To cope systematically with all this from the University pul

Produced by Colin Bell, Daniel J. Mount, Dave Morgan and

the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at

https://www.pgdp.net

$Inspiration and Interpretation:$

SEVEN SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD:

WITH PRELIMINARY REMARKS:

BEING AN ANSWER TO A VOLUME ENTITLED

"Essays and Reviews."

BY THE

REV. JOHN WILLIAM BURGON, M.A.,

FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, AND SELECT PREACHER.

* * * * *

I CANNOT HOLD MY PEACE, BECAUSE THOU HAST HEARD, O MY SOUL,

THE SOUND OF THE TRUMPET, THE ALARM OF WAR.

Oxford & London:

J. H. and Jas. PARKER.

1861.

$Printed by Messrs. Parker, Cornmarket, Oxford.$

TO THE REVEREND

WILLIAM SEWELL, D.D.,

FELLOW OF EXETER COLLEGE: LATE PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD; AND LATE WARDEN OF ST. PETER'S COLLEGE, RADLEY.

* * * * *

MY DEAR FRIEND,

Let me have the satisfaction of inscribing this volume to yourself. I

know of no one who has more faithfully devoted himself to the sacred

cause of Christian Education: no one to whom those blessed Truths are

more precious, which of late have been so unscrupulously assailed, and

which the ensuing pages are humbly designed to uphold in their integrity.

Affectionately yours,

JOHN W. BURGON.

* * * * *

=DEI GAR KAI HAIRESEIS EN HYMIN EINAI, HINA HOI DOKIMOI PHANEROI GENÔNTAI

EN HYMIN.=

Ac si diceret: Ob hoc hæreseôn non statim divinitus eradicantur

auctores, ut probati manifesti fiant; id est, ut unusquisque quam tenax,

et fidelis, et fixus Catholicæ fidei sit amator, appareat. Et revera cum

quæque novitas ebullit, statim cernitur frumentorum gravitas, et levitas

palearum: tunc sine magno molimine excutitur ab areâ, quod nullo pondere

intra aream tenebatur.--VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS, _Adversus Hæreses_, § 20.

PREFACE.

I am unwilling that this volume should go forth to the world without

some account of its origin and of its contents.

I. Appointed last year, (without solicitation on his part,) to the

office of Select Preacher, the present writer was called upon at the

commencement of the October Term to address the University. His Sermon,

(the first in the volume,) was simply intended to embody the advice

which he had already orally given to every Undergraduate who had sought

counsel at his hands for many years past in Oxford; advice which, to say

the truth, he was almost weary of repeating. Nothing more weighty or

more apposite, at all events, presented itself, for an introductory

address: nor has a review of the current of religious opinion, either

before or since, produced any change of opinion as to the importance of

what was on that first occasion advocated.

Another, and another, and yet another preaching turn unexpectedly

presented itself, in the course of the same Term; and the IInd, IIIrd,

and IVth of the ensuing Sermons, (preached on alternate Sundays,) were

the result. The study of the Bible had been advocated in the first

Sermon; but it was urged from a hundred quarters that a considerable

amount of unbelief prevailed respecting that very Book for which it was

evident that the preacher claimed entire perfection and absolute

supremacy. The singular fallacy of these last days, that Natural

Science, in some unexplained manner, has already demolished,--or is

inevitably destined to demolish[1],--the Book of Divine Revelation,

appeared to be the fallacy which had emerged into most offensive

prominence; and to this, he accordingly addressed himself.--It will not,

surely, be thought by any one who reads the IInd of these Sermons that

its author is so weak as to look with jealousy on the progress of

Physical Science. His alarm does not arise from the cultivation of the

noblest study but one,--viz. the study of GOD'S Works; but from the

prevalent _neglect of the noblest study of all_,--viz. _the study of

GOD'S Word_. His quarrel is not with the Professors of Natural Science,

but with those who are mere _Pretenders_ to it. Moreover, he makes no

secret of his displeasure at the undue importance which has of late been

claimed for Natural Science; and which is sufficiently implied by the

prevalent fashion of naming it without any distinguishing epithet,--as

"Science," absolutely: just as if _Theology_ were not a Science also[2]!

It is not necessary to speak particularly of the contents of the next

two Sermons; except to say that the train of thought thus started

conducted the author inevitably over ground which was already occupied

in the public mind by a volume which had already obtained some

notoriety, and which has since become altogether infamous. Enough of the

contents of that unhappy production I had read to be convinced that in a

literary, certainly in a _Theological_ point of view, it was a most

worthless performance; and I recognized with equal sorrow and alarm that

it was but the matured expression of opinions which had been fostering

for years in certain quarters: opinions which, occasionally, had been

ventilated from the University pulpit; or which had been deliberately

advocated in print[3]; and which it was now hinted were formidably

maintained, and would be found hard to answer. Astonished, (not by any

means for the first time in my life,) at the apathy which seemed to

prevail on questions of such vital moment, I determined at all events

not to be a party to a craven silence; and denounced from the University

pulpit with hearty indignation that whole system of unbelief, (if system

it can be called,) which has been growing up for years among us[4]; and

which, I was and am convinced, must be openly met,--not silently ignored

until the mischief becomes unmanageable: met, too, by building up men

in THE TRUTH: above all, by giving Theological instruction to those who

are destined to become Professors of Theological Science, and are about

to undertake the cure of souls.... In this spirit, I asserted the

opposite fundamental verities; and so, would have been content to

dismiss the "Essays and Reviews" from my thoughts for ever.

But in the meantime, the respectability of the authors of that volume

had attracted to their work an increasing share of notice. An able

article in the 'Westminster Review' first aroused public attention. A

still abler in the 'Quarterly' awoke the Church to a sense of the

enormity of the offence which had been committed. It was not that

_danger_ was apprehended. There could be but one opinion as to the

essential impotence of the attack. But the circumstances which aroused

public indignation were twofold. First,--Here was a _conspiracy_ against

the Faith. Seven Critics had _avowedly combined_ "to illustrate the

advantage derivable to the cause of Religious and Moral Truth from a

free handling, in a becoming spirit, of" what they were pleased to

characterize as "subjects peculiarly liable to suffer by the repetition

of conventional language, and from traditional modes of treatment[5]."

They prefixed to their joint labours the expression of a "hope that

their volume would be received as an attempt" to do this. That their

allusion was to the Creeds, Articles, Book of Common Prayer and

Administration of the Sacraments,--was obvious. Equally obvious was the

_un_-becoming spirit, the arrogance and the hostility,--with which all

those sacred things were handled by those seven writers.

Secondly,--"Essays and Reviews" attracted notice because six of its

authors were _Ministers of the Church of England_. Here were six

Clergymen openly making light of their sacred profession, and apparently

worse than regardless of their Ordination vows. As an infidel but

certainly in this instance most truthful as well as able Reviewer,

remarked concerning the work in question,--"In their ordinary, if not

plain sense, there has been discarded the Word of GOD, the Creation, the

Fall, the Redemption, Justification, Regeneration, and Salvation,

Miracles, Inspiration, Prophecy, Heaven and Hell, Eternal punishment and

a Day of Judgment, Creeds, Liturgies, and Articles, the truth of Jewish

History and of Gospel narrative; a sense of doubt thrown over even the

Incarnation, the Resurrection, and Ascension, the Divinity of the Second

Person, and the personality of the Third. It may be that this is a

_true_ view of Christianity; but we insist, in the name of common sense,

that it is a _new_ view. Surely it is waste of time to argue that it is

agreeable to Scripture, and not contrary to the Canons[6]!"

This twofold phenomenon, which has shocked the public conscience and

perplexed common sense, has been _the sole_ cause of the amount of

attention "Essays and Reviews" has excited. Laymen might have combined

to produce this volume, almost unheeded. An obscure Clergyman might

possibly have published any one of these seven papers; and with a rebuke

for his immorality or his insolence, he would probably have been

unnoticed by the world. But here is a combination of Doctors of

Divinity; Professors; Fellows, nay Heads of Colleges; Instructors of

England's Youth; Teachers of Religion; Chaplains to Royal and noble

personages!

The Jesuitical notice prefixed to the book, (deprecating the idea that

its authors should be held responsible, except severally for their

several articles,) completed the scandal. As if seven men, each armed

with his own appropriate weapon of violence, breaking into a house, and

spreading ruin around them, could "readily be understood," (to quote

their own language,) to incur each a limited responsibility!... Charity

doubtless would have rejoiced to spread her mantle over any one or more

of the number, "who, on seeing the extravagantly vicious manner in which

some of his associates had performed their part, had openly declared his

disgust and abhorrence of such unfaithfulness, and had withdrawn his

name[7],"--with some expression of sorrow for the irreparable mischief

which he had actively helped to occasion. But long before _nine_

editions of "Essays and Reviews" had appeared, it became apparent that

each of the living authors, (for one, alas, has already gone to his

account!) has made himself responsible for the _whole_ work[8]. Nay,

there are some of the number who make no secret of their satisfaction

at what has happened; and seem desirous only that their volume should

obtain a yet wider circulation[9].

"Essays and Reviews," as already stated, with the turn of the year,

experienced a vast increase of notoriety. The entire Bench of Bishops

condemned the book; and both Houses of Convocation endorsed the

Episcopal censure. A very careful perusal of the volume became

necessary; and it proved to be infinitely weaker in point of ability,

infinitely more fatal in point of intention, than could have been

suspected from the known respectability and position of its authors. A

clamour also arose for a Reply to these Seven Champions,--not exactly of

Christendom. "You _condemn_: but why do you not _reply_?"--became quite

a popular form of reproach.

It was useless to urge, in private, such considerations as the

following:--To reply to a volume of 433 pages, each of which contains a

fallacy or a falsity,--while some pages are packed full of both,--is a

serious undertaking.--Besides, the book _has been_ replied to already;

for there is scarcely an objection urged within its pages which was not

better urged, and effectually disposed of, in the last century. Nay,

every good Review of "Essays and Reviews" has _answered_ the book: for

what signify the details, if the fundamental lie has been detected, and

unrelentingly exposed? The man who plants his heel on the serpent's

head, and refuses to withdraw it, can afford to disregard the tortuous

writhings of the long supple body.--Again. These attacks are seven. Must

seven men _with_ "concert and comparison,"--with leisure and inclination

too,--be procured to _demolish_ this flimsy compound of dogmatism and

unbelief? to disperse these cloudy doubts, and to analyse and repel

these many ambiguous statements?--Once more. A fool can assert, and in a

moment, that 'There is no GOD.' But it requires a wise man to refute the

lie; and his refutation will probably demand a volume.--I say, it was in

vain to urge such considerations as these. "Why does no one _reply_ to

these 'Essays and Reviews?'" was asked,--till, I apprehend, pens enough

have been unsheathed to do the work effectually.

It struck me, in the meantime, that I should be employing myself not

unprofitably at such a juncture, if (laying aside all other work for a

month or two) I were to attempt a short reply to the volume in

question, myself; and to combine it with the publication of the Sermons

I had already preached; and which I had the comfort of learning had not

only been favourably received by some of those who heard them, but had

attracted some slight notice outside the University also. Accordingly,

with not a little reluctance, in the month of February I began. The

_Destructive_ part of the argument, I determined to address to the

younger members of my own College,--men with whom I live in daily

intimacy, and on terms of private friendship; and whom, above all, I

desired to protect against the influence of that "moral poison," (as the

Bishop of Exeter describes it,) of which the world has lately heard so

much. The _Constructive_ part of the argument, I resolved to complete as

opportunities might offer, in my Sermons. One such opportunity presented

itself early in Lent; of which I availed myself to establish some

fundamental truths relative to the Interpretation of Holy Writ[10]. By

favour of the Vice Chancellor, the promise of yet another preaching turn

was obtained. It appeared best to avail myself of the opportunity to

consider the chief objections which have been brought against the Bible

from the _marvellous_ character of some of its contents[11]. An

University Sermon preached exactly ten years ago, (on the Doctrine of

Accommodation,) supplied an important link in the argument.... Thus the

unscientific shape in which the present volume appears, is explained;

and its want of exact method is accounted for. Let me add, that but for

the forward state of what I like to regard as the _Constructive_ part

of the present volume,--(and which I am not without a humble hope will

secure for the rest a more than ephemeral interest,)--I should have been

slow indeed to undertake the distasteful task of answering a work of

which I have long since been heartily weary.

II. And now, for a few words on the general question which has called

out these "Sermons" and "Preliminary Remarks."

At the root of the whole mischief of these last days lies _disbelief in

the Bible_ as _the Word of GOD_. This is the fundamental error.

Dangerous enough is it to the moral and intellectual nature of Man, when

the authority of the Church is doubted: or rather, this is _the first_

downward step. Not to believe that Christ bequeathed to His Church a

Divine form of polity: not to believe that He set officers over His

Kingdom, of which He is Himself the sole invisible Head: not to believe

that He invested His Apostles with authority to delegate to others the

Commission He had Himself conveyed to them; and that, by virtue of such

transmitted powers, the Church has authority in the Ministration of

GOD'S Word and Sacraments: not to believe that He vouchsafed to His

Church extraordinary guidance at the first, and that He vouchsafes to

His Church effectual guidance still:--an utter want of faith in the

Church and her Ordinances, is the first step, I repeat, in a soul's

downward progress.

Next comes an impatience of Creeds. It has been falsely asserted by an

Essayist and Reviewer that "Constantine inaugurated the principle of

doctrinal limitation[12];" by which is meant that definitions of Faith

date from the Council of Nicæa, A.D. 325: the truth being that the

famous Oecumenical Council which was then held did but rule the

consubstantiality of the SON with the FATHER: whereas elaborate Creeds

exist of a far earlier date; as all are aware. Creeds indeed are coeval

with Christianity itself[13]. What need to add that when the decree of

the first Oecumenical Council concerning the true faith in the

adorable Trinity has been set at nought, all other decisions of the

Church are disregarded also?

That marvellous concrete fact, the Bible,--has next to be encountered.

Unmethodical as it seems to be, the Bible arrests a man in his impatient

course with many a significant History,--many an unmanageable precept.

Much of its contents, it is true, are of such a nature that they may be

glossed over,--explained away,--ignored,--set aside. The reading is

doubtful: or there are two opinions, (perhaps twenty,) concerning it: or

the language may be figurative: or the words are not to be pressed too

closely: or a perverse logic may pretend to find in it agreeable

confirmation, instead of stern reproof. Not a few places there are,

however, which defy any such handling; stubborn rocks which refuse to

yield a single trace of the wished-for vegetation, in return for the

most determined husbandry. Nothing of the kind ever will or can be made

to germinate upon them. They are absolutely unmanageable, and hopelessly

in the way of the man who is determined to cast off restraint,--whether

spiritual, intellectual, or moral. He is for being lawless; or at

least, without law: but _the Bible_ is unmistakably _an external Law_,

and is opposed to him. The Bible is his enemy, and the Bible claims to

be Divine.... What need to state that to deny the Inspiration of the

Bible, and to undermine its authority, and to explain away its

statements, becomes the next object of the unbeliever? It is precisely

at this stage of his downward progress that public attention is excited,

and public indignation aroused. The Church, (like its Divine Author,)

may be outraged, and few will be found to remonstrate. The Creeds may be

assailed, (especially "one unhappy Creed!"), and it is hinted that these

are speculative matters, on which none should pronounce too

dogmatically. But (thank GOD!) Englishmen yet love their Bible; and

Common Sense is able to see that an uninspired Bible is _no Bible at

all_. At the assault upon the Bible, therefore, as I said, an indignant

outcry is raised,--as _now_.

Systematically to cope with such irreverence, such entire ignorance

rather of all the questions at issue, from the pulpit, would be clearly

impracticable. Men require to be taught "which be the first principles."

They require to be educated in Divinity. And thus we come back to the

fontal source of all the mischief of our own Day. We, in Oxford, give no

systematic training to our Candidates for Holy Orders. We do not even

attempt it. Nay, incredible to relate, _we do not give them any training

at all_. And the fatal consequences of this omission are to be seen on

every side. A youth no sooner gets through "the Schools," and graduates

in Arts, than he inquires for a Curacy. During the three months, perhaps

six, of interval, he makes himself sufficiently acquainted with the

Alphabet of Divinity to enable him to satisfy the very modest

requirements of the Bishop's examination; after which he finds himself

at once actively engaged in the Bishopric of souls and the profession of

Theology. It is probable that the realities of the Ministerial calling,

and the eminently practical nature of such an one's daily life, will

keep _this_ man from error. Not so his--more, shall I say, or

less?--fortunate fellow-student; who, by hard self-relying labour,

having obtained distinction in the Schools, finds himself in the

enjoyment of a fellowship, and straightway engages in the work of

tuition. This man, whose fellowship is his "title" for orders, studies

Divinity, or neglects it, at pleasure: and if he studies it, he studies

it in his own way. He has read a little of heathen Ethics with great

care; or he has trained himself to the exactness of mathematical

inference. With the purest idiom of ancient Greece he has also made

himself very familiar. He is besides a Master of Arts. What need to add

that such an one is not therefore a Master of _Divinity_? possesses no

qualification which authorizes him to dogmatize about any one department

of _Theological Science_?

The plain truth is, (and it is really better to speak plainly,)--the

plain truth is, that the offensive Sermons one sometimes hears from the

University pulpit,--the offensive Essays and Reviews which have lately

occasioned so much public scandal,--are the work of men who discuss that

which they do not understand; profess that which they were never, at

any time of their life, taught. Their method of handling a text is

altogether unique and extraordinary. Their remarks concerning Divine

things are even puerile. Their very citations of Scripture are

incorrect. Their cool affectation of superiority of knowledge, their

claim to intellectual power, would be laughable, were the subject less

solemn and important. Speculations so feeble that they sound like the

cries of an infant in the dark, are insinuated to be the sublime views

of a bold and original thinker, who _"has by a Divine help been enabled

to plant his foot somewhere beyond the waves of Time!"_--Doubts so badly

expressed that they read like the confused utterance of one in his

sleep, claim to be regarded as the legacy of one who is about to

_"depart hence before the natural term, worn out with intellectual

toil[14]!"_ ... In a word,--Men who have never been taught and trained,

but have grown up in a miserable self-evolved system of their

own,--(with a little of Hegel, and a little of Schleiermacher, and a

little of Strauss,)--cannot _but_ trouble the peace of the Church. They

deny her authority. (They are not aware of her claims.) They cavil at

her Creeds. (They are not acquainted with their history.) They doubt the

authenticity of the very Bible. (They know wondrous little about

it.)--How did the Bible attain its actual shape? They cannot tell. How

has it been guarded? They are careless to inquire. How does it come to

us as 'the Bible,'--_the_ Book of all books? It is best not to discuss a

question which must infallibly bring forward _the Church_ as "a witness

and a keeper of Holy Writ[15]." Men are even impatient to publish their

private prejudice that it is to be interpreted like any other book; that

it is inspired in no other sense than Sophocles and Plato. "The

principle of private judgment," (it is said,) "puts Conscience between

us and the Bible, making Conscience _the supreme interpreter[16]_."

"Hence," it is said, "we use the Bible,--some consciously, some

unconsciously,--not to override, but to evoke the voice of Conscience."

(p. 44.) "The Book of this Law," (as Hooker phrases it,) is dethroned;

and Man usurps the vacant seat, and becomes a Law unto himself! GOD

Himself is dethroned, in effect; and Man becomes his own god.

To cope systematically with all this from the University pulpit, as

already remarked, is plainly impossible. The preacher must take up the

question at some definite stage, and arrest the false teachers _there_.

"That wicked,"--or rather "THE LAWLESS ONE," (=ho anomos=, as he is

called in 2 Thess. ii. 8,)--must be bound, hand and foot, _somewhere_ in

his career of lawlessness; and in these Sermons _the threshold of the

Bible_ has been chosen as the place for the conflict. My life for his

life. I will slay or be slain on the very portal of Holy Scripture. With

the young, you begin at the beginning,--"the Creed, the LORD'S Prayer,

the Ten Commandments;" and they must be further instructed in the Church

Catechism. But the foundation cannot be laid afresh with the full-grown.

It is idle to talk about the authority of _the Church_ to men who do not

believe in the Bible. It is useless to dispute about Creeds with men

who know nothing of the origin and history of Christianity. Reserving

the _true_ method of teaching for those who alone are capable of being

taught, we are constrained to argue with men of full age about _the

Inspiration and Interpretation of the Bible_.--If in the ensuing Sermons

the principles handled are so very elementary, it is because the

available limits were so very narrow,--while the field over which

Unbelief has spread itself, is so very broad.

III. When a few words have been added concerning the manner in which I

have executed my task, this Preface shall be brought to a close.--If the

style of the present SERMONS,--considering the auditory, and above all

considering the subject,--shall be thought by competent judges not

sufficiently dignified in parts, I will bow to their decision without

remonstrance. Everybody can divine the defence which would be set up;

but perhaps it may not be quite a valid defence. A man feels strongly

and warmly; writes fast and freely; is determined to be clearly

understood: is weary of the dignified conventionalities under which

Scepticism loves to conceal itself when it comes abroad. Perhaps some

expressions which may be permitted in delivery, ought to be remodelled

when a Sermon is sent to the press.

But with regard to the ensuing PRELIMINARY REMARKS, I shall not so

easily be persuaded to think that I am mistaken as to the style in which

Essayists and Reviewers are to be dealt with[17]. Some respectable

persons, I doubt not, will think my treatment of them harsh and

uncharitable. I invite them to consider that we do not expect blasphemy

from Ministers of the Gospel,--irreligion from the teachers of

youth,--infidelity from the Professor's chair: nor are we called upon to

tolerate it either. I have the misfortune to concur entirely with the

verdict pronounced by the Bishop of Exeter on the subject of 'Essays and

Reviews.' Let those who feel little jealousy for GOD'S honour measure

out in grains their censure of a volume, the confessed tendency of which

is to sap the foundation of Faith, and to introduce irreligion with a

flood-tide. Such shall not, at all events, be _my_ method. Private

regard, if it is to weigh largely with him who stands up for GOD'S

Truth, should first have weighed a little with those by whom it has been

most grievously outraged. It may suit these Authors to wrap up their

shameful meaning in a cloud of words; but their Reviewer avails himself

of that Christian liberty to which they themselves so systematically lay

claim, mercilessly to uncover their baseness, and uncompromisingly to

denounce it. If I may declare my mind freely, punctilious courtesy in

dealing with such opinions, becomes a species of treason against Him

after whose Name we are called, and whom we profess to serve. Seven men

may combine to handle the things of GOD, it seems, in the most

outrageous manner; while _themselves_ are to be the objects of

consideration, tenderness, respect! I cannot see their title to any

consideration at all.

It will be found, it is hoped, that when these writers have the courage

to descend to argument, _there_ I have gladly met them on their own

ground, and sought to refute them: but _to reason_ is no part of their

plan. Unsupported dicta on every subject on which they treat: doubts

promiscuously insinuated, but never once openly and honestly maintained:

cool assumptions of intellectual superiority for themselves and their

infidel allies: contemptuous allusions to the names which the

respectable part of mankind agrees to hold in honour: foul imputations

against the honesty of the Clergy:--_this_ is all their method! The

favourite _cant_ of these writers is, that no one should shrink from

free discussion, or fear the results of Criticism. Why then do not they

themselves criticize? Why do not _they_ reason? Charity herself after

weighing these Essays carefully has no alternative but to assume that

the Authors either have not the courage, or that they lack the ability,

to descend to a free discussion, and risk all on a stand-up fight. A

kind of guerilla warfare: half a dozen arrows, and a hasty retreat:

_such_ is their mode of attack! But this method, though it may occasion

annoyance, is quite unworthy of an honest inquirer, and never can be

decisive of anything. It is the cowardly expedient of men who shrink

from scrutiny, and dread exposure. Nothing so easy, for example, as to

repeat the old commonplace about "irreconcileable discrepancies" in the

"Synoptical Gospels:" but why, instead, are we not told, _which these

irreconcileable discrepancies are_? For my own part, I freely renew in

this place the challenge I gave in my IIIrd Sermon[18]. Let any one of

these Gentlemen publicly and definitely lay his finger on one or more

of these contradictory statements in the Gospels, during term-time; and

within a week I hereby undertake publicly to refute him in the Divinity

School of this University: and our peers shall be our judges.

Gentlemen who come abroad in the fashion above described, have no right

to complain if they encounter rough usage on the road. When Critics are

clamorous for the "free handling" of Divine Truth, they must not be

surprised to find themselves freely handled too. If free discussion is

to be the order of the day, then let there be free discussion of "Essays

and Reviews," _as well as of_ THE BIBLE. Six Clergymen of the Church of

England who enter upon a crusade against the Faith of the Church of

England must not be astonished if they are looked upon in the light of

immoral characters, and treated as such. Accordingly, I have handled

_them_ just as freely as _they_ have handled the Prophets, Apostles, and

Evangelists of CHRIST.

I cannot therefore pretend to offer anything in extenuation of the style

in which I have examined the statements of these Essayists and

Reviewers. Perfectly sensible as I am of the gracefulness of highly

courteous language in controversial writing, I will not so far violate

my own conviction of what is right as to bandy compliments on such an

occasion as _this_. This is no literary misunderstanding, or I could

have been amicable enough: no private or personal matter, or I could

have flung it from me with unconcern. No other than an attempt to

destroy Man's dearest hopes, is this infamous book: no other than an

insult, the grossest imaginable, offered to the Majesty of Heaven; an

attack, the more foul because it is so insidious, against the

Everlasting Gospel of JESUS CHRIST. In such a cause I will _not_ so far

give in to the smooth fashion of a supple and indifferent age, as to pay

these seven writers a single compliment which they will care to accept.

The most foolish composition of the seven is Dr. Temple's; the most

mischievous is Professor Jowett's: but the germ of the last Essay is

contained in the first; the foolishness of the first Essay is abundantly

shared by the last: while the evidence of correspondence of sentiment

between the two writers is unmistakable. The most unphilosophical Essay,

(where _all_ are unphilosophical,) is Professor Powell's: the most

insolent, Dr. Williams': the most immoral, Mr. Wilson's: the most

shallow, Mr. Goodwin's; the most irrelevant, Mr. Pattison's. Not one of

these writers shews himself capable of recognizing the true logical

result of his own opinions: of drawing from his own premisses their one

inevitable issue. Not one of them has had the manliness to _speak out_,

and to _say plainly_ what he means. They seem to deny the Divinity of

CHRIST, and the Personality of the HOLY GHOST: but how reluctant is a

reader to believe that they really _mean_ it! Quite inevitable is it

that these clerical critics must choose between two alternatives. Either

they hold opinions which make it impossible that they should retain

Orders in the Church of England, and yet be honest men; or they have

expressed themselves with such culpable inaccuracy and ambiguity, as

shews that they are altogether incompetent to handle the Science of

Theology.--Gladly would one give them the benefit of a third

alternative: but I see not that any remains.

If it should be thought strange that one thinking so meanly of 'Essays

and Reviews' should have produced a yet larger volume in reply to them,

it must suffice to point out that the refutation of a fallacy is almost

of necessity the ampler writing.--Or again, if it be remarked that by

far the largest part of what I have written is directed against the

hundred pages of Professor Jowett, the explanation is still obvious. For

not only does that concluding Essay of his bring to a terribly practical

issue the speculative doubts and difficulties which had been started by

all his predecessors; (namely, doubts as to (1) the relation in which

the Bible stands to Man;--(2) the nature of Prophecy;--(3) the reality

of Miracles;--(4) the worth of Creeds and formularies;--(5) the

authenticity of Genesis;--(6) the basis on which Revelation is by the

Church of England supposed to rest;)--by proposing that we should

henceforth regard the Bible as a book _no otherwise inspired than

Sophocles and Plato_:--not only does Professor Jowett's essay discharge

this fatal office; but his style is somewhat peculiar; and what he says,

cannot always be effectually disposed of by a few words. Let me explain.

There is a certain form of fallacy of statement in which this

Gentleman's writings abound, which calls aloud for notice and signal

reprobation. He has a marvellous aptitude, (one would fain hope through

some intellectual infirmity,) of connecting together in the same

sentence two or three clauses; one or two of which shall be true as

Heaven, while the other is false as Hell. The reply to such a sentence

is impossible, without many words,--far more than Mr. Jowett's sentences

commonly deserve.--Sometimes he strings together several heads of

thought; of which enumeration the kindest thing which can be said is

that it betrays an utter want of intellectual perspective. To unravel

even a part of this tangled web so as to expose its argumentative

worthlessness, soon fills a page.... But there is another kind of

fallacy which the same gentleman wields with immense effect, and in the

use of which he is a great master; which, because it was absolutely

impossible to handle it fitly in the proper place, shall be briefly

adverted to, here. I proceed to describe it not without indignation; for

I am profoundly struck by the intellectual perversity, not to say the

moral obliquity, which has so entirely made this vile instrument its

own.

The fallacy then is of this nature. When Professor Jowett would put

forth something especially deserving of reprehension,--some sentiment or

opinion which he either knows, or ought to know, that the whole Church

will resent with unqualified abhorrence,--he assumes a plaintive manner,

and puts himself into an interesting attitude; sometimes even folds his

hands, as if in prayer. He then begins by (1) throwing out a remark of

real beauty, and so conciliating for himself an indulgent hearing; or

(2) he goes off on some Moral question, and so defeats attention; or

(3) he delivers himself of some undeniable truth, and so disarms

censure; or (4) he says something of an entirely equivocal kind, and so

leaves his reader at fault. Candour, of course, gives him the benefit of

the doubt. It is not till the sentence is well advanced, or till it is

examined by the fatal light of its context, that one is shewn what the

ambiguous writer really was intending. A cloven foot appears at last;

but it is instantly withdrawn, with a shuffle; and you experience a

scowl or a sneer, as the case may be, for your extreme unkindness in

inquiring whether it was not a cloven foot you saw?... Meanwhile, the

learned Professor has gone off _in alia omnia_, with a look of

earnestness which challenges respect, and a vagueness of diction which

at once discourages pursuit and defeats inquiry. The fish invariably

ends by disappearing in a cloud of his own ink.

It shall suffice to have said thus much. These pages must now be

suffered to go forth; not without a hearty aspiration that a blessing

may attend them from Him _sine Quo nihil est validum, nihil sanctum_;

and that what was intended for the strength and help of those who want

helping and strengthening, (I am thinking particularly of what has been

offered on the subject of Inspiration,) may not prove misleading or

perplexing to any.

_Oriel, June 24th, 1861._

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The reader is invited to refer to the passages cited in the present

volume, at pp. lxxxvii. and lxxxviii.

[2] See p. 47 to p. 50. Also Appendix (B.)

[3] In illustration of what is meant, may be particularized a highly

objectionable Sermon which Dr. Temple preached before the University

some years ago, and which occasioned no small offence to many who heard

it,--as all in Oxford well remember. It was almost as unsound as the

same writer's Essay "On the Education of the World," which, to the best

of my remembrance, it strongly resembled.--A printed Sermon by Dr.

Temple may also be referred to, "preached on Act-Sunday, July 1, 1860,

before the University of Oxford, during the Meeting of the British

Association," entitled _"The present Relations of Science to

Religion."_--Professor Jowett's handling of the Doctrine of the

Atonement, needs only to be referred to.

[4] Page 80 to 82.

[5] "To the Reader," prefixed to _Essays and Reviews_.

[6] 'Neo-Christianity' in the _Westminster Review_, No. 36.--How true is

what follows:--"The Bible is one; and it is too late now to propose to

divide it. We shall only point out that the _moral value of the Gospel

teaching becomes suspicious_ when the whole miraculous element is

discarded.

"We certainly do think that the Gospels assert a miraculous Incarnation,

Resurrection, and Ascension; and that the Epistles teach Original Sin,

and a vicarious Sacrifice. If this be doubted by our authors, it is

sufficient for us to say that such is the impression they have created

on all ages of Christians."

"We desire that if the Bible, or any part of it be retained as Holy

Writ, it be defended as a miraculous gift to Man, and not by distorting

the principles of modern Science. Let the Essayists be assured that

there exists _no middle course_; that there is no Inspiration more than

is natural, yet not supernatural; _no Theology which can abandon its

doctrines and retain its authority_."

Lastly, with what sickening and almost Satanic power, does the same

writer invite the Essayists and Reviewers to make shipwreck of their

souls in the following terrible passage. And yet, who sees not that _on

their principles_ absolute and professed unbelief is _inevitable_? He

says:--"How long shall this last? Until men have the courage to bury

their dead convictions out of sight, and the greater courage to form

new. All honour to these writers for the boldness with which they have,

at great risk, urged their opinions. _But what is wanted is strength_

not merely to face the world, but _to face one's own conclusions_. We

know the cost. It must be endured. Let each who has thought and felt for

himself, ask himself first what he _does not_ believe, and then, if wise

or needful, avow it. Next let him ask himself what he _does_ believe,

and pursue it to its true and full conclusions. Neither loose

accommodation nor sonorous principles will long give them rest. It is of

as little use to surrender the more glaring contradictions of Science as

it is to evaporate discredited doctrine into a few vague precepts. That

end will not be attained by our authors by subliming Religion into an

emotion, and making an armistice with Science. It will not be obtained

by any unreal adaptation; _nor by this, which is, of all recent

adaptations_, at once the most able, the most earnest, and _the most

suicidal_."

[7] The Bishop of Exeter to Dr. Temple.

[8] The Bishop of Manchester exactly expressed the general opinion, when

he said,--"Nor will I for a single moment, however my personal feelings

might interfere, conceal my deliberate conviction that every partner in

that work is equally guilty."--(_Guardian_, Ap. 10, 1861, p. 341.) But

the most faithful language of all came from the Bishop of Exeter in his

crushing reply to an inquiry put to him by Dr. Temple. "I avow that I

hold every one of the seven persons acting together for such an object

to be alike responsible for the several acts of every individual among

them in executing their avowed common purpose."

[9] A letter from Dr. Rowland Williams, which has appeared in the

newspapers, contains the following language with reference to the

American reprint of "Essays and Reviews:"--"I confess myself personally

gratified that my own work, and that of my far more distinguished

coadjutors, with whom it is sufficient honour for me to be included in

the same volume, should have obtained the honour of a reprint in another

hemisphere. Still more would I hail the circumstance as an auspicious

token of the sympathy which should prevail between kindred nations, as

regards subjects of the highest import, and as a sign of the prospects

of Christian freedom beyond the Atlantic....

"I have not yet discovered any community or individual possessing the

right to cast the first stone at those who interpret the Bible in

freedom, and who subordinate its letter to its spirit, or its parts to

its whole. Even if Holy Scripture were, as is popularly fancied, the

foundation,--and not, as I believe, the expression and the memorial,--of

Religious Truth in man, it would be absurd to render it honours

essentially different from those which it claims for itself, or to make

it a master, where it claims only to be a servant."

[10] Serm. V.

[11] See Sermon VII.

[12] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 166.

[13] See p. clxxvii. to p. clxxxiii.

[14] Mr. Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 433.

[15] Article XX.

[16] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 45.

[17] It should perhaps be stated that the edition of "Essays and

Reviews" which I have employed is _the Third_ (1860.)

[18] pp. 72-3.

CONTENTS.

DEDICATION.

PREFACE. I. Some account of the present Volume.

II. Growth of irreligious Opinion.

III. 'Essayists and Reviewers' to be as 'freely-handled'

as the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles of

CHRIST.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON "ESSAYS AND REVIEWS." PAGE

I. Examination of the contribution of Rev. F. Temple, D.D. ii

II. Rev. Rowland Williams, D.D. xxx

III. Rev. Professor Baden Powell, M.A. xlvi

IV. Rev. H. B. Wilson, M.A. lxiv

V. C. W. Goodwin, M.A. lxxxvi

VI. Rev. Mark Pattison, B.D. cxii

VII. Rev. Professor Jowett, M.A. cxxxix

In what sense Mr. Jowett's fundamental principle, (that

"Scripture is to be interpreted like any other book,") may

be cheerfully accepted cxl

Mr. Jowett's main assertion that "Scripture has one and only

one true meaning," shewn to be founded on his assumption

that the Bible is _uninspired_,--"like any other book" cxlii

1. Eight Characteristics of the Bible enumerated, which shew

that it is _unlike_ "any other book" cl

But the distinctive characteristic of the Bible, is, that _it

professes to be the work of the HOLY GHOST_ clx

Mr. Jowett's syllogism corrected, in consequence clxii

2. Mr. Jowett's proposal accepted, that we should "Interpret

Scripture from itself." Notion of _Interpretation_ obtained

from the volume of _Inspiration_ clxii

3. In addition to the testimony of Scripture, we have to

consider the testimony of Antiquity clxix

Remarks on primitive Patristic Interpretation clxx

This part of the subject misunderstood by Mr. Jowett clxxiii

Remarks on primitive Tradition.--The Creeds, the records of

Primitive Christianity clxxvii

This part of the subject also misunderstood by Mr. Jowett clxxix

4. Examination of some of Mr. Jowett's reasons for rejecting

that method of Interpretation which has been (=1=)

Established by our LORD; (=2=) Employed by His Apostles;

(=3=) Universally adopted by the primitive Church; and (=4=)

Accepted by the most learned and judicious of modern

Commentators clxxxvi

The peroration of Mr. Jowett's Essay examined and commented on ccvi

Retrospect of the entire subject ccxvi

Conclusion ccxxvii

SERMON I.

ST. JOHN vi. 68. _LORD, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the

words of Eternal Life._

THE STUDY OF THE BIBLE RECOMMENDED; AND A METHOD OF STUDYING

IT DESCRIBED.

The Gospel, as a written message, meets with the same

reception at the hands of the World now, as in the days of

the Son of Man 1

Some points of analogy between the Written and the Incarnate

WORD 2

Difficulties and seeming contradictions in the Gospel 3

Unattractive aspect.--Union of the Human and Divine 4

The Bible is generally little read.--Its preciousness 6

The age unlearned as well as unfaithful 7

Want of preparation for the Ministry.--The question of

preparation narrowed to the duty of studying the Bible 8

Conditions of successful Study:--a fixed time for reading the

Bible, and a fixed quantity to be read 9

Vigilance, and independent inquiry 10

Consecutive reading.--The first chapter of Genesis 11

Nothing to be skipped.--Result of such a method 12

The Bible is to be read, not in the same manner, but with at

least the same attention, as a merely human work 13

A caution 14

Men not competent to make their own Religion out of the Bible 16

The advantages of such a study of the Bible as has been here

recommended, explained 17

SERMON II.

HEBREWS xi. 3. _Through Faith, we understand that the worlds

were framed by the Word of GOD._

NATURAL SCIENCE AND THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.

Special act of Faith assigned to ourselves in Hebrews xi. 23

The first Chapter of Genesis considered: Verse 1 24

Province of Geology 26

The Work of the First Day 28

--------------- Second and the Third Day 29

--------------- Fourth and the Fifth Day 30

--------------- Sixth Day 31

The Mosaic History of the Creation true 33

Objections considered 34

Speech ascribed to GOD 35

Adam's knowledge 36

The first pair.--The days of Creation real days 37

Objections of pretenders to Natural Science 39

The plea that the Bible is not a scientific book 40

The historical truth of the Bible insisted upon 44

Natural Science not undervalued 46

The term "Science" not to be opposed to "Theology" 47

Theology the Queen of Sciences 48

SERMON III.

2 TIM. iii. 16. _All Scripture is given by inspiration of

GOD._

INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE.--GOSPEL DIFFICULTIES.--THE WORD OF

GOD INFALLIBLE.--OTHER SCIENCES SUBORDINATE TO THEOLOGICAL

SCIENCE.

The meaning of 2 Tim. iii. 16 53

St. Paul nowhere disclaims Inspiration 54

Holy Scripture is attributed in Scripture to the HOLY GHOST 56

Forms of unbelief concerning Inspiration 57

Impertinence of the modern way of speaking of the Evangelists 60

Supposed inaccuracies, slips of memory, misstatements 61

The Gospels not _four_ but _One_ 62

A principle laid down for the reconcilement of all Gospel

difficulties 63

Illustration from a supposed case of testimony 64

Computation of the hours in St. John's Gospel 66

The accounts of the blind man restored to sight at Jericho,

harmonized 67

Characteristics of an Inspired narrative 68

The mention of "Jeremy the prophet," and of Cyrenius,

considered 70

Faultlessness of the Gospel 72

Absurdity of the common allegations against it 73

The absolute Infallibility of Scripture maintained 74

Every syllable of Holy Scripture inspired 75

The nature of Inspiration illustrated 76

Theology, the noblest of the Sciences 79

Insubordination in these last days of Physical Science 80

The infidel spirit of the Age, protested against 81

Theological Science can never be called upon to give way

before Physical Science 83

Relations of Morals to Theology 84

Conscience and the Moral Sense have been informed afresh by

Revelation 87

SERMON IV.

ST. JOHN xvii. 17. _Thy Word is Truth._

THE PLENARY INSPIRATION OF EVERY PART OF THE BIBLE, VINDICATED

AND EXPLAINED.--NATURE OF INSPIRATION.--THE TEXT OF

SCRIPTURE.

Cavils against the Bible 92

Absolute infallibility of every 'jot' and every 'tittle' of

Holy Scripture 94

The popular view of Inspiration stated 95

No middle state between Inspiration and non-inspiration 96

The popular theory applied and tested 96

A different view of the nature and office of Inspiration

stated 100

Inspiration still the same, however diverse the subject-matter 102

What is meant by 'a Prophet' 104

The message still GOD'S, whatever its nature may be 106

Note of Inspiration in the Historical Books of the Bible 108