out that "the tendencies of _irreligious_ thought in England,
1860-1861," are _indeed_ in a direction where the Prayer-Book is found
to be _effectually_ "blocking up the road." (pp. 297-8.) Mr. Pattison is
simply dreaming,--haunted by the phantoms of his own brain, and talking
the language of the den,--when he complains that "the Philosophy, now
petrified into tradition, may once have been a vital Faith; but now
that" it is "withdrawn from public life," has ceased to be a "social
influence." (p. 298.) And when he would exalt the last century at the
expence of the present, (pp. 298-9,) he shews nothing so much as the
morbid state of his own imagination,--the disordered condition of his
own mind. He has blinded himself; and he will not or he cannot see in
the healthier tone of our popular Divinity,--in the increased attention
to the study of Holy Scripture,--in the impulse which Liturgical
inquiries have received since Wheatly's useful volume appeared;--or
again, in the immense number of Schools and Churches which have been
recently built,--in the marvellous change for the better which has come
over the Clergy of the Church of England within the present century,--in
the vast development of our Colonial Episcopate within the last few
years,--in the rapid increase of Institutions connected more or less
directly with the Church,--and I will add, in the conspicuous loyalty
of the nation;--a practical refutation of his own injurious
insinuations; a blessed earnest that God has _not_ forsaken us; and that
we shall _yet_ be a blessing to the World! The people of England, I am
persuaded, are in the main very sincerely attached to their Prayer-Book.
To them, it is not "a useless encumbrance, the rubbish of the past,
blocking the road." Nay, there is a "rough and ready test" of what is
the current temper of the age in things religious, to which I appeal
with infinite satisfaction. I mean, _the general burst of execration
with which "Essays and Reviews" have been received_, from one end of the
kingdom to the other. _The censure of all the Bishops_, and of _both
Houses of Convocation_; re-echoed, as it has been, through _all ranks of
the community_, is a great fact;--a fact which I cordially recommend to
Mr. Pattison's attention, when he would philosophize on the religious
tendencies of his countrymen.
The age we live in, (Heaven knows!) has many drawbacks. _What_ age of
the Church has _not_ had them? The fatal disposition which prevails to
relax all the ancient safeguards,--the desire to tamper yet further with
the Law of Marriage, and to desecrate the Christian Sabbath,--these are
grievous features of the times; which may well occasion alarm and create
perplexity. But nothing of the kind should ever make us despond; much
less despair. There is One above "who is over all, GOD blessed for
ever." Shall we not rather seek to employ these advantages which we
have, with a single heart, a single eye to GOD'S glory; and leave the
issue, with a generous confidence, to _Him_?... It was thus that the
great philosophic Divine of the last century comforted himself, amid
darker days than _we_ shall ever experience.
"As different ages have been distinguished by different sorts of
particular errors and vices, the deplorable distinction of ours," (he
said,) "is an avowed scorn of Religion in some, and a growing disregard
to it in the generality." "It is impossible for me, my
brethren,"--(Butler is still addressing the clergy of his Diocese,
1761,)--"to forbear lamenting with you the general decay of Religion in
this nation; which is now observed by every one, and has been for some
time the complaint of all serious persons. The influence of it is more
and more wearing out of the minds of men;" while "the number of those
who profess themselves unbelievers, increases, and with their number
their zeal. Zeal, it is natural to ask,--for what? Why truly _for_
nothing, but _against_ everything that is sacred and good among
us[143]." And yet, in days dark as those, Piety could suggest that "no
Christian should possibly despair;" and Faith could assign as the reason
of this blessed confidence,--"_For He who hath all power in Heaven and
Earth, hath promised that He will be with us to the end of the world._"
It is time to dismiss Mr. Pattison's Essay. In doing so, I will not
waste my time and yours by carping at the many errors of detail into
which he has (not inexcusably) fallen. These are the accidents,--not the
essence of his paper. The root of bitterness with the Author is, clearly
enough, _the Theory of Religious Belief in the Church of England_. His
concluding words shew this plainly. The sting of the Essay is in the
tail:--
"In the Catholic theory the feebleness of Reason is met half-way, and
made good by the authority of the Church. When the Protestants threw off
this authority, they did not assign to Reason what they took from the
Church, but to Scripture. Calvin did not shrink from saying that
Scripture 'shone sufficiently by its own light.' As long as this could
be kept to, the Protestant theory of belief was whole and sound. At
least it was as sound as the Catholic. In both, Reason, aided by
spiritual illumination, performs the subordinate function of recognising
the supreme authority of the Church, and of the Bible, respectively.
Time, learned controversy, and abatement of zeal, drove the Protestants
generally from the hardy but irrational assertion of Calvin. Every foot
of ground that Scripture lost was gained by one or other of the three
substitutes: Church-authority, the Spirit, or Reason. Church-authority
was essayed by the Laudian divines, but was soon found untenable, for on
that footing it was found impossible to justify the Reformation and the
breach with Rome." [O shame!] "The SPIRIT then came into favour along
with Independency. But it was still more quickly discovered that on such
a basis only discord and disunion could be reared. There remained to be
tried Common Reason, carefully distinguished from recondite learning,
and not based on metaphysical assumptions. To apply this instrument to
the contents of Revelation was the occupation of the early half of the
eighteenth century; with what success has been seen. In the latter part
of the century the same Common Reason was applied to the external
evidences. But here the method fails in a first
requisite,--universality; for even the shallowest array of historical
proof requires some book-learning to apprehend."--(pp. 328-9.)
Now all this is discreditable to Mr. Pattison as a Philosopher and as a
Divine. _When_ did Protestant England "throw off the authority" of the
Church?--What are _Calvin's_ opinions to _her_?--How does
'Independency,' 'Rationalism,' or any other unsound principle, affect
_us_? Look at our Prayer-Book. Is it not the same which it was from the
beginning? The Sarum Use, reformed and revised, has been our unbroken
heritage as Christian men, from the first. Essentially remodelled in the
days of Edward VI., the recension of our "Laudian Divines" is, (by GOD'S
great mercy!) still ours. What other teaching but that of _the Book of
Common Prayer_, is, to this hour, the authoritative teaching of the
Church of England? Why insinuate there has been vicissitude of Theory,
where notoriously there has been none? Why imply that the storms which
periodically sweep over the citadel of our Zion are effectual to remove
the old foundations and to substitute new? What but a hollow heartless
Scepticism _can_ be the result of such an abominable passage as the
foregoing?
"Whoever will take the religious literature of the present day as a
whole, and endeavour to make out clearly on what basis Revelation is
supposed by it to rest, whether on Authority, on the Inward Light, on
Reason, on self-evidencing Scripture, or on the combination of the four,
or some of them, and in what proportions; would probably find that he
had undertaken a perplexing but not altogether profitless
inquiry."--(p. 329.) And so the Essay ends.
With a short comment on the proposed problem, I also shall conclude.
No one but a fool would set about the task which Mr. Pattison here
proposes. The current "religious literature _of the day_" cannot be
supposed, for an instant, to be an adequate exponent of the mind of the
Church of England,--or of any other Church. Revelation rests, at this
hour, on exactly the same basis on which it has always rested, and on
which it will rest, to the end of time; let the age be faithful, or
faithless,--learned or unlearned,--rationalizing or
scientific,--sceptical or superstitious,--or whatever else you will. And
if I am asked to explain myself, I would humbly say,--(always submitting
my own statements in such a matter to the judgment of the Bishops and
Doctors of the Church of England,)--that we receive the Bible on the
authority of _the Church_. The Church teaches us by the concurrent
voices of many Fathers, Doctors, Saints, how to interpret the Bible; and
convinces us that the three Creeds which she delivers to us as her own
independent tradition, may be proved thereby; being in entire conformity
with Holy Scripture, though not originally deduced from it.
"Self-evidencing" is hardly a correct epithet to bestow upon Scripture.
And yet, from the evidence which the New Testament supplies to the Old,
and from the interpretation which it puts upon its teaching, we should
not despair of proving the Truth of Revelation, to one who had neither
darkened the inward Light, nor perverted his Reason.
In truth, however, it is idle thus to speculate. We have been born into
the world during the nineteenth Century, whether we wish it or not. We
have been nourished, (GOD be thanked!) in the bosom of the Christian
Church, whether we would or no. The glory of the Gospel has informed our
natural reason, and we cannot undo the blessed process, strive we as
much as we will. The "inward Light," (as we call it,) is the lingering
twilight of the Day of Creation, in the case of the heathen,--the
reflected ray of the noontide of the Gospel, even in the case of the
modern unbeliever. We cannot escape from these conditions of our being,
although we may affect to ignore them, or pretend to turn our eyes the
other way. _No_ help however is to be rejected. _No_ faculty of the soul
need be denied the privilege of assisting to convince the doubting
heart. The inward Light may not be disparagingly spoken of: for what if
it should prove to be a ray sent down from the Father of Lights, to
illumine the dark places of the soul? The aid of Reason is not to be
excluded; for what is Faith but the highest dictate of the Reason?
Faith, (let us ever remember,) being opposed not to _Reason_, but to
_Sight_!... And who for a moment supposes that we disparage the office
of Reason, because we speak of the authority of the Church, in
controversies of Faith? We simply proclaim the Church to be the
appointed witness and keeper of Holy Writ; and when we are invited "_to
make out clearly_ on what basis Revelation is supposed to rest,"
(p. 329,) we point,--where else _should_ we point?--unhesitatingly to
_her_ unwavering witness from the beginning.
* * * * *
VII. The Essay which brings up the rear in this very guilty volume is
from the pen of the "REV. BENJAMIN JOWETT, M.A., [Fellow and Tutor of
Balliol College, and] Regius Professor of Greek in the University of
Oxford,"--"a gentleman whose high personal character and general
respectability seem to give a weight to his words, which assuredly they
do not carry of themselves[144]." His performance is entitled "ON THE
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE:" being, in reality, nothing else but a
laborious _denial of its Inspiration_.
Mr. Jowett's quarrel is with the whole body of Commentators on the
Bible,--ancient and modern; with the whole Church Catholic. He cannot
endure the claim of that Book, (like its Divine object and Author,) to
"a Name which is above every other Name." That Plato and Sophocles
should be capable of but one method of Interpretation, and _that_ the
literal,--while the Bible lays claim to a yet profounder meaning,--so
distresses the Regius Professor of Greek, that he has appropriated to
himself almost a quarter of the present volume, in order that he may
cast laborious and systematic ridicule on the very supposition. Some
parts of his method I propose presently to submit to _exactly the same
"free handling" which he has himself applied to THE WORD OF GOD_. In the
meantime, since it is my intention not only to demonstrate the
worthlessness of the structure which Mr. Jowett has with so much
perverse industry here built up, by an examination of some parts of it
in detail, but also to pull down as much of the fabric as I am able
within a small compass,--(the construction of something which it is
hoped will prove more durable, being to be found in my IIIrd and IVth,
Vth and VIth Sermons,)--I proceed at once to inspect the
foundation-stone of his edifice; and briefly to demonstrate its absolute
insecurity.
$1.$ Mr. Jowett's fundamental principle is expressed in the following
brief precept: "_Interpret the Scripture like any other book._"
(p. 377.) To this favourite tune, (although he plays many intricate
variations on it,) he invariably reverts in the end[145]. On this
preliminary postulate therefore, which, at first sight, to a candid
mind, seems fair enough, I proceed to remark as follows:--
Mr. Jowett's formula may be cheerfully and entirely accepted,--_apart
from the sinister glosses which he immediately proceeds to put upon it_.
By all means "Interpret the Scripture like any other book." Let us see
to what result this principle will conduct us. As for the formula
itself, I take the liberty to assume that it _ought to mean_ somewhat as
follows:--"Approach the volume of Holy Scripture with the same candour,
and in the same unprejudiced spirit with which you would approach any
other famous book of high antiquity. Study it with at least the same
attention. Give at least equal heed to all its statements. Acquaint
yourself at least as industriously with its method, and with its
principle; employing and applying either, with at least equal fidelity,
in its interpretation. Above all, beware of playing tricks with its
plain language. Beware of suppressing any part of the evidence which it
supplies as to its own meaning. Be truthful, and unprejudiced, and
honest, and consistent, and logical, and exact throughout, in your work
of Interpretation. 'INTERPRET SCRIPTURE LIKE ANY OTHER BOOK.'"
Now, (not to be tedious,) if _this_ were Mr. Jowett's principle, all
further discussion would be at an end. The general question of the right
method of interpreting the Bible would be easily settled; but it would
be hopelessly settled--_against the Regius Professor of Greek_. As I
have briefly shewn, (from p. 144 to p. 160 of the present volume,) our
LORD and His Apostles openly and repeatedly claim for Scripture that
very depth of meaning, that very extent of signification, which Mr.
Jowett so strenuously maintains that it does _not_ possess.--This great
fact, he prudently takes no notice of. He simply ignores it. Either he
has overlooked it, through inadvertency: or he has omitted it, as not
perceiving its force and bearing on the question: or he has
disingenuously kept it back. He must choose between these three
suppositions. If he has overlooked the fact on which I lay so much
stress,--he is a careless and incompetent reader. If he has failed to
see its force and bearing on the question,--he is a weak and illogical
thinker. If he has deliberately suppressed it, knowing its fatal
power,--he is simply a dishonest man. To prevent offence, I may as well
state freely that my entire conviction is that he is simply a weak and
illogical person. My warrant for this opinion is especially the very sad
performance of his now under consideration.
It is clear however that the paraphrase above hazarded does _not_
express Mr. Jowett's principle. "Interpret the Bible like any other
book," means with him something else. And what it _does_ mean, the
Reverend author does not suffer us to doubt. He shews that his meaning
is, _Interpret the Bible like any other book_, FOR _it is like any other
book_. I proceed to shew that this _is_ Mr. Jowett's meaning.
It becomes necessary however at once to introduce to the reader's notice
the main inference which, (as already hinted,) flows from Mr. Jowett's
favourite position. "_Interpret_ Scripture like any other book,"--he
says. His business is with _the Interpretation_ of "the Jewish and
Christian Scriptures;" and he begins by eagerly assuring us,--and is
strenuous in all that follows to make us believe,--(but simply on _à
priori_ grounds!)--that "the true glory and note of Divinity in these,
is _not_ that they have hidden, mysterious, or double meanings; but _a
simple and universal one_, which is beyond them and will survive them."
(p. 332.) "Is it admitted," (he asks, at the end of many pages,) "that
_the Scripture has one and only one true meaning_?" (p. 368.)
Let us hear what reasons the Reverend author of this seventh Essay is
able to produce in support of his favourite opinion. He approaches the
subject from a respectful distance:--
(i) "It is a strange, though familiar fact,"--(such are the opening
words of his Essay,)--"that great differences of opinion exist
respecting the Interpretation of Scripture." (p. 330.)--'Familiar,' the
fact is, certainly; but why 'strange?' A Book of many ages,--of immense
antiquity,--of most varied character,--treating of the unseen
world,--purporting to be a mysterious composition,--and by all Christian
men believed to have GOD for its true Author: a book which has come into
collision with every form of human error, and has triumphed gloriously
over every form of human opposition:--_how_ can it be thought 'strange'
that the interpretation of such a book should have provoked "great
differences of opinion?" ... Surely none but the weakest of thinkers,
unless committed to the assumption that _the Bible is like any other
book_, could ever have penned such a silly remark.
(ii) "We do not at once see _the absurdity_ of the same words having
many senses, or free our minds from _the illusion_ that the Apostle or
Evangelist must have written with a reference to the creeds or
controversies or circumstances of other times. Let it be considered,
then, that this extreme variety of interpretation _is found to exist in
the case of no other book, but of the Scriptures only_." (p. 334.)
But the "phenomenon" which Mr. Jowett represents as "so extraordinary
that it requires an effort of thought to appreciate it," (_Ibid._,) does
not seem at all extraordinary to any one who does not begin by
_assuming_ that the Bible is "like any other book."--If _the Bible be
inspired_,--then all is plain!
(iii) "Who would write a bulky treatise about the method to be pursued
in interpreting Plato or Sophocles?"--asks Mr. Jowett. (p. 378.)--No one
but a fool!--is the obvious reply. Plato and Sophocles are ordinary
books; and therefore _are to be interpreted_ like any other book. The
Bible not so, as we shall see by and by. Again,--
(iv) "Each writer, each successive age, has characteristics of its own,
as strongly marked, or more strongly, than those which are found in the
authors or periods of classical Literature. These differences are not to
be lost in _the idea of a Spirit from whom they proceed, or by which
they were overruled_. And therefore, illustration of one part of
Scripture by another should be confined to writings of the same age and
the same authors, except where the writings of different ages or persons
offer obvious similarities. It may be said, further, that illustration
should be chiefly derived, not only from the same author, _but from the
same writing, or from one of the same period of his life_. For example,
the comparison of St. John and the 'synoptic' Gospels, or of the Gospel
of St. John with the Revelation of St. John, will tend _rather to
confuse than to elucidate the meaning of either_." (pp. 382-3.)--But
really, in reply, it ought to suffice to point out that the result of
the Church's experience for 1800 years has been the very opposite of
the Professor's. "_The idea of a SPIRIT from whom they proceeded_," is,
to the thoughtful part of mankind, _the only intelligible clue_ to the
several books of Holy Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation! Hence "the
marginal references to the English Bible," (to which Mr. Jowett devotes
a depreciatory half page,) so far from being the dangerous or useless
apparatus which he represents, we hold to be an instrument of paramount
importance for eliciting the true meaning of Holy Writ.--In a word, he
is reasoning about the Bible on _the assumption_ that the Bible is _like
any other book_.
(v) "To attribute to St. Paul or the Twelve the abstract notion of
Christian Truth which afterwards sprang up in the Catholic Church ... is
the same error as to attribute to Homer the ideas of Thales or
Heraclitus, or to Thales the more developed principles of Aristotle and
Plato." (p. 354.)--_Not if St. Paul and the Twelve were inspired._
(vi) He bids us remark, with tedious emphasis, that although the same
philological and historical difficulties which occur in Holy Scripture
are found in profane writings, yet "the meaning of classical authors is
known with comparative certainty; and the interpretation of them seems
to rest on a scientific basis.... _Even the Vedas and the Zendavesta_,
though beset by obscurities of language probably greater than are found
in any portion of the Bible, are interpreted, at least by European
scholars, according to fixed rules, and beginning to be clearly
understood." (p. 335.)
But at the end of several weak sentences, through which the preceding
fallacy is elongated into distressing tenuity, _who_ does not
exclaim,--The supposed "scientific" basis on which the interpretation of
books in general rests, is simply this; (=1=) that being _merely
human_, and (=2=) _not professing_ to have any other than their obvious
literal meaning,--they are all interpreted in the obvious ordinary way!
For (=1=),--If any book were even _suspected_ to be Divine, the manner
of interpreting it would of course be different. Not that the "basis" of
such Interpretation would therefore cease to be "scientific!" Take the
only known instance of such a Book. The Bible has been suspected (!) for
1800 years to be inspired. How has it fared with the Bible?
The Science of Biblical Interpretation is one of the noblest and best
understood in the world. It has been professed and practised in every
country of Christendom. The great Masters of this Science have been such
men as Hilary of Poictiers, Basil and the two Gregories in Asia Minor,
Epiphanius in Cyprus, Ambrose at Milan, John Chrysostom at Antioch,
Jerome in Palestine, Augustine in Africa, Athanasius and Cyril at
Alexandria. The names descend in an unbroken stream from the first four
centuries of our æra down to the age of Andrewes, and Bull, and Pearson,
and Mill. These men all interpret Scripture in one and the same way.
Their principles are the same throughout. They were all Professors of
_the same Sacred Science_.
But (=2=),--If a book even _professes_ to have a hidden meaning, it is
interpreted by a special set of canons. Thus Dante's great poem[146] may
not be read as Hume's History of England is read.--To proceed, however.