, be brought\nagainst certain of our LORD's recorded sayings.\n\n=4=. When the Chief Priests and Scribes remonstrated with our LORD\nbecause of the children crying in the Temple; and asked Him,--\"Hearest\nThou what these say?\" He replied,--\"Yea, have ye never read, 'Out of the\nmouths of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected praise[434]?'\" ...\nNow, this quotation from the viiith Psalm is what an 'Essayist or\nReviewer' would have pronounced irrelevant.\n\n=5=. It seems clear from Gen. ii. 24, that _Adam_ was the author of the\nwords, \"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,\" &c. And\nyet, our LORD (in St. Matth. xix. 4, 5,) as unmistakeably seems to make\nGOD the Speaker. An Evangelist or an Apostle would be thought here to\nhave made a slip of memory.\n\n=6=. In St. John viii. 47, the following words occur. \"He that is of God\nheareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of\nGod.\" This passage (as already pointed out[435],) has been adduced by\none who now occupies an Archiepiscopal throne, as containing a logical\nfallacy.\n\nMany more examples might be adduced: but these will suffice. It is plain\nthat when the like phenomena are observed in the writings of Apostles\nand Evangelists, we need not, in order to account for them, have\nrecourse to any theory of partial or imperfect Inspiration; since\nnothing of the kind is supposed necessary when they occur in the\nDiscourses of our LORD.--As much as I care to offer on the subject of\n_Inspired Reasoning_ will be found in the course of the Sixth of these\nSermons, where the Doctrine of 'Accommodation' is considered.\n\n     To say that the Scriptures, and the things contained in them, can\n     have no other or farther meaning than those persons thought or had,\n     who first recited or wrote them; is evidently saying, that those\n     persons were the original, proper, and sole Authors of those Books,\n     i.e. _that they are not inspired_: which is absurd, whilst the\n     authority of those Books is under examination; i.e. till you have\n     determined they are of no Divine authority at all. Till this be\n     determined, it must in all reason be supposed, (not indeed that\n     they have, for this is taking for granted that they are inspired;\n     but) that they may have, some farther meaning than what the\n     compilers saw or understood.\n\nBISHOP BUTLER, _Analogy_, P. II. ch. vii.\n\n     As the Literal sense is, as it were, the main stream or river, so\n     the Moral sense chiefly, and sometimes the Allegorical or Typical,\n     are they whereof the Church hath most use: not that I wish men to\n     be bold in allegories, or indulgent or light in allusions; but that\n     I do much condemn that Interpretation of the Scripture _which is\n     only after the manner as men use to interpret a profane book_.\n\nLORD BACON, _Advancement of Learning_.\n\n     The Book of this Law we are neither able nor worthy to open and\n     look into. That little thereof which we darkly apprehend, we\n     admire; the rest, with religious ignorance we humbly and meekly\n     adore.\n\nHOOKER, _Eccl. Pol._ B. I. c. ii. \u00a7 5.\n\n     OPEN THOU MINE EYES THAT I MAY SEE THE WONDROUS THINGS OF THY LAW!\n\n     =OY LOGOS ANTHR\u00d4P\u00d4N, ALLA KATH\u00d4S ESTIN AL\u00caTH\u00d4S LOGOS THEOY.=\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[390] Preached in Christ-Church Cathedral, Dec. 9th, 1860.\n\n[391] See Sermon VII.\n\n[392] Ibid.\n\n[393] Gen. xxxvi.\n\n[394] See the Hulsean Lectures for 1833, (_The Law of Moses viewed in\nconnexion with the History and character of the Jews, with a defence of\nthe Book of Joshua_, &c.) by Henry John Rose, B.D.\n\n[395] 2 St. Peter i. 21.\n\n[396] 1 St. Peter i. 11.\n\n[397] \"With the idea of a Prophet,\" (says Gesenius in his Hebrew\nLexicon, on the noun,) \"there was this necessarily attached; that he\nspoke not his own words, but those which he had divinely received; (see\nPhilo, t. iv. p. 116, ed. Pfeifferi,--=proph\u00eat\u00eas gar idion men ouden\napophthengetai, allotria de panta hyp\u00eachountos heterou=); and that he was\nthe messenger of GOD, and the declarer of His will. This is clear from a\npassage of peculiar authority in this matter, (Ex. vii. 1,)--where GOD\nsays to Moses,--'I have made thee a god to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy\nbrother _shall be thy prophet_.'\" ... Elsewhere, (speaking of the Hebrew\nverb, 'to prophesy,') Gesenius has the following remarkable\nstatement:--\"The _passive forms_, Niphal and Hithpael, are used in this\nverb; from the Divine Prophets having been _supposed to be moved rather\nby another's powers than their own_.\" (Just as if the Oracles of GOD\nwere not express on the subject! viz. \"No prophecy ever came by the will\nof Man; but, [because they were] borne along (=pheromenoi=) by the HOLY\nGHOST, spake those holy men of GOD.\"--2 St. Pet. i. 21.)\n\n=Proph\u00eat\u00eas=, in fact, means 'an interpreter' rather than 'a prophet,'\n(for which, in our popular sense, the Greek is rather =mantis=:) hence\nthe use of the words =proph\u00eat\u00eas, proph\u00eateu\u00f4, proph\u00eateia= in the New\nTestament, e.g. 1 Thess. v. 20. 1 Cor. xi. 4: xii. 10. Rom. xii. 6,\n(where see Wordsworth.) See also 1 Cor. xiv. 1, 3, 4, 5, &c.: in all\nwhich places, the =proph\u00eat\u00eas= was what we should rather now call _a\npreacher_. But then, the expounding of GOD'S Word is the special\nfunction of the preacher's office from which he takes this name.--The\nreader is referred to Blomfield's Glossary, _Agam._ v. 399, and to\nLiddell and Scott's _Lexicon_; (in both of which, some important\nreferences are given:) also to Trench's _Synonyms of the New Testament_,\npp. 22-26.\n\n[398] See above, pp. 2-5.--The reader will find an interesting passage\nbased on this analogy, in the Appendix (F).\n\n[399] _Analogy_, P. II. c. vii.--The same thing has been more fully\nexpressed in a volume of Sermons which deserves to be far better known\nthan it is:--\"I suppose that if there is one portion of the Old\nTestament which a discriminator would set aside as less needing to be\nreckoned inspired than other parts, it is the Historical; the books\nwhich are strictly narrative. Now it may seem to have been\nprovidentially ordered, in the purpose of meeting this view, that these\nbooks are made to bear on them most peculiarly the stamp and the claim\nof Inspiration. For they do not profess to be so much the account of\nwhat Man did, as what GOD did in ruling men, and guiding human events.\nThey are a history of a providential course of events, and, (which is\nthe point,) as seen from the providential point of view. They are a\nhistory written not on Earth, but above the skies. Events are spoken of\ntherefore in this view. A man's obduracy is recorded thus,--'GOD\nhardened his heart.' A king numbers his people; it is recorded as a\nthing suggested in the spiritual world. In fact, the historic volume of\nthe Old Testament is a history of the secret springs of things; it is a\nnarrative of things which none but GOD ALMIGHTY could know; not Man's\nWord therefore at all, but GOD'S.\"--_Sermons_, by the Rev. C. P. Eden,\npp. 153-155. Several other extracts from the same suggestive volume of a\nvery excellent Divine, will be found in the Appendix.\n\n[400] Eccl. iii. 14. So Deut. iv. 2: xii. 32. Rev. xxii. 19.\n\n[401] See the Appendix (G).\n\n[402] Hooker's _Eccl. Pol._, B. 1. c. ii. \u00a7 2\n\n[403] See above, p. 77.\n\n[404] _The Inspiration of the Bible, five Lectures_, by Chr. Wordsworth,\nD.D. 1861,--p. 5.\n\n[405] For some remarks on Theories of Inspiration, see the Appendix (H.)\n\n[406] \"Quicquid Ille de Suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc\nscribendum illis tanquam Suis manibus imperavit.\"\n\n[407] St. Matth. x. 9.\n\n[408] E.g. =kentyri\u00f4n: spekoulat\u00f4r: xest\u00eas=.\n\n[409] Comp. St. Luke viii. 43, with St. Mark v. 26.\n\n[410] The reader will be grateful for a beautiful and highly suggestive\npassage from Eden's _Sermons_, in the Appendix (I.)\n\n[411] Alluding to a sermon preached by the Provost of Queen's.\n\n[412] Ecclus. iii. 19.\n\n[413] Ps. cxi. 10. Prov. ix. 10.\n\n[414] Ps. cxix. 100.\n\n[415] Ps. xix. 8.\n\n[416] St. Mark xii. 24.\n\n[417] Job xlii. 5.\n\n[418] See above, p. 95-99.\n\n[419] St. Luke iii. 1.\n\n[420] Ibid. iii. 36.\n\n[421] Ibid. ii. 2.\n\n[422] St. Mark ii. 26.\n\n[423] St. Matth. xxvii. 9.\n\n[424] St. John xix. 14.\n\n[425] St. Matth. xiii. 29.\n\n[426] Heb. ix. 8.\n\n[427] 1 Cor. ix. 9 and 1 Tim. v. 18.\n\n[428] St. Mark ii. 26.\n\n[429] All will be found more fully insisted upon at the beginning of the\nVIIth Sermon.\n\n[430] St. Luke xx. 37-8.\n\n[431] St. Matth. xxii. 41-6.\n\n[432] St. John x. 34-6.\n\n[433] 'Essayists and Reviewers' would reply, that in the first instance,\nthe supposed inference has no connexion with the premisses:--that in the\nsecond, (1) it has to be proved that the person intended in Psalm cx. is\nCHRIST; and (2) it does not follow, because David calls him \"lord,\" that\nthe person so spoken of is not his \"son:\"--that in the third instance,\n'gods' is used in Psalm lxxxii. of _earthly_ rulers; whereas, when our\nSAVIOUR called Himself \"the SON of GOD,\" He claimed to be \"_of one\nsubstance with the FATHER,--GOD of GOD_.\"\n\n[434] St. Matth. xxi. 16.\n\n[435] See above, p. 4.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON V.[436]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.--INSPIRED INTERPRETATION.--THE BIBLE\nIS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED LIKE ANY OTHER BOOK.--GOD, (NOT MAN,) THE REAL\nAUTHOR OF THE BIBLE.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nST. MATTHEW iv. 4.\n\n     _It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every\n     word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God._\n\n\nIt is impossible to preserve exact method in Sermons like these,\nuncertain in number, and delivered at irregular intervals. It shall only\nbe stated that, having already spoken at considerable length, of the\nINSPIRATION of Holy Scripture;--not, one part more, one part less, but\nevery part equally inspired throughout; not general, (whatever the exact\nnotion may be of a book _generally_ inspired,) but particular, by which\nI mean that _every word_ is none other than the utterance of the Holy\nGhost[437]: having, moreover, explained the reasonableness,--(the\nlogical necessity, as it seems,)--of giving such an account of the\nBible;--I propose to-day to proceed to the subject of INTERPRETATION.\nReally, it has become the fashion of a School of unbelief which has\nlately emerged into infamous notoriety, to deal with both these\nquestions in so insolent a style of dogmatism, that the preacher is\ncompelled to halt _in limine_; and to explain that he begs that no\noffence may be taken at the account which he has just given of the\nBible; for that really he means no more than Bp. Pearson meant when he\nsaid that \"_the Scripture phrase_\" is \"_the Language of the HOLY\nGHOST_[438]:\"--that he desires to say no other thing than what _He_\nsaid, by whose Spirit, (as St. Peter declares[439],) the prophets\nprophesied;--the preacher, I say, wishes to explain that he desires to\nmean no other thing than our LORD JESUS CHRIST Himself meant, when He\nspoke of \"_every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of GOD_.\"\n\nI. INTERPRETATION, then, in the largest sense of the term, I take to\ndenote the discovery of the method and meaning of Holy Scripture.--I\nexclude those critical labours which merely aim at establishing a\ncorrect text.--I exclude also the learning which merely investigates the\ngrammatical force of single words. True, that even to translate is often\nto interpret; but this results only from the imperfection of\nlanguage,--which can seldom represent the words of one idiom by the\nwords of another, without at the same time parting with the\nassociations which belong to the old words, and importing those which\nare inseparable from the new.--Moreover, except occasionally, it is\npresumed that the lore of the Antiquary, Geographer, and so forth, does\nnot aspire to the dignity of Interpretation.--To be brief,--whatever\nsimply puts us on a level with ordinary hearers of ancient days; does no\nmore than inform us what custom, locality, or date is intended by the\nsacred writer; (things which once were obvious, and which _ought not_ to\nbe any difficulty now;)--all this, I say, seems external to the province\nof Interpretation; the purpose of which is to discover _the method_ and\n_the meaning_ of Holy Writ. And I find that every extant specimen of\nthis sacred Science is either (1) what GOD hath Himself revealed; or\n(2) what the Church hath with authority delivered; or (3) what\nindividuals have thought themselves competent to declare.\n\nOf these three authorities concerning the sense of Scripture, it is\nevident that the last-named is entitled to least notice. So unimportant\nindeed is it, as scarcely to be of any weight at all. What one\nindividual asserts, on his own unsupported authority, another individual\nmay, with as much or as little authority, deny; and _who_ is to decide?\n\nBut the authority indicated in the second place, clearly challenges very\ndifferent attention. When, for example, our own Hooker declares,\nconcerning the 5th verse of the iiird chapter of St. John, that \"of all\nthe ancients _there is not one to be named_ that ever did otherwise\nexpound or allege this place than as implying external Baptism[440],\" we\nperceive at once that such consent, on the part of men in whose ears the\nechoes of the Apostolic Age had not yet quite ceased to vibrate; and\nwho were themselves professors of that Divine Science which takes\ncognizance of the subject-matter in hand:--such general consent of\nAntiquity, I say, on a point of Interpretation, must evidently be held\nto be decisive.\n\n\"Religio mihi est, eritque, contra torrentem omnium Patrum, Sanctas\nScripturas interpretari; nisi quando me argumenta cogunt\nevidentissima,--quod nunquam eventurum credo[441].\" So spake one who had\nread the Fathers with no common care, and who turned his reading to no\ncommon account. \"I persuade myself,\" he says, \"that you will learn the\nmodesty of submitting your judgment to that of the Catholic Doctors,\nwhere they are found generally to concur in the interpretation of a text\nof Scripture, how absurd soever that interpretation may, at first\nappearance, seem to be. For upon a diligent search you will find, that\n_aliquid latet quod non patet_,--'there is a mystery in the bottom:' and\nthat which at first view seemed even ridiculous, will afterwards appear\nto be a most certain truth[442].\" \"No man can oppose Catholic consent,\nbut he will at last be found to oppose both the Divine Oracles and Sound\nReason[443].\"\n\nThe distinction thus drawn between individual opinion and the collective\nvoice of the Church, was far better understood anciently than at\npresent. The interpretation of a Council, especially if oecumenical,\nwas accounted decisive. Even the generally consentient voice of Doctors\nand Fathers, as far as it could be ascertained, was held to be of the\nsame authoritative kind. An interesting illustration occurs. Than\nEusebius, Bishop of C\u00e6sarea, few Fathers of the fourth century were more\nlearned in Holy Scripture. He, commenting upon \"the Captain of the\nLORD'S Host,\" mentioned in the vth chapter of the Book of Joshua,\ndelivers it as his opinion that it was the same Personage who spoke to\nMoses 'in the Bush;' viz. the Eternal SON[444]. On which opinion, a\nlearned man of the same age, in a scholion of singular beauty which has\ncome down to us, remarks as follows:--\"Aye, but the Church, O most holy\nEusebius, holds a view on this subject altogether at variance with\nthine[445].\" He goes on to allege reasons why the =archistrat\u00eagos= of\nJoshua must be held to have been not an _uncreated_, but a _created_\nAngel; the Archangel Michael, in fact. We will not now go into that\nmatter. You are but requested to observe, how profoundly unimportant the\nopinion of a very learned individual was held to be, by one in whose\nears the Patristic \"torrent\" was yet sounding; although Justin Martyr is\nknown to have been of the same mind with Eusebius.--And thus much for\nindividual views as to the meaning of Holy Scripture; as contrasted with\nthe decisions of Councils and Fathers. To judge from the signs of the\nAge, we have exactly reversed the ancient estimate; and expect that more\nrespect will be shewn to our own private fancies, than to a general\nconsensus of Divines, ancient and modern. It seems to have been\ndiscovered that the supreme guide of Life is the individual\nconscience,--\"without appeal--except to himself[446]!\"\n\nII. Before descending, however, to the _business_ of Interpretation,\nthere is clearly one preliminary question to be settled: namely, _the\nprinciple_ on which Interpretation is to be conducted. And this is all\nthat can be discussed to-day. To seek for that principle in the\ncontradictory pages of solitary theorists, would of course be hopeless,\nas well as absurd. To elicit it from Patristic Commentaries, would\nobviously leave a door open for cavil. The ancient Fathers, (allowing\nthat they often speak with consentient voice,) singly, were but\nfallible men,--however famous, as professors of Theological Science,\nthey may have been. _This_, however, I venture to assume without any\nhesitation whatever,--that if, instead of either of these two ways of\nascertaining how Holy Scripture ought to be handled, we can be so\nfortunate as to discover from the Inspired Writers themselves what\n_their_ method was with respect to the Word of GOD,--in such case, I\nsay, we shall be in a position of entire certainty[447]. We shall then\nhave full warrant for disregarding the dicta of modern sciolists on this\ngreat subject;--however arrogant their dogmatism, however confident\ntheir unsupported asseverations.\n\nI desire to be very clearly understood. My position is this. All\nChristian men allow that the Apostles and Evangelists of our LORD were\ninspired. Before such an audience as the present, I will not condescend\neven to _allude_ to the absolute claim of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, who, as\nthe Son of Man, enjoyed the gift of the Spirit without measure; who, as\nvery GOD, \"in the beginning created the Heaven and the Earth,\"--(for,\n\"In the beginning was THE WORD; and THE WORD was with GOD; and THE WORD\nwas GOD.... All things were made by Him, and without Him was not\nanything made that was made[448]:\")--I will not, I say, for every\nutterance of our _SAVIOUR CHRIST_ pause even, to claim the entire\nreverence of our hearts,--the prostrate homage of our understandings....\nWell then. If we _can_ but discover what the mind and method of these\nseveral speakers and writers was, with regard to the Interpretation of\nHoly Scripture; on what principle, and with what sentiments, _they_\nbandied the Book of GOD'S Law; we shall have discovered the thing of\nwhich we are in search. For the _Author_ of a book must perforce be\nallowed to be the best judge of the method and intention of that\nbook:--the HOLY SPIRIT _must_ be allowed to be the best authority as to\nHis own meaning!\n\nNow this method,--(of which, as I will presently remind you, we possess\na great many specimens,)--proves to be very extraordinary. It altogether\nestablishes the fact that the Bible _is not to be interpreted \"like\nany other book.\"_ That it _could_ not be so interpreted, might have been\nconfidently anticipated beforehand, from the very fact of its Divine\norigin[449]. What I mean,--Since, \"by the mouth of David,\" the HOLY\nGHOST is expressly declared by CHRIST and by St. Peter to have \"spoken;\"\nand since the Psalms collectively are described by St. Paul as the\nutterance of the HOLY GHOST; since Jeremiah's witness is said to be the\nwitness of the HOLY GHOST; and the HOLY GHOST is actually said to have\nspoken by Isaiah; while the Spirit of CHRIST Himself, (St. Peter says,)\ndwelt in the Prophets:--in a word, since \"holy men of GOD spake _as they\nwere moved by_ the HOLY GHOST,\" and the provisions of the Mosaic Law are\nto the same HOLY GHOST by St. Paul emphatically ascribed[450];--stubborn\n_facts_, you are requested to observe, which Essayists may prudently\nsuppress but which no Sophistry on earth can either evade or\ndeny:--seeing, I say, that Holy Scripture is declared by inspired men\nto be the utterance of the Eternal God, it was to have been expected\nbeforehand that its texture would bear witness to its Divine origin; and\nthat, to interpret it \"like any other book,\" would be to forget its\nextraordinary character. Interpret Sophocles and Plato, if you will,\nlike any other book, for a very plain reason; but beware how you apply\nyour purely human notions to the utterance of the Ancient of Days; for\nthat utterance, enshrined in one particular volume, clearly makes that\none volume essentially unlike any other volume in the world.\n\nYou are particularly requested to observe, further,--that singular pains\nhave been taken to mystify this entire subject. It has been a favourite\ndevice to multiply difficulties,--real or imaginary,--and so, to create\na miserable sense of the dangers which fairly hem the subject in,--in\norder to render more palatable a desperate escape from them all. Thus,\nwe are told of the risks to which Grammatical nicety, and Rhetorical\naccommodation expose us; and again, the snares into which the Logical\nmethod may betray. Metaphysical aid, we are assured, mystifies; and even\nLearning, (would to Heaven we had a little more of it!) obscures the\nsense[451]. Might we just take the liberty of suggesting that the study\nof the exploded works of German unbelievers, (of which Germany herself,\nthank GOD! is beginning to be ashamed,) on the part of men of very\nmoderate intellectual powers, however wise in their own conceit; and\nwith no previous Theological knowledge to guide them,--is another yet\nmore fruitful avenue to error?... Next, we are threatened with the\nmanifold inconveniences which would ensue from the discovery that there\nis more than one sense in Holy Scripture,--(_that_ one sense being\nassumed to be, _not_ the sense intended by its Divine Author, but the\nsense which the first hearers may be supposed to have put upon it[452].)\n\"If words may have more than one meaning,\" (it is not very logically\nargued,) \"they may have _any_ meaning[453].\" We are told a great deal\nabout \"the growth of ideas;\" and of human prejudices; and of \"the\ndisturbing influence of Theological terms.\"--But all this kind of thing,\nit will be perceived at once, is altogether foreign to the matter in\nhand. _Ought Scripture to be interpreted like any other book,--or not_?\n_That_ is the real question! _Has Scripture only one meaning_, or _more_?\n_That_ is the point in dispute! Above all, _What is the true principle of\nScripture Interpretation_? _That_ is the only thing we have to discover!\n\nNow, as for _how_ the principles of Divine Interpretation are to be\ndiscovered, it is undeniable that there can be no surer way than by\ndiscovering _what is the method of the HOLY GHOST_; by inquiring, what\nis the method of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, and of His Evangelists, and of His\nApostles?\n\n1. Surely it is needless to remind an audience like the present, _what_\nthat method is! Turn the first page of St. Matthew's Gospel, and weigh\nwell the three famous cases of Interpretation which there encounter\nyou[454]:--namely, the assurance that Hosea's words, \"Out of Egypt have\nI called my son[455];\"--that Jeremiah's declaration concerning the tears\nof Rachel[456];--and that the many prophetic utterances concerning \"the\nBranch[457];\"--found fulfilment, each, in CHRIST. The first,--when, at\nJehovah's bidding, He was carried up out of Egypt into Palestine; the\nsecond,--when the bereaved mothers of Bethlehem wept for their murdered\noffspring; the third,--when CHRIST, being bred up in Nazareth, was\ncalled a \"Nazarene,\"--the root of which, etymologically, denotes \"a\nbranch.\"--But look further, and your surprise will increase at\ndiscovering how extraordinary the Divine method is. When our Saviour\ncast out evil spirits and healed the sick, St. Matthew declares that He\nfulfilled that prophecy of Isaiah, \"Himself took our infirmities and\nbare our sicknesses[458];\" the language of the prophet in fact being,\n\"Surely He hath borne our _griefs_ and carried our _sorrows_[459];\"\nwhich, as far as the words go, is rather a different thing.\n\n2. But it is St. Paul who affords us the largest induction of instances.\nWhen he would establish the right of the Clergy to have due provision\nmade for them, he finds his warrant in a most unexpected place of\nScripture. \"Say I these things as a man? or saith not the Law the same\nalso? For it is written in the Law of Moses, 'Thou shalt not muzzle the\nmouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.' Doth GOD care for the oxen\nhere alluded to[460]? (=m\u00ea t\u00f4n bo\u00f4n melei t\u00f4 The\u00f4?=) or saith He it\naltogether for our sakes? _For our sakes_, no doubt, this is\nwritten[461].\" I remind you of the entire passage, because it is so very\nexpress.--Elsewhere, St. Paul adduces a few verses from the viiith\nPsalm, the primary and more obvious meaning of which appears to assert\nnothing more than the supremacy of Man's present nature over the\ninferior races of animals; (\"all sheep and oxen, yea and all the beasts\nof the field[462].\") The application of it, in a prophetic sense, to the\nsupreme dominion of our Redeemer over all created beings in Heaven and\nEarth, is certainly not one which would naturally suggest itself to us;\nyet is it for this purpose, and this only, that St. Paul adduces it; and\nas confirmatory of the universal sovereignty of CHRIST, the place in\nquestion is three times quoted by the same Apostle[463].--Elsewhere,\nwhen he would warn persons who have been partakers of both Sacraments,\nof the danger of final rejection, he cites the example of the Fathers of\nIsrael in the Wilderness. \"The waters of the Red Sea were a wall unto\nthem, on their right hand and on their left[464],\" and the watery Cloud\ncovered them above; whereby it came to pass that \"all our Fathers were\nunder the Cloud, and all passed through the Sea; and were all therefore\n_baptized_ unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea.\" Moreover, he\ndeclares that they \"did all eat the same spiritual meat;\" (alluding to\nthe Manna;) \"and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank\nof that spiritual Rock that followed them: and _that Rock was\nCHRIST_[465].\" ... Our SAVIOUR'S emphatic application to Himself (in the\nvith of St. John) of the Manna, \"the bread which came down from\nHeaven,\"--none can forget[466].\n\n3. But St. Paul further largely interprets the ordinances of the Mosaic\nLaw. Thus, the provision that the High-priest alone should enter, once a\nyear, into the Holy of Holies, not without blood, he interprets as\nfollows;--\"the HOLY GHOST this signifying,\"--(\"the _HOLY GHOST this\nsignifying!_)--that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made\nmanifest, while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing[467].\" He\nexplains further that \"CHRIST being come an High-Priest of good things\nto come, by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle, ... by His own Blood\nentered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal Redemption\nfor us[468].\"--The Veil of the Temple, (he says,) typified CHRIST'S\nflesh[469]; and St. Paul intimates that he could further have spoken\nparticularly of the Golden Censer, and the Ark of the Covenant, and the\nPot of Manna, and Aaron's rod, and the Tables of the Covenant, and the\nCherubims of Glory[470].--Again, he says, that \"the bodies of those\nbeasts whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary by the High Priest for\nSin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might\nsanctify the people with His own Blood, _suffered without the\ngate_[471].\"--_Who_ is not familiar with the same Apostle's declaration\nthat the words of our father Adam relative to Marriage, are expressive\nof a great mystery, and set forth symbolically the union of CHRIST and\nHis Church; \"For we are members of His Body,--of His Flesh and of His\nBones[472]?\"--St. Peter is at least as remarkable in his Interpretations\nas St. Paul; for he says of the Ark \"wherein eight souls were saved by\nwater,\"--\"The like figure whereunto, even Baptism, doth also now save\nus[473].\"\n\nNow these samples of _Inspired Interpretation_ would be abundantly\nsufficient for our present purpose. But before I proceed to make any use\nof them, it is right to draw attention to a phenomenon, even more\nextraordinary.\n\n4. It is found then, that besides vindicating for the Scriptures of the\nOld Testament this unsuspected depth and fulness of prophetic and\ntypical meaning, the very Narrative itself teems to overflowing with\nmysterious purpose. You have but to weigh well what the HOLY SPIRIT hath\ndelivered concerning Abraham and Melchizedek, Hagar and Sarah,--to\nperceive that the texture of the Historical Narrative itself is of\nsupernatural fabric. All are familiar with what I allude to; but I\n_must_ remind you of it, in detail. The Apostle is bent on shewing the\nsuperiority of our SAVIOUR'S Priesthood to that of Aaron. How does he\nproceed? He lays his finger, unhesitatingly, on a verse in the cxth\nPsalm, (\"Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of\nMelchizedek;\")--declares with authority that it is CHRIST whom the\nprophet there alludes to,--or rather, whom GOD apostrophizes,--(for\n_that_ is what St. Paul actually _says_; =prosagoreutheis hypo tou\nTheou=[474]: although David undeniably wrote the Psalm;)--and proceeds,\nwithout more ado, to draw out minutely the characteristics of our\nSAVIOUR'S Priesthood, from the very brief narrative contained in the\nxivth Chapter of Genesis. Do but hear him!\n\nThe compound name \"Melchi-zedek,\" being interpreted, denotes \"King of\nRighteousness:\" while \"King of Salem\" denotes \"King of Peace.\" These\ntitles, (it is implied,) are emphatically appropriate to CHRIST our\nKing; to Him who \"is our Righteousness,\" and the very \"Prince of Peace.\"\nIt happens that nothing is said in Genesis about the parentage of\nMelchizedek, nor about the family from which he sprang: not a word as to\nwhen he was born, or when he died. From this _silence_ of Scripture, St.\nPaul collects the typical adumbration of One who, as very GOD, was\n_without_ human parentage,--had _no_ earthly lineage;--\"was before all\nthings,\" GOD from all eternity,--having _indeed_ \"neither beginning of\ndays nor end of life.\"--Did not Abraham give to Melchizedek a tithe of\nthe spoils? Consider then, (St. Paul says,) how great an one Melchizedek\nmust have been! Nay, consider that the descendants of Levi are commanded\nto take tithe of their brethren, although all are sprung from Abraham\nalike; but here is one, altogether of a different family, taking tithes\nof _Abraham_,--aye and _blessing_ Abraham too;--(=dedekat\u00f4ke=,\n=eulog\u00eake=, \"_hath_ tithed,\" \"_hath_ blessed,\"--the effect of the act\n_remaining_ for ever in CHRIST typified by Melchizedek.)--This\nmysterious King of Salem and Priest of the Most High GOD not only tithes\nbut blesses Abraham, who had received from ALMIGHTY GOD the promises,\nwhich included all blessedness, earthly and heavenly. Now, this implies\nMelchizedek's superiority,--for, of course, the less is blessed of the\ngreater.--Men who receive tithe here below are mortal; but the very\nsilence of Scripture respecting Melchizedek's death, symbolically\nteaches that HE whom Melchizedek typified, yet liveth.--And indeed, (so\nto speak,) the tribe of Levi who take tithes, _paid_ tithes to\nMelchizedek in the person of their great progenitor; because Levi was as\nyet in the loins of his father Abraham when Melchizedek met him[475]....\nI do not ask your pardon for thus leading you in detail over one\nunusually minute specimen of Divine Interpretation. I know well that\nthere are many persons to whom the Divine method is highly distasteful;\nand who think their own method of Interpretation infinitely better. But,\nunfortunately for those persons, the question in hand is not a question\nof taste, but a dry _matter of fact_. We have to discover what is _the\nDivine method_ of Interpretation, and no other thing. Its improbability\nand its inconvenience,--its difficulty, and its strangeness,--its\nseeming inconclusiveness, (apart from the authority on which it rests,)\nand its certain uniqueness, (notwithstanding the many injunctions we\nhave met with that we must interpret the Bible like any other\nbook[476],)--all these considerations are all together irrelevant, and\nbeside the question. St. Paul himself admits that the Discourse now\nbefore us is =polys kai dyserm\u00eaneutos=,--long and of difficult\ninterpretation[477].--Some will perhaps be found to inquire how it\nhappens that while so many remote points of analogy are adduced, so\nobviously typical a circumstance as Melchizedek's _bringing forth_\n\"_bread and wine_[478]\" obtains no notice from the Apostle? I\nanswer,--For the same reason that Isaac is nowhere spoken of, nowhere so\nmuch as hinted at, in the Bible, as being a type of CHRIST. A blind man\nmay see it. It requires no Revelation from Heaven to teach such things\nas _that!_ But the typical foreshadowing of the superiority of our\nSAVIOUR'S Priesthood over that of Aaron, in the story of Melchizedek,\nwould infallibly have escaped mankind altogether, unless it had been\nthus specially revealed.\n\nSome there may be so utterly wanting in Theological instinct, or so\ndepraved of taste; so utterly unused to the study of GOD'S Word, or so\nunobservant of the characteristic method of it,--as to imagine that\nthere is something trifling in the specimens of Interpretation before\nus. I am only concerned to maintain that they are Divine. You may think\nwhat you please about them. They are the teaching of the HOLY GHOST.\nNay, if unfortunately any persons here present should think themselves\nwiser than GOD, I would request them to observe that, singularly enough,\nGOD has connected with this very exposition a short address _to\nthemselves_. It runs as follows:--\"Concerning Melchizedek, we have to\ndeliver a long and difficult interpretation; difficult, however, _only\nbecause ye have become dull of hearing_[479].\" (The fault, you observe,\nis _yours_. Whereas GOD made your spiritual senses sharp and quick, you\nhave blunted their edge, and are become stupid and obtuse. It\nfollows:)--\"For when, by reason of the length of time that ye have\nprofessed Christianity, ye ought to be Teachers,\" (pray mark\n_that!_)--\"ye have need that some one should teach _you_ the first\nPrinciples of the Oracles of GOD; and ye have become such as have need\nof milk, and not of solid food. For every one that useth milk, is\nwithout experience in the Word of Righteousness; for he is an infant.\nBut solid food (=sterea troph\u00ea=) is for them that are of full age[480].\"\nWhere you are requested to observe that a specimen of Interpretation\n_you_ think trifling, the HOLY GHOST calls \"_solid food_;\" and\nyourselves, who in your own conceit represent the World's Manhood[481],\nHe calls =n\u00eapious=,--\"_babes_.\" ... This discrepancy of opinion strikes\nme as rather curious.\n\n5. The time would fail, were we to enter as particularly into the Divine\nInterpretation elsewhere given of another story, apparently as little\nfraught with mystery as any in the Bible. _Who_ would ever have imagined\nthat the brief narrative of Hagar's dismissal from the house of Abraham\nat Sarah's instance, was the =all\u00eagoria= of so Divine a thing as St.\nPaul declares;--the two Mothers setting forth the two Covenants, (one,\nbearing children unto bondage,--the other, the free Mother of us all:\nSinai symbolized by _that_, the heavenly Jerusalem by _this_:) and even\nIshmael's mockery not being without mysterious meaning?--Such however\nis the Divine Interpretation.--Elsewhere, when St. Paul desires to\ncontrast the method of the Gospel with the method of the Law,--(_this_,\nglorious; _that_, with the same glorious features concealed;)--and also\nto illustrate the present unbelief of the Jewish nation;--the Apostle\nfinds a prophetic emblem of their blindness in the veiled countenance of\ntheir great Lawgiver, as described in the xxxivth chapter of Exodus. The\nmystical intention of that veil, (he says,) was to symbolize the\nnation's inability to look steadfastly to the end of the dispensation,\nand to recognize MESSIAH. Nay, to this hour, while they read their\nScriptures, that veil (he says) is upon their hearts. And yet, even as\nMoses, when he returned to GOD, is related to have taken off the veil\nfrom his face, so (St. Paul says) will it fare with the Jews, when\n_they_ convert and turn themselves to CHRIST. The veil will be\nwithdrawn[482].--Now, I gather from all this, and many a hint of the\nlike kind,--that the whole of Scripture is of the same marvellous\ntexture, the Old Testament and the New, alike,--whether we have the eyes\nto see it or not.\n\n6. But I cannot dismiss the typical character of the Scripture\nnarrative, until I have reminded you of one striking intimation of it\nwhich you might easily overlook. \"O fools and slow of heart,\" was our\nLORD'S reproof to Cleophas and his companion on the evening of the first\nEaster: \"Ought not CHRIST to have suffered these things, and to enter\ninto His Glory? And _beginning at Moses_ and all the Prophets, He\nexpounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning\nHimself[483].\" In like manner, St. Paul at Rome expounded to the\nunbelieving Jews, \"persuading them concerning JESUS both _out of the Law\nof Moses_ and out of the Prophets, from morning till evening[484].\" The\nsame thing is repeated elsewhere[485]: but the most express declaration\nis that of our LORD Himself to the Jews:--\"Had ye believed Moses, ye\nwould have believed Me; _for he wrote of Me_[486],\" Moses therefore\n_wrote concerning_ CHRIST. CHRIST Himself says so. But _where?_ Shew me\nthe places in the Pentateuch which prove that CHRIST was \"to suffer\nthese things\" and then to \"enter into glory?\" You cannot do it; unless\nindeed in Isaac's Sacrifice you are content to find the adumbration of\nthe scene on Calvary. You cannot do it; unless in Joseph's betrayal for\ntwenty pieces of silver, (the deed of another Judas!) and his letting\ndown into the pit without water, you recognize the image of the death of\nOne by the blood of whose Covenant the prisoners of hope were set\nfree[487]. You cannot do it; unless in the same Joseph's exaltation to\nthe supreme power of Egypt, (when they \"cried before him, Bow the\nknee!\") you behold MESSIAH'S session at the Right Hand of GOD. You\ncannot do it; unless you notice how \"Joseph, who was ordained to save\nhis Brethren from death, who would have slain _him_, did represent the\nSON of GOD, who was slain by us and yet dying saved us[488].\" You cannot\ndo it; unless in the Paschal Lamb, and the wave-sheaf, you discern\nthings Heavenly, and of eternal moment. You cannot do it; unless you\nremember \"that as, in order to consecrate the Harvest by offering to GOD\nthe first-fruits of it, a sheaf was lifted up and waved; as well as a\nLamb offered on that day by the priest to GOD; so MESSIAH, that\nimmaculate Lamb which was to die, that Priest which dying was to offer\nup Himself to GOD, was upon the same day lifted up and raised from the\ndead; or rather shook and lifted up, and presented Himself to GOD, and\nso was accepted for us all; that so our dust might be sanctified, our\ncorruption hallowed, our mortality consecrated to eternity.\" Many who\nhear me will perceive that I have been quoting from Bp. Pearson; and\nwill be constrained to admit that Isaac and Joseph,--the wave-sheaf and\nthe Paschal Lamb,--may well be types of CHRIST; and that, thus lightly\ntouched, there can be little objection to tracing in such histories and\nprovisions of the Law, the main outlines of the Life and Death and\nResurrection of our REDEEMER. But remember, we have handled wondrous\nlittle of the patriarchal History and of the Law; and that little,\nwondrous cursorily; more, as it seems to me, in the manner of children\nin a Sunday-school, than as Divines in the first University of\nEurope!... Now, _St. Paul_ entertained _his_ audience \"from morning\nuntil evening.\" Had he nothing to say about Paradise, think you, and the\nmysterious parallel between the first and second Adam? nothing to say\nabout the Ark of Noah, and the waters of the Flood? What of the history\nof the patriarch Jacob, and of Joseph \"at the second time made known to\nhis brethren?\" What of Moses, and the miracles of the Exode? What of the\nmany minute provisions, (all of them, no doubt, significant!) of the\nMosaic Law? What of Esau's posterity and Balaam's prophecies,--the Cloud\nand the Flame,--the Manna and the Quails,--the riven Rock and Jordan\ndriven back?...\n\nI have already said enough to feel at liberty to gather out of it all,\nthe two chief propositions concerning Holy Scripture, which it is my\nbusiness this morning to establish. And first, I assert that it may be\nregarded as a fundamental rule, that the Bible _is not to be interpreted\nlike any other book_. This I gather infallibly from the plain fact, that\n_the inspired Writers themselves_ habitually interpret it _as no other\nbook either is, or can be interpreted_.\n\nNext, I assert without fear of contradiction that inspired\nInterpretation, whatever varieties of method it may exhibit, is yet\nuniform and unequivocal in this one result; namely, that it proves Holy\nScripture to be of far deeper significancy than at first sight\nappears[489]. By no imaginable artifice of Rhetoric or sophistry of\nevasion,--by no possible vehemence of denial or plausibility of counter\nassertion,--can it be rendered probable that Scripture has invariably\none only meaning; and _that_ meaning, the most obvious and easy to those\nwho first heard or read it.\n\nI would not be misunderstood by this audience, nor do I fear that I\nshall be. I am not denying (GOD forbid!) the literal sense of Scripture.\nRather am I, above all, contending for it. We may _never_ play tricks\nwith the letter. Those Six Days of Creation, depend upon it, were _six\ndays_: and the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge, and the Serpent,\nwere the very things they are called,--and no other things. So of every\nother part of the Bible. The Temptation of our LORD was as matter of\nfact a transaction as one of His walks by the sea of Galilee. _In what\nform_ the Tempter came to Him, hath not been revealed. _After what\nfashion_ the Prince of the power of the air contrived the dazzling\npanorama \"in a moment of time[490],\" I do not pretend to understand. The\nliteral sense of what has been revealed, is, for all that, to be\ndepended on. All is sincere History: _nothing_ is ever\nallegory,--_nothing_ may ever be evacuated or explained away! We have\nour LORD'S own word for it. The speech in Paradise, and what happened at\nthe time of the Flood; the fate of Lot's wife, and what befel the cities\nof the plain; the conduct of David (when he ate the shew-bread), and the\nvisit to Solomon of the Queen of Sheba; the history of the widow of\nSarepta, and of Naaman the Syrian:--all these stories of the Old\nTestament are by our LORD Himself appealed to as veritable History[491].\n\nBut I am proving that Scripture itself, literally understood, compels us\nto believe that _under_ the letter of Scripture, (which _of course_ is\nto be _interpreted_ literally,) there lies a deeper and sometimes a far\nless obvious meaning; occasionally a meaning so improbable, (as men\naccount improbability,) that, but for the finger of GOD pointing it out,\nwe could never by possibility have discerned it; so extraordinary, that\nwhen it is shewn us, it needs an effort of the heart and of the mind to\nembrace it fully.\n\nCases of literal Interpretation are indeed of constant occurrence in\nScripture; but the principle on which they depend is obvious, and\ncommon to all writings alike. I do not doubt, for a moment, that the\nhistory of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, (which we heard read this\nmorning,) is a _bon\u00e2 fide_ narrative,--_truer_ and _more_ authentic in\ndetails, than is to be found in any other book of History.--Neither do I\ndoubt that the obvious teaching, (the _moral_ Interpretation as it may\nbe called,) of that incident, is the proper one: viz. that even for the\nmost fiery of fleshly trials, GOD'S grace is sufficient:--that Joseph's\nsafety lay in refusing even to _be_ with her, joined to his holy fear of\nsinning _against GOD_:--that lust is ever cruel, and will hunt for the\nprecious life[492]:--finally, that the way of purity, though it may lead\nat first to sorrow, will infallibly conduct to blessedness at the last.\nConsiderations like these, which are obvious and easy, are also\nunquestionably _true_; and especially precious, (_who_ ever doubted it?)\nas helps to personal holiness.--But still, there may underlie this\nnarrative, for aught I see to the contrary, a mystical signification.\nPotiphar's wife may, (as the best and wisest of ancient and modern\nDivines have thought,) symbolize the Power of Darkness; and Joseph, our\nDivine LORD. The garment Joseph left in the woman's hand, may represent\nthat fleshly garment of which the true Joseph divested\nHimself,--(=apekdysamenos= as St. Paul speaks in a very remarkable\nplace,)--the mortal body which Satan apprehended (his sole triumph!) and\nby which he was ensnared, when a greater than Joseph gat Him out from an\nadulterous world[493]. Joseph in the prison, and CHRIST in the grave:\nJoseph exalted, and CHRIST Ascended: Joseph at last feeding the families\nof the World, and CHRIST becoming the Bread of Life to all:--let it not\noccasion offence, Brethren, if I confess that, for aught I see to the\ncontrary, some such hidden teaching as this, may underlie the plain\nhistorical narrative; and in no way interfere with a literal\ninterpretation.\n\nIII. From the two foregoing negative positions, however, (which almost\nneed an apology, such obvious truisms are they,) I eagerly pass on to\nsomething better and higher.\n\n1. And first, I boldly declare that the clue to all that has been\nadvanced concerning the marvellous method of Holy Writ is supplied by\nthe single consideration that the Bible is _the Word of GOD_,--that Holy\nScripture, from the Alpha to the Omega of it, is the language of the\nHOLY GHOST. Incomprehensible and unmanageable on any other\nhypothesis,--all the disclosures of inspired Interpretation, by the\nhearty reception of this one revealed truth, are rendered perfectly\nintelligible and clear. The HOLY SPIRIT may surely be assumed competent\nto interpret what the HOLY SPIRIT has already delivered! His\ndisclosures therefore are beyond the reach of censure; however\nmarvellous they may happen to be. But they are all a hopeless riddle to\nthose who have blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts.\n\nThus, to advert for a moment to the prophetic character (as it may be\ncalled) of the historical parts of Scripture,--What is it which moves\nsecret unbelief, and prompts a reference to the human devices of\nAllegory and Accommodation[494]? It is the profound conviction that no\nmerely human narrative could be handled as St. Paul handles Genesis,\nexcept by indulging in rhetorical license, and giving to Fancy a very\nfree rein. But disabuse your mind of this lurking suspicion, so\nderogatory to the honour of Him by whose Spirit the Bible is\ninspired,--cease to suspect that the narrative of Scripture is a merely\nhuman narrative,--and how different becomes the problem! Why should the\nHOLY GHOST have spoken less by the mouth of Moses, than by the mouth of\nDavid and Isaiah, Jeremiah and the rest of the prophets? But if _He_\nspeaks in Genesis, then are the words of Genesis _His_;--and every word\nof the narrative \"_proceedeth_\" (as our LORD phrases it,) \"_out of the\nmouth of GOD_.\"\n\nI am constrained to be thus express and emphatic, because it has been\nlately \"_laid down that Scripture has one meaning_;--the meaning which\nit had to the mind of the Prophet or Evangelist who first uttered or\nwrote,--to the hearers or readers who first received it[495].\" The\noriginal sense of Scripture, (says this writer,) is \"the meaning of the\nwords as they first struck on the ears, or flashed before the eyes, of\nthose who heard and read them[496].\" Now, I will not pause to remark on\nthe complicated fallacy involved in this. For (1), Why should a hearer's\nfirst impression of a speaker's meaning be assumed _to be_ that\nspeaker's meaning[497]? And (2), Why may not Prophets and Evangelists\nhave _intended_ secondary meanings[498]? But I do not dwell on this, for\nit does not touch the point. Let us hear the voice of one who adorned\nthis place many years before the present controversy arose, and who has\nexactly anticipated the question now at issue. \"Observe how this matter\nreally is,\" says Bp. Butler. \"If one knew a person to be _the sole\nAuthor_ of a book; and were certainly assured, or satisfied to any\ndegree, that one knew the whole of what he intended in it; one should be\nassured or satisfied to such degree, that one knew the whole meaning of\nthat book: for _the meaning of a book is nothing but the meaning of the\nAuthor_. But if one knew a person to have compiled a Book out of memoirs\n_which he received from Another, of vastly superior knowledge in the\nsubject of it_; especially if it were a Book full of great intricacies\nand difficulties; it would in no wise follow that one knew the whole\nmeaning of the Book, from knowing the whole meaning of the compilers:\nfor the original memoirs, (i.e. the Author of them,) might have, (and\nthere would be no degree of presumption, in many cases, against\nsupposing Him to have,) some farther meaning than the compiler saw. To\nsay then, that the Scriptures, and the things contained in them, can\nhave no other or farther meaning than those persons thought or had, who\nfirst recited or wrote them; is evidently saying, _that those persons\nwere the original, proper, and sole authors of those books_, i.e. THAT\nTHEY ARE NOT INSPIRED: which is absurd, whilst the authority of these\nbooks is under examination; i.e. till you have determined they are of no\ndivine authority at all. Till this be determined, it must in all reason\nbe supposed,--not indeed that they _have_, (for this is taking for\ngranted that they are inspired;) but,--that they _may_ have, some\nfarther meaning than what the compilers saw or understood[499].\"--So far\nBp. Butler.\n\n2. Now, if GOD be in effect the Speaker, why need we hesitate to believe\nthat He has so framed the stories, that they shall be throughout\nadumbrations of the things which concern our peace[500]? Let some\ngarment be shewn me of merely human manufacture, and however costly it\nmay prove, I look for nothing in it beyond the known properties of any\nother earthly fabric. But give me the assurance that, on the contrary,\nit was woven by Divine hands, and fashioned in a Heavenly loom, and do I\nnot straightway expect to find it a mystery and a marvel of Art? It is\neven so with the language of Holy Writ. It is all framed and fashioned\nafter a Diviner model than men are able to imagine. It is instinct with\nsublimest meanings. It is penetrated, through and through, with the\nSpirit of the Most High GOD. It is of so celestial a texture, that, to\nthe eye of the soundest Reason, informed by the purest Faith, it\nreveals, (when the Spirit of its Divine Author shines upon it,) the\nglorious outlines of an imperishable Life!\n\n3. The strong root of bitterness out of which springs unbelief in this\nsupernatural character of the historical parts of the Bible, is an\nunworthy notion of GOD'S Power. Because _human_ histories are perforce\nbarren and lifeless, it is assumed that the Book of GOD'S Law must be a\ndead thing also. And then, the conceit of self-relying Reason glides in,\n(like a serpent,) and remonstrates as follows:--\"Yea, can GOD have\nsanctioned a method of such subtlety and pliability as will make His own\nScriptures mean _anything_[501]? Is it not rather, an exploded fashion,\nwhich the age has outgrown,--_that_ fashion of supposing that there is\nsometimes a double sense in Prophecy, and that the Gospel is symbolized\nin the Law? Were then the worthies of the Old Testament puppets in GOD'S\nHands, acting parts?--now, typifying remote personages; now, exhibiting\nfuture transactions; now, symbolizing national events? Is it credible?\nNot so! Accept one of two alternatives, and never dream of a third.\nBelieve either that the Evangelists, the Apostles, our SAVIOUR CHRIST\nHimself,--partaking of the ignorance of their age, and speaking\naccording to the modes of thought then prevalent, were mistaken in their\ninterpretations of Holy Scripture; or else, deny boldly that there are\ninterpretations at all. Assume that they are mere allegory and\naccommodation! Something must be allowed for the backwardness of the\nPast;--and 'the time has come when it is no longer possible to ignore\nthe results of criticism[502].' A change of method 'is not so much a\nmatter of expediency as of necessity. The original meaning of\nScripture' is at last 'beginning to be understood[503].' Be persuaded,\nand make it thy business to persuade others, that the Bible _is but a\ncommon Book!_\"\n\n4. To all of which, we make summary answer:--Passing by thy\nself-congratulation on the enlightenment of the age,--of which, except\nin certain departments of physical Science, _we_ see _no_ evidence;--the\nwhole of thy argument concerning Holy Scripture amounts to this;--that\nit would be very distasteful _to thee_, to find that it contained any\nsense beyond that which lies on the surface. Types, intended by the\nAuthor of Scripture _to be_ types: Prophecy with sometimes more than a\nsingle application: historical events foreshadowing remote\ntransactions:--all these _thou_ deniest, because _thou_ dislikest.\nObserve, however, that while _thou_ art urging thine own private\nopinion, _we_ are dealing with a revealed fact. _Thou_ talkest about a\nprobability, but _we_ are establishing a proof. \"It is written\" that\nScripture _is_ thus significant, _is_ thus mysterious in its historical\noutlines. And thou canst not explain away one syllable, though thou\nshouldest deny \"_every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of GOD_.\"\n\n5. Let us, however, examine the question merely by the light of unaided\nreason.--Consider then! If GOD made this world the particular kind of\nworld which He is found to have made it, in order that it might in due\ntime preach to mankind about Himself, and about His providence:--if He\ncontrived beforehand the germination of seeds, the growth of plants, the\nanalogies of animal life; all, evidently, in order that they might\nfurnish illustrations of His teaching; and that so, great Nature's self\nmight prove one vast Parable in His Hands:--_why_ may not the same GOD,\nby His Eternal Spirit, have so overruled the utterance of the human\nagents whom He employed to write the Bible, that their historical\nnarratives, however little their authors meant or suspected it, should\nembody the outline of things heavenly; and, while they convey a true\npicture of actual events, should _also_ after a most mysterious fashion,\nyield, in the Hands of His own informing Spirit, celestial Doctrine\nalso?\n\n6. For let me remind you,--The very actions of men,--the complicated\ntransactions of our common lives,--are thus overruled by God's\nProvidence; and, without restraint, are so controlled that they shall\nsubserve to the ulterior purposes of His will,--after a fashion which\naltogether defies analysis. Beyond this inner circle of comprehensible\ncausation,--external to the immediate sphere of cause and effect which\ncourts our daily scrutiny,--there is an outer circle, which rounds our\nlives; and (as I said) overrules all we do; fashioning, by virtue of a\nsupreme fiat which is altogether beyond our comprehension, all our ends.\n_Why_ then, I ask, may not the Bible be, what it purports to be,--the\nauthentic record of transactions which the marvellous skill of Him who\ngoverneth all things in Heaven and Earth did so overrule, that they\nshould become foreshadowings of chief transactions in the Kingdom of\nCHRIST? Shall prophecy, in the ordinary sense of the term, be admitted\nby all,--and yet a _prophetic transaction_ be deemed impossible with\nGOD? If Isaiah may prophesy of one \"red in His apparel,\" after \"treading\nthe winepress alone[504];\" may describe Him as \"despised and rejected of\nmen;\" \"a Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief;\" \"wounded for our\ntransgressions and bruised for our iniquities;\" \"brought as a lamb to\nthe slaughter,\" and \"making intercession for the transgressors;\" and at\nlast destined to find \"His grave with the wicked, yet with the rich in\nHis death[505]:\"--if this may be _in words_ described minutely, and move\nno doubt; shall we close our eyes that we may not see,--or seeing shall\nwe fail to recognize,--in the person of such an one as David, a\ndivinely-intended type of MESSIAH? What! when he who was born in\nBethlehem, overcomes the Philistine at the end of forty days, and takes\nfrom him the armour wherein he trusted;--when he,--a prophet, priest,\nand king,--is persecuted by his enemies, and betrayed by his own\nfamiliar friend; when _he_ at last passes over the brook Kidron and\nascends Olivet, sorrowing as he goes;--yea, when he utters words which\nour REDEEMER resyllables with _His_ dying breath[506];--wilt thou refuse\nto discern in the person of David, the lineaments of David's Son? and\nsneer at _us_, who herein have been better taught than thou; although\nthou hast no better reason to give for thy unbelief than that the view\nof Holy Scripture which the Church Catholic hath held in all ages, seems\nto thee a thing impossible?\n\n7. Take once more, if thou wilt, the analogy of Nature; and thence infer\nwhat is _probable_ concerning things Divine. Is it observed that _the\nworks_ of GOD are thus single in their office; or are they, on the\ncontrary, manifold in their virtues and uses? Than the metal Iron, what\nsubstance more serviceable for every ordinary mechanical purpose of\ndaily life? Yet, ask the physician which of the metals _he_ could least\nafford to forego as an instrument of cure: and he will tell thee that\n_he_ finds Iron the fullest of healing virtues also. Shall then plants\nand animals, yea, and the whole of the Animal Kingdom, be admitted to\nsubserve to manifold, and at first sight unsuspected uses,--so that the\nwisest are ready to confess that the function of most remains to this\nhour a secret:--and shall we be reluctant to allow that the _Word of\nGOD_--\"the Tree of Life,\" whereof \"the leaves are for the healing of the\nnations,\"--may also be thus various in its purpose; fraught with other\nteaching besides that which on its very surface meets the careless eye?\n\n8. To speak without a figure,--It is not of course to be supposed that\nthe inspired writers knew all the wondrous qualities of the message they\ndelivered, or of the narrative they were divinely guided to indite.\nAltogether a distinct question _this_; although the two have been\nsometimes confused together[507]. Nay, Revelation itself comes in to\nhelp us here. St. Peter, in express words, declares that concerning the\nmystery of Redemption \"the prophets _inquired and searched diligently_;\n... searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of CHRIST which\nwas in them did signify, when it,\"--(not _they_, observe, but\n_It_)--\"testified beforehand the sufferings of CHRIST, and the glory\nthat should follow.\" That \"not unto, themselves, but unto _us_ they did\nminister,\"--thus much, indeed, _was_ revealed to them; but no more. The\nrest, to this hour, the very \"Angels desire to look into!\"\n\n9. But between the words which a man delivers _being_ full of Divine\nsignificancy, and _himself knowing_ the full scope and purport of those\nwords,--there is surely a mighty difference! When Caiaphas foretold the\nuniversal efficacy of CHRIST'S Death, _who_ less than Caiaphas suspected\nthe far-reaching truth of the words which fell from his unholy lips?\n_He_ knew nothing about the triumphs of the Cross; and yet he could\nprophesy very accurately concerning them. \"This spake he not of\nhimself,\" (says the Evangelist,) \"but being high-priest that year, he\nprophesied that JESUS should die for that nation; and not for that\nnation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children\nof GOD that were scattered abroad[508].\" ... It may safely be assumed\nthat the sacred writers no more knew the force and power of their own\nwords, than those Priests who lived and moved amid the shadows of the\nMosaic Ritual were able to discern therein, the substance of things\neternal in the Heavens. And yet we believe concerning those ritual types\nthat \"they were a concealed prophetic evidence, the force of which was\nmade apparent by the presence of the Gospel[509].\" I am prone to suspect\nthat the burning vehemence of their own language must many a time have\nmoved the Prophets of old to deepest astonishment; and that when there\nbroke from them words of more than mortal power,--or images of unearthly\ngrandeur,--or the outlines of a grief more than human; when they spake\nof a betrayal for thirty pieces of silver[510], of blows and\nspitting[511], and of pierced hands and feet[512]; of parted garments\nand lots cast upon a vesture[513];--they must have felt, they must have\nfelt the awfulness of the message they were commissioned to deliver; and\nlonged, yea yearned unutterably to see and to hear the things which were\nreserved to be witnessed in the days of the Son of Man!\n\n10. Enough, however, of all this. In reply to _\u00e0 priori_ objections, I\nhave been content to argue the question as if the Bible were a\nnewly-discovered Book without a history; whereas the consentient\nwritings of all the Fathers and Doctors of every age, in every portion\nof the Christian Church, is an overwhelming _fact_! Rather have I\nreasoned as if the Bible were a book altogether silent concerning\nitself. But the plain truth, as I have fully shewn, is the very reverse.\nScripture is _full_ of interpretations of Scripture;--and the constant\nmethod of Scripture in such interpretations, is spiritual or\nmystical;--and this witness of Scripture is the strongest proof possible\nthat the principle involved is correct. Meanwhile, the great underlying\ntruth which I now desire, more than any other to bring before you, is\nthis:--that it is the HOLY GHOST who, in the New Testament, interprets\nwhat the same HOLY GHOST had delivered in the Old. This, believe me, is\nthe true key, the only intelligible solution, to all those difficulties\nrespecting places of the Old Testament, whether interpreted, or only\nquoted, in the New, which have so exercised the ingenuity of learned\nmen. We are always to remember, in a word, that the _true_ Author of\neither Testament,--the _real_ Author of every part of the Bible, is (not\nMan, but) GOD!\n\nIV. Such then, (to conclude,) is _the Divine method of Interpretation_.\nWe are not concerned now to classify, and sort it out under different\nheads. _To apply_, even to a small extent, the principles we have been\nlabouring to establish, would not only lead us much too far, but would\nconstrain us to travel out of our proper subject and prescribed\nprovince. Our purpose has only been, to vindicate the profundity, or\nrather _the fulness_ of Holy Writ[514]; and to shew that under the\nobvious and literal meaning of the words, there lies concealed a more\nrecondite, and a profounder sense: call that sense mystical, or\nspiritual, or Christian, or what you will. Unerringly to elicit that\nhidden sense is the sublime privilege of inspired Writers; and they do\nit by allusion, by quotation, by the importation of a short phrase[515],\nby the adoption of a single word[516],--to an extent which no one would\nsuspect who had not carefully studied the subject. How that method of\ntheirs is to be _applied by ourselves_, it is impossible, I repeat, for\nme even to hint at in a single discourse. But _this_, I will say; and\nwith _this_ I dismiss the subject;--that Interpretation would be a\nhopeless task, but for the solemn circumstance that the whole of the\nBible is inspired by one and the self-same Spirit; so that one part may\nalways be safely compared with any other part of it, you please. Nay,\nby no other method can you hope to understand the Bible, than by such a\nlaborious comparison of its several parts. \"Non nisi ex Scriptur\u00e2\nScripturam potes interpretari.\" The more you study the Book, the more\nyou will feel convinced that its many authors all resorted to one and\nthe same Fountain of Inspiration. They all use the same imagery; they\nall speak the same language; they all mean the same thing. St. John the\nDivine, in the Book of Revelation, shuts up the Canon by reproducing the\ncombined imagery of all the ancient prophets,--by declaring that the\nSong of Moses and of the LAMB is sung by the redeemed in Heaven,--by\nmarvellous words about \"the Tree of Life,\" which is \"in the midst of the\nParadise of GOD.\" The Inspired writers of either Testament all draw from\nthe same Treasury, and therefore all say the same things. The Heavenly\nJerusalem, (with her gates of pearl and streets of gold,) is the home of\nthe spirit of each one of them[517]; JESUS CHRIST, and He Crucified, is\nthe abiding theme of them all. And O, how their words do sometimes teem,\nand their phrases swell, almost to bursting, with their blessed\nargument[518]! You shall be troubled with only one example of what I\nmean.--Moses having described the interview between Melchizedek and\nAbraham, the mighty secret of MESSIAH'S priesthood which therein lay\nenshrined was curtained all so close, that neither Angels nor Men could\npossibly discern it. Must it then remain a mystery for 2000 years? Not\nso! Midway between the day of Abraham and the day of CHRIST,--just\nmidway,--David, speaking by the HOLY GHOST,--(of _that_, our LORD\nHimself assures us[519],)--David, I say, when a thousand years had\nrolled by, utters the cxth Psalm; and in the fulness of his prophetic\nfervour, the great secret bursts unexpectedly into light! A thousand\nyears had passed since Abraham returned from 'the slaughter of the\nKings.' It wanted yet a thousand years to the date of our SAVIOUR'S\nBirth. And lo, midway, a voice is heard, shouting to Him across the gulf\nof Ages,--\"_Thou_ art a Priest for ever _after the order of\nMelchizedek_!\"\n\n\"And let not Reason be alarmed. Her vocation is not gone. Yea rather, I\nknow not if Human Intellect ever had a loftier problem presented to her\nthan to follow out that deep Analogy which has been noticed above; and\nto learn, (if it may be called Reason's learning,) how to deal with Holy\nScripture as Apostles and Evangelists deal with it. Let not Reason be\nalarmed. She is only asked to listen, and to discern the nature and laws\nof Sacred Study. She is asked but to discern the evidence which there is\nof her being in a world which she imperfectly understands.... The\nstudent of the Bible is advised so to address himself to the study of\nthat Book, so to deal with its language, as one should deal with THE\nWORD OF GOD,--the measure of whose import is in the infinite, not in\nthe finite World.--Surely, by these things the LORD tries the spirits of\nus all; tries other men by other means, but tries the intellectual man\nby the Word of GOD[520], and watches him as he reads it; hardens the\nobdurate; blinds the self-blinded; but pours into the humble mind the\nriches of His divine Wisdom like showers into a valley; making it soft\nwith the drops of rain and blessing the increase of it[521].\"\n\nV. Friends and brethren, it is not without reluctance that on a Sunday\nin Lent, when penitential thoughts should rather occupy us,--and in this\nplace too, where the promotion of practical piety should rather be our\naim,--I have so addressed you. But indeed, I seem to have no choice. It\nis idle crying \"peace, peace,\" when there is _no_ peace. If the\nInspiration of Holy Scripture be a deceit, and the Divine meaning of\nHoly Scripture a superstition,--then, farewell to all our hopes in Life\nand in Death; farewell to peace in days of despondency and gloom. Our\nfaith is gone, and our teaching becomes a hollow heartless thing. Since,\nunder the name of freedom of discussion, unbounded licentiousness of\nspeculation is openly the fashion of the age, we are constrained to give\na reason for the hope which is in us; and to defend, without compromise\nor hesitation, that Bible, which is the great bulwark of the Faith. It\nshall not be said that we can condemn, but that we make no answer. It\nmust be seen that we put forth in reply the ancient Truths; and it will\nbe felt that before the majesty of those ancient Truths, the arts of the\nenemy will prove weak and unavailing,--rather, will stand revealed in\nall their native deformity. If English Clergymen, coming abroad in the\ncast-off clothes of German unbelief[522], and decked out with the\nexploded sophisms of the last century, are to declare openly that the\nfaith of our Fathers is already looked upon among ourselves as 'a kind\nof fossil of the Past,'--then is it high time that voices should be\nheard vindicating _that_ ancient method of our Fathers; and boldly\nproclaiming that this imputation against the Clergy of England is a\ndisreputable untruth. The Church of England, (GOD be praised!) hath\n_not_ left her first love; hath _not_ given up her ancient method;\nChristianity is _not_ 'a difficulty to the highest minds.' The Christian\nReligion embraces, as much as ever it did, \"the thought of men upon the\nEarth.\" \"All the tendencies of Knowledge\" are _not_ \"opposed to it.\" The\nGospel is still immeasurably before the age. Intellect has not\ngone,--the loftiest order of well-trained intellects will never go,--the\nother way[523]. It is, on the contrary, none but a very shallow wit\nwhich errs. Had it confined its speculations to the cloister, or come\nabroad with sorrow and shame, we should have pitied in silence, and in\nsilence also have lamented. But when it comes insultingly abroad, and\nsets up a claim to intellectual superiority even while it denies the\nmost sacred truths;--_then_ pity gives way before indignation and\ndisgust. Crown the whole with the iniquity of imputing these views\ngenerally to the more thoughtful of the English Clergy[524],--and we are\nconstrained openly to resent the grievous wrong. We declare it to be an\nunfounded calumny; a calumny which, in the name of the whole Church, I\nsolemnly repel before GOD,--and His Holy Angels,--and _you_!\n\nVain, utterly vain,--worthless, utterly worthless,--must any\nsuperstructure of intellectual, moral, or religious training be, which\nis built up on the doctrine that the Bible is to be interpreted like any\nother Book; in other words, that the Bible _is_ a common Book; in other\nwords, that _Inspiration is a fable and a dream_. We have no fear\nwhatever that _your_ high instincts, (with all your faults!),--_your_\nEnglish manliness,--will, to any extent be led astray, by sophistry\nworthless as that which we have been exposing. But we know you look to\nyour appointed Teachers from this place, (as well you may,) for advice,\nand support, and encouragement, in your better aspirations;--and let\n_me_, at least, in plain language, warn you that novelties in Religion\nnever _can_ be true. \"Philosophia,\" says the great Bishop Pearson\nspeaking of Physical Science; \"Philosophia quotidie progressu: Theologia\nnisi _regressu_ non crescit[525].\" \"Ask for the old paths!\" ... The\nfaith, remember, was =hapax=,--_once for all_,--delivered to the Saints.\nThere will be no new deposit. There can be no new doctrines. There has\nbeen no fresh Revelation,--no new principle of guidance vouchsafed to\nman. A new method of interpreting Scripture is _quite_ impossible. And\nthe true method,--the only _true_ method--_must_ be that which was\nadopted by our SAVIOUR, by His Evangelists, and by His Apostles: a\nmethod which _they_ taught to their first disciples, and which those\nearly Bishops and Doctors handed on in turn to the generation which came\nafter them. That method, by GOD'S great goodness, has descended in an\nunbroken stream, even to ourselves; who have described it this morning,\nfeebly indeed and unworthily,--yet, in the main, as it would have been\ndescribed at _any_ time, by _any_ of the glorious company of the\nApostles, the goodly fellowship of the Prophets, the noble army of\nMartyrs,--by any of the Doctors and Fathers of the Holy Church\nthroughout the world! O let it be our great concern,--yours and\nmine,--to preserve with undiminished lustre the whole deposit of\nHeaven-descended teaching which is the Church's treasure!... Like\nrunners in a certain ancient race of which we all have read, let it be\n_our_ pride and joy,--yours and mine,--to grasp the torch of Truth with\na strong unwavering hand; to run joyously with it so long as the days of\nthis earthly race shall last; and dying, to hand it on to another, who,\nwith strength renewed like the eagle's, may again,--swiftly, steadily,\nexultingly,--run with it, till he fails!... _So_, when the Judge of\nquick and dead appeareth,--_so_ let Him find _you_ occupied,--O young\nmen, (many of you, my friends,) who are already the hope of half the\nEnglish Church! So faithfully may _we_, Brethren and Fathers, one and\nall, be found employed, when He cometh,--whose answer to the Tempter is\nemphatically _the_ text of the present solemn season, as well as a\nmighty voucher for the Divine origin, and sustaining efficacy of that\nBook concerning which I have been detaining you so long,--\"It is\nwritten, Man shall not live by bread alone; but by every word that\nproceedeth out of the mouth of GOD!\"\n\n     Ut verum fatear, semper existimavi, allusiones istas, (ad quas\n     confugiunt quidam tanquam ad sacrum su\u00e6 ignoranti\u00e6 asylum,)\n     plerumque nihil aliud esse, quam Sacr\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6 abusiones\n     manifestas.\n\nBISHOP BULL, _Harmonia Apostolica_, cap. xi. sect. 3.\n\n     There would be no need to scruple the term, if it were not meant to\n     imply that this Accommodation was arbitrary on the part of the\n     Evangelist; or that the mind of THE SPIRIT that spoke by the\n     Prophet does not most fully include this application.\n\nDR. W. H. MILL.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[436] Preached at St. Mary-the-Virgin, on the Third Sunday in Lent,\nMarch 3rd, 1861.\n\n[437] \"It cannot be said that this, [viz. that _the Bible is the Word of\nGod_,] is always remembered. It cannot be said that they who write\nrespecting the Bible, even Christian writers who are looked up to,\nalways appear to have been in that frame of mind while contemplating the\nstatements of the Sacred Volume, which they, the same men, would have\nbeen in if they had been listening _for a voice out of a cloud_; a word\nreaching them which was simply, and in that sense, the Word of GOD. Yet\nthe Sacred Volume comes to us with no less claims than as conveying such\na message; and on every feature of it, it carries that claim. It\nprofesses to be this,--an account of what went on in the secret\ncouncil-chamber of the MOST HIGH.\"--Eden's _Sermons_, pp. 150-1.\n\n[438] _Exposition of the Creed_, Art. II. (\"Our LORD,\")--vol. i. p. 183.\n\n[439] 1 St. Peter i. 11.\n\n[440] _Eccl. Pol._, B. v. c. lix. \u00a7 3.\n\n[441] Bp. Bull, _Defensio Fid. Nic._ I. i. 9, (_Works_, vol. v. i. p.\n22.)\n\n[442] Disc. v. _The state of Man before the Fall._ Bull's Works, vol.\nii. p. 99.\n\n[443] \"DEUS novit cordis mei secreta: in dogmatis theologicis a\nnovaturiendi prurigine (quam etiam supremi Judicis tribunal insiliens\nfidenter mihi tribuit theologi\u00e6 professor) adeo alienus sum, ut\nqu\u00e6cunque catholicorum Patrum et veterum episcoporum consensu comprobata\nsunt, etiamsi meum ingeniolum ea non assequatur, tamen omni reverentia\namplexurus sim. Nimirum non paucis experimentis monitus didiceram, cum\nadhuc juvenis Harmoniam scriberem, (quod mihi jam confirmata \u00e6tate\npersuasissimum est,) _neminem catholico consensui repugnare posse,\nquin is_ (utcunque ipsi aliquantisper adblandiri videantur sacr\u00e6\nScriptur\u00e6 loca nonnulla perperam intellecta, et levicularum\nratiuncularum phantasmata) _tandem et Divinis Oraculis et san\u00e6 rationi\nrepugnasse deprehendatur_.\"--Bp. Bull's _Works_, vol. iv. p. 313.\n\n[444] In days of unbelief, one is tempted to add a note even on a\nTheological truism like that in the text,--\"Esto igitur, inquies; fuerit\nDeus, qui in Veteri Testamento, sive per Angelum, sive sub angelic\u00e2\nrepr\u00e6sentatione sanctis viris apparuit et locutus est; at qu\u00e2 demum\nratione adducti crediderunt doctores, fuisse DEI FILIUM? Respondeo:\n_Ratione, ni fallor, optim\u00e2, quam ex traditione Apostolic\u00e2\nedidicerant_.\"--_Def. Fid. Nic\u00e6n._ I. i. 12. Bp. Bull's Works, vol. v.\ni. p. 27.\n\n[445] =All' h\u00ea ekkl\u00easia, \u00f4 hagi\u00f4tate Eusebie, heter\u00f4s ta peri toutou\nnomizei kai ouch h\u00f4s sy. ton men gar en t\u00ea bat\u00f4 phanenta t\u00f4 M\u00f4ys\u00ea\ntheologei\u00b7 ton de en HIerich\u00f4 t\u00f4 met' auton ophthenta, ton t\u00f4n HEbrai\u00f4n\nepistasian lachonta, machairan espasmenon, kai t\u00f4 I\u00easou lysai prostattonta\nto hypod\u00eama, touton de ge ton archangelon hypeil\u00eaphe Micha\u00eal,\nk. t. l.=--The entire passage may be seen in the best annotated editions of\nEusebius, (lib. I. c. ii. \u00a7 17.) since that of Valesius, who first\nintroduced it to notice. But to read it in a truly valuable context,\nreference should be made to Dr. Mill's _Christian Advocate's_ publication\nfor 1841, p. 92. The note alluded to has been reprinted in Dr. Lee's\nDiscourses _On Inspiration_, p. 535.\n\n[446] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 31.\n\n[447] See Appendix (J).\n\n[448] St. John i. 1-3.\n\n[449] So Bp. Butler, in a passage which will be found below, at\np. 165-6.--Very different is the judgment of Professor Jowett, who is of\nopinion that \"it will be a further assistance in the consideration of\nthis subject, to observe that _the Interpretation of Scripture has\nnothing to do with any opinion respecting its origin_.\"--_Essays and\nReviews_, p. 350.\n\n[450] See above, pp. 55-57.\n\n[451] Professor Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 393-402. He\nadds,--\"Discussions respecting the use of the Greek article, have gone\nfar beyond the line of utility. There seem to be reasons for doubting\nwhether any considerable light can be thrown on the New Testament from\ninquiry into the language.... Minute corrections of tenses or particles\nare no good.\" (p. 393.) And this, from a Regius Professor of Greek!\n\n[452] See below, pp. 164-5.\n\n[453] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 372.\n\n[454] St. Matth. ii. 15:17, 18:23.\n\n[455] Hos. xi. 1.\n\n[456] Jer. xxxi. 15.\n\n[457] e.g. Is. xi. 1. Also Zech. iii. 8: vi. 12. Jer. xxiii. 5 and\nxxxiii. 15.\n\n[458] St. Matth. viii. 17.\n\n[459] Is. liii. 4.\n\n[460] For consider Exod. ix. 19, Jonah iv. 11, &c.\n\n[461] 1 Cor. ix. 8-10, quoting Dent. xxv. 4. See also 1 Tim. v. 18.--\"It\nseems providentially appointed that texts of the Old Testament should be\ncalled out into Christian meaning which are the very texts we might have\ndismissed into a transitory interest. 'Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that\ntreadeth out the corn.' 'Humane provision!', modern observation might\nsay. 'Is it for oxen God careth? is an Apostle's interpretation of the\nsame text; 'or saith He it altogether _for our sakes?_'.... It is a law,\nwe find, prospectively set down for the Christian Church.\"--Eden's\n_Sermons_, p. 189.\n\n[462] Ps. viii. 7.\n\n[463] Heb. ii. 6-8. 1 Cor. xv. 25, and Eph. i. 22.--See Shuttleworth's\n_Paraphrase_ of the first place cited, p. 394.\n\n[464] Exod. xiv. 22, 29.\n\n[465] 1 Cor. x. 1-4.\n\n[466] St. John vi. 32-58.\n\n[467] Hebr. ix. 6-9.\n\n[468] Ibid. v. 11, 12.\n\n[469] =Dia tou katapetasmatos, toutesti t\u00eas sarkos hautou.= Hebr. x. 20.\n\n[470] Hebr. ix. 2-5.\n\n[471] Hebr. xiii. 11, 12.\n\n[472] Eph. v. 30-32.\n\n[473] =H\u00f4 kai h\u00eamas antitypon nyn s\u00f4zei baptisma=. 1 St. Pet. iii. 21.\n\n[474] Hebr. v. 10.\n\n[475] Hebr. vii. 1-10. The student in Divinity will find it well worth\nhis while to inquire for a Latin Dissertation by the late learned Dr. W.\nH. Mill on this subject.\n\n[476] _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 338, 375, 377, 419-20, 426, 428, 429,\n&c. The advice is Professor Jowett's.\n\n[477] Hebr. v. 11.\n\n[478] Gen. xiv. 18.\n\n[479] =N\u00f4throi gegonate tais akoais=.--Hebr. v. 11.\n\n[480] Hebr. v. 12-14.\n\n[481] Dr. Temple in _Essays and Reviews_.\n\n[482] 2 Cor. iii. 12-16.--Take notice that in allusion to the place,\nExod. xxxiv. 34, (=h\u00eanika d' an eiseporeueto M\u00f4ys\u00eas enanti Kyriou lalein\naut\u00f4, peri\u00eareito to kalymma=,) St. Paul says,--=h\u00eanika d' an epistreps\u00ea\npros Kyrion, periaireitai to kalymma=. The expression is altered in\norder to bring out more clearly the allegorical meaning.\n\n[483] St. Luke xxiv. 25-27.\n\n[484] Acts xxviii. 23.\n\n[485] Acts xxvi. 22, 23.\n\n[486] St. John v. 46, 47.\n\n[487] Zech. ix. 11, 12.\n\n[488] Bp. Pearson.\n\n[489] Consider St. John ii. 17, 22: xii. 16. St. Luke xxiv. 8, 45. Acts\nxi. 16.\n\n[490] =En stigm\u00ea chronou=.--St. Luke iv. 5.\n\n[491] St. Matth. xix. 5. St. Luke xvii. 27 and 32. St. Matth. xi. 23:\nxii. 4 and 42. St. Luke iv. 25-27.\n\n[492] Prov. vi. 26. Consider v. 9. Eccl. vii. 26. Gen. xxxix. 20. 2 Sam.\nxi. 15. St. Mark vi. 25.\n\n[493] The learned reader,--(and the unlearned reader too, who will bear\nin mind that =apekdysamenos=, [in the E. V. 'having spoiled,'] certainly\nmeans 'having stripped off from himself,')--is invited to consider with\nattention those words of Col. ii. 15:--=apekdysamenos tas archas kai tas\nexousias, edeigmatisen en parr\u00easia, thriambeusas autous= [not =autas=,\nobserve;] =en aut\u00f4= [sc. =t\u00f4 staur\u00f4=. See by all means Pearson _on the\nCreed_, Art. v. note (_l_): (ed. Burton, vol. ii. p. 217-8.) Cf. Eph.\nii. 16. Consider St. Luke xi. 22.] To complete the teaching of the\npassage, the reader is invited to study also, in connexion with what\ngoes before, 1 Cor. ii. 6-8; taking notice, that =hoi archontes tou ai\u00f4nos\ntoutou= are not, (as the marginal references suggest,) the powers of the\nvisible, but of the _invisible_ World. See St. John xii. 31: xiv. 30:\nxvi. 11, and Ephes. ii. 2: vi 12.--See Ignatius _Ep. ad Ephes._ c. xix.,\n(with the notes in Jacobson's ed.) See also Dr. Mill _on the\nTemptation_, p. 165.\n\n[494] See Sermon VI.\n\n[495] Professor Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 378.\n\n[496] Professor Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 338.\n\n[497] Consider St. John xii. 16: x. 6: xi. 13. St. Luke xviii. 34. St.\nMatth. xvi. 11, 12. St. John viii. 27, &c., &c.\n\n[498] See St. John xi. 49-52: vi:. 37-39.\n\n[499] _Analogy_, Part ii. ch. vii.\n\n[500] Augustine, speaking of the New Testament, says,--\"Factum quidem\nest, et ita ut narratur, impletum; sed tamen etiam ipsa, qu\u00e6 a DOMINO\nfacta sunt, aliquid significantia erant,--quasi verba (si dici potest)\nvisibilia, et aliquid significantia.\"--_Opp._, tom. v. p. 421 F.\n\n[501] _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 368, 372.\n\n[502] Professor Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 374.\n\n[503] Professor Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 418.\n\n[504] Is. lxiii. 2, 3.\n\n[505] Is. liii.\n\n[506] Comp. Ps. xxxi. 5 with St. Luke xxiii. 46.\n\n[507] By Professor Jowett for example. \"The time will come when educated\nmen will no more be able to believe that the words of Hos. xi. 1 _were\nintended by the prophet_ to refer to the return of Joseph and Mary from\nEgypt, than,\" &c.--_E. and R._, p. 418. _When_ did \"educated men\" ever\nbelieve anything of the kind?\n\n[508] St. John xi. 50. Comp. xviii. 14.\n\n[509] Davison on _Prophecy_, p. 192.\n\n[510] Zech. xi. 12, 13.\n\n[511] Is. l. 6.\n\n[512] Ps. xxii. 16. Zech. xiii. 13.\n\n[513] Ps. xxii. 18.\n\n[514] \"Adoro Scriptur\u00e6 plenitudinem.\"--Tertullian _adv. Hermog._, c. 22.\n\n[515] Comp. St. Matth. ii. 20, with the LXX Version of Exod. iv. 19: St.\nMatth. iii. 4, with the same version of 2 Kings i. 8: St. Matth. xxvi.\n38 with Ps. xlii. 5. St. Luke i. 37, with Gen. xviii. 14,--i. 48, with 1\nSam. i. 11, and with Gen. xxx. 13,--i. 50, with Ps. ciii. 17. St. John\ni. 52, with Gen. xxviii. 12,--&c., &c.\n\n[516] A few examples may prove suggestive to a thoughtful\nreader:--=exodos=, in St. Luke ix. 31 and in 1 St. Pet. i.\n15:--=apokatast\u00easei=, in St. Matth. xvii. 11, (cf. Mal. iv. 5):\n=sitometrion=, in St. Luke xii. 42, (cf. Gen. xlvii. 12): =paradeisos=,\nin St. Luke xxiii. 43. The reference is of course always to the\n_Septuagint_ version.\n\n[517] Ps. xlvi. 4: xlviii. 1, 8: lxxxvii. 3. Is. lii. 1: lx. 14. Ezek.\nxlviii. Ephes. ii. 19, 20. Phil. iii. 20. Gal. iv. 26. Hebr. xi. 10:\nxii. 22: xiii. 14. Rev. xxi. 2, 10: iii. 12, &c.\n\n[518] \"Scriptores =theopneustoi=, de typo disserentes, divinius quiddam\nex inopinato pati solent, et ad antitypum vehementiore Spiritus afflatu\nrapi et elevari. Assertionis hujusce veritas inde constat, quod verba\nqu\u00e6dam haud expectata s\u00e6pius inferant, qu\u00e6 MESSI\u00c6 vel solum vel aptius\nquam Illius typo congruant.\"--Spencer _De Legg. Hebr._, vol. ii. p.\n1035. Consider such places as Ps. ii. 6, 7: xli. 9, 10: xlv. 10, 11:\nlxi. 6: lxxii. 5, 7, 11, 16, 17: lxxxix. 29. Gen. xlix. 18. Is. lxi. 1,\n2, 3. Zech. vi. 11, 12.\n\n[519] St. Mark xii. 36.\n\n[520] \"And their manner of treating this subject when laid before them,\nshews what is in their heart, and is an exertion of it.\" Bp. Butler's\n_Analogy_, P. II. ch. vi.--See Appendix (C).\n\n[521] Eden's _Sermons_, pp. 192-5.\n\n[522] \"With the exception of the still-imperfect science of Geology,\"\n(says Dr. Pusey,) \"the Essays and Reviews contain nothing with which\nthose acquainted with the writings of unbelievers in Germany have not\nbeen familiar these thirty years.\" Even the Apologist for the volume in\nquestion assures us that one who \"had looked ever so cursorily through\nthe works of Herder, Schleiermacher, L\u00fccke, Neander, De Wette, Ewald,\n&c., would see that the greater part of the passages which have given so\nmuch cause for exultation or for offence in this volume, have their\ncounterpart in those distinguished Theologians.\"--_Edinb. Rev._, Ap.\n1861, p. 480.\n\n[523] Rev. B. Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 374-5.\n\n[524] Rev. B. Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 372, (_bottom_,) 340,\n374, &c.\n\n[525] _Minor Works_, vol. ii. pp. 9-10.--\"In Christianity, there can be\nno concerning truth which is not ancient; and _whatsoever is truly new\nis certainly false_.\"--Epistle Dedicatory prefixed to Pearson _on the\nCreed_, p. x.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON VI.[526]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTHE DOCTRINE OF ARBITRARY SCRIPTURAL ACCOMMODATION CONSIDERED.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nROMANS x. 6-9.\n\n_\"But the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise,--'Say\nnot in thine heart, Who shall ascend into Heaven?' (that is, to bring\nCHRIST down from above:) or, 'Who shall descend into the deep?' (that\nis, to bring up CHRIST again from the dead.) But what saith it? 'The\nword is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thine heart:' that is, the\nword of Faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy\nmouth the LORD JESUS, and shalt believe in thine heart that GOD hath\nraised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.\"_\n\n\nIt is quite marvellous in how many different ways different classes of\nprofessing Christians have contrived to nullify the value of their\nadmission that the Bible is _inspired_. Some would distinguish the\ninspiration of the Historical Book from that of those which we call\nProphetical. Others profess to lay their finger on what are _the proper\nsubjects_ of Inspiration, and what are not. Some are for a general\nsuperintending guidance which yet did not effectually guide; while\nothers represent the sacred Writers as subject, in what they delivered,\nto the conditions of knowledge in the age where their lot was cast. The\nview of Inspiration which Scripture itself gives us,--namely, that God\n_is therein speaking by human lips_[527]; so that 'holy men of GOD'\ndelivered themselves as they were 'impelled,' 'borne along,' or 'lifted\nup,' (=pheromenoi=) _by the HOLY GHOST_[528];--_this_ plain account of\nthe matter, I say, which converts 'all Scripture' into something\n'_breathed into by GOD_,' (=theopneustos=,)[529]--men are singularly slow\nto acknowledge. The methods which they have devised in order to escape\nfrom so plain a revealed Truth, are 'Legion.'\n\nSecond to none of the enemies of Holy Writ, practically, are they who\ndeny its depth and fulness. It is only another, and a more ingenious\nway, of denying the Inspiration of the Bible, to evacuate its more\nmysterious statements. Those who are for eluding the secondary intention\nof Prophecy, the obviously mystical teaching of Types, the allegorical\ncharacter of many a sacred Narrative,--are no less dangerous enemies of\nGOD's Word than those who frame unworthy theories in order to dwarf\nInspiration to the standard of their own conceptions of its nature and\noffice. I say, it is only another way of denying the Inspiration of\nScripture, to deny what is sometimes called its mystical, sometimes its\ntypical, sometimes its allegorical sense.... And thus,--what with the\narbitrary decrees of our own unsupported opinion, or the self-sufficient\nexercise of our own supposed discernment;--what with our insolent\nmistrust; or our shortsighted folly and presumption; or, lastly, our\ncoldness and deadness of heart,--our slender appetite for Divine things,\nwhich makes us yearn back after Earth, at the very open gate of\nHeaven;--in one way or other, I repeat, we contrive to evacuate our own\nadmission that the Bible is an inspired Book: we fasten discredit on\nits every page: we become profane men, like Esau: we despise our\nbirthright.\n\nBut the most subtle enemy of all remains yet to be noticed. It is he,\nwho,--finding the plain Word of GOD against him: finding himself refuted\nin his endeavour to fix one intention only on the words of the HOLY\nGHOST, and _that_ intention, the most obvious and literal one; finding\nhimself refuted even by the express revelation of the same HOLY GHOST,\nelsewhere delivered;--bends himself straightway to resist, and explain\naway, that later revelation of what was the earlier meaning. It is a\nmarvellous thing but so it is, that the very man who contended so\nstoutly a moment ago for the literal meaning of Scripture, _now_\nrefuses, and denies it. Anything but _that_! If he allows that St.\nMatthew, or St. Paul,--yea, or even our Blessed LORD Himself,--are to be\n_literally_ understood; are severally to be taken to _mean_ what they\n_say_;--then, Moses and David,--narrative, law, and psalm,--besides\ntheir literal meaning, have, at least _sometimes_,--and they _may_ have\n_always_,--a mystical meaning also. _Under_ the evident, palpable\nsignification of the words, there lies concealed something grander, and\ndeeper, and broader; high as Heaven,--deep as Hell.\n\nAnd this supposition is so monstrous an one; seems so derogatory to\ntheir notions of the mind of GOD;--it is deemed so improbable a thing,\nthat the words of Him, whose ways are not like Man's ways, should span\nthe present and the future, at a grasp;--that He whose \"thoughts are\nvery deep,\" should, with language thereto corresponding, be setting\nforth CHRIST and His Redemption, while He tells of Patriarchs and\nLawgivers,--Judges and Kings,--priests and prophets of the LORD:--I\nsay, it is deemed so incredible a thing that Moses should have written\nconcerning CHRIST, (though our SAVIOUR CHRIST Himself declares that\nMoses did write concerning Him)[530]; or that the occasional expressions\nof the Prophets should really contain the far-reaching allusions which\nin the New Testament are assigned to them; that the men I speak of,--men\nof learning (sometimes), and of piety too,--will condescend to every\nimaginable artifice in order to escape the cogency of the Divine\nstatement. St. Paul--was infected with the Hebrew method of\ninterpretation. (It is of course _assumed_ that this method was\nessentially erroneous! It is overlooked that our LORD had recourse to\nit, as well as St. Paul! It is either forgotten, or denied, that the\nHOLY GHOST, speaking by the mouth of St. Paul, acquiesced in every\ninstance of such interpretation on the part of His chosen vessel!) ...\nAs for St. Matthew, he addressed his Gospel to the Jews, and therefore\nreasoned as a Jew would. (St. Matthew's Gospel was not of course\nintended for the Christian Church! The blessed Evangelist was also\ndeeply learned,--it is of course reasonable to suppose,--in the sacred\nhermeneutics of the Hebrew Schools!) ... The other Sacred Writers, it is\npretended, all wrote according to the prejudices of the age in which\nthey lived.--In all these cases, it is contended that _merely in the way\nof Accommodation_, is the language of the Old Testament cited in the\nNew. What was said of one thing is transferred to quite another,--to\nsuit the purpose of the later writer; to illustrate his reasoning, to\nadorn or to enforce his statements.... And this brings me to a question\nof so much importance, that I pause to make a few remarks upon it. In\nthe present discourse, it shall suffice to remark on the doctrine of\n_Scriptural_ ACCOMMODATION; for which it is presumed that the text,\n(selected not without reference to the present Sacred Season,) affords\nample scope, as well as supplies a fair occasion.\n\nNow, it is not to the _term_ \"Accommodation,\" that we entertain any\ndislike; but to the _notion_ which it seems intended to convey; and to\nthe _principle_ which we believe that it actually embodies. That the\nHOLY SPIRIT in the New Testament sometimes accommodates to His purpose a\nquotation in the Old,--is very often a mere matter of fact. In all those\nplaces, for instance, where St. Paul inverts the clauses of a place\ncited,--there is a manifest accommodation of Scripture, in the strictest\nsense of the word. When two, three, or more texts, widely disconnected\nin the Old Testament, are continuously exhibited in the New,--a species\nof accommodation has, of course, been employed. The same may be said\nwhen a change of construction is discoverable. Again, there is\naccommodation, of course, when narrative,--legal enactment,--or\nprophecy, is _so exhibited_ that the point of its hidden teaching shall\nbecome apparent. Nay, in a certain sense of the word, there is\n\"accommodation,\" as often as a prophecy, however plain, is applied to\nthe historical event which it purports to foretel. The prophecy may be\nsaid,--(with no great propriety indeed, but still, intelligibly,)--to\nhave been accommodated to its fulfilment.--Occasionally, a general\npromise is made particular,--as in Hebrews xiii. 6; and perhaps _this_\nmight be called an accommodation of the text to the needs of an\nindividual believer. Yet is it plain that in all these cases\n'_application_' or '_adaptation_' would be a better word.\n\nBut such ways of adducing Holy Scripture, we suspect, are not by any\nmeans what is _meant_ by 'Accommodation;' and they do not certainly\ncorrespond with the notion which the term is calculated to convey. The\nplace in the Old Covenant, seems, (from the term employed,) to have been\nforced, against its conscience, as it were, to bear witness in behalf of\nthe New. It has been wrenched away from its natural bearing and\nintention; and made to accommodate itself,--and, on the part of the\nwriter, quite arbitrarily,--to a purpose, with which it has, in reality,\nno manner of connexion. This, I say, is the notion which the term\n\"Accommodation\" seems to convey.\n\nI am supposing, of course,--(as the opposite school is, of course,\nsupposing,)--_not_ an _illustration_,--which obviously _any_ writer,\nwhether ordinary or inspired, has a right to introduce at will; but a\ncase where the cogency of the argument depends entirely on the place\ncited. A sudden and unforeseen requirement arose;--nothing entirely fit\nand applicable occurred to the memory: but by an arbitrary handling of\nthe ancient Oracles of GOD,--(altogether illogical and inconclusive\nindeed, yet entitled to a certain measure of respectful consideration at\nour hands, and certainly having a strong claim on our indulgence,)--the\nlater writer saw that he should be able to substantiate his position, or\nto strengthen his argument, or to prove his point. And he did not\nhesitate to do so. It is surprising that his hearers or his readers\nshould have accepted his statements, and admitted his reasoning;--very!\nBut they _did_. And it is for us, the heirs of the wisdom of all the\nages, to detect the time-honoured fallacy and to expose it.--This, I\nsay, is the notion which the term \"Accommodation\" seems calculated to\nconvey; and it is to be feared, _does_ very often represent.\n\nAnd the introduction of this principle, as already explained, I cannot\nbut regard as the most insidious device of all. It admits fully all that\nwe have elsewhere laboured to establish. It freely grants that Apostles\nand Evangelists were inspired. But then, it denies that much of what\nthey deliver in the way of interpretation of Scripture, is to be\nregarded as _real_ interpretation. By a taste for Allegory; by\nRhetorical license; on _any_ principle, it seems, _but one_, is the\nDivine method to be accounted for; and the plain facts of the case to be\nobscured, or explained away.\n\nNow I _altogether reject_ this principle of arbitrary \"Accommodation.\" I\nhold it to be a mere dream and delusion. And I reject it on the\nfollowing grounds:--\n\n1. It is evidently a mere excuse for Human ignorance,--a transparent\ndeceit. Men do not see how to explain, or account for, the apparent\nlicense of the Divine method; and so they have invented this method of\nescape. Most cordially do I subscribe to the opinion expressed by Bishop\nBull, in his discussion of the very text which we are now about to\nconsider:--\"Atque, ut verum fatear, semper existimavi, allusiones istas,\n(ad quas confugiunt quidam tanquam ad sacrum su\u00e6 ignoranti\u00e6 asylum,)\nplerumque aliud nihil esse, quam sacr\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6 abusiones\nmanifestas[531].\"\n\n2. The \"theory of Accommodation,\" (as it is called,) is attended with\nthis fatal inconvenience,--that, (like certain other expedients which\nhave been invented to get over difficulties in Religion,) it altogether\nfails of its object. For even if we should grant, (for argument's\nsake,) that some quotations from the Old Testament _can_ be explained\non this principle,--so long as there remain others which defy it\naltogether, nothing is gained by the proposed expedient. Thus, so long\nas attention is directed to certain of the places in St. Paul's writings\nalready referred to[532], there is certainly _no absurdity_ in adducing\nthem as instances of Rhetorical license. But how can it be pretended\nthat the text whereby St. Paul establishes, (on two distinct occasions,)\nthe right of the Christian Ministry to a liberal maintenance,--with what\npropriety can it be thought that Deut. xxv. 4 lends itself to such a\ntheory? Those words _seem_,--and, apart from Revelation, might without\nhesitation have been declared,--to have _nothing at all to do with the\nmatter_[533]! To talk of the \"accommodation\" of words so eminently\nunaccommodating, is unreasonable, and even absurd.\n\n3. But, allowing the advocates of this theory all they can possibly\nrequire, the result of their endeavours is but to make the Sacred\nwriters ridiculous after all. For it attributes to them a method, which,\nif it be a _mere_ exhibition of human fancy, often seems to be but a\nspecies of ingenious trifling,--scarcely entitled to serious attention\nat our hands. There is no alternative, in short, between certain of the\nexpositions which we meet with, being Divine,--and therefore worthy of\nall acceptation; or Human,--and therefore entitled to no absolute\ndeference whatever.\n\n4. On the other hand, learned research has hitherto invariably tended to\nshew that the meaning claimed for Scripture by an Apostle or\nEvangelist, _does_ actually exist there. Thus, it has been admirably\ndemonstrated that the Evangelical meaning attributed by St. Matthew, (in\nthe first chapters of his Gospel,) to certain places in the ancient\nProphetical Scriptures of the Jewish people, derives nothing but\ncorroboration from the inquiries of Piety and Learning[534].... It is\nproposed on the present occasion, without pretending to bring to the\nquestion any such helps as these, to examine the portion of Holy\nScripture already under our notice, with a view to ascertaining what\nlight it will throw on the main question at issue. To this task, I now\naddress myself.\n\nSt. Paul's words, from the 6th to the 9th verse (inclusive) of the xth\nchapter of his Epistle to the Romans, present probably, as fair an\nexample as could be desired of what is sometimes called \"Accommodation.\"\nTo say the truth, I know not an instance of what, _in any uninspired\nwriting_, I should have been myself more inclined to stigmatize as such.\nThe Apostle begins an affectionate remonstrance with his countrymen by\ndeclaring that they \"did not understand the Righteousness of GOD;\" (that\nis, the Divine method whereby GOD wills that we shall be made righteous,\nby faith _in CHRIST_;) but desired to set up (=st\u00easai=) a righteousness\nof their own, on the worthless foundation of their own Works[535].\n\"For,\" (he proceeds; with plain reference to _what_ \"the Righteousness\nof GOD\" _is_;)--\"_For_ CHRIST is the end\" (aim, or object,) \"of the\nLaw[536] to every one who hath faith\" in CHRIST. St. Paul straightway\nproceeds, (as his manner is,) to establish this latter proposition. How\ndoes he do it? \"_For_,\" (he begins again,)--\"Moses describes the nature\nof the righteousness which proceeds from the Law, when he declares [in\nLeviticus xviii. 5,] that '_The man who hath done_ the deeds commanded\nby the Law, shall live thereby.'--But concerning the Righteousness which\nproceeds from Faith,\"--[it was called before, 'the Righteousness of\nGOD,']--\"Moses writes as follows[537]:--'Say not in thine heart, Who\nshall ascend into Heaven? (that is, to bring CHRIST down:) or, Who shall\ndescend into the deep? (that is, to bring CHRIST up from the dead.) But\nwhat saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart:\nthat is, the word of faith, which we preach: because if thou shalt\nconfess with thy mouth the LORD JESUS, and shalt believe in thine heart\nthat GOD raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.\"\n\nHere then is a quotation from the xxxth chapter of the Book of\nDeuteronomy,--a quotation introduced in the way of argument, in support\nof a proposition: the remarkable circumstance being, that St. Paul\nadduces the words of Moses with extraordinary license. For first, he\nomits as many of the Prophet's words as make little for his purpose,\nwhile he introduces a very remarkable alteration in some of the words\nwhich he retains: amounting to a substitution of one sentence for\nanother. And next, there is one single word, which he expands into an\nimportant phrase; and _that_ merely to suit his own argument. But the\nstrangest thing of all is the interpretation which he delivers of words,\nwhich as we have just seen, are partly his own,--partly, the words of\nMoses: by which interpretation, the most strikingly _Christian_\ncharacter is fastened upon sayings pronounced by the ancient Lawgiver in\nthe land of Moab, to the Jewish people.--We do further, for our own\npart, most freely admit, that the place,--as it stands in the Old\nTestament,--neither at first, nor at second sight, seems to have any\nsuch meaning as the Apostle assigns to it. I will remind you of the\nwords in Deuteronomy, by reading the entire passage:--\"This commandment\nwhich I command thee this day, ... is not hidden from thee, neither is\nit far off. It is not in Heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go\nup for us to Heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do\nit? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go\nover the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do\nit? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart,\nthat thou mayest do it.\" ... Now, I say, one of ourselves might read\nthis passage in the Book of Deuteronomy over a hundred times, and never\nsuspect that Moses, when he so wrote, was writing concerning faith in\nCHRIST: and yet we have the sure testimony of the HOLY SPIRIT to the\nfact that he _was_.--The inquiry, \"Who shall ascend into Heaven?\",\nsignifies, we are told, \"Who shall ascend,--_to bring down CHRIST from\nabove_?\"--And just so, the other clause, \"Who shall descend into the\ndeep?\", is declared to be an incomplete expression: the full phrase\nbeing,--\"Who shall descend,--_to bring up CHRIST[538] from the dead_.\"\n... Now we never desire to see a non-natural sense fastened on the\nInspired Word. With Hooker, we \"hold it for a most infallible rule in\nexpositions of sacred Scripture, that, where a literal construction will\nstand, the furthest from the letter is commonly the worst.\" We contend\ntherefore that whereas we have here the explicit assurance that Moses\nwrote of none other than CHRIST,--though his words do not bear upon them\nany evidence of the fact,--it is a mere trifling with holy things, to\ncall the fact in question.\n\nHere, however, we shall be reminded that the great Apostle,--though\nprofessing to quote,--confessedly argues in part from _his_ own\nlanguage, which is _not_ the language of Moses. Moses says,--\"Who shall\ngo _over the sea_ for us?\" (=tis diaperasei h\u00eamin eis to peran t\u00eas\nthalass\u00eas?=) And since the version of the LXX is what the Author of the\nEpistle to the Romans follows in this place, it is reasonable to expect\nthat he would adhere to that version, or at least to the sense of that\nversion, in the exhibition of so important a clause as the present.\nWhereas, instead of \"Who shall go _over the sea_,\" we find St. Paul\nwriting,--\"Who shall _go down into the deep?_\" (=Tis katab\u00easetai eis t\u00ean\nabysson?=)--language evidently highly suggestive of the mysterious\ntransaction to which the same St. Paul says it contains a\nreference[539]; but certainly _not_ the language of Moses. And we shall\nbe reminded that this is not merely phraseology rescued from vagueness,\nand made definite; but it is the actual substitution of one thought for\nanother. This is what will be said; and if it be followed up by the\nassertion that here, therefore, we have a clear example of Scriptural\nAccommodation, it might seem, at first sight, impossible to deny the\nfact.\n\nFor our own parts, we are inclined to meet the present difficulty, and\nevery similar one, in quite another spirit; and dispose of the\nobjection, somewhat in the following way. The same GOD who gave us the\nScriptures of the Old Testament, gave us the New Testament also. The\nBible is _one_. He who inspired the Law, inspired the Gospel. The HOLY\nGHOST pleads with us in both alike.--Surely, therefore, He who spake of\nold time by the Prophets, may be allowed, when, in the last days, He\nspeaks by the Apostles of CHRIST,--to explain His earlier meaning, if He\nwill. Surely, He may tell the Israel of GOD,--if He pleases,--what He\nmeant by the language He held of old time to Israel after the flesh!\nYea, and if it seemeth good to Him to call in the wealth of His ancient\ntreasury, in order to recoin it that He may the more enrich us\nthereby:--if it pleases Him to take His ancient speeches back again into\nHis mouth, in order that He may syllable them anew,--making them sweeter\nthan honey to our lips, yea, sweeter than honey and the honeycomb;--what\nis _Man_ that he should reply against GOD? What should be our posture,\nat witnessing such a spectacle, but one of Adoration? What, our becoming\nlanguage, but praise?\n\nIt is easy to anticipate the answer that will be made to all this. We\nshall be told that we are, in some sort, begging the question. The\nBible is an Inspired Book, indeed: but _what is Inspiration_?--Moses\nwrote the Book called \"Deuteronomy:\" St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the\nRomans. And St. Paul,--quoting a passage out of the older record,--has\nsubstituted a sentiment of his own for a sentiment contained in the\nwritings of Moses. He does the same thing in other places; and\nelsewhere, as here, he proceeds to reason upon the data he has so\nobtained. _This_, it will be said, is the phenomenon which we have to\ndeal with.\n\nBut, we reply, it is manifest that he who so argues,--with all his\napparent good sense, and fairness,--is entirely committed to a theory\nconcerning Inspiration; and _that_ a very unworthy one. The Bible comes\nto us as an Inspired Book; claiming to be the very Word of GOD. The Holy\nChurch throughout all the World, doth acknowledge it to be so. Surely,\ntherefore, it is for _us_ to study its contents by the light of this\nprevious fact.--But quite contrary is the method of our opponents. They\ntreat the Bible as if it were an ordinary Book. They submit its contents\nto the same irreverent handling as they would the productions of a\nmerely human intellect. They not only reason _about_ its claims from its\ncontents,--but they would even pronounce _upon_ its claims, from the\nsame evidence. They dare to sit in judgment upon it. Hence their lax\nnotions on the subject of Inspiration. They first run riot among\nstatements which are too hard for them; and when they have perplexed\nthemselves with these, till the field is strewed with doubts, and the\nlimits of unbelief and mistrust have become extended on every\nside,--Inspiration, like an ill-defined boundary-line on a map, is\nsuffered faintly to hem in, and enclose the utmost verge of the unhappy\ndomain.--Whereas, we maintain that a belief in the Bible, as an Inspired\nBook, should, at the outset, prescribe a limit to human speculations.\n\nLet this belief encircle us exactly, and entirely; and define, at once,\nthe area within which all our reasonings must be taught to marshal\nthemselves, and to find their full development. In brief, our opponents\nmeet our remonstrance by another; but, as we contend, an unreasonable\none;--at least, as proceeding from men who, no less than ourselves,\nallow freely the Inspiration of Scripture. _We_ say,--The Bible is the\nword of GOD. Fill your heart with this conviction, and then humbly\naddress yourself to the study of its pages.--It is argued on the other\nside,--The pages of the Bible are full of perplexing statements. They\nevolve strange phenomena, interminably. Convince yourself of this; and\nthen make up your mind, if you can, about the Inspiration of the\nBible[540].... I shall have occasion, by and by, to explain more in\ndetail the spirit in which the Divine Logic,--_Inspired reasoning_ as it\nmay be called,--is to be approached. For the moment, I am content to\nwaive the question; and to be St. Paul's apologist, almost as if I had\nmet with his words in an uninspired book.\n\nSolemnly protesting, then, that the ground we have just occupied is the\nonly _true_ ground on which to take our stand; but withdrawing from it\nbecause we do not fear the appeal to unassisted Reason, even in matters\nof Faith,--so that the proper limits and conditions of inquiry be but\nobserved;--we proceed to inquire whether,--apart from Revelation,--there\nbe not good ground for believing that the words of the ancient Hebrew\nLawgiver and Prophet contain and mean the very thing which the Christian\nApostle _says_ they do.--We change our language at this stage of the\ninquiry. We no longer assert, (as before we did,) that the HOLY GHOST\nspeaking by the mouth of Moses, _must have meant_, what the same HOLY\nGHOST, speaking by the mouth of St. Paul, declares that He _did_ mean.\nWe are willing to study the sacred text solely by the light which grave\ncriticism and patient learning have thrown upon it.--Our inquiry now, is\nthis;--Although the words in Deuteronomy, read over attentively by\nourselves, suggest no such Christian meaning as we find affixed to them\nin the Epistle to the Romans,--is there no reason, traditional or\notherwise, for supposing that they _do_ envelope that meaning; yea, so\nteem and swell with it, that the germ of the flower may be actually\ndetected in the yet unopened bud?... I proceed to this inquiry.\n\n1. And first, it is obvious, to any one reading the xxixth and xxxth\nchapters of the last Book of Moses, that they contain _another\nCovenant_, beside that of Horeb. This is expressly stated in the first\nverse of the xxixth chapter:--\"These are the words of the Covenant which\nthe Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land\nof Moab, _beside the Covenant which He made with them in Horeb_[541].\"\nNot to stand too stiffly thereupon, however[542], let it be at least\nfreely allowed that even if we choose to regard this chapter and the\nnext as a _renewal_ only of the Covenant made in Horeb, it is a\n_distinct_ renewal;--both in respect of time and of place. Of time,--for\nwhereas the Covenant of Sinai belongs to the _first_ of the forty years\nof wandering, the Covenant of Moab belongs to the _last_. Of place,--for\nwhereas the other was made at the furthest limit of the people's\nwanderings, _this_ belongs to their nearest approach to Canaan.--And I\nconfidently ask, After _such_ an announcement, and at a moment like\n_that_,--the forty years of typical wandering ended, and the earthly\ntype of the heavenly inheritance full in view, Jordan alone intercepting\nthe vision of their Rest;--shall we wonder, if here and there a ray of\ncoming glory shall be found to flash through the language of the dying\npatriarch? if some traces shall be discernible, even in the language of\nMoses, of the dayspring of the Gospel of CHRIST?\n\n2. We find that it contains not a few sayings in support of such a\npresumption. The 10th verse opens the covenant, and in the following\nsolemn language:--\"Ye stand, this day, all of you, before the LORD your\nGOD: the Captains of your tribes, your Elders, and your officers, with\nall the men of Israel;--your little ones, your wives, and the stranger\nthat is in thy camp,--from the hewer of thy wood, to the drawer of thy\nwater.\" And what was the _intention_ of this solemn standing before the\nLORD? Even--\"that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the LORD thy\nGOD, and enter into His oath, which the LORD thy GOD maketh with thee\nthis day.\"--The purport of the Covenant thus to be made, was, that GOD\nmight establish Israel that day for a people unto Himself, and that He\nmight be unto them a GOD,--(an expression elsewhere appropriated by the\nGreat Apostle to the Christian Church[543],)--as He had ... sworn unto\ntheir fathers, _to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob_. So that we have\nhere the renewal of the _Evangelical Covenant_ made with Abraham, and\nrenewed to Isaac and Jacob,--which is clearly distinguished in Scripture\nfrom the _Legal_ Covenant, made with their children 430 years after; and\nwhich is declared ineffectual to disannul the earlier one, confirmed\nbefore by GOD, and pointing entirely to CHRIST[544]. That earlier\nEvangelical Covenant then, it was, which was renewed in the land of\nMoab;--in the course of renewing which, the words of the text occur.\n\n3. And that it was indeed the Evangelical, (not the Legal Covenant,)\nwhich is here spoken of, is abundantly confirmed by the subsequent\nlanguage of the passage: for Moses proceeds,--\"Neither with you only do\nI make this Covenant and this oath; but with him that standeth here this\nday with us before the LORD our GOD, and _also with him that is not here\nwith us this day_[545]:\" meaning, (as the ancient Targum expounds the\nplace,) \"_with every generation that shall rise up unto the world's\nend_.\" It was the same Covenant, therefore, which is made with\n_ourselves_; \"for the promise is unto\" us, and to our \"children, and to\nall that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our GOD shall\ncall[546]:\" \"_not_ according to the Covenant which GOD made with the\nFathers of Israel in the day that He took them by the hand to bring them\nout of the Land of Egypt[547].\"\n\nYet more remarkably perhaps is this established by the language of the\nensuing chapter: for GOD therein promises that _Circumcision of the\nheart_ whereby men should be enabled to love the LORD their GOD with\n_all their heart_ and with _all their soul_. Now this seems clearly to\nintimate not legal but Evangelical obedience,--the result of the free\noutpouring of the HOLY SPIRIT of GOD; of which, in the Law, (properly so\ncalled,) we find no promise whatever. Here then we discover another\nanticipation of something which belongs to the times of the Gospel.\n\nAnd this Evangelical complexion is to be recognized in the entire\ncontents of the xxixth and xxxth chapters. They contain no single\nmention of ceremonial rites or observances,--of which the Law is, for\nthe most part, full. But free obedience and perfect love are inculcated\nas the condition of blessedness: while hearty repentance is made the\nsole condition of forgiveness of sin.\n\nIn connexion with this, I may call your attention to a curious\ncoincidence,--if indeed it be not something more. On the sincere\nrepentance of the people, it is promised \"that then the LORD thy GOD\nwill turn thy captivity;\" which the Targum of Jonathan\nparaphrases,--\"His WORD will receive with delight thy repentance:\" while\nthe Septuagint even more remarkably renders the words--\"will heal thy\nsins;\" that is,--\"will be thy JESUS.\" Moses proceeds,--\"and gather thee\nfrom all the nations whither the LORD thy GOD hath called thee.\" And\nwhat is this but one of the very places, if it be not _the very place_,\nto which St. John alludes when he declares that Caiaphas prophesied that\nJESUS should die for that nation; and not for that nation only; but that\nHe should gather together in one, the children of GOD that were\nscattered abroad[548]?\n\n4. Nor is it, finally, a little remarkable that, by the general consent\nof the Hebrew Doctors, this xxxth chapter has ever been held to have\nreference to the times of MESSIAH. The restoration spoken, is referred\nby them to the restoration to be effected by CHRIST: while the promises\nit contains are connected with those prophetic intimations which clearly\npoint to the days of the Gospel[549]. So much, then, for the evidence,\n_apart from Revelation_, which the general complexion of the place in\nDeuteronomy affords to the reasonableness of the meaning affixed to it\nby the voice of the later Scriptures. Before we proceed to examine a\nlittle in detail the words of the text, we may be surely allowed to\nremind ourselves of the Testimony which St. Paul bears to the\nEvangelical character of what is here delivered. He asserts, in the most\ndirect and emphatic manner, that it is the Righteousness which is by\nFaith which here speaks[550]. He is contrasting the spirit of the Law,\nwith that of the Gospel. He is setting the requirements of the one\nagainst those of the other. To exhibit the former,--he quotes from\nLeviticus. To enable us to judge of the latter,--he quotes this very\nplace in Deuteronomy. Having shewn the justification under the\nLaw,--which is by entire fulfilment of every enjoined work;--the Apostle\ndescribes the Righteousness of the Gospel,--which is by Faith in CHRIST.\nAnd he discovers its voice in the present chapter: nay, he calls our\nattention to its language; and, lest the intention of it should escape\nus, he proceeds to supply us, not only with an interpretation of it, but\nwith a paraphrase as well.\n\nEnough has been said, I trust, to render this proceeding on the part of\nthe Apostle no matter of surprise Let us see whether the particulars of\nhis interpretation are altogether novel and unprecedented either.--The\nwords of Moses which we have to consider, it will be remembered, are\nthese:--The \"commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden\nfrom thee, neither is it far off. It is not in Heaven, that thou\nshouldest say, Who shall go up for us to Heaven, and bring it unto us,\nthat we may hear it and do it? Neither is it beyond the Sea, that thou\nshouldest say, Who shall go over the Sea for us, and bring it unto us,\nthat we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in\nthy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it[551].\"\n\nNow, that all this denotes something close at hand and easy,--in place\nof something supposed to be remote and difficult,--is obvious. The whole\nof the earlier part of it, St. Paul affirms to be tantamount to the\nfollowing injunction,--\"Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into\nHeaven, to bring CHRIST down; or who descend into the abyss, to bring\nCHRIST up from the dead.\" Concerning which words of caution, we have to\nremark that there seems to have been no intention whatever on the part\nof the Apostle, to warn _his readers_ against requiring a renewed\nRevelation of CHRIST in the flesh, or a second Resurrection of the\nEternal SON from the dead. He is illustrating the nature of Legal and\nEvangelical Righteousness, by the language of the Jewish Law. He\ncontrasts the two, in their respective requirements; finding the voice\nof both in the writings of Moses: of the former,--in connexion with the\ncovenant of Sinai; of the latter,--in connexion with the covenant which\nthe LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the\nland of Moab, _besides_ the former Covenant. With characteristic fire\nand earnestness, glancing, as usual, at every side of the question\nbefore him,--having, a little way back, explained himself, without\nexplanation, when he inserted that remarkable parenthetical clause,\n=telos gar nomou CHRISTOS=[552],--\"for _CHRIST_ is the object of the\nLaw;\"--in order now to shew how thoroughly this is the case,--how full\nthe Law is of _Him_, in whom alone it finds its perfect scope, end, and\ncompletion,--he explains that the very phrase \"Who shall ascend up into\nHeaven?\" pointed to nothing less than _the Incarnation_ of CHRIST: that,\n\"Who shall go over the Sea?\" contained a wondrous far-sighted\nallusion,--(not the less real because unsuspected,)--even to the\n_Resurrection_ of our LORD from death. So true is it, \"that both in the\nOld and New Testament Everlasting Life is offered to Mankind by CHRIST,\nwho is the only Mediator between GOD and Man, being both GOD and Man.\nWherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did\nlook only for transitory promises[553].\"\n\nMoses then here warns the ancient people of GOD against an evil heart of\nunbelief. \"Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend up into Heaven?\" for\nsuch words on the part of Man would imply disbelief in the doctrine that\nthe SON of GOD should hereafter take upon Him human flesh. (Since \"no\nman hath ascended up to Heaven, but He that came down from Heaven, even\nthe Son of Man which is in Heaven[554].\") \"Neither say, Who shall\ndescend into the deep?\" for such words on human lips must imply\ndisbelief in MESSIAH'S Descent into Hell, and Resurrection from the\nDead.--The mystery of Redemption might not be impatiently demanded; but\nmust be looked for in faith, until the fulness of time should come, and\nthe whole mystery of godliness should be revealed to the wondering eyes\nof Men and Angels[555].\n\nWe shall perhaps be asked, whether it is credible that Moses can have\nhad any conception that such a meaning as St. Paul here ascribes to his\nwords, did really underlie them? To which we answer, first, that it is\nby no means incredible[556]. And next, that whether Moses knew the full\nmeaning of the language he was commissioned to deliver, or not,--seems,\n(as already explained[557],) to be an entirely separate question: the\nonly question before us, being, _whether his language contained that\nmeaning_, or not.... To what extent the Prophets,--who, (we know,)\nstudied their own prophecies[558],--were ever permitted to fathom their\ndepth, is a mere matter of speculation[559]; delightful indeed, but in\nthe present case quite irrelevant. In the meantime, we know for certain\nthat _Moses prophesied of CHRIST_[560].\n\nAnd next, if it be said that really this is only a proverbial\nexpression,--a Hebrew phrase to denote something passing difficult, and\nhard of attainment:--(as when, in the Book of Proverbs, it is\nasked,--\"Who hath ascended up into Heaven, or who hath\ndescended[561]?\")--we answer, we see no ground whatever for supposing\nthat in the place just quoted, it _is_ a proverb, and no more,--although\nfrom its use in the Talmud, the expression would certainly appear to\nhave become, at last, proverbial[562]. _If_ a proverb, however, it seems\nto have been a sacred one; nor can any place be appealed to where it\noccurs, nearly of the antiquity of _this_, in the writings of Moses. To\npretend therefore to explain away a certain mode of expression, in the\nplace where it _first_ stands on record,--and where it is declared to\nhave a deep and mysterious meaning,--simply because, _subsequently_, it\nwas (to all appearance) used _without_ any such pregnancy of\nsignification,--is, manifestly illogical.\n\nNay, there is good ground for presuming, that the very place last\nquoted, contains a reference to the Eternal SON: for Agur proceeds to\nask,--\"What is His Name, and _what is His Son's Name_, if thou canst\ntell[563]?\" ... But the reference is far more obvious when the same\nexpressions occur in the Book of Baruch. \"Who hath gone up into Heaven,\nand taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? Who hath gone over\nthe sea, and found her[564]?\" For _Wisdom_ is there spoken of; and\nWisdom, as we remember, is one of the names of CHRIST,--the name by\nwhich He is discoursed of, in the Book of Proverbs.\n\nThe uninspired evidence which completes the connexion of this place of\nDeuteronomy with the second Person in the Blessed Trinity, is the\ntraditional interpretation assigned to it by the Hebrew Commentators.\nThe Targum of Jerusalem expounds the latter clause as follows:--\"Neither\nis the Law beyond the Great Sea, that thou shouldest say, O that we had\none _like Jonas the prophet_ that might go down to the bottom of the\nGreat Sea, and bring it to us.\" So that the very Jewish Doctors\nthemselves here become our instructors; and teach us that a greater than\nJonas must be here,--even while they guide our eyes to that especial\ntype of our SAVIOUR CHRIST in His Descent into Hell, and Rising again\nfrom the dead. I say, the very Jewish Doctors themselves here contribute\ntheir testimony; and yield a most unsuspicious witness to the inspired\nexegesis of the Apostle: for, \"as Jonas was three days and three nights\nin the whale's belly,\"--so, (they clearly mean to say), so should it be\nwith the man whom Moses here indicateth: and so,--(these are the words\nof CHRIST Himself),--so was \"_the Son of Man_ three days and three\nnights in the heart of the Earth[565].\"\n\nYou will of course notice the facility with which the Jews themselves,\ninterpreting their own Scriptures, have here exchanged the notions of\ngoing \"_over_ the sea,\"--(\"_beyond_ the sea,\" as it is in the\nHebrew,)--and \"_going down to the bottom_\" of the sea. St. Paul seems,\nin this place, to have \"accommodated\" the words of Moses: but we cannot\nfail to perceive that the Hebrew text must cry aloud for such supposed\n\"accommodation;\" yea, cry aloud, even in the uncircumcised ears of the\nJewish people; that their own Commentators, as if divinely guided by the\ngood hand of GOD, should bear their own independent witness to the\ncorrectness of the Apostolic interpretation.\n\nNor may I fail to call your attention to the term employed by St. Paul\nto denote the Sea:--a term, surely divinely chosen. He had just before,\n(in the 6th and 7th verses,) employed the Version of the LXX: he was\nabout to use it again in the 8th verse: but in this, (the 7th,) he\ndeparts from it. Instead of,--Tis diaperasei h\u00eamin eis to peran\nt\u00eas thalass\u00eas; he writes,--=Tis katab\u00easetai eis\nten abysson=. The term =abyssos=,--which is applicable to the\ndeep places of the Earth, _and_ to the depth of the Sea, with equal\npropriety;--(being a more indifferent term even than our own expression\n\"the deep\");--affords a memorable example of the fulness and pregnancy\nof language on inspired lips. Adhering to the letter of the text he\nquotes, the Apostle, by changing _the word_ expressive of that literal\nsense, embraces the whole spiritual breadth and fulness of the\npassage:--reminding us of Him, by the blood of whose covenant were sent\nforth the prisoners of hope out of the pit _wherein is no\nwater_[566],--even before he names Him; our SAVIOUR CHRIST!\n\nI must also remind you, that there are many expressions used by our\nLORD, or used concerning Him by His Apostles, which help to shew, that,\nto have come down from Heaven,--and to have been brought up from the\ndeep of the Earth again,--may be regarded as the mysterious summary of\nthe SAVIOUR'S Mission[567].--\"No man hath _ascended up_ to Heaven,\"\n(saith our LORD,) \"but He that _came down_ from Heaven[568].\" \"I am the\nliving Bread which _came down_ from Heaven.... Doth this offend you?\nWhat and if ye shall see the Son of Man _ascend up_ where He was\nbefore[569]?\" In another place,--\"I came forth from the FATHER and am\ncome into the World: again I leave the World, and go to the\nFATHER[570].\"--But the most remarkable place remains: \"Now, that He\n_ascended_, what is it but that He also _descended first_ into the\nlowest parts of the Earth? He that _descended_, is the same also that\n_ascended up_ far above all Heavens[571].\" I say, this brief\nsummary,--given by CHRIST Himself, or by those who had seen Him,--of the\nmystery of His manifestation in the flesh,--throws light on the language\nof the Hebrew lawgiver. It shews that the language of Moses to Israel,\nin the plains of Moab, fairly embraced the two great truths which Faith\neven now can but be exhorted to lay fast hold upon, and to\nappropriate:--\"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth that JESUS is the\nLORD,\"--that is, confess that the man Jesus is the uncreated, Incarnate\nJEHOVAH; \"and believe with thy heart that GOD raised Him up from the\ndead,--thou shalt be saved.\" ... Such is the form which the exhortation\n_now_ assumes. More darkly, of old time,--(as was fitting,)--was the\nsame thing spoken: and, because reference was then made to an event not\nyet accomplished, the impatience of Unbelief is there repressed,--rather\nthan the ardour of Faith stimulated. \"Say not in thy heart who shall\nascend into Heaven? or, who shall go down into the deep place?\" ... But\nshall we deal so faithlessly with the Divine Oracles of the Old\nTestament, as to deny them the deeper meaning assigned to them in the\nNew, because they speak darkly? Let us, from a review of all that has\nbeen humbly offered,--let us at least admit that there is good\nindependent ground for believing that when Moses spake of ascending into\nHeaven,--it was with reference to the future coming of CHRIST:--when he\nmade mention of descending into the Deep,--the Resurrection of the\nSAVIOUR of the World was, in reality, the thing he spake of.--Let us\nallow that _here_, at least, there is nothing in the language of the New\nTestament, which, when studied by the light of unassisted Reason, does\nnot appear to have been fully included, contemplated, intended by the\nlanguage of the Old:--that the accommodation has not been\narbitrary;--say rather, that _here_ at least there has been _no\naccommodation at all_!\n\nBut I am impatient to leave this low rationalistic ground, and take my\nstand again, on the vantage ground of Faith. The position, I trust, has\nbeen established, that even in the case of words which seem least\npromising,--least likely to enfold the deeply mysterious meaning claimed\nfor them by an Apostle,--the result of patient inquiry and research is\nto shew that such a meaning really _does_ exist there, to the fullest\nextent. We have discovered, from mere grounds of Reason, apart from\nRevelation, that what St. Paul has cited in this place from Deuteronomy,\nmay very well contain all that he says it contains. But, were nothing of\nthe kind discoverable;--were it a most hopeless endeavour to reconcile\nthe meaning evolved by the inspired Apostle, with the text he professes\nto interpret,--the claims of the sacred exegesis would remain wholly\nunimpaired. We should still say that _this_, because it is an _inspired_\nCommentary, is entitled to our fullest acceptance. We have, anyhow, the\nHOLY SPIRIT interpreting Himself. He surely must be the best judge of\nHis own Divine meaning. He does but enrich the Treasury of Truth, even\nby His apparent departures from the original Hebrew verity. Shall not\nthe HOLY GHOST, the Comforter, be allowed to speak comfort to His people\nin whatever way seemeth best to Himself? Is it not lawful for Him to do\nwhat He will with His own? Is thine eye evil, because He is very good?\n\nYes, it cannot be too emphatically insisted on, that the success which\nmay attend investigations of this nature, is not to be admitted for a\nmoment as the measure of the soundness of the principle on which they\nproceed. The reasoning whereby Newton shewed that the diamond is a\ncombustible substance would have been no whit invalidated had the\ndiamond resisted to this hour every chemical attempt to reduce it to\ncarbon. We do not,--(what need to say?)--we do not discourage the\nendeavour to enucleate the deep Christian significancy of passages for\nwhich Inspired writers claim such sublime meaning. Rather do we think\nthat Human Reason could not find a worthier field for the employment of\nher powers[572], than this. But we are strenuous to insist that the full\nand sufficient, and only irrefragable proof that a mighty Christian\nmeaning does actually underlie the unpromising utterance of one of GOD'S\nancient Saints, is,--_that an Inspired Writer declares it to exist\nthere_.\n\nThere is no _accommodation_ therefore, when an inspired writer adduces\nScripture. Human language _will_ sometimes require to be \"accommodated:\"\nDivine language, never! May not the HOLY SPIRIT lay His finger on\nwhatever parts of His ancient utterance He sees fit? may He not invert\nclauses, and (in order to bring out His meaning better) even alter\nwords? If He tells thee that the prophetic allusion of Isaiah to \"our\ngriefs\" and \"our sorrows\" comprehends \"our infirmities\" and \"our\nsicknesses\" in its span[573],--is it for _thee_ to discredit His\nassertion? If He is pleased to intimate that the providential\narrangement whereby CHRIST, though born at Bethlehem, grew up at\nNazareth,--had for its object the fulfilment of many a detached and\nseemingly disconnected prophecy[574],--shall the unexpectedness of His\ndisclosure excite ridicule in such an one as thyself? When He tells thee\nthat besides the immediate scope of certain well-known words of Hosea\nand of Jeremiah, there was the ulterior aim He indicates; if behind\nIsrael after the flesh, He shews thee the Anointed SON[575],--if behind\nthose captive Jews of the tribe of Benjamin whom Nebuzar-Adan led past\ntheir mother's grave on their way to Babylon, He points to the\nslaughtered infant of Bethlehem; assuring thee that when He spake by the\nmouth of Jeremiah concerning the nearer event that remoter one was full\nbefore Him also; and that the solemn and affecting utterance of the\nProphet was divinely intended by Himself to cover both[576];--wilt thou,\nwhen He discourses to thee thus, presume to talk to Him of\n\"_accommodation?_\" Is it not enough for thee to have cavilled at the\nfirst page of the _Old_ Testament on \"scientific\" grounds? Must thou,\nfor Theological considerations, dispute the first page of the _New_\nTestament also?\n\nScripture then, whether in its Historical or its more obviously\nprophetic parts, has this depth of meaning for which I have been\ncontending. We must perforce believe it, for it is a matter of express\nRevelation. We cannot pretend to deny the probability,--much less the\npossibility of it; for we really _can_ know nothing of the matter except\nfrom an attentive study of Scripture itself. And the witness of\nScripture, as we have seen, is ample, emphatic, and express.--Our LORD,\nbeing indignantly asked by the Jews if He heard what the children,\ncrying in the Temple, said of Him,--made answer by quoting the 2nd verse\nof the viiith Psalm: \"Yea, have ye never read, 'Out of the mouth of\nbabes and sucklings Thou hast perfected praise'[577]?\"--Pray was this\n\"accommodation,\" or what was it? It was deemed a sufficient answer, at\nall events, by the Anointed JEHOVAH; whatever men may think!... When the\nSadducees, disbelieving in the Resurrection of the Body, assailed our\nLORD with a speculative difficulty, He told them that they erred because\nthey did not understand the Scriptures. \"Now that the dead _are_ raised,\neven Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the LORD, the GOD of\nAbraham, and the GOD of Isaac, and the GOD of Jacob. For He is not a\nGOD of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto Him[578].\" How, by\nthe popular method,--how, by any of the new lights which have lately\nbeen let in on Holy Scripture,--was the Resurrection of the dead to have\nbeen proved by the words which the SECOND PERSON in the Trinity spake to\nMoses \"in the Bush?\" And yet we behold _that_ same Divine Personage in\nthe days of His humiliation, proposing from those words, uttered by\nHimself 1500 years before, to _establish_ the doctrine in dispute!...\nOnly once more. \"In the last day, that great day of the Feast [of\nTabernacles,] JESUS stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him\ncome unto Me and drink. He that believeth on Me,--_as the Scripture hath\nsaid, 'Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water_[579]!'\"--But\n_where_ does the Scripture say _that_? You will look a long while to\nfind it. You will never find it at all if you adhere to the method which\nof late has been declared to be the method most in fashion. You will\nnever even understand what our Blessed LORD _means_, unless you attend\nto the hint which immediately follows,--and which the Divine Author of\nthe Gospel would not surfer us to be without,--namely, that, \"This spake\nHe of the SPIRIT, which they that believe on Him should receive:\"--by\nwhich is meant, that as many of the Prophets as discoursed in dark\nphrase of that free outpouring of the SPIRIT which was to mark MESSIAH'S\nReign, did, _in effect_, say the thing which He here attributes to them.\n\nInspired Reasoning, wherever found, may fitly obtain a few words of\ndistinct notice here; but I shall perhaps speak more becomingly, as well\nas prove more intelligible, if,--(without further allusion to the\nsayings of that Almighty One \"in whom are hid all the treasures of\nWisdom and Knowledge[580];\" sayings which it seems a species of impiety\nto approach except in adoration;)--I confine my remarks to the logical\nprocesses observable in the inspired writings of some of His servants,\nthe Evangelists and Apostles of THE LAMB.\n\nThe difficulty which has been occasionally felt in respect of the\nargumentative parts of St. Paul's Epistles, is considerable, and may not\nbe overlooked. His definitions, his inferences, his entire method of\nhandling Scripture, gives offence to a certain class of minds. His\nreasoning seems inconsequential. There appears to be a want of logical\norder and consistency in much that he delivers. But,--can it require to\nbe stated?--the fault is entirely our own. \"The radical fallacy of any\nattempt to analyze the reasoning of Scripture by the ordinary Laws of\nLogic\" requires to be pointed out. And the root of it all is our\nassumption that an inspired Apostle must perforce argue like any other\nuninspired man.\n\nBut, in the first place, it is to be recollected that he did not collect\nthe meaning and bearing of the Old Testament Scriptures from induction,\nand study _only_. He was,--by the hypothesis,--an _inspired Writer_. The\nsame HOLY SPIRIT who taught the authors of the Old Testament what to\ndeliver, taught _him_, in turn, how to explain their words. By direct\nRevelation, he perceived the intention of a text, and at once bore\nwitness to it. Thus St. Paul says of our LORD,--\"He is not ashamed to\ncall them brethren, saying,--'I will declare Thy Name unto My brethren,\nin the midst of the Church will I sing praise unto Thee.' And\nagain,--'I will put my trust in Him.' And again,--'Behold I and the\nchildren which GOD hath given Me[581].'\" Now, \"the Apostles quoted such\nplaces as these from the Psalms and Isaiah, not as they were gathered by\nany certain reason, but as revealed to them by the HOLY SPIRIT, to be\nprincipally spoken of CHRIST. This understanding the mysteries of GOD in\nthe Old Testament, being a special gift of the HOLY GHOST[582],--of the\ntruth of which interpretations, the same SPIRIT, without any necessary\ndemonstration thereof, bore witness also to their auditors and converts;\nand by miracles manifested the persons thus expounding them herein to be\ninfallible[583].\"\n\nTo quote the language of a thoughtful writer of more recent\ndate,--\"Inspired teaching,--explain it how we may,--seems comparatively\nindifferent to (what seems to us so peculiarly important) close logical\nconnexion, and the intellectual symmetry of doctrines.... The necessity\nof confuting gainsayers, at times forced one of the greatest of CHRIST'S\ninspired servants, St. Paul, to prosecute continuous argument; yet even\nwith him, how abrupt are the transitions, how intricate the connexion,\nhow much is conveyed _by assumptions such as Inspiration alone can\nmake_, without any violation of the canons of reasoning,--FOR WITH IT\nALONE ASSERTION IS ARGUMENT.... The same may be said of some passages of\nSt. John, supposed to have been similarly occasioned. Inspiration has\never left to human Reason the filling up of its outlines, the careful\nconnexion of its more isolated truths. The two are, as the lightning of\nHeaven, brilliant, penetrating, far-flashing, abrupt,--compared with the\nfeebler but _continuous_ illumination of some earthly beacon[584].\"\n\n\"In a train of inspired Seasoning,\" (as the same writer elsewhere\nremarks,) \"each new premiss may have been supernaturally communicated;\nand thus, in point of fact, the inspired reasoner but connects the\ndifferent threads of the Divine Counsels; exemplifies how 'deep\nanswereth to deep' in the mysteries of Revelation; and presents, in one\nconnected train of argument, those words of GOD which had been uttered\n'at sundry times and in divers manners[585]'\"\n\nTo conclude.--There is no such thing as inconsequential Reasoning to be\nmet with in the writings of St. Paul[586]--no such thing as arbitrary\nAccommodation of the Old Testament Scriptures, in the New:--though not a\nfew have thought it; and the language of many more writers, Papist as\nwell as Protestant, is calculated to convey the same mischievous\nimpression[587]. The hypothesis is as unworthy of ourselves,--with our\nboasted critical resources and many appliances of varied learning,--as\nit is derogatory to the Sacred Oracles to which it is applied. It is a\ndeadly blow, aimed at the very Inspiration of Scripture itself; for it\npretends to discover a human element only, where we have a right to\nexpect a Divine one: an irresponsible _dictum_, when we listened for the\nvoice of the SPIRIT; the hand of man, where we depended on finding the\nvery Finger of GOD! We come to the blessed pages, for Divinity, and we\nare put off with Rhetoric. We come for bread, and the critics we speak\nof offer us a stone.\n\nI will not detain you any longer. No apology can be needed for the\nsubject which has been engaging our attention[588]. Those who watch \"the\nsigns of the times\" attentively, will bear me witness that _unbelief_ is\none fearful note of the coming age. The self-same principle, working in\ndifferent classes of minds, produces results diametrically different:\nbut it is still the same principle which is at work. Unbelief is no less\nthe cause why so many have forsaken the Church of their Fathers, to run\nafter the blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits of the Church of\nRome,--than it is the parent of that shallow Rationalism which unhappily\nis now so popular among us.... Intimations of what is to be hereafter,\nmay be every now and then detected. At intervals, hoarse sounds, from a\ndistance, are known to smite upon the listening ear; signals of the\ncoming danger,--sure harbingers of the approaching storm.--Holy\nScripture is the stronghold against which the Enemy will make his\nassault, assuredly: nor can we employ ourselves better than by building\none another up in reverence for its Inspired Oracles: opposing to the\ncrafts of the Evil One the simplicity of a child-like faith; and\nresolutely refusing to see less than GOD, in GOD'S Word!\n\nThis must be the preacher's apology for disputing where he would rather\nadore; for discussing the Revelations of Scripture, instead of _feeding_\nupon them; especially at this holy Season when the Apostle's exhortation\nfinds an echo in all our services:--the mouth, engaged in the constant\nconfession that JESUS is the LORD,--the heart, filled with the thought\nof Him, who as at this time died for our sins, and rose again for our\nJustification.\n\nGOD grant us grace,--at this and every other time,--so to put away the\nleaven of malice and wickedness, that we may always serve Him in\npureness of living and truth: through the merits of the same His SON,\nJESUS CHRIST our LORD!\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[526] Preached at St. Mary-the-Virgin, April 27, 1851.\n\n[527] See above, pp. 55-7.\n\n[528] 2 St. Pet. i. 21.\n\n[529] See above, pp. 53-4.\n\n[530] See above, pp. 157-160.\n\n[531] _Harm. Apost._ Diss. Post., cap. xi. \u00a7 3.\n\n[532] See above, pp. 152-7.\n\n[533] Consider again the Divine exposition, (in 1 St. John v. 6,) of St.\nJohn xix. 34.\n\n[534] See Dr. Mill's _Christian Advocate's_ publication for 1844, _The\nHistorical Character of the circumstances of our LORD's Nativity\nvindicated against some recent mythical interpreters_,--especially p.\n402 to p. 434.\n\n[535] Cf. Phil. iii. 7-9.\n\n[536] Consider St. John vi. 46, and all similar places.\n\n[537] On the words, =H\u00ea de ek piste\u00f4s dikaiosyn\u00ea hout\u00f4 legei=,--Theodoret\nremarks:--=Anti tou, peri de t\u00eas ek piste\u00f4s dikaiosyn\u00eas, hout\u00f4s legei\u00b7 ou\ngar h\u00ea dikaiosyn\u00ea tauta legei, alla dia M\u00f4se\u00f4s, ho t\u00f4n hol\u00f4n Theos, peri\ntou nomou tauta eir\u00eake\u00b7 didask\u00f4n Ioudaious h\u00f4s dicha pon\u00f4n t\u00ean t\u00f4n\nprakte\u00f4n didaskalian edexanto.=--Theodoret, _Cat._, p. 374.\n\n[538] Our E. V., following the translations since Cranmer's, here\ninserts the word \"again,\"--which is certainly not implied by the Greek.\n\n[539] The expression is, of course, wholly dissimilar from that in Ps.\ncvii. 23,--=hoi katabainontes eis thalassan en ploiois, k. t. l.=\n\n[540] I cannot forbear transcribing the following passage in an\nelaborate apology which has recently appeared for _Essays and\nReviews_:--\"Among the many proposals which are floating about for Essays\nand Counter-essays to vindicate the Doctrines supposed to be combated in\nthis volume, let us be allowed to suggest this one:--'The Nature of\nBiblical Inspiration, as tested by a careful examination of the\nSeptuagint Version with special reference to the sanction given to it by\nthe Apostles, and to its variations, by way of addition or omission,\nfrom the revised Text of the Canonical Scriptures.' The conclusions of\nsuch an investigation would be worth a hundred eager declarations on one\nside or the other, and would be absolutely decisive of the chief\nquestions at issue.\" (_Edinburgh Review_, April, 1861, p. 483.).... Now\nI scruple not to affirm that a well-informed, and faithful student of\nthe Scriptures would covet no better portion for himself than liberty to\naccept, in the most public manner possible, such a challenge as the\nforegoing.\n\n[541] See the valuable exposition of the text, by Bp. Bull, in the\nAppendix (K),--to which I am very largely indebted.\n\n[542] Opposed to Bp. Bull in his opinion, on this matter, seem\nAinsworth, Patrick, Parker (_Biblioth. Bibl._), Cornelius \u00e0 Lapide, the\n_Critici Sacri_, &c. I cannot but think that the truth is with the\nfirst-named Commentator.\n\n[543] See 2 Cor. vi. 16, (quoting Lev. xxvi. 12), where see Wordsworth's\nnote. Heb. viii. 6-13, especially ver. 10, (quoting Jer. xxxi. 33. Comp.\nJer. xxiv. 7: xxx. 22: xxxi. 1: xxxii. 38.) Compare Rom. ix. 25, 26,\n(also 1 St. Pet. ii. 10,) with Hos. ii. 23: i. 10. See also Ezek. xi.\n20: xiv. 11: xxxvi. 28: xxxvii. 27; and Zech. viii. 8: xiii. 9. Lastly,\nconsider Rev. xxi. 3; where \"the types of the itinerant Tabernacle in\nthe Wilderness, the figurative ritual and festal joys of the Feast of\nTabernacles, celebrated in the literal Jerusalem, are consummated in the\nHeavenly Jerusalem.\" (Wordsworth.) See also Rev. vii. 15, with the\nannotation of the same Commentator.\n\n[544] =prokekyr\u00f4men\u00ean ... eis Christon.= Gal. iii. 17.\n\n[545] Deut. xxix. 14, 15.\n\n[546] Acts ii. 39: Compare iii. 25.\n\n[547] Jer. xxxi. 32. Consider verses 33-4 quoted in Heb. x. 16, 17. See\nabove, note (t, [our 544]).\n\n[548] St. John xi. 49-52.\n\n[549] \"Diligenter observandum est, ex consensu Hebr\u00e6orum, caput hoc ad\nregnum CHRISTI pertinere. Unde etiam Bachai dicit, hoc loco promissionem\nesse quod sub Rege MESSIAH omnibus qui de federe sunt, circumcisio\ncordis contingat, citans Joelem, ii. 28.\"--Fagius, (in the _Critici\nSacri_,) on Deut. xxx. 11.\n\n[550] \"Apostolus dicit hoc esse verbum fidei, quod ad Novum Testamentum\npertinet. Qu\u00e6 ergo scripta sunt in libro legis hujus in figur\u00e2 dicta\nsunt, pertinentia ad Novum Testamentum.\"--Augustinus, in Nic. Lyra, _ad\nloc._\n\n[551] Deut. xxx. 11-14.\n\n[552] Rom. x. 4.\n\n[553] Art. vii.\n\n[554] St. John iii. 13.\n\n[555] 1 Tim. iii. 16.\n\n[556] The reader is invited to consider Acts ii. 24 to 31,--attending\nparticularly to what St. Peter says in ver. 30-1. \"Even without this\nkey,\" (says Dr. M'Caul,) \"the Rabbis interpreted Psalm xvi. of the\nResurrection.\"\n\n[557] See above, pp. 171-2.\n\n[558] St. Pet. i. 11.\n\n[559] \"Though I think it clear that the Prophets did not understand the\nfull meaning of their predictions; it is another question how far they\nthought they did, and in what sense they understood them.\"--Butler's\n_Analogy_, P. II. ch. vii.\n\n[560] See Acts xxvi. 22, 23: xxviii. 23. St. John i. 46: v. 46. St. Luke\nxxiv. 27, &c.\n\n[561] Prov. xxx. 4.\n\n[562] e.g. \"Si quis dixerit mulieri, Si adscenderis in firmamentum, aut\ndescenderis in abyssum, eris mihi desponsata,--h\u00e6c conditio frustranea\nest.\"--_Nasir_ ix. 2, apud Wetstein, (in Rom. x. 6.)\n\n[563] \"The whole passage (Prov. xxx. 2-5,) may be thus\nparaphrased:--With my limited understanding I cannot attain the\nknowledge of GOD; _for to know GOD, is to know Him who is omnipresent,\nfilling Heaven and Earth_; it is to know Him who is omnipotent, ruling\nover the winds and the waters, the most unstable of all elements; it is\nto know Him who created all things; it is to know His Name, and the name\nof His SON. But this knowledge can be attained only by Revelation: and\nhe that would attain to it even from Revelation, must not pass over any\none word as insignificant, for every word is purified like silver:\nneither must he add to Revelation, or he will be sure to go\nastray.\"--From the Appendix (pp. 46-7) to a Sermon by Dr. M'Caul, on\n_The Eternal Sonship of the Messiah_, 1838. (Interesting and precious as\nthis paraphrase is, I humbly suspect that the words _in italics_ contain\na vast deal more than the learned writer indicates.)\n\n[564] Baruch iii. 29.\n\n[565] St. Matth. xii. 20.\n\n[566] Zech. ix. 11.\n\n[567] Consider Ps. cxxxix. 7. Amos ix. 2, 3.\n\n[568] St. John iii. 13.\n\n[569] Ibid. vi. 33, 38, 51, 62.\n\n[570] Ibid. xvi. 28.\n\n[571] Ephes. iv. 9, 10.\n\n[572] See above, pp. 176-7.\n\n[573] St. Matth. viii. 17.\n\n[574] St. Matth. ii. 23. See above, p. 149.\n\n[575] Ibid. ii. 15.\n\n[576] St. Matth. ii. 18.\n\n[577] Ibid. xxi. 16.\n\n[578] St. Luke xx. 37.\n\n[579] St. John vii. 37, 38.\n\n[580] Col. ii. 3.\n\n[581] Heb. ii. 12, 13; quoting Ps. xxi. 23 and Is. viii. 17.\n\n[582] 1 Cor. xii., xiii., xiv.\n\n[583] Pseudo-Fell's _Paraphrase and Annotations_ on the New Testament,\n(Jacobson's ed.), _in loc._\n\n[584] Professor Archer Butler, quoted in Professor Lee's _Discourses on\nInspiration_, pp. 415-6.\n\n[585] _Ibid._, p. 586.\n\n[586] See above, pp. 132-7\n\n[587] See the Appendix, (L).\n\n[588] In the earlier part of the present Sermon many passages have been\nre-written. What follows stands exactly as it was preached in 1851.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON VII.[589]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTHE MARVELS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE,--MORAL AND PHYSICAL.--JAEL'S DEED\nDEFENDED.--MIRACLES VINDICATED.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nST. MARK xii. 24.\n\n_Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither\nthe power of God._\n\n\nOn a certain occasion, the Son of Man was asked what was thought a hard\nquestion by those who, in His day, professed \"the negative\nTheology[590].\" There was a moral and there was physical marvel to be\nsolved. Both difficulties were met by a single sentence. The Sadducean\njudgment had gone astray from the Truth, (=planasthe= our SAVIOUR said,)\nfrom a twofold cause: (1) The men did not understand those very\nScriptures to which they appealed so confidently: and, (2) They had an\nunworthy notion of GOD'S power.--There are plenty of Sadducees at the\npresent day among ourselves. They are as fond as ever of finding\ndifficulties in the self-same Scriptures. They are to be met, I am\npersuaded, exactly as of old; by shewing that their error is still the\nfruit of their ignorance of Scripture; the consequence of their unworthy\nconceptions of GOD. I propose to illustrate this on the present\noccasion. My subject, (one certainly not unsuited to the day,) is _the\nMarvels of Scripture_,--whether Moral or Physical. I would fain have\ndiscussed them apart; but I shall not have another opportunity. I must\nhandle the whole subject therefore within the limits of a single Sermon:\nand by consequence I must be extremely brief.\n\nNow, I venture to assume that whatever, from its extraordinary\ncharacter, perplexes us in Scripture, is a difficulty only _to\nourselves_; that moral Marvels and physical Miracles, alike, would cease\nto create any difficulty if we knew more about GOD. The Morality of the\nLife to come, I do believe will prove none other than the Morality of\nthe life which now is; and so I presume that it may be their Divine\nAuthor's will, that the physical Laws of the Universe shall be eternal\nlikewise. And yet, as no thoughtful man will probably be found to say\nthat he thinks he knows as much about the nature of these last now, as\nhe expects to know hereafter,--so it is to be presumed that a sublimer,\nand therefore a juster view of the relation in which the Creature stands\nto the CREATOR, will disclose to us much which, at present, we should be\nlittle prepared to admit, if it were speculatively presented to us, (\"as\nin a glass, darkly,\") respecting the Moral Government of GOD.\n\nI. In the very fore-front, however, of what I have to say concerning\nthose phenomena which are generally cited as the _Moral Marvels_ of Holy\nScripture, I must freely declare my opinion that nothing is wanted but\nthat the whole of the _historical_ evidence should be before us, in\nevery case, in order that we might cease to look upon them as marvels at\nall. But so it is, that Scripture is severely brief: takes no pains to\nconciliate our good opinion: seems to care nothing either for our\napplause or our censure. Scripture, in short, has been made _an\ninstrument of Man's probation_[591]. It is for _us_ to search curiously\ninto the record; to take an enlarged view of times and manners; and\nfinally, in the exercise of a generous Faith, to decide whether the\ndifficulty is such as ought to occasion us any real distress. I proceed,\nin this spirit, to consider, as briefly as possible, the history of\nJael; simply because I have heard stronger things said against _her_,\nthan against any of the Worthies of old time who are mentioned with\ndistinct approbation in the Book of Life.\n\n1. Now, if you choose to consider Jael as one who lured a weary and\nunsuspecting soldier into her tent,--shewed him hospitality,--and when\nhe was asleep, murdered him in cold blood,--you certainly cannot help\nrecoiling from the inspired decision that, \"Blessed above women shall\nJael the wife of Heber the Kenite be.\" But I take the liberty of saying\nthat this is quite the wrong way to read her story. You must begin it\nfrom the other end.\n\nGOD pronounces this woman blessed, and distinctly commends her for her\ndeed. From this point you must start; remembering that _no action CAN be\nimmoral which GOD praises_. The Divine sentence, instead of creating a\ndifficulty, is, on the contrary, exactly the thing which removes\nit[592]. To weigh the story apart from this, (which is the prime\nconsideration of all,) is like condemning the immorality of an\nexecutioner without caring to hear that he is but carrying out the\nsentence of the Lawgiver. Furnished with the clue of GOD'S approbation\nof Jael's deed, we retrace our steps, and reconsider the narrative. If\nall were still dark and hopeless, we might be sure that there are\ncircumstances withheld, which if known would have made GOD'S justice\nclear as the light. But, as a matter of fact, it generally happens that,\nwhen we \"know the Scriptures,\" the difficulty in great measure\ndisappears; and I am going to shew that it is so on the present\noccasion.\n\nI find that when the people of GOD were on their way out of Egypt into\nCanaan, they were indebted to one family (the Kenites) for kindness and\nhelp[593]. The head of that family was Jethro, the father-in-law of\nMoses, high-priest of Midian,--in which land the LORD, from the burning\nbush, had commissioned the future Lawgiver of Israel to redeem His\npeople from the bondage of Egypt. Jethro met them in the Arabian desert;\nbecame their guide[594] till they reached the promised Land; and with\nthem entered the borders of their future possession. It was a covenant\nbetween the two races that they should share the goodness of JEHOVAH.\nAccordingly, the Kenites made their settlement amid the Royal tribe of\nJudah; and it is easy to foresee how close a bond would spring up\nbetween the alien family and their avowed protectors, when, to the\nmemory of past dangers shared together, was superadded the consciousness\nof present blessings;--especially in an age when the law of hospitality\nwas held most sacred. How strong the bond became, the sequel of the\nstory convincingly shews[595]. The children of Israel, at the end of a\nhundred and fifty years, find themselves cruelly oppressed by the most\npowerful of the Kings of the conquered but not extirpated race. GOD\npromises deliverance: and Deborah is raised up to organize the\nresistance against Jabin, \"the captain of whose host was Sisera.\" Now,\nwhile Heber the Kenite is gone with the rest to the battle,--(for he had\npitched his tent, remember, by Kedesh; and it was from Kedesh[596] that\nDeborah \"sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam;\")--while Heber, the\nhusband, I say, is gone to the battle, and Jael the wife is left alone,\ndistracted with anxiety, in the tent;--when, weak and unprotected woman\nas she is, she beholds the Captain of the hateful oppressor of GOD'S\npeople hastening to her tent, slumbering at her feet, and unexpectedly\nwithin her power:--will you pretend that _she_, a Midianitess, is to\nblame if she yields to the strong impulse which prompts her to compass\nthe man's downfall, as speedily as she may? \"There was peace between\nJabin the King of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite[597],\" you\nwill remind me. True: (between _Jabin_,--not between _Sisera_, by the\nway:) without this, the whole incident would not have happened. Sisera\npresumed on the peaceful relations which existed between his lord and\nHeber; and supposed that the sympathy of one alien race for another was\nto outweigh every other consideration. Yet, how stood the case? Heber\nhad thrown in his lot, irrevocably, with the people of GOD; while Jabin\nhad already utterly violated the conditions of peace. For twenty weary\nyears, had Jael and her family shared the hardships of that sacred line\nwhich Jabin had \"mightily oppressed.\" All her life long[598], the\nhighways have been unoccupied; and travellers have had to walk through\nby-ways; and the villages have been deserted by their inhabitants.\nArchers have infested the very places of drawing water[599]. Meanwile, a\nsure word has gone forth from the Prophetess who dwells under the\npalm-tree between Ramah and Bethel on Mount Ephraim[600], to the effect\nthat GOD will give a mighty victory this day to His people[601].\nMoreover, Deborah, (to whom the children of Israel go up for judgment,)\nhas foretold that the LORD will \"_sell Sisera into the hand of a\nwoman_[602]\". How _can_ you marvel at the rest!... With a faith strong\nand undoubting as Rahab's, Jael,--weak woman as she is,--seizes the\nwooden tent-pin and the mallet, (the only weapons which are within her\nreach!); and, (somewhat as David afterwards employed a stone and a sling\nfor the slaughter of the Philistine,) with these vile instruments, at\none blow, she smites to the earth the enemy of God's people.... O, it\nwas _not_ because she was treacherous, or because she was cruel!\nTreachery and cruelty were not the vices to which a dweller in tents\n(and she a woman!) was prone, when a thirsty soldier begged a draught of\nwater; and most assuredly, had she been either, she would not,--she\n_could_ not, have won praise from God! (Witness GOD'S wrath against\nDavid in the matter of Uriah, because _he_ had no pity[603]; as well as\ndying Jacob's denunciations against Simeon and Levi because \"instruments\nof cruelty\" were \"in their habitations[604].\") O no! It was because she\nbeheld in the slumbering captain at once the enemy of her own afflicted\nrace,--and of GOD'S oppressed people,--and above all of GOD Himself.\n_That_ was why \"she put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the\nworkman's hammer!\" ... The fight, you are requested to remember, had\nbeen a tremendous fight; and the battle, as she thought, was yet raging.\nReuben, and Dan, and Asher had kept aloof from the encounter;--the\nfirst, in his rich pasture-land east of the Jordan, abiding \"among the\nsheepfolds, to hear the bleatings of the flocks;\" the two others, intent\non their maritime pursuits. Only some of Ephraim, Benjamin, and\nManasseh[605], had been found willing to throw in their lot with the two\nnorthern tribes of Zebulun, and Naphtali,--who had \"jeoparded their\nlives unto the death.\" And the battle which these had fought had been\nthe LORD'S; and as many as had taken part with them, were considered to\nhave come \"_to the help of the LORD_.\" Such then was the quarrel which\nJael had made her own; and such the spirit in which she had done her\nwild deed of unassisted prowess!\n\nTo appreciate her constancy and courage, you may not overlook how\nfearful were the odds against the cause she was espousing: on the\noppressor's side, nine hundred chariots of iron; whereas, \"was there a\nshield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?\" It had been so\nterrific a day, that if the LORD had not been on their side,--if the\nstars in their courses had not fought for Israel,--how could Sisera have\npossibly been overcome? But the very river was employed to sweep the\nenemies of Israel away,--\"that ancient river, the river Kishon!\" ... Now\nI boldly ask you, if the Angel of the LORD may curse bitterly the\ninhabitants of Meroz, \"because they came not to the help of the\nLORD,\"--(pray mark that phrase; for it shows exactly in what light the\nconflict was regarded!)--\"_to the help of the LORD_ against the mighty;\"\nshall we wonder if, by the Spirit of GOD, Deborah the prophetess\nproclaims \"blessed above women in the tent\" Jael the wife of Heber the\nKenite to be;--the undaunted one by whose right hand the captain of all\nthat mighty host had been slain? Find me another \"_woman in the tent_\"\nwho may be compared with _her!_ ... Or rather, (for _that_ is the only\nquestion,) shall these words embolden us to impeach the morality of Holy\nWrit?... I am sure there is not one of you all who really thinks it. She\nwas--was she not?--a courageous, a faithful, and (according to her\nlight,) a strictly virtuous woman. She was content to risk _all_, \"as\nseeing Him who is invisible:\" and to _believe_ that \"they that be with\nus are more than they that be with them[606].\" From the unmistakeable\nevidence of her uncompromising boldness in a good cause, her unwavering\nfaith, her readiness to cast in her lot with the people of GOD,--no one\nbut a hypocrite will turn away to criticize the details of her deed by\nthe Gospel standard of Grace and Truth. \"He asked for water, and she\ngave him milk.\" What would you have had her do? It is by no means\ncertain that she foresaw the deed which was to follow, and which\n_cannot_, (from the nature of the case,) have been the result of a\npreconcerted plan. The impulse to terminate the tyranny of Canaan, and\nthe sufferings of her adopted people, as well as to decide the fortune\nof that critical day, by slaying one whom she regarded as the enemy of\nGOD Himself, may have seized her while she stood in the door of the\ntent,--weighing Sisera's petition against Deborah's prophecy. Be this\nas it may,--would you have had the woman connive at Sisera's\nescape,--the enemy of GOD'S people, when GOD Himself had unexpectedly\nput him into her power?\n\nIt will assist us to understand this story, that we should bear in mind\nhow it fared with Ahab, King of Israel, in the matter of Ben-hadad, King\nof Syria, as recorded in the xxth chapter of the First Book of Kings.\n\"Thus saith the LORD,\" (was the Divine sentence,) \"_Because thou hast\nlet go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction_,\ntherefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his\npeople[607].\" It is quite evident that as the _enemy of GOD_, in the\nstrictest sense, each fresh oppressor of Israel was regarded; and that,\nas the enemy of the LORD GOD of Israel, Sisera was summarily slain by\nthe Kenite's wife.\n\nBe so good as to remember also, that forgiveness of enemies is strictly\na _Christian_ duty. You have no right to expect to find the brightest\njewels of the kingdom of Heaven glittering on the swarthy brow of an\nArabian wife in the days of the Judges. \"Grace and _Truth_ came by JESUS\nCHRIST[608].\" You cannot expect to find the wife of Heber the Kenite\nmore truthful than Sarah, and Rebekah, and Rachel,--or even than\nAbraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and David: neither should you be so\nunreasonable as to expect that the GOD of Truth will award praise and\nblame to His creatures by a higher standard of Morality than He has seen\nfit, at any given period, to allow. A perfectly enlightened conscience,\nno doubt, will never consent to lie. A Christian woman in Jael's place,\nought not, of course, to be guilty of Jael's deed. But you are\nforgetting the time of the world in which _your_ lot is thrown. I say\nnothing of the circumstances of terror under which _she_ acted,--_she_\nwas _forced_ to act. How could she tell that Sisera would not awake ere\nshe should strike the blow,--or at least before she could achieve his\ndeath? What if a company of Jabin's host should come up to the\ntent-door, the instant she had done the deed, and inquire after Sisera?\nSuppose the issue of that day's encounter should prove disastrous, what\nwould be her own and Heber's fate?... Feel a little for the poor\nwife,--for the lonely, helpless \"woman in the tent,\"--_not_ entirely for\nthe fierce soldier against whom you have heard the LORD'S decree of\ndeath!... O ye, who, living in the full blaze of Gospel light, in cold\nblood can reject the doctrine of the Atonement, and deny the LORD who\nbought you, and teach that the Bible is \"like any other book;\" who can\nmake light of its Inspiration, and evacuate its Prophecy, and idealize\nits Miracles; who with your lips can profess the Church's doctrines, and\nwith your pens can deny them;--go _ye_ and prate of Morality, and\nHonesty, and Truth! _We_ shall heed mighty little your opinion of Jael's\nconduct, and of the Divine Commendation which it met with. I believe\nthat, instead of suspecting the morality of the Bible in this instance,\nthere is hardly an honest Christian heart among us, but cries out, on\nthe contrary,--\"_So_ let _all_ Thine enemies perish, O LORD! But let\nthem that love Him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might.\"\n\n2. There is no time to consider, as I fain would, any other story; that\nof Jacob for example. It is quite amazing to hear the presumptuous\nspeeches concerning that great Saint, in which good men sometimes permit\nthemselves: as if the sum total of Jacob's history were _this_:--that\nhe once obtained an ungenerous advantage over his Brother, and then\nshamefully deceived his blind and aged Father. Whereas those were the\ntwo great blots in an otherwise holy life! actions which were followed\nby severe, aye lifelong punishment.--But I must not enter on Jacob's\nhistory,--even to shew you that a careless reader overlooks certain\ncircumstances which go a very long way indeed to excuse the actions just\nalluded to. I prefer reminding you that since, at Bethel, GOD blessed\nthe exile's slumbers with a glorious vision, and most comfortable\npromise, on his first setting out for Haran; and again at Jabbok, as\nwell as at Mahanaim, blessed him with a vision of Angels, and a renewal\nof the blessing, on his return; _from this point_, as before, it will be\nour wisdom to reason; and we shall reason backwards. Had Scripture been\nquite silent in all other respects, such proofs of the Divine approval\nought to be enough to convince a believing heart that the only thing\nwanting must be fuller details,--more evidence,--in order to shew us\nthat the Patriarch _deserved_ the SPIRIT'S praise. But in truth, in\nJacob's case, the details are abundant and the evidence decisive.\n\n3. Of all the other (so called) difficulties which occur to my\nmemory,--as the extinction of the Canaanites, (who yet were _not_\nextinguished,)--the Sacrifice of Isaac, (who yet was _not_\nsacrificed,)--the life of David;--I have only to say that before you can\npretend to have an opinion upon the subject you must be sure that you\n\"know the Scriptures:\" else, I make bold to say, you will inevitably err\nin your cogitations concerning them. Thus, men are heard to insinuate\nastonishment that the King who so basely compassed Uriah's death should\nhave been \"a man after GOD'S own heart:\" whereas the Hebrew original,\n(as they would know, _if they knew the Scriptures_,) conveys nothing of\nthe kind; while the murder of Uriah is found to have drawn down upon\nDavid unmitigated wrath and terrible punishment from the right Hand of\nHim who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.\n\nII. Turn we now, briefly, to the physical Marvels which are described in\nthe Bible; and chiefly those which occur in the Old Testament.\n\nI am about to speak of Miracles in general; but it may be convenient to\nsay a few words first about certain mighty transactions which eclipse,\nby their vastness or their strangeness, most isolated events. Thus, as\nthe Nativity, Temptation, Transfiguration, Resurrection, Ascension, of\nour LORD, together with the Coming of the HOLY GHOST, eclipse in a\nmanner the other Miracles of the New Testament,--so the Temptation of\nour first Parents, the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and the fate of\nLot's wife, the burning bush, the Plagues which prepared the way for the\nExode, the crossing of the Red Sea, the Manna, and the brazen Serpent;\nBalaam's ass, and the fate of the walls of Jericho; the history of\nJonah, and of Daniel among the lions:--events like these stand out from\nthe Old Testament narrative and challenge astonishment.\n\nOf all these latter events, viewed as difficulties,--(for it is as\ndifficulties _in the way of Revelation_ that we are now expected to look\non Miracles,)--you are requested to observe that they enjoy, one and\nall, the confirmation of _express citation in the New Testament_. I am\nsaying that either St. Paul, or St. Peter, or St. James, or (above all)\nour Blessed LORD Himself, appeal to, or else explain, every one of\nthese marvellous passages in Old Testament History. And this is the only\nremark I propose to offer concerning any of them. It will certainly\nprove unavailing to convince a certain class of persons of the\nhistorical reality of the Deluge, to find that our SAVIOUR, that St.\nPeter, and St. Paul, have all spoken of it as an actual event:--Men who\nare disposed to reject the story of the dumb ass speaking with man's\nvoice, will not perhaps believe it one whit the more because they find\nit appealed to by St. Peter[609]:--and the Divine exposition offered by\nCHRIST Himself of Jonah, three days and three nights in the fish's\nbelly, will not, it may be feared, reconcile others to an event which\nstrikes them as being too improbable to be true. But _this_, at least,\nwill infallibly result from the discovery:--men will perceive that they\nmust positively make their election; and either accept the Bible as a\nwhole, or else reject it as a whole; for that there is no middle course\nopen to them. The New Testament stands committed irrevocably to the Old.\nEvery Book of the Bible stands committed to all the other Books. Not\nonly does our LORD quote the Canon in its collected form, and call it\n\"the Law and the prophets,\"--or simply =h\u00ea graph\u00ea=, \"the Scripture,\"--and\nso set His seal upon it, as one undivided and indivisible roll of\nInspiration; but He and His Apostles single out the very narratives\nwhich the imbecility of Man was most likely to stumble at, and employ\nthem for such purposes, and in such a manner, that escape from them\nshall henceforth be altogether hopeless. To eliminate the marvels of\nScripture, I say, is impossible; for a Divine Hand has been laid upon\nalmost every one of them. The subsequent references are not only most\nnumerous, but they run into the very staple of the narrative,--and will\nnot,--_cannot_ be eradicated.\n\nI question whether all students of the inspired page are aware of the\nextent to which what I have been saying holds true. Let me only invite\nyou to investigate the structure of the Bible under this aspect, and you\nwill be astonished at the result. For you will find that the system of\ntacit quotation and allusive reference is so perpetual, that it is as if\nthe design had been that the fibres should be incapable of being\ndisentangled any more. Balaam's story for example in the Book of\nNumbers, is found alluded to in Deuteronomy, in Joshua, in Micah, in\nNehemiah; by St. Peter, by St. Jude, and by St. John in the\nApocalypse[610].--The Exodus, with its attendant wonders, is alluded to\nin Joshua, and in Judges, and in Job, and in the Psalms; in Amos, and\nIsaiah, and Micah, and Hosea, and Jeremiah, and Daniel; in Kings, in\nSamuel, in Nehemiah; and in the New Testament repeatedly[611]. The\nEvangelists quote one another times without number. In the Epistles, the\nGospels are quoted upwards of fifty times; and St. Peter quotes St. Paul\nagain and again. It is a favourite device of these last days to hint at\nthe allegorical character of the beginning of Genesis. But I find\nupwards of thirty references in the New Testament to the first two\nChapters of Genesis[612]. Certain parts of Daniel have incurred\nsuspicion,--for no better reason, as it seems, than because certain\npersons have found it hard to believe that Prophecy can be \"an\nanticipation of History[613].\" Now it is strange certainly to find a\nthing objected to for being what it is: and \"Prophecy is nothing _but_\nthe history of events before they come to pass,\"--as Butler remarked\nlong ago[614]. Waiving this, however, you are requested to observe that\nour SAVIOUR quotes from _those very parts of Daniel which have been\nobjected to_. You cannot get rid of those parts of Daniel therefore. You\nare not to suppose that the Bible is like an old house, where a window\nmay be darkened, or a door blocked up, according to the caprice of every\nfresh occupant. The terms on which men dwell there are that every part\nof the structure shall be inhabited; and that every part shall be\nretained in its integrity. What I am insisting upon is, that the sacred\nWriters plainly say,--We stand or we fall together. They reach forth\ntheir hands, and they hold one another fast. They rehearse comprehensive\nGenealogies,--they furnish a summary view of long histories,--they\nenumerate the various worthies of old time, and cite their deeds in\norder. They recognize one another's voices, and they interpret one\nanother's thoughts, and they adopt one another's sayings. Verily the\nBible is _not_ \"like any other Book!\" The prophets and Apostles and\nEvangelists of either covenant reach out one to another; and lo, among\nthem is seen the form of One like the SON of GOD.... How far it may be\nrational _to reject the Bible_, I will not now discuss: but it is\ndemonstrable that a man cannot accept the Bible, and straightway propose\nto omit from it one jot or one tittle of its contents. As for\nabstracting from Scripture the marvels of Scripture, it is precisely\nfor the protection and preservation of _them_, as I have been shewing,\nthat the most curious and abundant provision has been made.\n\n1. The miracles, properly so called, whether of the Old or New\nTestament, have lately been cavilled at with exceeding bitterness[615].\nThat they are sufficiently attested, is allowed[616]; the objection is a\n(so called) Philosophical one, and is briefly this,--that the Laws of\nNature being fixed and immutable, it is contrary not only to experience,\nbut also to reason, to suppose that they have ever been suspended, or\nviolated, or interrupted. Events \"contrary to the order of\nNature,\"--events which would introduce \"disorder\" into Creation,--are\npronounced incredible.--This is a very old objection; but it has been\nlately revived. I will dispose of it as briefly as I can.\n\nYou are requested to observe then, that this difficulty,--(such as it\nis,)--is entirely occasioned by the terms in which it is stated. _Who_\never asserted that Miracles are \"violations of natural causes[617]?\"\n\"suspensions of natural laws[618]?\" Who ever said that the effect of\nMiracles is to \"interrupt\"--\"violate\"--\"reverse,\"--the Laws of Nature?\nWhy assume \"contrariety\" and \"disorder\" in a =kosmos= which seems to\nhave had no experience of either?\n\nBut GOD is, I suppose, superior to His own Laws! He is not the creature\nof circumstances,--even of His own creating. Supreme is He in\nCreation,--albeit in a manner which baffles thought. He does not even\nsuspend His Laws, perhaps, so much as fulfil them after a Diviner\nfashion;--somewhat as He was fulfilling the Mosaic Economy even while He\nseemed to be violating one or other of its sanctions. He does not\nreverse or disorder the fixed course of Nature, so much as rise above\nit, and shew Himself superior to it. He does not disturb anything, but\nour notions of His mode of acting. GOD coming suddenly to view in\nNature, (which is an essential part of the notion of a miracle,)\noccasions perplexity, it is true; but only because we do not understand\nfully either Nature or GOD. \"We know Him not as He is, neither indeed\ncan know Him.\" While of Nature, we know nothing but a few Laws which we\nhave discovered by a long and laborious induction of phenomena. In fact,\nthis whole manner of speaking concerning the Creator of the Universe,\nwith reference to the Laws which He is found to have prescribed to\nthings natural, has, I suspect, some great foolishness in it: for, even\nif we do not so far dishonour GOD as to imagine that He is subject to\nLaw, yet we seem to imply that we think ourselves capable of\nunderstanding the relation in which He stands to Law. Whereas, the very\nnotion of Law may be utterly inapplicable to GOD,--who is not only its\nfirst Author, (as He is indeed the first Author of all things,) but the\nvery source and _cause_ of it also. So that what are Laws to ourselves\nmay be not so much as Law at all to GOD; but, (if I may so speak,)\nsomething which depends on \"the counsel of His will,\" and which,\n(considered as a restraining cause,) is to Him as if it were not. There\ncan be no miracles with GOD[619]!\n\nBriefly then:--That He who, (surely I may say _confessedly_,) is above\nLaw, when He manifests Himself in the midst of Creation, should act in a\nmanner which defies conception; and yet should disturb nothing, reverse\nnothing, violate nothing;--(except to be sure, possibly, certain\npreconceived notions of His rational creatures;)--in _this_, I say,\nthere is surely nothing either incredible or absurd.\n\n2. So much, to say the truth, seems to be admitted, by all but professed\nAtheists. But then, certain formul\u00e6 have been invented to bridge over\nthe difficulty, which Miracles are supposed to occasion, which I cannot\nbut think are just as objectionable as unbelief itself.\n\nBy way of saving the credit of \"the Laws of the Universe,\" a kind of\ncompromise has been discovered; to which I do not find that GOD has been\nmade any party.\n\nThe idea of Law, which has been falsely declared to be only now\n\"emerging into supremacy in Science[620],\" seems to have usurped such a\ndominion over the minds of a few persons, superficially acquainted with\nPhysical studies, that Miracles can be only tolerated on the supposition\nthat they are \"the exact fulfilment of much more extensive Laws than\nthose we suppose to exist[621].\" We are kindly assured that what we call\na Miracle is not \"an exception to those laws which we know, but really\nthe fulfilment of a wider Law which we did not know before[622].\" Men\nare eager to remind us that this is the view of Bp. Butler[623], (whom\nevery one, I observe, is fond of having for an ally.) Thus, a very\nrecent writer says,--\"What we call interferences may, (as Bp. Butler\nobserved long ago,) be fulfilments of general laws not perfectly\napprehended by us[624].\"--But I cannot find that Bp. Butler anywhere\nsays anything of the sort. What Butler says, is,--that we know nothing\nof the laws of storms and earthquakes,--tempers and geniuses;--yet we\nconclude, (but only from analogy,) that all these seemingly accidental\nthings are the result of general laws. Now, (he proceeds,) since it is\nonly \"from our finding that the course of Nature, in some respects and\nso far, goes on by general laws, that we conclude this of the rest;\"--it\nis credible \"that GOD'S miraculous interpositions may have been, all\nalong, in like manner, _by general laws of WISDOM_.\" Butler says that it\n\"may have been by _general laws_,\" \"that the affairs of the world, being\npermitted to go on _in their natural course_ so far, should, just at\nsuch a point, have a new direction given them _by miraculous\ninterposition_.\" He does not say, you observe, that those \"miraculous\ninterpositions\" are \"the exact fulfilment of _much more extensive Laws_\nthan those we suppose to exist;\" (as if _a larger induction_ were all\nthat was needed, in order to get rid of the obnoxious word\n\"Miracle:\")--not, that Miracles may be \"fulfilments of general laws _not\nperfectly apprehended by us_;\" (as if the only thing wanted, were an\nenlargement of the human formula, in order to bring a miraculous\ninterposition within the definition of an extraordinary phenomenon.)\nSuch notions belong altogether to the inventors of calculating machines;\nwhose speculations, even concerning Divine things, clearly cannot soar\nabove their instrument[625]. It is called the \"argument from laws\nintermitting[626];\" and evidently reduces a miracle to a phenomenon of\nperiodical recurrence. The aloe, watched for ninety-nine years and\nobserved to blossom in the hundredth, is (according to this view) an\nemblem of the constitution of Nature at last interrupted by a Miracle.\n\nI will not waste your time further with this view of the subject, having\nexposed its fallacy. Station yourself, in thought, at the grave of\nLazarus; and see him that was dead and had been four days buried, come\nforth bound hand and foot with grave-clothes;--and then prate of any\n\"general Laws,\" except those \"OF WISDOM,\" to as many as you can get to\nlisten to you. A \"miraculous interposition,\" (as Butler phrases it,) has\ngiven a new direction to affairs which, so far, had been permitted to go\nin their natural course. That \"general Laws\" of inscrutable Wisdom\ndetermined such a \"_miraculous interposition_\"--is a position which, so\nfar from objecting to, I embrace with both the arms of my heart[627].\n\n3. Another favourite recipe there is for escaping from the bondage of\nMiracles, which is so childish, that it would seem scarcely to deserve\nnotice: but that it has been largely resorted to by writers of whom the\nworld thinks highly. Those men, in a word, try to _explain them away_\nwhere they can: where they cannot, they _pare them down_ as much as they\nare able, or rather as much as they dare. Demoniacal possession?\nSymptoms like those described are known to accompany epilepsy. Manna?\nSomething like it falls in the wilderness of Sinai to this hour. The Red\nSea parted? Well, but a strong East wind blew all night. Stilling the\nstorm, and healing Peter's wife's mother? Every storm is stilled if let\nalone; and a fever will burn out, often without occasioning death. The\nmiraculous draught of fishes, and the stater in the fish's mouth?... but\nyou can readily supply a suggestion for yourselves.\n\nNow, two remarks present themselves on this kind of handling, which may\nbe worth stating. (1) Those who so speak forget that the Devils are\nrelated to have _conversed with CHRIST_[628]:--that the manna, (of which\nso many miraculous properties are related[629],) fed 600,000 men for\nforty years, _and then suddenly ceased_[630]:--that the waters of the\nRed Sea were _a wall to the children of Israel, on their right hand and\non their left_[631]:--that when CHRIST said to the waves of the sea of\nGalilee \"Peace, be still,\" \"there was _a great calm_[632]:\"--that\nPeter's wife's mother, cured of her fever, \"rose and _ministered unto_,\"\n(that is \"waited upon,\") her Benefactor[633].... It is worse than absurd\nto explain away _part_ of a miracle, with a view to getting rid of the\nwhole of it: as if the essence of the miracle were not sure to reside in\nthe residuum,--in the very part which is left unaccounted for! (2) But\nabove all, what place have such explanations in the recorded cases of\nfeeding the multitudes, opening the eyes of one born blind, and raising\nthe dead? While you leave the chiefest miracles of the Gospel untouched,\nyou may not flatter yourself that you have got at the kernel of the\nmatter; or indeed that the real question at issue has been touched by\nyou, at all.\n\n4. There remains to notice one subtle and most treacherous method of\ndealing with the marvels of Scripture,--(moral and physical alike,)--to\nwhich I desire in conclusion to direct your special attention; and which\nI would brand with burning words if I had them at command. I allude to\nwhat is called \"IDEOLOGY,\"--the plain English for which term is, _a\ndenial of the historical reality of Scripture_. I will not waste time\nwith inquiring whether this method is old or new. It is certainly much\nin fashion; and it is certainly finding advocates in high quarters. I\ntherefore make no apology for introducing the monstrous thing to your\nnotice. It requires, I should hope, only to be understood, to be\nrejected with unqualified indignation.\n\nYou and I, then, have been taught to believe that \"the WORD was made\nflesh and dwelt among us,\" in the way St. Matthew and St. Luke describe:\nthat our LORD was Baptized and Tempted of Satan; that He wrought\nMiracles,--casting out Devils, and even raising the Dead; that He was\nTransfigured on a mountain; that He was Crucified, died, and was buried;\nthat He rose again the Third Day, ascended into Heaven, and at last, (as\non this day,) sent down the PARACLETE to dwell with His Church for ever.\nAll this, I say, you and I,--with the whole Church Catholic for 1800\nyears,--have been taught to believe as plain historical truths, mere\nmatters of fact; past telling wonderful indeed, but yet as _historically\ntrue_, as that I am standing here and you are sitting yonder,--neither\nmore nor less.\n\nBut you are to understand that we, and all mankind with us, have been\nunder a very curious delusion on this head. We are assured that every\none of these things, or at least that some of them, are only\n_ideologically_ true: that _Historically_, they are false. In plain\nlanguage, we are requested to believe that they never occurred at all.\nIt is only a lively way of putting it,--no more!\n\nYou will inevitably suppose that I must be trifling with you: I\ntherefore proceed to give you a sample of this kind of teaching. A\nliving dignitary of our Church writes as follows concerning the\nTransfiguration of CHRIST. \"It may be asked, of what kind was the\nvision which we here call the Transfiguration? Was it an effect\nproduced within on the minds of the Apostles; or was it that an actual\nexternal change came for the time over the person of our LORD? We cannot\nsay.\" I give you this as the mildest form of the poison. Quite evident\nis it that the same suggestion is just as applicable to our LORD'S\nBirth, or to His Death; to His Temptation, or to His Resurrection. But\nto see whither all this _tends_, and what it really _means_, you must\nhave recourse to the pages of a more advanced proficient in the Science\nof Ideology. He admits that its \"application to the interpretation of\nScripture, to the doctrines of Christianity, to the formularies of the\nChurch, may undoubtedly be pushed so far as to leave in the sacred\nrecords _no historical residue whatever_. An example of the critical\nideology carried to excess,\" (he says,) \"_resolves into an ideal_\" the\nwhole of our LORD'S Life and Doctrine; and \"_substitutes a mere shadow_\nfor the JESUS of the Evangelists.\" But for all that, (says the writer I\nam quoting,) \"there are traits in the Scriptural person of JESUS, which\nare better explained by referring them to an ideal than an historical\norigin: parts of Scripture are more usefully interpreted ideologically\nthan in any other manner,--as for instance, the history of the\nTemptation by Satan, and accounts of Demoniacal possession.\" This\nwriter, (who is a clergyman of the Church of England, and a Graduate in\nDivinity,) goes on to idealize the descent of Mankind from Adam and Eve,\ntogether with the chiefest marvels of the Old Testament: insisting that\n\"the force, grandeur, and reality of these ideas are not a whit\nimpaired,\" although we discredit and reject the history, _as_ history.\nSo, our SAVIOUR, (he says,) \"is none the less the Son of David, in idea\nand spiritually, even if it be unproved whether He were so in historic\nfact.\" \"The spiritual significance is still the same,\" (he says,) \"of\nthe Transfiguration, of opening blind eyes, of causing the tongue of the\nstammerer to speak plainly, of feeding multitudes with bread in the\nwilderness, of cleansing leprosy,--whatever links may be deficient in\nthe traditional record of particular events.\"\n\n\"Whatever links may be deficient!\" O that men would have the courage or\nthe honesty to _say_ what they _mean_! Why not say plainly, \"_however\nuntrustworthy we may account the narrative to be_?\" And this writer\ncannot mean any other thing; for missing \"links,\" assuredly, there are\n_none_.--In truth this method of wrapping up a monstrous abortion in\n\"purple and fine linen,\" in order to make it look like \"a proper child,\"\nis so much in vogue, that plain men are obliged first to _translate_ a\nfallacy in order to understand it. Thus, a recent Apologist for the very\nwriter I have been quoting,--after surrendering the beginning of Genesis\nas \"parabolic,\" (that is, _not historically true_,) is yet so obliging\nas to contend that \"there still remain events\" in Scripture,--our LORD'S\nResurrection to wit,--\"in which the garb of flesh,\"--(pray mark the\nphraseology!)--\"in which _the garb of flesh_ seems to be so\nindispensable a vehicle for the spirit within, that we can hardly\nconceive how the one could have sustained itself in the world, unless it\nhad been from the beginning allied to the other[634].\" In plain English,\nthe writer is so candid as to admit that if the Resurrection of our LORD\nJESUS CHRIST from death be a mere fabrication,--in plain terms, a hoax\npractised upon the credulity of an unscientific age,--it is hard to\nunderstand how it can have _imposed_ upon mankind so completely for the\nlast eighteen hundred years.\n\nI will not insult the understanding of those who hear me so grossly as\nto suppose that dreams like these,--(and really they are no\nmore!)--require answer or refutation. Such desperate shifts to elude the\nmeaning of plain words, as the whole theory of Ideology discloses, would\nbe even ludicrous, if the subject-matter were not so very sacred and\nsolemn. As in the case of certain acts of flagrant dishonesty which one\nsometimes reads of,--one cannot forbear exclaiming, The man must\ncertainly have felt himself _very sore pressed indeed_ to have been\ninduced to resort to a step so utterly disgraceful to his character!...\nAnyhow, since certain persons have adopted this course, I do but plead\nfor consistency. Only let them be sure that they apply this precious\nmethod of Interpretation to the History of England, and to everything\ntheir friend tells them: and let them not feel surprised if the same\nkind of ideological handling is bestowed upon everything they tell their\nfriend. Idealize away, and be sure you stick at nothing! _Why_ be\noutdone in logical consistency by such an one as Strauss? Let men also\nmake their election whether Scripture shall be a lie or not. And when\nthey have made up their minds, let them, in the Name of GOD, instead of\ndealing in unmanly insinuations, and dark hints, and shuffling\nequivocations,--let them declare themselves plainly, that we may know at\nleast _with whom_ and _with what_ we have to do. For while false\nBrethren are thus playing fast and loose with Revelation, they are\ntrifling with the faith of thousands,--and imperilling other immortal\nsouls besides their own.\n\nBut I shall be reminded that the subject-matter of daily life, and of\nthe Everlasting Gospel, is very different: and that the marvellous\ncharacter of certain events recorded in the Bible constrains us to\nrelegate those events to a distinct region. A child's plea, which was\neffectually disposed of upwards of a century ago! What does it amount to\nbut this,--that what is _supernatural_, or even highly extraordinary,\nmust be also untrue?... When, however, the argument is shifted, and is\nmade an appeal _ad misericordiam_:--when I am entreated to remember that\nthough _I_ believe in the Resurrection of CHRIST from Death, the same\nevent is a \"stumbling block\" to many; and that I am \"bound to treat with\ntenderness those who prefer to lean on the other, and, as _they_ think,\n_more secure foundation_[635];\" (viz. on the hypothesis that the\nResurrection of the Son of Man is all a fable;)--I say, when I am so\naddressed, really, friends and Brethren, I am constrained to cry out\nthat there is a limit beyond which Nature cannot endure; and that _that_\nlimit has now been overstepped. Will men try to persuade us that _the\nidea_ of our LORD'S Resurrection is a more secure basis for the Church's\nfaith than _the fact_ of our LORD'S Resurrection? Why, they might as\nwell try to convince the world that a broken reed is a better support\nthan an oaken staff;--or that a handful of waste paper is of more value\nthan the title-deeds of an estate. How _can_ a shadow,--how _can_ what\nis confessedly an imagination,--be, in any sense, or for any body, a\n\"secure foundation;\" or indeed, _any foundation at all_? how, above all,\ncan a fancy be a \"_more_ secure foundation\" than _a fact_?... Not only\nwill I _not_ treat men with tenderness who put forth such blasphemous\nfolly,--(men who, in their rashness, their recklessness, their\narrogance, shew no manner of tenderness or consideration for\nothers!)--but I will hold them up to ridicule, to the very utmost of my\npower. Nay, I would make them objects of unqualified reprobation to all,\nif I could, as they deserve to be reprobated; for they are the worst\nenemies of the Gospel of CHRIST[636]. \"If CHRIST be not risen, then is\nour preaching vain, _and your faith is vain also_[637]!\" \"The Apostle\n_rests the truth of the Christian Religion_ on the fact that CHRIST was\nrisen.... The whole system turns upon this central point; the several\ndoctrines gather round it, they depend upon it, they grow out of it; so\nthat without it, Christianity would have no coherence or meaning[638].\"\n\nYou and I know very well \"that nothing could more effectually shake the\nwhole fabric of Revealed Religion, than thus converting its history into\nfable, and its realities into fiction. For if the narratives most\nusually selected for the purpose may thus be explained away; what part\nof the Sacred History will be secure against similar treatment? Nay,\nwhat doctrines, even those the most essential to Christianity, might not\nthus be undermined? For are not those doctrines dependent upon the\n_facts_ recorded in Scripture for the evidence of their truth? Does not,\nfor instance, the whole system of our Redemption presuppose the reality\nof the Fall as an historical fact? And do not the proofs of the Divine\nauthority of the whole, rest upon the verification of its Prophecies and\nMiracles, as events which have actually taken place? Allegory thus\nmisapplied is therefore worse than frivolous or useless; it strikes a\ndeadly blow at the very vitals of the Christian Faith[639].\" Away then\nwith that very questionable form of liberality, which makes most free\nwith _what belongs to GOD_! The truths of Revelation are yours and mine,\nI grant you: but only _so_ yours and mine that, to our eternal\nblessedness, we embrace,--to our eternal loss, we let them slip! We add\nto them, or we take away from them, under peril of GOD'S curse.... Away\ntoo with that mawkish sentimentality which can find no better object for\nits sympathy than the hardened blasphemer, and the confirmed sceptic!\n_My_ sympathy shall be reserved for those who have never so offended,\nbut are, on the contrary, full of precious promise;--for the young and\nas yet inexperienced;--for _you_, who will have the battle of CHRIST and\nHis Church to fight, when _we_ shall be mouldering in the grave. Let\nthose who do not know me, deem me uncharitable if they will. I care not.\nThe uncharitable man,--mark me, Brethren!--the truly uncharitable man,\nis he, who shews no consideration for weak and unstable souls; who does\nnot regard the trials and perils of the young; who beguiles unsteady\nfeet to the edge of the precipice, and there forsakes them; whose\ndestructive method, (for constructiveness is no part of that man's\nphilosophy!)--whose destructive method leaves the young without chart\nand compass,--aye, without moon or stars to sail by; who labours hard to\ncommunicate the taint of his own foul leprosy to those who were before\nunpolluted; who dims the eye, and deadens the ear, and defiles the\nthoughts, and darkens the hope of as many as have the misfortune to come\nin his way, and feels no pity!--Yes, yes! The man who sows his own vile\ndoubts broadcast over two continents,--doing his very best to destroy\nthe faith of those for whom CHRIST died,--he, _he_ is the uncharitable\nman[640]! Not he who, forsaking the flowery fields of the Gospel,\n(whither he would far, far rather lead you!) and foregoing the free\nmountain air of imperishable Truth, for your sakes only keeps treading\nthese dreary stifling paths of speculation;--a friend of yours, I mean,\nwho with stammering eloquence, (the more's the pity!) clings thus to\nyou, Sunday after Sunday,--imploring you, with all a brother's\nearnestness, not to venture where to venture is to die; and warning you\nagainst the men who have conspired against your _life_;--even while he\nlabours hard to shew you what he _knows_ to be \"a more excellent way;\"\nand implores you to come where CHRIST Himself hath promised that \"ye\nshall find rest to your souls!\"\n\nThis is all there is time for, to-day. Let me, in the fewest possible\nwords, gather up what has been spoken into a practical shape.\n\nFriends and brethren,--(I am still addressing the younger men\npresent!)--Divinity is not debate; and Religion is not controversy; and\nLife is not long enough for perpetual disputings. \"He that cometh unto\nGOD must believe that _He is_.\" The heart dries up, and the affections\nwither away, and the soul faints, amid an atmosphere of cloudy doubts,\nand captious difficulties, and perverse disputations. You must rise\nabove it, if you would discern the colours on the everlasting hills, and\nbehold the beauty of the promised Land, and see objects as they really\nare. O put away from yourselves, (if any of you are so unhappy as to\nhave acquired it,) a habit of mind which will effectually unfit you for\nprofiting by what you read in Holy Scripture: and you, who are free from\nsuch dreadful bondage, beware lest, by the indulgence of some\nsin,--whether of the flesh or of the spirit,--you darken that spiritual\neye by which alone spiritual things are to be discerned. It is like\ntalking about colours to the blind, or about sounds to the deaf, to\ndiscuss with a certain class of persons the Inspiration, or the\nInterpretation, or the Marvels of Scripture. The Bible is, with them, _a\ncommon book_,--\"to be _interpreted like any other book_.\" Prophecy is\ndenied, and Miracles are rejected or explained away,--on the plea that\nthey are alike incredible. These men lay claim to intellectual gifts\nabove their fellows; and know not that they are \"wretched, and\nmiserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.\" Rebels are they against the\nMost High; and find their exact image in those citizens who \"sent a\nmessage after Him, saying, We will not have this Man to reign over\nus[641].\" The gist of all they deliver, is _rebellion against GOD_.\n\nBut it is not so with yourselves, who have yet everything to learn in\nrespect of Divine things. O beware lest it ever become your own dreadful\ncase! Begin betimes to acquaint yourselves with the wealth of that\ncelestial armoury which contains a weapon which must prove fatal to\nevery foe; but which it depends _on yourselves_ whether you shall have\nthe skill to wield or not. Suffer not yourselves to be cheated of your\nbirthright, the Bible, either by the novel fictions of unstable men, or\nby the exploded heresies of a bygone age, revived and recommended by\nliving unbelievers. You, especially, who aspire to the Ministerial\noffice, and are destined hereafter to undertake the cure of souls, O do\nyou be doubly watchful! Give to the Bible the undivided homage of a\nchildlike heart; and bow down before its revelations with a suppliant\nunderstanding also; and let no characteristic of its method by any means\nescape you. Notice how it is indeed all one long narrative, from end to\nend; and see therein GOD'S provision that nothing shall be idealized,\nnothing explained away. Learn too that Man is thus called upon to look\noutward, and to sustain himself by an external Law; _not_ to depend on\nthe promptings of his own conscience, and so to become a god unto\nhimself. The Bible, I repeat, is all severest history, from the Alpha to\nthe Omega of it. But then, underneath the surface there are meanings\nhigh as Heaven, deep as Hell: and why? because _the true Author of it is\nnot Man, but GOD_!\n\nLet it quicken you in your desire to understand that Book out of which\nyou will have hereafter to preach, reprove, rebuke,\nexhort[642],--sometimes to bethink yourselves of the flocks which\nalready are expecting you; and among which GOD already sees your future\ngoing out and coming in; your faithful teaching, or (GOD forbid!) your\nbetrayal of a most sacred trust. Acquaint yourselves in due time, by all\nmeans, with the scientific grounds on which the Bible is to be received\nas the Word of GOD: but of a truth, hereafter, you will forget to\nrequire that external testimony; for you will be convinced of its Divine\norigin, when you have become the adoring witnesses of its Divine power.\nTruly _that_ must be from GOD which can so change the life and affect\nthe heart; which can sustain the spirit under bereavement, and become\nthe soul's satisfying portion under every form of adversity! It has\nalready altered the aspect of the World; and it has still a mighty work\nto do in India, and in China, and in Africa, and in the Islands of the\nSea.\n\nDifficulties there are in Scripture, doubtless: but I should be far more\nperplexed by the absence of them, than I shall ever be by their\npresence. Nay, they are a chief source of joy to a rightly constituted\nmind; for they exercise the moral nature and the intellectual powers, in\nthe noblest possible way. It is the office of the highest Intellect to\nknow when to walk _by Faith_, and when _by sight_: and when, to \"ask for\nthe old paths.\" It needs a mind of no common order fully to recognize\nthe distinctive difference between a system which comes from GOD; and\none which has been elaborated by human Reason: the latter\nprogressive,--the former incapable of progress; the one liable to\nchange,--the other, unchangeable for ever. There are certain indelible\ncharacteristics of a Divine Revelation, I say, which it is the office\nof the keenest wit to detect and hold fast,--which it is a prime note of\nimbecility in a thoughtful man to overlook and let go.... The Bible in\ntruth, as one grows older,--(to me at least it seems so,)--becomes\nalmost the only thing in the world really deserving of a man's\nattention. _Above_ Reason, many things in it confessedly are: but\n_against_ Reason, I do not know of _one_. Meantime, is it not a glorious\nanticipation for you and for me, that to understand those hard things\nfully may be hereafter a part of our chiefest bliss? There is but a step\nbetween us and death[643]; and assuredly when we wake up after His\nlikeness, we shall be satisfied with it[644]!... Already \"the shadows of\nthe evening are stretched out[645].\" Be patient, O my soul, \"until the\nday break, and the shadows flee away[646]!\"\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTHY STATUTES HAVE BEEN MY SONGS IN THE HOUSE OF MY PILGRIMAGE.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[589] Preached at St. Mary-the-Virgin, Whit-Sunday, May 19th, 1861.\n\n[590] Acts xxiii. 8. For the phrase in the text, see _Essays and\nReviews_, p. 151. Also p. 174.\n\n[591] See the Appendix (C).\n\n[592] Should one not as readily acknowledge a hint which was gathered\nfrom the conversation of the thoughtful Vicar of Stanford-in-the-Vale,\nas if it had been derived from some of his published writings?\n\n[593] 1 Sam. xv. 6.\n\n[594] Numb. x. 29-32.\n\n[595] A hint has here been taken from one of Dr. W. H. Mill's admirable\n_University Sermons_, pp. 239-40.\n\n[596] Judges iv. 6.\n\n[597] Ibid. iv. 17.\n\n[598] Ibid. v. 6.\n\n[599] Judges v. 6, 7, 11.\n\n[600] Ibid. iv. 4, 5.\n\n[601] Ibid. v. 7.\n\n[602] Ibid. v. 5 and 9.\n\n[603] 1 Sam. xii.\n\n[604] Gen. xlix. 5.\n\n[605] Comp. Judges v. 14, 17, with Numb, xxxii. 39, 40, and Josh. xiii.\n31.--Consider Ps. lxxx. 2.\n\n[606] 2 Kings vi. 16.\n\n[607] 1 Kings xx. 42.\n\n[608] St. John i. 17.\n\n[609] 2 St. Peter ii. 16.\n\n[610] Numb. xxii., xxiii., xxiv., xxv., xxxi. 8 and 16. Joshua xxiv. 9,\n10: xiii. 22. Micah vi. 5. Nehem. xiii. 1, 2 (quoting Deut. xxiii. 3,\n4.) 2 St. Peter ii. 14-16. St. Jude ver. 11. Rev. ii. 14.\n\n[611] Exod. xiv. 19-31, &c. is thus referred to in Josh. ii. 10: iv. 23.\nJudges v. 4, 5. Job xxvi. 12. Ps. lxxiv. 13: cvi. 7-11: cxiv. 1-8:\nlxxvii. 14-20: lxvi. 6: lxxviii. 12-31. Amos ii. 10. Hos. xii. 13. Is.\nlxiii. 11-13: xliii. 16: li. 9, 10, 15. Micah vi. 4-5. Jer. ii. 6:\nxxxii. 20-1. Dan. ix. 15. 2 Sam. vii. 23. 2 Kings xvii. 7. Neh. ix.\n9-21. Acts vii. 30-41. 1 Cor. x. 1-11. 2 Tim. iii. 8. Hebr. xi. 29. Rev.\nxv. 3.\n\n[612] Gen. i. 1, (Heb. xi. 3:) 3, (2 Cor. iv. 6:) 5, (1 Thess, v. 5:) 6,\n9, (2 St. Pet. iii. 5:) 11, 12, (1 St. John iii. 9:) 14, (Phil. ii. 15:\nRev. xxi. 11:) 24, (Acts x. 12: xi. 6:) 26, (St. James iii. 9:) 26, 27,\n(Col. iii. 10:) 27, (1 Cor. xi. 7: St. Matth. xix. 4: St. Mark x. 6:)\n28, (Ps. viii. 6-8, commented on in Heb. ii. 5-9: 1 Cor. xv. 25: Eph. i.\n22.)--Gen. ii. 2, (Heb. iv. 4, 10:) 7, (1 Cor. xv. 45, 47:) 9, (Rev. ii.\n7: xxii. 2, 14, 19:) 18, (1 Cor. xi. 9:) 22, (1 Tim. ii. 13:) 23, (Eph.\nv. 30:) 24, (Eph. v. 31: St. Matth. xix. 5: St. Mark x. 7: 1 Cor. vi.\n16:) &c.\n\n[613] \"It is a very misleading notion of Prophecy,\" says Dr. Arnold,--(a\nwriter to whom, more than to any other person, I conceive that we are\nindebted for \"Essays and Reviews;\" _that_ unhappy production being the\nlawful development and inevitable result of the late Head-master of\nRugby's most unsound and mischievous religious teaching:)--\"It is a very\nmisleading notion of Prophecy, if we regard it as an anticipation of\nHistory.\" (_Sermons_, i. p. 375.) \"I think that, with the exception of\nthose prophecies which relate to our LORD, the object of Prophecy is\nrather to delineate principles and states of opinion which shall come,\nthan external events. I grant that Daniel _seems to furnish an\nexception_.\" (_Life and Correspondence_, p. 59.) This was written in\n1825. In 1840, we are informed:--\"The latter chapters of Daniel, _if\ngenuine, would be a clear exception to my Canon of Interpretation_....\nBut I have long thought that the greater part of the Book of Daniel is\nmost certainly a very late work, of the time of the Maccabees; and the\n_pretended prophecy_ about the Kings of Grecia and Persia, and of the\nNorth and South, is _mere history, like the poetical prophecies in\nVirgil and elsewhere_.... That there may be genuine fragments in it, is\nvery likely.\" (_Ibid._, p. 505.)--In other words, Dr. Arnold, rather\nthan suppose \"_my_ Canon of Interpretation\" (!) worthless, is prepared\nto eject the Book of Daniel from the Inspired Canon. Any thing is \"very\nlikely,\" in short, except that God could foretell future events, and Dr.\nArnold be in error!... =Ar' ouch hybris tad'?=\n\n[614] Analogy, P. II. ch. vii.\n\n[615] _Throughout_ the volume entitled \"Essays and Reviews;\" while the\nthird Essay is simply an affirmation of their _impossibility_.\n\n[616] And yet, Bp. Butler says,--\"The facts, both miraculous and\nnatural, in Scripture, appear in all respects to stand upon the same\nfoot of historical evidence:\" ... \"and though testimony is no proof of\nenthusiastic opinions, or of any opinions at all; yet, it is allowed, in\nall other cases, to be a proof of facts.\"--_Analogy_, P. II. ch. vii.\n(ed. 1833, pp. 285 and 293.)\n\n[617] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 140.\n\n[618] _Ibid._, p. 104.\n\n[619] There are some admirable observations on this subject in the\n'Preliminary Essay' prefixed to Dean Trench's _Notes on the\nMiracles._--See pp. 10, 12, 15, 60, &c.\n\n[620] Dr. Temple.\n\n[621] Mr. Babbage's _Bridgewater Treatise_, (2nd. Ed. 1838,) p. 92.\n\n[622] \"_Why we should pray for Fair Weather_: being Remarks on Professor\nKingsley's Sermon,\"--by a Member of the University [of\nCambridge,]--12mo. Cambridge, 1860, p. 8.\n\n[623] \"The view taken of Miracles in chapter viii., is the same as that\ncontained in the work of Butler, on _the Analogy_\" &c.--Babbage (as\nabove), p. 191.\n\n[624] _Edinburgh Review_, for April 1861, p. 486.\n\n[625] How exactly, in this instance, has Dr. Whewell's anticipation\nreceived fulfilment!;--\"We may, with the greatest propriety, deny to the\nmechanical Philosophers and Mathematicians of recent times any authority\nwith regard to their views of the administration of the Universe; we\nhave no reason whatever to expect from their speculations any help, when\nwe ascend to the first Cause and supreme Ruler of the Universe. But we\nmight perhaps go further, and assert that _they are in some respects\nless likely than men employed in other pursuits, to make any clear\nadvance towards such a subject of speculation_.\"--(Whewell's\n_Bridgewater Treatise_, p. 334.)--Scarcely less acute is the remark\nwhich the late excellent Hugh James Rose has somewhere left on record,\nconcerning the chapter wherein the preceding remark occurs,--That the\nworld would not easily forgive Dr. Whewell for those two chapters on\n\"Inductive\" and \"Deductive Habits.\"\n\n[626] Babbage (as before), p. 92, (heading of ch. viii.)\n\n[627] See the _Analogy_, P. II. ch. iv. sect. iii.\n\n[628] St. Mark i. 24. St. Luke iv. 34: viii. 28, 30-32, &c. &c.\n\n[629] Exod. xvi. 18-21: 22-24:--25-27: 31: 33-34. Add Wisdom xvi. 20-1.\n\n[630] Exod. xvi. 35, and Josh. v. 12.\n\n[631] Exod. xiv. 22, 29.\n\n[632] St. Matth. viii. 26. St. Mark iv. 39.\n\n[633] St. Matth. viii. 15.\n\n[634] _Edinburgh Review_, (art. on 'Essays and Reviews,') April 1861,\np. 487.\n\n[635] _Edinburgh Review_, (art. on 'Essays and Reviews,') April 1861,\np. 487.\n\n[636] I have softened the expression originally employed in this place,\nout of deference to the opinions of some wise and good men. But I do not\nthink that St. John, (the Evangelist and Apostle _of Dogma_,) would have\nthought my language too strong: nor St. Paul either. =Ei tis ou\nphilei=,--\n\n[637] 1 Cor. xv. 14.\n\n[638] From a Sermon by the pious and learned chaplain to the English\ncongregation at Rome, the Rev. F. B. Woodward,--_CHRIST risen the\nFoundation of the Faith_,--preached on Easter Day, 1861. (Rivingtons.)\n\n[639] Van Mildert's _Bampton Lectures_ for 1814, (\"An Inquiry into the\ngeneral principles of Scripture-Interpretation,\")--pp. 242-3.\n\n[640] The reader is particularly requested to read what Dr. Moberly has\nsaid on this subject in _Some Remarks on 'Essays and Reviews,'_ being\nthe _Revised Preface to the Second Edition of 'Sermons on the\nBeatitudes_,'--p. xxii to p. xxv.--The _constructive_ value of the\n'Remarks' of that excellent Divine will long outlive the occasion which\nhas called them forth. I allude particularly to the considerations which\noccur from p. xxxii to p. lxiii.\n\n[641] St. Luke xix. 14.\n\n[642] 2 Tim. iv. 2.\n\n[643] 1 Sam. xx. 3.\n\n[644] Ps. xvii. 16.\n\n[645] Jer. vi. 4.\n\n[646] Song of S. ii. 17: iv. 6.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX A.\n\n(p. 16.)\n\n[_Bishop Horsley on the double sense of Prophecy._]\n\n\n\"I shall not wonder, if, to those who have not sifted this question to\nthe bottom, (which few, I am persuaded, have done,) the evidence of a\nProvidence, arising from prophecies of this sort[647], should appear to\nbe very slender, or none at all. Nor shall I scruple to confess, that\ntime was when I was myself in this opinion, and was therefore much\ninclined to join with those who think that every prophecy, were it\nrightly understood, would be found to carry a precise and single\nmeaning; and that, wherever the double sense appears, it is because the\none true sense hath not yet been detected. I said,--'Either the images\nof the prophetic style have constant and proper relations to the events\nof the world, as the words of common speech have proper and constant\nmeanings, or they have not. If they have, then it seems no less\ndifficult to conceive that many events should be shadowed under the\nimages of one and the same prophecy, than that several likenesses should\nbe expressed in a single portrait. But, if the prophetic images have no\nsuch appropriate relations to things, but that the same image may stand\nfor many things, and various events be included in a single prediction,\nthen it should seem that prophecy, thus indefinite in its meaning, con\nafford no proof of Providence: for it should seem possible, that a\nprophecy of this sort, by whatever principle the world were governed,\nwhether by Providence, Nature, or Necessity, might owe a seeming\ncompletion to mere accident.' And since it were absurd to suppose that\nthe Holy Spirit of GOD should frame prophecies by which the end of\nProphecy might so ill be answered, it seemed a just and fair conclusion,\nthat no prophecy of holy writ might carry a double meaning.\n\n\"Thus I reasoned, till a patient investigation of the subject brought\nme, by GOD'S blessing, to a better mind. I stand clearly and\nunanswerably confuted, by the instance of Noah's prophecy concerning the\nfamily of Japheth; which hath actually received various accomplishments,\nin events of various kinds, in various ages of the world,--in the\nsettlements of European and Tartarian conquerors in the Lower Asia; in\nthe settlements of European traders on the coasts of India; and in the\nearly and plentiful conversion of the families of Japheth's stock to the\nfaith of CHRIST. The application of the prophecy to any one of these\nevents bears all the characteristics of a true\ninterpretation,--consistence with the terms of the prophecy, consistence\nwith the truth of history, consistence with the prophetic system. Every\none of these events must therefore pass, with every believer, for a true\ncompletion.\"\n\nBP. HORSLEY's _Sermons_, No. xvii. Vol. ii. pp. 73-4.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[647] Gen. ix. 25-7.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX B.\n\n(p. 50.)\n\n[_Bishop Pearson on Theological Science._]\n\n\n\"Ad publicam Theologi\u00e6 professionem electus et constitutus sum; cujus\ncum pr\u00e6stantiam dignitatemque considero, incredibili quadam dulcedine\nperfundit mirificeque delectat; cum amplitudinem difficultatemque\ncontemplor, perstringit oculos, percellit animum, abigit longe atque\ndeterret.\n\n\"Cum Artes omnes Scienti\u00e6que Athenis diu floruissent, cum novam sedem\nAlexandri\u00e6 occuparent, cum ingenia Romana toto terrarum orbe\npersonarent, etiam tum dixit CHRISTUS ad Apostolos, _Vos estis lux\nmundi_. Omnes ali\u00e6 Scienti\u00e6, etiam cum maxime clarescerent, tenebris\nsunt involut\u00e6, et quasi nocte quadam sepult\u00e6. Tum sol oritur, tum primum\nlumine perfundimur, cum DEI cognitione illustramur; radii lucis non nisi\nde coelo feriunt oculos; c\u00e6tera, qu\u00e6 artes aut scienti\u00e6 nominantur, non\nAthen\u00e6 sed noctu\u00e6. Quid enim? nonne animis immortalibus pr\u00e6diti sumus,\net ad \u00e6ternitatem natis? Qu\u00e6 autem Philosophi\u00e6 pars perpetuitatem\nspirat? Quid Astronomicis observationibus fiet, cum coeli ipsi\ncolliquescent? Ubi se ostendet corporis humani peritus, et medicaminum\nscientia pr\u00e6clarus, cum _corruptio induet incorruptionem_? Qu\u00e6 Music\u00e6,\nqu\u00e6 Rhetoric\u00e6 vires, cum Angelorum choro et Archangelorum coetibus\ninseremur? Si nihil animus pr\u00e6sentiret in posterum, e co\u00e6vis sibi\nscientiis aliquid solatii carpere fas esset, secumque perituris\ndelectari: sed in hoc tam exiguo vit\u00e6 curriculo, et tam brevi, quid est,\ntam cito periturum, quod impleret animum, in infinita s\u00e6culorum spatia\nduraturum? Sola Theologi\u00e6 principia, \u00e6tern\u00e6 felicitatis certissima\nexpectatione foeta, aur\u00e6 divin\u00e6 particulam, coelestis su\u00e6 originis\nconsciam, et sempitern\u00e6 beatitudinis candidatum, satiare possunt.\n\n\"C\u00e6tera Scienti\u00e6 exiguum aliquid de mundi opifice delibant, norunt; h\u00e6c,\naquil\u00e6 invecta pennis, coeli penetralia perrumpit, in ipsum Patrem\nluminum oculos intendit, et audaci veritate promittit, _DEUM nobis\naliquando videndum sicut et nos videbimur_.\n\n\"Quantum igitur moli corporis [anima materi\u00e6 expers,] quantum operos\u00e6\nconjectur\u00e6 divina visio, quantum brevi temporis spatio \u00e6ternitas,\nquantum Parnasso Paradisus, tantum reliquis disciplinis Theologia\npr\u00e6ferenda est.\n\n\"Sed hanc severam rebus humanis necessitatem imposuit DEUS, ut qu\u00e6\npulcherrima sunt, sint et difficillima. Si Sacrarum Literarum copiam, si\nstudiorum theologicorum amplitudinem prospicias, crederes promissionem\ndivinam, sicut Ecclesi\u00e6, ita doctrin\u00e6 terminos nullos posuisse.\n\n\"Scriptura ipsa, quam copiosa, quam intellectu difficilis! histori\u00e6 quam\nintricat\u00e6! propheti\u00e6 quam obscur\u00e6! pr\u00e6cepta quam multa! promissiones\nquam vari\u00e6! mysteria quam involuta! interpretes quam infiniti! Lingu\u00e6,\nquibus exarata est, et nobis, et toti orbi terrarum peregrin\u00e6. Tres in\ntitulo crucis consecrat\u00e6 sunt; satis ill\u00e6 erant, cum CHRISTUS moreretur;\nsed pluribus nobis opus est ut intelligatur. Latina parum subsidii\npr\u00e6bet, originibus exclusa. Gr\u00e6c\u00e6 magna est utilitas, nec tamen illa, si\npura, multum valet; nam aliam priorem semper aut reddit, aut imitatur.\nHebr\u00e6a satis per se obscura, nec plene intelligenda, sine suis\nconterraneis, Chaldaica, Arabica, Syriaca. Non est theologus, nisi qui\net Mithridates!\n\n\"Jam h\u00e6c ipsa oracula Ecclesi\u00e6 DEI sunt commendata, ad illam a CHRISTO\nipso amandamur; illa testis, illa columna veritatis. Nec est unius aut\n\u00e6vi, aut regionis, Ecclesia DEI: per totum terrarum orbem, quo\ndisseminata, sequenda est; per Orientis vastissima spatia, per\nOccidentis regna diversissima: antiquissimorum Patrum sententi\u00e6\npercipiend\u00e6, quorum libri pene innumeri prodierunt, et nova tamen\nmonumenta indies e tenebris eruuntur.\n\n\"Quid dicam Synodos, diversarum provinciarum foetus? quid Concilia, e\ntoto orbe coacta, et suprema auctoritate pr\u00e6dita? quid canonum\ndecretorumque infinitam multitudinem? quorum sola notitia insignem\nscientiam professionemque constituit; et tamen Theologi\u00e6 nostr\u00e6 quantula\nparticula est?\n\n\"Quot h\u00e6reses in Ecclesia pullularunt, quarum nomina, natura, origines\ndetegend\u00e6: qu\u00e6 schismata inconsutilem CHRISTI tunicam lacerarunt; quo\nfurore excitata, quibus modis suppressa, quibus machinis sublata!\n\n\"Jam vero, scholasticorum qu\u00e6stiones, quam innumera! Ad h\u00e6c omnia\nsubtiliter disserenda, acute disputanda, graviter determinanda, quanta\nPhilosophi\u00e6, quanta Dialectic\u00e6 necessitas! qu\u00e6 leges disputandi, qu\u00e6\nsophismatum stroph\u00e6 detegend\u00e6!\n\n\"H\u00e6c sunt qu\u00e6 me a professione deterrent, h\u00e6c qu\u00e6 exclamare cogunt, =tis\npros tauta hikanos?;\"\n\nBP. PEARSON's _Oratio Inauguralis_, 'Minor Works,' (ed. Churton,) vol.\ni. pp. 402-5.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX C.\n\n(p. 71.)\n\n[_The Bible an instrument of Man's probation._]\n\n\n\"Multa enim _propter exercendas rationales mentes_ figurata et obscure\nposita.\"--Aug. _De Unit. Eccl._ c. v.--\"Obscuritates Divinarum\nScripturarum quas _exercitationis nostr\u00e6 caus\u00e2_ DEUS esse voluit.\"--_Id.\nEp. lix. ad Paulinum_, tom. ii. p. 117.\n\n\"The evidence of Religion not appearing obvious, may constitute one\nparticular part of some men's trial, in the religious sense: as it gives\nscope, for a virtuous exercise, or vicious neglect of their\nunderstanding, in examining or not examining into that evidence. There\nseems no possible reason to be given, why we may not be in a state of\nmoral probation, with regard to the exercise of our understanding upon\nthe subject of Religion, as we are with regard to our behaviour in\ncommon affairs. The former is as much a thing within our power and\nchoice as the latter.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Nor does there appear any absurdity in supposing, that the speculative\ndifficulties, in which the evidence of Religion is involved, may make\neven the principal part of some persons' trial. For as the chief\ntemptations of the generality of the world are the ordinary motives to\ninjustice or unrestrained pleasure; or to live in the neglect of\nReligion from that frame of mind, which renders many persons almost\nwithout feeling as to any thing distant, or which is not the object of\ntheir senses: so there are other persons without this shallowness of\ntemper, persons of a deeper sense as to what is invisible and future;\nwho not only see, but have a general practical feeling, that what is to\ncome will be present, and that things are not less real for their not\nbeing the objects of sense; and who, from their natural constitution of\nbody and of temper, and from their external condition, may have small\ntemptations to behave ill, small difficulty in behaving well, in the\ncommon course of life. Now when these latter persons have a distinct\nfull conviction of the truth of Religion, without any possible doubts or\ndifficulties, the practice of it is to them unavoidable, unless they\nwill do a constant violence to their own minds; and religion is scarce\nany more a discipline to them, than it is to creatures in a state of\nperfection. Yet these persons may possibly stand in need of moral\ndiscipline and exercise in a higher degree, than they would have by such\nan easy practice of religion. Or it may be requisite for reasons unknown\nto us, that they should give some further manifestation what is their\nmoral character, to the creation of GOD, than such a practice of it\nwould be. Thus in the great variety of religious situations in which men\nare placed, what constitutes, what chiefly and peculiarly constitutes,\nthe probation, in all senses, of some persons, may be the difficulties\nin which the evidence of religion is involved: and their principal and\ndistinguished trial may be, how they will behave under and with respect\nto these difficulties.\"--BISHOP BUTLER's _Analogy_, P. II. ch. vi. (ed.\n1833,) p. 266. and pp. 274-5.\n\nFurther on, (p. 277,) Butler has the following note:--\n\n\"Dan. xii. 10. See also Is. xxix. 13, 14: St. Matth. vi. 23, and xi. 25,\nand xiii. 11, 12. St. John iii. 19, and v. 44: 1 Cor. ii. 14, and 2 Cor.\niv. 4: 2 Tim. iii. 13; and that affectionate as well as authoritative\nadmonition, so very many times inculcated, 'He that hath ears to hear\nlet him hear.' Grotius saw so strongly the thing intended in these and\nother passages of Scripture of the like sense, as to say, that the proof\ngiven us of Christianity was less than it might have been for this very\npurpose: 'Ut ita sermo Evangelii tanquam lapis esset Lydius ad quem\ningenia sanabilia explorarentur.' (_De Verit. R. C._ lib. ii. towards\nthe end.)\"\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX D. (p. 72.)\n\n[_St. Stephen's Statement in Acts vii. 15, 16, explained._]\n\n\nIn a work like the present which purports to deal solely with the\ngrander features of INSPIRATION and INTERPRETATION, it is clearly\nimpossible to enter systematically into details of any kind. If, here\nand there, something like minuteness has been attempted[648], it has\nonly been by way of sample of what one would fain have done,--of what\none would fain do,--time and place and occasion serving. In the same\nspirit I will add a few remarks on the famous passage in Acts vii. 15,\n16; for, confessedly, to a common eye it _seems_ to contain several\nerroneous statements. The words, as they stand in our English Bible, are\nthese:--\n\n\"So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our Fathers; and were\ncarried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought\nfor a sum of money of the sons of Emmor _the father_ of Sychem.\"\n\nFor obvious reasons, it will be convenient to have under our eyes, at\nthe same time, the original of the passage:--\n\n=Kateb\u00ea de Iak\u00f4b eis Aigypton, kai eteleut\u00easen autos kai hoi pateres\nh\u00eam\u00f4n\u00b7 kai meteteth\u00easan eis Sychem, kai eteth\u00easan en t\u00f4 mn\u00eamati ho\n\u00f4n\u00easato Abraam tim\u00eas argyriou, para t\u00f4n hui\u00f4n Emmor tou Sychem.=\n\nOn this, Dr. Alford, Dean of Canterbury, delivers himself as follows:--\n\n\"There is certainly, and that not dependent upon any Rabbinical or\nJewish views of the subject, an inaccuracy in Stephen's statement: for\nthe burying-place was not at Sychem which Abraham bought, but at Hebron,\nand it was bought of Ephron the Hittite, as you will find in the 23rd of\nGenesis from the 7th to the 20th verses. It is not worth while for us\nnow to read the account, but so it is: Abraham bought a field at Hebron\nof Ephron the Hittite. There is no mention at all made of its being for\na burying-place. But it was Jacob who bought a field near Shechem 'of\nthe children of Hamor, Shechem's father.' These two incidents, then, in\nthis case are confused together. And again I say, if it is necessary to\nsay it again, that there is no reason at all for us to be ashamed of\nsuch a statement--no reason for us to be afraid of it, or in any way\nstaggered at it. It was not Stephen's purpose to give an accurate\nhistory of the children of Israel, but to derive results from that\nhistory, which remain irrefragable, whatever the details which he\nalleged.\"--_Homilies on the former part of the Acts of the Apostles_, by\nHenry Alford, B.D., Dean of Canterbury, London, 1858, p. 219.\n\nA northern Professor, (Patrick Fairbairn, D.D., Principal and Professor\nof Divinity in the Free Church College, Glasgow,) also writes as\nfollows:--\n\n\"Now, there can be no doubt, that viewing the matter critically and\nhistorically, there _are_ inaccuracies in this statement; for we know\nfrom the records of Old Testament history, that Jacob's body was not\nlaid in a sepulchre at Sychem, but in the cave of Machpelah at\nHebron;--we know also that the field, which was bought of the sons of\nEmmor, or the children of Hamor (as they are called in Gen. xxxiii. 19),\nthe father of Sichem, was bought, not by Abraham, but by\nJacob.\"--_Hermeneutical Manual, or Introduction to the Exegetical Study\nof the Scriptures of the New Testament_, &c. Edinburgh, 1858, p. 101.\n\nNow when it is considered that the speaker here was St. Stephen,--a man\nwho is said to have been \"full of the HOLY GHOST,\" so that \"no one could\nresist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake,\" (Acts vi. 3, 5, 8,\n10.)--there is evidently the greatest _prim\u00e2 facie_ unreasonableness in\nso handling his words. But let the adverse criticism be submitted to the\ntest of a searching analysis; and how transparently fallacious is it\nfound to be!\n\nFirst, we have to ascertain the _meaning_ of the passage. And it is\nevident to every one having an ordinary acquaintance with Greek, that\nthe words =Emmor tou Sychem= _cannot_ mean \"Emmor _the father_ of\nSychem.\" This is a mere mistranslation, as the invariable usage of the\nNew Testament shews. The genitive denotes _dependent_ relation. The\nVulgate rightly supplies the word \"filii;\" and there can be no doubt\nwhatever that what St. Stephen says, is, that Abraham bought the\nburial-place \"of the sons of Emmor, _the son_ of Sychem.\"\n\nNext, it is evident that \"our Fathers,\" (=hoi pateres h\u00eam\u00f4n=,) _exclusive\nof Jacob_, form the nominative to the verb \"were carried over\"\n(=meteteth\u00easan=.) In English, the place ought to be exhibited as\nfollows:--\"he and our Fathers; and _they_ were carried.\" But, in truth,\nthe idiom of the original is so easy, to one familiar with the manner of\nthe sacred writers[649]; and the historical fact so exceedingly obvious;\nthat it must have been felt by St. Luke, in recording St. Stephen's\nwords, that greater minuteness of statement was quite needless. Who\nremembers not the affecting details of where Jacob was to be buried, as\nwell as the circumstantial narrative of whither his sons conveyed his\nbones[650]? _Who_ remembers not also that the bones of Joseph, (and, as\nwe learn from this place, the rest with him,) were carried up out of\nEgypt by the children of Israel, at the Exode[651]?\n\n_Where_ then is the supposed difficulty? Moses relates (in Gen. xxiii.)\nthat Abraham bought of Ephron the Hittite, the son of Zohar, the field\nand the cave of Machpelah: and says that Machpelah was before Mamre,\notherwise called Kirjath-Arba, and Hebron. St. Stephen further relates\nthat Abraham bought the sepulchre at Sychem in which the Twelve\nPatriarchs were eventually buried, of the sons of Emmor, (or Hamor.)\nMay not the same man buy two estates?\n\nTrue enough it is that Jacob, when he came from Padan Aram, \"bought a\nparcel of a field\" at \"Shalem a city of Shechem,\" \"at the hand of the\nchildren of Hamor, Shechem's father.\" But there is no pretence for\nsaying that these last two transactions are identical, and have been\nhere confused together: for the sellers, in the one case, were \"the sons\nof Emmor, _the son_ of Sychem;\" and in the other, \"the children of\nHamor,\"--_father of that Shechem whose tragic end is related in Gen.\nxxxiv._: while the buyer was in the one case, Abraham; in the other case,\nJacob. Not to be tedious however, let me in a few words, state what was\nthe evident truth of the present History.\n\nIt is found that Jacob, in order to build an altar at Shechem with\nsecurity, judged it expedient to purchase the field whereon it should\nstand. Who can doubt that the purchase was a measure of necessity also?\nIf, at the present day, one desired to erect a church on some spot in\nIndia, where the value of land was fully ascertained[652], and where\nthere were many inhabitants[653],--how would it be possible to set about\nthe work, with the remotest purpose of retaining possession, unless one\nfirst _bought_ the ground on which the structure was to stand? I infer\nthat when Abraham first halted at Sichem[654], and built an altar\nthere[655], (the Canaanite being then in the land,) _it is very likely_\nthat _he_ bought the ground also. But when St. Stephen informs me that\nthe thing which _I_ think only _probable_, was _a matter of fact_; am I,\n(with Dean Alford,) to hesitate about believing him? Abraham then, in\nthe first instance, bought Sichem, Shechem, or Sychar; and there built\nan altar. To that same spot, long after, his grandson Jacob resorted.\nWhat wonder, since the wells of Abraham were stopped during his\nabsence, and had to be recovered by his son, (as related in Gen. xxvi.\n17-22,)--what wonder, I say, if Jacob, on coming to Shechem after an\ninterval of nearly 200 years, finds that he also must renew the purchase\nof the cherished possession? The importance of that locality, and the\nsacred interest attaching to it, has been explained in a _Plain\nCommentary on the Gospels_, on St. John iv. 1-6, and 41. See also a\nSermon by the same author,--_One Soweth and another Reapeth_.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[648] As in the case of the healing of the two blind men at Jericho,\n(p. 67.): 'Jeremy the Prophet,' (p. 70.): the type of Melchizedek,\n(pp. 152-6.): a passage in Deut. xxx. (pp. 191-5.): the conduct of Jael,\n(pp. 223-230.): &c., &c.\n\n[649] The nominative has, in like manner, to be supplied in the\nfollowing places:--Gen. xlviii. 10. Exod. iv. 26: xxxiv. 28. Deut. xxxi.\n23. 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. 1 Kings xxii. 19. 2 Kings xix. 24, 25. Job xxxv. 15.\nJer. xxxvi. 23.--St. Matth. xix. 5. St. Mark xv. 46. St. John viii. 44:\nxix. 5: xxi. 15-17. Acts xiii. 29. Eph. iv. 8. Col. ii. 14, &c., &c.\n\n[650] Gen. xlix. 29-32; l. 5-13.\n\n[651] Ibid l. 25. Exod. xiii. 19. Josh. xxiv. 32.\n\n[652] Gen. xxiii. 15.\n\n[653] Ibid. xxiii. 10 to 12, 18.\n\n[654] Ibid. xiii. 7.\n\n[655] Ibid. xiii. 7.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX E.\n\n(p. 74.)\n\n[_The simplest view of Inspiration the truest and the best._]\n\n\n\"I suppose all thoughtful persons will allow that intellectual\nlicentiousness is the danger of this our intellectual age. For\nspeculation indulges our pride. Faith is an inglorious thing; any one\ncan believe, a cottager just as well as a philosopher: but not all can\nspeculate. The privilege of an intellectually advanced person is that.\nAnd the more novel the view he offers, the more evident the proof it\ngives of an independent mind. Therefore the danger of a highly advanced\nstate of society like our own, is Theory, as distinguished from Catholic\nTruth. And the most inviting field of theory, is that high subject, the\nintercourse which hath gone on between the Intellect above us, and our\nown; the communications which have been made from the Creator to His\ncreatures. In a word, man is under a temptation to frame a theory of\nInspiration; whether his attempts to frame one have been successful, is\na matter of much interest to consider.\n\n\"I am going to offer a few plain remarks on what the Bible professes to\nbe. I say, professes to be, because those whom I speak to will believe\nthat what it professes to be, it is. I mean they will not suspect the\nwriters of any dishonesty or ambitious pretence. But there may be some\nreaders of the Bible, among persons whose profession is the exercise of\nthe intellect, who are impatient at being left behind in the\nintellectual race; who, when continental critics are going on into\ntheories of inspiration, do not like the imputation (so freely cast upon\nus by foreign writers) of being unequal to such things, of having no\nturn for philosophy. So they must have a theory, or go along with one;\nthey must receive the Bible,--for they do receive it,--in some\nintellectual way; through some lens which they hold up; with a\nconsciousness of some intellectual action in receiving it, something\nwhich not every one could practise, something beyond the mere simple\napprehension of terms, and simple faith in embracing propositions.\n\n\"But in striking contrast with all such views and all such desires,\nstands the singular character of the sacred volume itself. It manifestly\naddresses itself to a mind in an attitude of much simplicity; to a mind\ncoming to receive a theory, not to hold up one; coming to be shaped, not\nholding out a mould to shape a communication made. For it presents\nitself as a document containing a message from on high; as conveying the\nWord of GOD; nor can all that is ever said on the subject get beyond\nthis plain account of its contents, 'the Word of GOD.' Nor need any one\nwho desires to impress on his own mind and that of others the true\ncharacter of the sacred page, try to do more than to remind himself that\nit professes to convey to him the Word of GOD.\"--_Sermons_ by the Rev.\nC. P. Eden, pp. 148-150.\n\n\"What I desire to impress upon myself and those who hear me is this,\nthat the words of GOD are always perfect, always complete; and that the\nfeeling with which a poor cottager sits down to his Bible is the right\none, and that the student hath the best hope of successful study who in\nattitude of mind is most likened to him.\"--_Ibid._, p. 192.\n\n\"The conclusion, then, is this; that Faith hath not been wrong through\nthese many years, in her simple acceptance of GOD'S Word. To come round\nto simplicity, is what we have always had to do in the great questions\nof Divinity. There have been great questions; they have agitated the\nChurch; but, as I said, to come round to simplicity hath ever been her\nwork first or last. When in the fourth century men refined upon the\ndoctrine of the Holy Trinity, and Arians and semi-Arians would be\ntelling us _how_ these things could be, the unity of GOD in three\nPersons; to come round to the simplicity of the Athanasian doctrine, and\nto disown the several explanatory statements which, offering to explain,\nexplained away, was the Church's work. I am not sure that since the\nclays of the Arian dispute, a more important question has arisen than\nthat which seems likely to be ere long forcing itself upon us, of the\nInspiration of Holy Writ. I freely permit myself to anticipate that the\nsimplest possible view of the subject, that on which rich and poor may\nmeet together, is the one to which we shall come round.\"--_Ibid._,\npp. 172-3.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX F.\n\n(p. 107.)\n\n[_The written and the Incarnate Word._]\n\n\n\"I suppose we all have learned from the language used by the Evangelist\nSt. John, always to look on each of these two employments of the\nexpression, (the WORD OF GOD,) with reference to the other; and to see\nin each, the other also. I shall not attempt to express more definitely\nthis connexion; I only need to suppose that we all apprehend it as\nexisting. But I shall claim from it thus much to my present\npurpose;--that as He whom the Evangelist saw riding in the heavenly pomp\non high, and who was revealed to him as bearing this title, 'The WORD of\nGOD[656],' was the same who rode as at this time into Jerusalem; in\nhumiliation here, in glory there; here veiled, there in brightness\nunveiled:--I would now associate the two, and would regard that sacred\nvolume which the poor cottager knows as the 'Word of GOD,' as placed\nunder the same dispensation; as veiled here, reserved for Revelation\nhereafter. I say, as all the other circumstances of our condition are\ncertainly to be regarded in this aspect, viz., as things waiting for\ndevelopment; so ordered by a Divine wisdom as that they shall sustain\nfaith and instruct piety now, but shall shew themselves for what they\nare, (if ever to a created being, yet) only in a later stage than that\nto which they were given as its present religious provision: as other\nthings, so the written page (I will assume) which speaks of GOD. I\nassume that in this world we are using sounds which mean more than we\nknow. I assume that in our churches we are in the highest sense singing\nthe songs of Sion, of the future and heavenly Sion. If Saints in Heaven\nshall sing (as we are told they shall) the song of Moses, then the song\nof Moses is already a song for Heaven; only _there_ we shall know its\nmeaning, or more of it than now we do. And the use which I make of the\nreflection is, to suggest (as I said) the frame of mind in which we\nshould approach the consideration of the sacred page; such a frame of\nmind as that no future revelations of the import of that page shall have\npower to reproach us as having dishonoured it by our interpretations\nhere, and having betrayed an inadequate feeling of what Inspiration\nwas.\"--_Sermons_, by the Rev. C. P. Eden, pp. 180-2.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[656] Rev. xix. 13.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX G.\n\n(p. 112.)\n\n[_The volume of the Old Testament Scriptures, indivisible._]\n\n\n\"In regard of the Old Testament, it will be observed that the whole\nvolume stands or falls altogether. In whatever sense we understand the\nfalling or standing, the volume stands or falls together. Each page of\nit is committed to the credit of the rest, and the whole book or\ncollection of books is committed to the credit of each page. For this\nplain reason, that the book as we have it, is the book which, being\nknown in the Jewish Church as the volume of her authentic and sacred\nScriptures, our blessed SAVIOUR accepted and referred to as such. By\nwhatever marks the canonicity of the several books was in the first\ninstance attested,--marks which were sufficient for GOD'S purpose, and\nwhich did His work,--_there_ is the volume. 'It is written,' said our\nSAVIOUR; that is, in a book which all His nation knew of, and understood\nto be inspired. The scrupulous care which the Jews shewed in preserving\ntheir sacred writings intact, is one of the most remarkable facts in\nhistory; it is a fact of which the Christian student can give perhaps\nthe right account, seeing it to have been so ordered in the good\nprovidence of GOD, that we might have firm ground in calling the book,\nas we have it, the Word of GOD. The volume stands or falls then\ntogether; which we may with advantage bear in mind, because it makes an\nargument which is available for any portion of the volume, available for\nthe whole; and no one can now say, 'You do not surely hold the\ngenealogies in the books of Chronicles, to be inspired: Isaiah and the\nPsalms may be inspired; but do you mean the same of the long extracts\nfrom mere annals?' No man, I say, can take this freedom, until he can\nextract and remove those chapters from the book which our blessed\nSAVIOUR unquestionably referred to as the canonical Scriptures of the\nChurch. If a verse stands, the Old Testament stands.\"--_Sermons_, by the\nRev. C. P. Eden, pp. 152-3.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX H.\n\n(p. 115.)\n\n(Some remarks had been partially prepared for insertion in this place,\non Theories of Inspiration: but my volume has already been delayed too\nlong, and has extended to a greater length than was originally\ncontemplated. The paper in question is therefore reserved for the\npresent.)\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I.\n\n(p. 117.)\n\n[_Remarks on Theories of Inspiration.--The 'Human Element_.']\n\n\n\"It will be allowed by all persons accustomed to a calm and charitable\nview of Theological differences, that in those differences there is\ngenerally on each side some great truth wrongly held, because taken out\nof its due place, and wrongly set. Applying this topic to the subject\nbefore us, we are led to consider whether a mistake has not been made in\nbringing forward the Human Element of Inspiration, instead of permitting\nthe eye to rest upon that which GOD presents to us,--the Divine. The\nHuman Element no doubt is there; no doubt our Maker acts through our\nfaculties in every respect; no doubt He is acting through laws when He\nseems to suspend laws; and even in Miracles, employs the powers of\nNature instead of thwarting them; but then this is His machinery, which\nHe has not explained to us. He presents Himself to us, acting sometimes\nsupernaturally; i.e. in a way above nature as we understand nature. He\nmade the Sun to stand still for Joshua; what refractive cloud came in\nand held the daylight that it should not go down is not made known to\nus; GOD said that it should stay, and it stayed; there was the miracle.\nTo have set the Creation going two thousand years before in such a way\nand train that in that hour a cloud should rise to refract the sun's\nrays for a time, because in that hour the LORD's armies would need the\ninterference, the prolonging of the daylight,--that was miracle enough.\nWe say not that GOD interrupts His own laws; nay, rather we believe that\nHe hath them always in smooth and orderly operation. Similarly of\nInspiration; we know not the way in which GOD acts on human minds, the\nSpirit on the spirit; for He hath not told us. But, as I said in the\nbeginning, in an age like the present, where analysis of process is the\nwork of men's minds, the way in which man is feeling his strength in\nevery direction, it is not very unnatural that the operations of this\nphilosophy should have been carried beyond their due line; into the\nsubject, namely, of the secret communication between the Divine Spirit,\nand the spirit and apprehensions of Men, i.e. the Work of Inspiration.\nTo accept the Bible as the word of GOD, just as a cottager or a child in\na village school accepts it, is an inglorious thing. He whose intellect\nis his instrument, that which he is to work with, wishes to feel his\nintellect operating on any subject which he has to meet. He feels a\ndesire, in apprehending a thing as done, to have as part of his\napprehension, a view of how it is done, more or less. It is natural to\nhim to take what he feels to be an intelligent view of a subject. In\naccepting the Bible therefore as the Word of GOD, he must have a view as\nto _how_ it is the Word of GOD; the nature of the illapse which the\nSpirit from on high makes on the spirit and faculties of the man. In a\nword, he would get between the Creator, and man to whom the Creator\nspeaks; and _there_ would make his observations. But how little\nencouragement have we to do this in the Word of GOD! When GOD sent\nprophets to speak to men, to convey a message to them from their Maker,\nor when He tells Apostles to speak to us, doth He invite us to come\nwithin the veil with our philosophy, and examine? I shall offend the\npiety of those who hear me by pursuing the thought. But I cannot but\nthink that something of this kind has been done by those who have\npresented us with theories of Inspiration, setting forth to us that\nwhich it cannot be shewn that GOD hath set forth to them, or to any one.\nYes, they are right; our Creator makes use of our faculties; and when He\nhath given to one man faculties different from those given to another,\nfaculties of whatever kind, of intellectual power or of moral\ntemperament, He employs them all. Hath He a message of Love? He employs\na St. John to utter it, and to prolong the delightful note. Hath He a\nmessage of freedom, that liberty wherewith CHRIST hath made us free? He\nhath a Paul ready to accept and to fulfil the congenial errand. But GOD\nspeaks, not man; and they who would have us be dwelling on the Human\nElement, when GOD invites us to be lost in the Divine, are doing not\nwell. Yes, GOD employs all our faculties: He hath made us different, as\nHe made the flowers of the field different, and Christianity shews us\nwhy He hath so made us; because He hath a work for each of us to do,--a\nwork which none else could do so well. Doubtless He employs all our\nfaculties, doing violence to none. This doubtless is His glory, that He\ncan bring about His results by the means which He Himself hath made. Who\nhas not felt, in reading some sacred narrative, the history, e.g. of\nJoseph, that the wonderful part of it was this, how naturally all came\nabout,--all by natural operation of human motives and man's free will?\nSo in Inspiration. No doubt GOD's instruments which He hath made are\nenough for His work; no doubt He employs men as they are; not their\ntongues only, but their minds and spirits, acting on them and employing\nthem as they are. Only in that great process, the point which I call\nattention to is this,--GOD speaks of it as divine, and fixes the thought\nof those who hear Him on the divine element: we, dropping our view on\nthe human, are not wise. He shews us providence; He condescends to shew\nus His work: we do not well when we shew an interest rather in lower\nparts of the scheme, especially when in those we may so greatly err,\nhaving so little information.\"--_Sermons_, by the Rev. C. P. Eden, pp.\n164-170.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX J.\n\n(p. 145.)\n\n[_How the Inspired authors of the New Testament handle the writings of\nthe Inspired authors of the Old._]\n\n\n\"Let me repeat:--The question is, how we should address ourselves to the\nstudy of the sacred page? For example, how am I to regard, and how to\ndeal with, the great diversities there are between the several sacred\nwriters? For there is the greatest diversity of mind appearing between\nthem. St. Paul is no more the same with St. John, than any two good men\nnow are perfectly alike in their constitution of mind. Nay, the\ndiversity seems especially great in the case of the sacred writers: as\nif to forbid us to adopt any theory which should ignore or neglect that\ndiversity. It is striking. How shall I deal with these and like\ncircumstances?... Can it be suggested to me what a good and wise man\nwould do in this matter?\n\n\"In answer; it can apparently be suggested; and through that which is\nthe best and safest of arguments, the argument from analogy. For there\nhas been a parallel case; the case of the _inspired writers of the New\nTestament dealing with the Scriptures of the Old_. To this parallel I\nnow invite your attention. If we can observe how and upon what great\nprinciples, piety and wisdom, guided by Inspiration, dealt with the\nvolume of the Holy Scriptures which were then its whole volume, namely\nthe Old Testament; we have so far forth a parallel case to the case of\nChristians now. The first Christians looked back on the Old Testament as\ntheir sacred Scriptures. If we can discern how they regarded their\nsacred volume, and how they proceeded in interpreting it, we have a\npattern to guide us in regard of the question, how we shall regard the\nsacred volume, and how proceed in the study and interpretation of it;\nthey with the Bible that they had,--we with the Bible that we have, the\ncompleted volume.--In this point of view I cannot but regard it as most\ndistinctly providential that there are introduced in the pages of the\nNew Testament so many quotations from the pages of the Old. For they\nfurnish us with an answer applicable in every age of the Church to the\nquestion, How shall piety and wisdom deal with a sacred volume; that\nvolume being from the pen of many writers; but with this aggravated\ndifficulty in the former case, that the writers there were widely\nseparated from one another in point of time, were in contact therefore\nwith most difficult forms of life and stages of society? How in\napproaching a volume so originated, did the New Testament writers regard\nand deal with its contents?\"--_Sermons_, by the Rev. C. P. Eden, pp.\n183-5.\n\n\"And it is impossible for us to imagine,--I say the thoughtful reader of\nthe Holy Scriptures will find it impossible to imagine,--an Evangelist\nor Apostle, evoking out of its grave the Human Element of the ancient\nprophetic communications; disinterring it once more as if to gaze upon\nit. I am sure the impression left on the mind by the passages in the New\nTestament where the Old is referred to, is in accordance with what I\nsay. In other words,--(for it is but in other words the same,)--these\ndivinely instructed students,--these inspired readers of the sacred\npage,--are aware of that which they read, being inspired; GOD its\nauthor, and not Man. And they shew this consciousness, putting off their\nshoes from their feet, as if on holy ground. A divinely instructed mind,\ninterprets a divinely indited Scripture; the Spirit His own interpreter;\nand we are taught,--not by man but by the Author of Inspiration,--how\nInspiration is to be dealt with.--Let him who would deal aright with the\nsacred pages of the New Covenant, observe in due seriousness what\ninstruction he may gain from the consideration now suggested to his\nthoughts. Let him learn from the sacred page, how to deal with the\nsacred page. And if he has observed these things; if he has seen how the\nwriters of the New Testament, discern in lines and words of the Old\nTestament, that which speaks to _them_,--(for it speaks to CHRIST, and\nin Him to His Church, i.e. to them:) ... how these utterers of\ninspired sounds are found, when their words receive at length an\nauthentic interpretation, to have been speaking of the Christian Church,\nits terms of Salvation, its spiritual gifts;--a reader of the Holy\nScriptures practised in these observations will have learned in some\nmeasure _how_ to approach the sacred volume; with a sense not only of\nits unfathomed depth, but also of its unity of scope; and a conscious\ninterest rather in its universal truths,--its ever present truths,--than\nin those transitory imports which some of its pages can be shewn to have\nhad, over and above their Evangelical meaning.\"--(_Ibid._, pp. 186-9.)\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX K.\n\n(p. 199.)\n\n[_Bishop Bull on Deut._ xxx.]\n\n\n\"Jam hic etiam qu\u00e6stionem unam et alteram solvendam\nexhibebimus.--Qu\u00e6ritur, _An nullum omnino extet in lege Mosis SPIRITUS\nSANCTI promissum?_ Resp. Legem, si per eam intelligas pactum in monte\nSinai factum, et mediatore Mose populo Israelitico datum, (qu\u00e6, ut modo\ndiximus, est maxime propria ac genuina ipsius in Paulinis Epistolis\nnotio atque acceptio,) nullum Spiritus Sancti promissum continere,\nmanifestum est. Si, inquam, per eam intelligas pactum in Sinai factum;\nquia in hagiographis et Scriptis Propheticis, (qu\u00e6 nomine legis et\nVeteris Test. laxius sumpto non raro veniunt,) de SPIRITU SANCTO, tum ex\ngrati\u00e2 Divin\u00e2 promisso, tum precibus hominum impetrato, passim legimus.\nImo et in Mosaicis scriptis, licet non in ipso Mosaico foedere,\npromissum (ni fallor) satis clarum de gratia SPIRITUS SANCTI Israelitis\na DEO danda reperire est.\n\n\"Ejusmodi certe est illud Deut. xxx. 6: 'Circumcidet JEHOVA DEUS tuus\nanimam tuam et animam seminis tui, ad diligendum Jehovam Deum tuum ex\ntoto corde tuo,' &c. Etenim circumcisionem cordis, pr\u00e6sertim ejusmodi\nqu\u00e2 ad DEUM toto corde diligendum homines pr\u00e6parentur, non sine magna\nSPIRITUS SANCTI vi atque efficacia fieri posse, apud omnes, qui a\nPelagio diversum sentiunt, in confesso est. Sed hoc etiam ad Evangelicam\nJustitiam pertinebat, quam sub cortice externorum rituum et ceremoniarum\nlatitantem primum Moses ipse, dein prophet\u00e6 alii, digito quasi\ncommonstrarunt. Justitia enim Fidei, qu\u00e6 in evangelio =pephaner\u00f4tai=\nolim erat =hypo tou nomou kai t\u00f4n proph\u00eat\u00f4n martyroumen\u00ea=,--ut diserte\naffirmat Apostolus. (Rom. iii. 21.) Dixi autem, exerte hanc SPIRITUS\nSANCTI promissionem in ipso Mosaico foedere non haberi. Addam aliquid\namplius,--_partem eam fuisse Novi Testamenti_, ab ipso Mose promulgati.\nNam foedus cum Jud\u00e6is sancitum, (Deut. xxix., _et seq._, in quo h\u00e6c\nverba reperiuntur,) plane diversum fuisse a foedere in monto Sinai\nfacto, adeoque renovationem continuisse pacti cum Abrahamo initi, h. e.\nfoederis Evangelici tum temporis obscurius revelati,--multis\nargumentis demonstrari potest. (1\u00ba) Diserte dicitur, (cap. xxix. 1.)\nverba, qu\u00e6 ibidem sequuntur, fuisse 'verba foederis quod DEUS pr\u00e6cepit\nMosi, ut pangeret cum Israelitis, _pr\u00e6ter foedus illud, quod pepigerat\ncum illis in Chorebo_.' Qui renovationem tantum hic intelligunt\nfoederis in monte Sinai facti, nugas agunt, quin et text\u00fbs ipsius\napertissimis verbis contradicunt. Neque enim verba foederis in Sinai\nfacti repetita ac renovata ullo sensu dici possunt verba foederis,\nquod DEUS sancivit pr\u00e6ter illud, quod in monte Sinai pepigerat. (2\u00ba)\nDiserte dicitur, hoc foedus idem prorsus fuisse cum eo, quod DEUS\njuramento sanciverat cum Israelitici populi majoribus, Abrahamo puta,\nIsaaco et Jacobo, (ejusdem cap. ver. 12, 13,)--quod foedus ipsum\nEvangelicum fuit, obscurius revelatum, ipso apostolo Paulo interprete,\nGal. iii. 16, 17. (3\u00ba) Nonnulla hujus foederis verba citat Paulus, ut\nverba foederis Evangelici, qu\u00e6 fidei justitiam manifesto pr\u00e6 se\nferant. (Vide Rom. x. 6. _et seq._ Coll. Deut. xxx. 11, _et seq._) _Haud\nme fugit esse nonnullos, qui statuunt, h\u00e6c Mosis verba ab Apostolo ad\nfidei justitiam per allusionem tantum accommodari_: sed fidem non\nfaciunt, cum Paulus verba ista manifesto alleget ut ipsissima verba\njustiti\u00e6 fidei, h. e. foederis Evangelici, in quo justitia ista\nrevelatur. _Atque, ut verum fatear, semper existimavi, allusiones istas\n(ad quas confugiunt quidam tanquam ad sacrum su\u00e6 ignoranti\u00e6 asylum,)\nplerumque aliud nihil esse, quam sacr\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6 abusiones manifestas._\nSed non necesse erat, hoc saltem in loco, ut tali =kr\u00easphyget\u00f4=\nuterentur. Nam, (4\u00ba) qu\u00e6cunque in hoc foedere continentur, in\nEvangelium mire quadrant. (i.) Quod ad pr\u00e6cepta attinet, pr\u00e6scribuntur\nhic ea tantum, qu\u00e6 ad mores pertinent, et per se honesta sunt; illorum\nrituum, qui, si verba spectes, pueriles videri possent, quorumque totum\nfoedus legale fere plenum est, nulla facta mentione. Addas, totam\nillam obedientiam, qu\u00e6 hic requiritur, ad sincerum sedulumque studium\nDeo in omnibus obediendi referri. (Vid. cap. xxx., 10, 16, 20.) (ii.) Ad\npromissa quod spectat, plenam hic omnium peccatorum, etiam\ngravissimorum, remissionem post peractam poenitentiam repromittit\nDEUS; (cap. xxx., 1-4.) qu\u00e6 gratia in foedere legali nuspiam concessa\nest, ut supra fusius ostendimus. Deinde, gratia SPIRITUS SANCTI, qua\ncorda hominum circumcidantur, ut JEHOVAM diligant ex toto corde atque ex\ntota anima, hoc in loco, de quo agimus, (nempe pr\u00e6dicti capitis ver 6.)\nclare promittitur. Hui! quam procul ab usitata Mosaicorum scriptorum\nvena!... (5\u00ba) Foedus illud, de quo pr\u00e6dixit Jeremias, (xxxi. 31. _et\nseq._) foedus esse Evangelicum, negavit Christianus nemo; cum Divinus\nauctor Epistol\u00e6 ad Hebr\u00e6os idipsum expresse doceat, (viii. 8, _et seq._)\nJam qu\u00e6 de pacto isto pr\u00e6nuntiat propheta, omnia huic foederi\nMoabitico ad amussim respondent. Appellat suum foedus Jeremias\n'foedus novum; ab eo, quod cum majoribus populi Israelitici \u00c6gypto\nexeuntibus pepigerat DEUS, omnino diversum.' Idem etiam de Moabitico\nfoedere dicit Moses. Causam reddit Jeremias cur novum DEUS pactum,\nSinaiticum aboliturus, molitus fuerit; nempe, quod Israelit\u00e6,\npr\u00e6potentiore gratia destituti, Sinaiticum illud irritum fecissent,\npr\u00e6ceptis ejusdem non obtemperando, (ver. 32.) Eandem causam et Moses\nmanifesto designat; 'Nondum,' inquit, 'dederat vobis JEHOVA mentem ad\ncognoscendum, et oculos ad videndum, et aures ad audiendum, usque ad\ndiem hunc:' (Deut. xxix. 4.) h. d. Pactum prius vobiscum pepigerat DEUS,\nin quo voluntatem suam pr\u00e6ceptis, tum promissis tum minis, tum denique\nmiraculis omne genus satis superque communitis, vobis ipsis patefecerat.\nSed vidit foedus illud parum vobis profuisse; vidit vobis opus esse\nefficaciore adhuc gratia, qua nempe corda vestra circumcidantur, &c.\nideoque novum foedus meditatur, in quo gratiam illam efficacissimam\nvobis adstipulaturus sit. Eandem autem cordis circumcisionem procul\ndubio designant verba Jeremi\u00e6, v. 33, pr\u00e6d. cap.; 'Indam legem meam\nmenti eorum, et cordi eorum inscribam eam.' Porro remissio ista omnium\npeccatorum, qu\u00e6 poenitentibus promittitur a Mose, (Deut. xxx. 1. _et\nseq._) a Jeremi\u00e2 etiam clare exprimitur pr\u00e6dicti cap. ver 34. 'Ero\npropitius iniquitatibus eorum, et peccatorum ipsorum et transgressionum\nipsorum non recordabor amplius.' Denique Jeremias claritatem ostendit\nadeoque facilitatem pr\u00e6ceptorum, qu\u00e6 in novo suo foedere\ncontinebantur, ob quam Dei populo non opus esset laboriosa\ndisquisitione, aut exactiori disciplina, ut pr\u00e6cepta istius foederis\ncognoscerent implerentque, (Ejusdem capitis, ver. 34.) Idem Mosen quoque\nvoluisse manifestum erit, (si verba ejus Deut. xxx. 11, _et seq._ cum\niis, qu\u00e6 Apostolus ad eundem locum disserit Rom. x. 6, et seq.\naccuratius perpenderis.) Mihi certe clara videntur omnia. (6\u00ba) Ac\npostremo, ut res h\u00e6c tota extra omnem controversi\u00e6 aleam ponatur,\n_ipsi Hebr\u00e6orum magistri ea, qu\u00e6 Deut. xxix. et deinceps continentur, ad\nMessi\u00e6 tempus omnino referenda censuerunt_. Testem advoco fide\ndignissimum P. Fagium, qui (ad Deut. xxx. 11,) h\u00e6c annotat; 'Diligentur\nobservandum est, ex consensu Hebr\u00e6orum caput hoc ad regnum Christi\npertinere. Unde etiam Bachai dicit, hoc loco promissionem esse, quod sub\nRege Messiah omnibus, qui de foedere sunt, circumcisio cordis\ncontingat, citans Joelem, ii. 28.' Fagio consentit Grotius in ejusdem\ncapitis ver. 6.\n\n\"In his ideo prolixius immorati sumus, tum, ut vel hinc manifestum\nfieret, omnia, qu\u00e6 in Mosaicis scriptis continentur, ad foedus\nMosaicum, proprie sic dictum, nequaquam pertinere; adeoque quam vera ac\nprorsus necessaria sit distinctio Augustini, (de qua aliquoties jam\ndictum est,) legem veterem =kyri\u00f4s= sumptam ad solum pactum in monte\nSinai factum restringentis; tum imprimis ut exinde etiam clare eluceret\noptima ac sapientissima DEI =oikonomia=, quam in dispensando grati\u00e6 su\u00e6\nfoedere usurpare visum ipsi fuerit. Pepigerat DEUS cum Abrahamo\nfoedus illud gratiosum multis ante latam legem annis; cui postea\nplacuit ipsi superaddere pactum aliud, multis, iisque operosis, ritibus\nac ceremoniis conflatum, quibus rudem et carnalem Abrahami posteritatem,\nrecens ex \u00c6gypto eductam, adeoque paganicis ritibus ac superstitionibus\nnimis addictam, in officio contineret, i.e. ab ethnicorum idololatrico\ncultu arceret. Quod optime expressit Tertullianus (adversus Marcion. 2.)\nhis verbis: 'Sacrificiorum onera, et operationum et oblationum\nnegotiosas scrupulositates nemo rcprehendat, quasi DEUS talia proprie\nsibi desideraverit, qui tam manifeste exclamat, \"Quo mihi multitudinem\nsacrificiorum vestrorum?\" et, \"Quis exquisivit ista de manibus vestris?\"\nsed illam DEI industriam sentiat, qua populum pronum in idololatriam et\ntransgressionem ejusmodi officiis religioni su\u00e6 voluit adstringere,\nquibus superstitio s\u00e6culi agebatur, ut ab ea avocaret illos, sibi jubens\nfieri quasi desideranti, ne simulacris faciendis delinqueret.' (Conf.\nGal. iii. 19.) Sed pr\u00e6videns sapientissimus DEUS, fore, ut hoc ipsius\npropositum populus obtusi pectoris non intelligeret, post latam istam\ncarnalem legem, pr\u00e6cepit Mosi, ut Israelitis novum foedus promulgaret,\nseu potius ut vetus illud, cum Abrahamo ante multos annos initum, (quod\nspiritualem imprimis justitiam exigebat, et gratia ac misericordia\nplenum erat,) renovaret: ut hinc tandem cognoscerent Jud\u00e6i, pactum\nAbrahamiticum etiam post latam legem ritualem adhuc viguisse, adeoque\npro foedere habendum fuisse, cui unice salus ipsorum inniteretur.\n(Conf. Gal. iii. 17.) ... Quis hic cum Apostolo non exclamet, =\u00d4\nbathos ploutou kai sophias kai gn\u00f4se\u00f4s Theou!= (Rom. xi. 33.) Sed h\u00e6c\nobiter, etsi haudquaquam frustra. Pergo.\"--From Bp. Bull's _Harmonia\nApostolica_, cap. xi., sect. 3.--_Works_, vol. iii. pp. 197-201.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX L.\n\n(p. 218.)\n\n[_Opinions of Commentators concerning Accommodation._]\n\n\nCornelius \u00e0 Lapide, on this place, writes us follows:--\"Licet Cajetanus,\nAdamus, Pererius, Toletus, putent Mosem ad litteram loqui de Christo et\nChristi justiti\u00e2, referunt enim h\u00e6c ejus verba ad poenitentiam, de qua\neodem capite egerat Moses, ver. 1; (Poenitentia enim et dilectio Dei,\nac consequenter peccatorum venia, ipsaque justitia sine fide Christi\nhaberi non potest;) tamen _longe planius est, ut non litteraliter, sed\nallegorice tantum alludat Apostolus ad Mosem. Moses enim ad litteram,\nsive in sensu litterati loquitur, non de Christo ejusque Evangelio, sed\nde lege data Jud\u00e6is, ut patet eum intuenti_. Ita Chrysostomus,\nTheodoretus, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, Abulensis, Soto.... H\u00e6c,\ninquam verba, Mosem ad suos Jud\u00e6os literaliter loqui plan\u00e8 certum,\nevidens, et manifestum est; ita tamen ut eadem h\u00e6c ejus verba\n_allegorice Evangelio ejusque catechumenis et fidelibus optime\nconveniant_. \u00c6que enim, immo magis, ad manum est omnibus jam Evangelium\net fides Christi, quam olim fuerit lex Mosis: ita ut fidem hanc omnes\nfacillime corde, id est mente, complecti: et ore proloqui, itaque\njustificari et salvari possint.\"\n\nOur own learned Hammond writes as follows:--\"The two phrases of 'going\nup into Heaven,' or 'descending into the deep,' are proverbial phrases\nto signify the doing or attempting to do some hard, impossible thing....\nThese phrases had been of old used by Moses in this sense, Deut. xxx.\n12.\" [And then, the place follows.] \"Which words being used by Moses to\nexpress the easiness and readiness of the way which the Jews had to know\ntheir duty and to perform it, are here by the Apostle _accommodated_ to\nexpress the easiness of the Gospel condition, above that of the Mosaical\nLaw.\"--So far Dr. Hammond; whose notion that there was any accommodation\nhere, I altogether deny. As for his belief that the paraphrase in the\nTargum of Jerusalem, [\"Utinam esset nobis aliquis Propheta, Jon\u00e6\nsimilis, qui in profundum maris magni descenderet,\"] is the \"ground of\nSt. Paul's application\" of the place to the Death and Resurrection of\nChrist, I can but feel surprised to find such a view advocated by so\nlearned a man, and so excellent a Divine. But it is not Hammond's way to\nwrite thus. In his \"Practical Catechism,\" he often expounds similar\nScripture, (e.g. St. Luke i. 72-5,) after a very lofty fashion.\n\nAgain:--\"Hunc locum accommodavit ad causam suam B. Paulus, Rom. x. Nam\ncum proprie hic locus pertineat ad Decalogum, transfertur eleganter et\nerudite a Paulo ad fidem qu\u00e6 os requirit ut promulgetur, et cor ut\ncorde credamus.\"--Fagius, ad Deut. xxx. 11, apud _Criticos Sacros_.\n\nOccasionally, however, we meet with a directly different gloss:--\n\n\"Locum hunc divinus Paulus divine de Evangelica pr\u00e6dicatione ac sermone\nfidei est interpretatus, tametsi sensum magis, ut \u00e6quum est, quam textum\nad verbum expresserit; ut illius etiam alibi est mos. Satis enim fuit,\natque adeo magis consentaneum viris Spiritu Dei plenis significare quid\nidem Spiritus in Scriptura intelligi vellet.\"--Clavius, ad Deut. xxx.\n14, apud _Criticos Sacros_.\n\nConcerning the general principle of Accommodation, (as explained above,\np. 188,) the following passages present themselves as valuable.\n\n\"Men have suggested that these things were accommodations of the Sacred\nWriters; and that the New Testament Writers, in the interpretations they\ngave of passages in the Old, meant to say, that the texts _might_ be\napplied in such way as they applied them. But the suggestors of this\nview can hardly have considered carefully those conversations of our\nBlessed SAVIOUR with His disciples going to Emmaus; and afterward in the\nevening of the same day, in which He distinctly reprehends them for\ntheir dulness of heart in not seeing in the pages of the Old Testament\nthe predictions of His Death and of His Resurrection; though, of His\nResurrection the intimations are, in those ancient Scriptures, to our\nview so scanty and obscure. He unfolds to them as they walk the\nreference of the Old Testament Scriptures to Himself. Then in a later\ninterview He resumes the instruction and 'opens their understanding,'\n(it is said,) to discover the same; the relation of the Old Testament\nScriptures (namely) to Himself.--He is a bold Commentator who having\nseen the Disciples thus instructed,--having witnessed this scene,--then,\nwhen he meets with these same Disciples' interpretations of the ancient\nScriptures in relation to CHRIST, calls them 'Accommodations,' and gives\nthem to a human original. But I ask leave to turn from this\ntheory.\"--_Sermons_ by the Rev. C. P. Eden, pp. 189--190.\n\n\"If we believe that the Apostles were inspired, then all idea of\naccommodation must be renounced.... The theory of Accommodation, i.e. of\nerroneous interpretation of the Scripture, cannot be thought of without\nimputing error to the SPIRIT of Truth and Holiness; or to Him who sent\nthe SPIRIT to recal to the minds of the Apostles all things which He had\nsaid to them, and to guide them into all Truth.\"--From a Sermon by Dr.\nM'Caul, _The Hope of the Gospel the Hope of the Old Testament Saints_,\n(1854,)--p. 8.\n\n\n=DIA TON LOGON TOU THEOU=.\n\n\n_By the same Author_.\n\nA PLAIN COMMENTARY ON THE FOUR HOLY GOSPELS. 7 vols. Fcap. 8vo.\n\nNINETY SHORT SERMONS FOR FAMILY READING. 2 vols. Fcap. 8vo.\n\nTHE PORTRAIT OF A CHRISTIAN GENTLEMAN: A MEMOIR OF P. F. TYTLER, ESQ.\n(2nd. Ed.) 1859. Crown 8vo.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\n * Italics and bold in the original have been represented by _..._ and\n   $...$ respectively. Greek has been transcribed and marked by =...=,\n   except where Greek letters have been used for enumeration. These are\n   represented by =1=, =2=, =3= for the original alpha, beta, gamma etc.\n   Increased letter-spacing in Greek (used for emphasis) has also been\n   represented by _..._.\n * Footnotes have been renumbered to run from 1 through the book. Where\n   there is reference to a particular footnote in the text, the original\n   text has been left, but [our 330] inserted to advise what the reference\n   now is.\n * The author's unusual punctuation style has been preserved, notably in\n   the following respects.\n   * Footnote markers appear before punctuation.\n   * Punctuation appears before closing parentheses.\n   * When a quotation is followed by a page reference, the page reference\n     is normally followed by the same punctuation as the quotation ended\n     with.\n * The use of hyphenation in the book was inconsistent. Where words were\n   hyphenated at the end of a line, other examples in the text have been\n   followed. Cases where there was some doubt were \"pre-existing\" (p. li),\n    \"co-extensive\" (p. lxxvi), \"frostwork\" (p. cxxii), \"overrule\" (p. 20),\n    and \"twofold\" (p. 38).\n * Roman numerals used for punctuation are sometimes followed by a period,\n   sometimes not.\n * i.e., and e.g., have been standardised to have no space.\n * The following words are either archaic spellings or typographical\n   errors and have been left as in the original. Those known to the\n   transcriber as valid archaic spellings have been marked [*]\n   * \"Pourtrays/pourtrayed\" (p. xxv),\n   * \"recal\" for \"recall\" (p. xxviii and others)\n   * \"inuendo\" (p. liv) [*]\n   * \"pr\u00e6-Adamic\" (p. cvii)\n   * \"Meanwile\" (p. cxii)\n   * \"expence\" (p. cxxxiii) [*]\n   * \"Poictiers\" for \"Poitiers\" (p. cxlvi) [*]\n   * \"tenour\" (p. ccvi)\n   * \"Analagy\" (p. ccxv)\n * A printing error in the Greek was corrected: \"Apostol\u00f4n\" in (our)\n  footnote 209 had the wrong breathing.","title":"Inspiration and Interpretation: Seven Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":161236}