the world? "The answer is, By the preaching of living men, who said they
were commissioned by GOD to proclaim it. _That_ was the origin and first
establishment of Christianity. There is indeed a vague and unreasoning
notion prevalent that Christianity was _taken from the New Testament_.
The notion is historically untrue. Christianity was widely extended
through the civilized world before the New Testament was written; and
its several books were successively addressed to various bodies of
Christian believers; to bodies, that is, who already possessed the faith
of CHRIST in its integrity. When, indeed, GOD ceased to inspire persons
to write these books, and when they were all collected together into
what we call the New Testament, the existing Faith of the Church,
derived from oral teaching, was tested by comparison with this Inspired
Record. And it henceforth became the standing law of the Church that
nothing should be received as necessary to Salvation, which could not
stand that test. But still, though thus tested, (every article being
proved by the New Testament,) Christianity is not taken from it; _for it
existed before it_.
"What, then, was the Christianity which was thus established? Have we
any record of it as it existed before the New Testament became the sole
authoritative standard? I answer, we have. The Creeds of the Christian
Church are the record of it. That is precisely what they purport to be:
not documents taken from the New Testament, but documents transmitting
to us the Faith as it was held from the beginning; the Faith as it was
preached by inspired men, before the inspired men put forth any
writings; the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints. Accordingly
you will find that our Church in her viiith Article does not ground her
affirmation that the Creeds ought to be 'thoroughly received and
believed,' on the fact that they _were taken_ from the New Testament,
(which they were _not_;) but on the fact that '_they may be proved by
most certain warrants of Holy Scripture_.'"
It follows therefore from what has been said, that even if bad men could
succeed in destroying the authority of the Bible as the Word of GOD, all
could not be up with Christianity. There would _still_ remain to be
dealt with the Faith as it exists in the world; the Faith held from the
beginning; the Faith once delivered to the Saints. None of the assaults
on Holy Scripture can touch _that_; for it traces itself to an
independent origin. The evil work, therefore, would have to be begun all
over again. The special doctrines which are impugned in 'Essays and
Reviews' do not stand or fall with the Inspiration or Interpretation of
Scripture; but are stereotyped in the Faith of Christendom. "The Fall of
Man, Original Sin, the Atonement, the Divinity of CHRIST, the Trinity,
all have their place in the Faith held from the beginning. They are
imbedded in the Creeds, and in that general scheme of Doctrine which
circles round the Creeds, and is involved in them. Nay, curiously
enough,--or rather I should say providentially,--the very point against
which the attacks of this book are principally directed, namely the
Inspiration of the Old Testament, is in express terms asserted
there:--_the_ HOLY GHOST '_spake by the Prophets_[208].'"
It remains to shew the bearing of these remarks on Mr. Jowett's
Essay.--With infinite perseverance, he dwells upon "the nude Scripture,
the merest letter of the Sacred Volume, as if in it and in it alone,
resided the entire Revelation of CHRIST, and all possible means of
judging what that Revelation consists of: whereas this is very far
indeed from being the case. Every single Book of the New Testament was
written, as we have seen, to persons _already in possession of Christian
Truth_. It is quite erroneous therefore, historically and notoriously
erroneous, to suppose either that the Divine Institution of the Church,
or that its Doctrines, were literally founded upon the written words of
Holy Scripture; or that they can impart no illustration nor help in the
Interpretation of those written words.... The complete possession of the
saving Truth belonged to the Christian Church not by degrees, nor in
lapse of time, but from the first. Of that saving truth, thus taught and
thus possessed, _the Apostles' Creed_, growing up as it did on every
side of Christendom as the faithful record of the uniform oral teaching
of the Apostles, is the true and precious historical monument[209]; and
I venture to say that if any person claims to reject the Apostles'
Creed as an auxiliary, a great and invaluable auxiliary, in interpreting
the writings of the Apostles, he shews himself to be very wanting indeed
in appreciation of the comparative value of Historical Evidence, and of
the true principles of Historical Philosophy.--And not the Apostles'
Creed only; but the whole history and tradition of the universal
Church,--needing, no doubt, skill and discretion in its
application,--supply, when applied with requisite skill and discretion,
very valuable and real aid in interpreting Holy Scripture[210]."
When therefore Mr. Jowett speaks contemptuously of "the attempt to adapt
the truths of Scripture to the doctrines of the Creeds," (p. 353,) the
kindest thing which can be said is that he writes like an ignorant, or
at least an unlearned man. "The Creeds" (he says) "are acknowledged to
be a part of Christianity.... Yet it does not follow that they should be
pressed into the service of the Interpreter." Why not? we ask. "The
_growth of ideas_," (he replies,) "in the interval which separated the
first century from the fourth or sixth makes it _impossible_ to apply
the language of the one to the explanation of the other. Between
Scripture and the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds, _a world of the
understanding comes in_; and mankind are no longer at the same point as
when the whole of Christianity was contained in the words 'Believe on
the LORD JESUS CHRIST and thou mayest be saved;' when the Gospel centred
in the attachment to a living and recently departed friend and Lord."
(p. 353.)
But there is a fallacy or a falsity at every step of this argument. For
_when_ did the Gospel ever "centre in attachment?" or _when_ was "the
whole of Christianity contained" in one short sentence? Supposing too
that "a world of the understanding" _does_ come in between the first
century and the sixth; how does it follow that it is "impossible" to
apply the language of the Creeds to the interpretation of Holy
Scripture? Explain to me how that "world of understanding" affects _the
Nicene_ Creed? Even in the case of that most precious Creed called the
Athanasian,--why need we _assume_ that "the growth of ideas" has been a
spurious growth? What if it should prove, on the contrary, that the
development has been that of the plant from the seed[211]? Above all,
why talk of "the fourth _or sixth_ century,"--as if the Creeds were not
essentially much older; nay, _co-eval with Christianity itself_?... Such
writing shews nothing so much as a confused mind,--a weak, ill-informed,
and illogical thinker.
Indeed Mr. Jowett seems to be altogether in the dark on the subject of
the Creeds: for he speaks of them as "the result of three or four
centuries of reflection and controversy," (p. 353,)--which is by no
means true of all of them; nor, except in a certain sense, of any. But
when he inquires,--"If the occurrence of the phraseology of the Nicene
age in a verse of the Epistles would detect the spuriousness of the
verse in which it was found,--how can the Nicene _or Athanasian Creed_
be a suitable instrument for the interpretation of Scripture?"
(p. 354.)--he simply asks a fool's question. The cases are not only not
parallel, but there is not even any analogy between them. Let us hear
him a little further:--
"Absorbed as St. Paul was in the person of Christ, ... he does not speak
of Him as 'equal to the Father,' or 'of one substance with the
Father[212].' Much of the language of the Epistles, (passages for
example such as Romans i. 2: Philippians ii. 6,) would lose their
meaning if distributed in alternate clauses between our LORD'S Humanity
and Divinity[213]. Still greater difficulties would be introduced into
the Gospels by the attempt to identify them with the Creeds[214]. We
should have to suppose that He was and was not tempted[215]; that when
He prayed to His Father He prayed also to Himself[216]; that He knew and
did not know 'of that hour' of which He as well as the angels were
ignorant[217]. How could He have said 'My God, My God, why hast Thou
forsaken Me?' or 'Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from Me.'
How could He have doubted whether 'when the Son of Man cometh He shall
find faith upon the earth[218]?' These simple and touching words,"
(p. 355,)--pah!
Now if what precedes means anything at all,--(I am by no means certain
however that it does!)--it means that the writer does not believe in the
Divinity of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. Unless the sentence which is without
a reference to the foot of the page be not a denial of the fundamental
Doctrine of the Faith[219],--I do not understand it. But look at _all_
which precedes; and then say if those are the remarks of a man entitled
to dogmatize "On the Interpretation of Scripture." ... If Mr. Jowett
really means that the Creeds _cannot be reconciled with the Bible_,--how
can he himself subscribe to the VIIIth Article? If he means nothing of
the kind,--why does he write in such a weak, cloudy, illogical way?
But the whole of the case has not even yet been stated. Down from the
remote period of which we have been hitherto speaking,--the age of
primitive Creeds, and oecumenical Councils, and ancient Fathers,--in
every country of the civilized world to which the Gospel has
spread,--the loftiest Intellect, the profoundest Learning, the sincerest
Piety, have invariably endorsed the ancient and original method of
interpretation. I am not implying that such corroboration was in any
sense _required_; but the circumstance that it has been _obtained_, at
least deserves attention. Modes of thought are dependent on times and
countries. There is a fashion in all things. Great advances in
Science,--grand epochs in civilization,--vicissitudes of
opinion,--difference of institutions, national traditions, and the
like,--might be supposed to have wrought a permanent change even in this
department of Sacred Science. But it is not so. The storm has raged from
one quarter or other of the heavens, but has ever spent its violence in
vain. Still has the Church Catholic retained her own unbroken tradition.
To keep to the history of that Church to which we, by GOD'S mercy,
belong:--The constant appeal, at the time of our own great Reformation,
was to the Fathers of the first four centuries. Ever since, the temper
and spirit of our Commentators has been to revert to the same standard,
to reproduce the same teaching. The most powerful minds and the most
holy spirits,--English Divines of the deepest thought and largest
reading,--let me add, of the soundest judgment and severest
discrimination,--have, in every age, down to the present, gratefully
accepted not only the method, but even the very details of primitive
Patristic Interpretation. But "the acceptance of a hundred generations
and the growing authority arising from it,"--like "the institutions
based upon such ancient writings, and the history into which they have
entwined themselves indissolubly for many centuries,"--all conspire to
"constitute a perpetually increasing and strengthening[220]" body of
evidence on the subject of Sacred Interpretation.
Now, to oppose to the learning, and piety, and wisdom, of every age of
the English Church,--to the unbroken testimony of the Church
Universal,--(3) to the torrent of Patristic Antiquity,--(4) the decision
of early Councils, and (5) the 'still small voice' of primitive
Creeds,--yet more, (6) to the constant practice of the Apostles,--and,
above all, (7) to the indisputable method of our Divine LORD
Himself;--to oppose to all this mighty accumulation of evidence, the
simple _à priori_ convictions of--Mr. Jowett! savours so strongly of the
ridiculous, that it really seems superfluous to linger over the
antithesis for a single moment.
$4.$ Our task might now be looked upon as completed.--It only remains,
in justice to the gentleman whose method we have been considering, to
ascertain by what considerations he is induced to reject that method of
Interpretation which, as we have seen, enjoys such overwhelming
sanction.
(i) In opposition to what goes before, then, he throws out a suggestion,
that "nothing would be more likely to restore a natural feeling on this
subject than a History of the Interpretation of Scripture. It would take
us back to the beginning; it would present in one view the causes which
have darkened the meaning of words in the course of ages." (p. 338-9.)
"Such a work would enable us to separate the elements of Doctrine and
Tradition with which the meaning of Scripture is encumbered in our own
day." (p. 339.)
Let us here be well understood with our author. The advantage of a good
"History of Interpretation" would indeed be incalculably great. But Mr.
Jowett, (like most other writers of his class,) _assumes_ the point he
has to _prove_, when he insinuates that the result of such a
contribution to our Theological Literature would be to shew that all the
world has been in error for 1700 years, and that he alone is right. That
'erring fancy' has _often_ been at work in the fields of sacred
criticism,--_who_ ever doubted? That there have been epochs of
Interpretation,--different Schools,--and varying tastes, in the long
course of so many centuries of mingled light and darkness, learning and
barbarism;--what need to declare? A faithful history of Interpretation
would of course establish these facts on a sure foundation.
But the Reverend Author forgets his Logic when he goes on from these
undoubted generalities to imply that all has been confusion and utter
uncertainty until now. Above all, common regard for the facts of the
case ought to have preserved him from putting forth so monstrous a
falsehood as the following:--"_Among German Commentators_ there is for
the first time in the history of the world, an approach to agreement and
certainty." (p. 340.)
Let us however,--passing by the many crooked remarks and unsound
inferences with which the Reverend writer, (_more suo_,) delights to
perplex a plain question[221],--invite him to abide by the test which he
himself proposes. For 1700 years, (he says,) the Interpretation of
Scripture has been obscured and encumbered by successive Schools of
Interpretation. The Interpreter's concern (he says) is _with the Bible
itself_. "The simple words of that book he tries to preserve absolutely
pure from the refinements of later times.... The greater part of his
learning is a knowledge of the text itself." [He is evidently the very
man who _sweeps the house to discover the pearl of great price_.
(p. 414.)] "He has no delight in the voluminous literature which has
overgrown it. He has no theory of Interpretation. A few rules guarding
against common errors are enough for him.... He wants to be able to open
his eyes, and see or imagine things as they truly are." (p. 338.) [How
crooked by the way is all this! "He has no _theory_ of
Interpretation[222]?" Why, no; for the best of all reasons. He _denies
Inspiration altogether!_ His "theory" is that _the Bible is an
uninspired Book!_ ... How peculiar too, and how plaintive is the "want"
of the supposed Interpreter, "_to he able to open his eyes_;"--glued up,
as they no doubt are, by the superstitious tendencies of the nineteenth
century, and the tyranny of an intolerant age!]
But we may perhaps state the matter more intelligibly and simply,
thus:--In order to ascertain the _true_ principle of Scriptural
Interpretation, let us,--divesting ourselves of the complicated and
voluminous lore of 1700 years,--_resort to the Bible itself_. Let us go
for our views to the fountain-head; and abide by what we shall discover
_there_.
A fairer proposal (as I think) never was made. It exactly describes the
method which I have humbly endeavoured myself to pursue in the ensuing
Sermons. The inquiry will be found elaborated from p. 141 to p. 160 of
the present volume; and the result is to be read on the last-named page,
in the following words:--"that it may be regarded as a fundamental rule,
that the Bible _is not to be interpreted like a common book_. This I
gather infallibly from the plain fact, that _the inspired writers
themselves_ habitually interpret it _as no other book either is, or can
be interpreted_.--Next, I assert without fear of contradiction that
inspired Interpretation, whatever varieties of method it may exhibit, is
yet uniform and unequivocal in this one result; namely, that it proves
Holy Scripture to be of far deeper significancy than at first sight
appears. By no imaginable artifice of Rhetoric or sophistry of
evasion,--by no possible vehemence of denial or plausibility of counter
assertion,--can it be rendered probable that Scripture has invariably
one only meaning; and _that_ meaning, the most obvious and easy."
Now, the reader is requested to observe that what precedes is _the
direct contradictory_ of the position which Mr. Jowett has written his
Essay in order to establish. And thus we keep for ever coming back to
his =prôton pseudos=,--the fundamental falsity which underlies the whole
of what he has written.
(ii) But although we have eagerly resorted to Scripture itself in order
to ascertain _on what principle_ Scripture ought to be interpreted, we
cannot for a moment allow some of the sophistries with which the
Reverend Author has encumbered the question, to escape without
castigation. He may not first court an appeal to the School of
Apostolical Interpretation; and then, before the result of that appeal
has been ascertained, go off in praise of the illumination of the
present age; and claim to represent the Theological mind of Europe in
his own person. "Educated persons," (he has the impertinence to
assert,) "are _beginning to ask_ (!), not what Scripture may be _made_
to mean, but what it _does_. And it is no exaggeration to say that he
who in the present state of knowledge will confine himself to _the plain
meaning of words_, and the study of their context, may know more of the
original spirit and intention of the authors of the New Testament _than
all the controversial writers of former ages put together_."
(pp. 340-1.) This might be tolerated perhaps, in the self-constituted
oracle of a Mechanics' Institute; but as proceeding from a Divinity
Lecturer in one of the first Colleges in Oxford, I hesitate not to
declare that such an opinion is simply disgraceful.
Very much of a piece with this, in point of flippancy,--(though barely
consistent with his frequent assertions that the entire subject is
hemmed in by grave difficulties,)--are the Regius Professor of Greek's
remarks on the value of learning as a help to the Interpretation of Holy
Writ. "_Learning obscures_ as well as illustrates." (p. 337.)--"There
seem to be reasons for doubting whether any _considerable light_ can be
thrown on the New Testament from inquiry into _the language_."
(p. 393.)--"Minute corrections of tenses or particles are _no good_."
(p. 393.)--"Discussions respecting the chronology of St. Paul's life and
his second imprisonment; or about the identity of James, the brother of
the LORD; or, in another department, _respecting the use of the Greek
article,--have gone far beyond the line of utility_." (p. 393.) "The
minuteness of the study of Greek in our own day has also a tendency _to
introduce into the text associations_ which are not really found there."
(p. 391.)--Lastly, he complains of "the error of interpreting every
particle, as though it were a link in the argument; instead of being,
as is often the case, _an excrescence of style_." (p. 391.)
So then, in brief, the Fathers are in a conspiracy to mislead: Creeds
and Councils encumber the sense: Modern Commentators are not to be
trusted: the comparison of Scripture with Scripture, except it be "of
the same age and the same authors," "will tend rather to confuse than to
elucidate:" (p. 383:) "Learning obscures," and an accurate appreciation
of the meaning of the text is "no good!"--"When the _meaning of Greek
words_ is once known[223], the young student has almost _all the real
materials which are possessed by the greatest Biblical scholar_, in the
book itself." (p. 384.) In a word, (as Dr. Moberly has had the manliness
to remark,)--"It simply comes to this: A little Greek, (not too much,)
and a strong self-relying imagination, and you may interpret Holy
Scripture as well as--Mr. Jowett!" (p. lxii.) ... Benighted himself, the
unhappy author of this Essay is so apprehensive lest a ray of light from
Heaven shall break in upon one of his disciples,--even sideways, as it
were, from the margin of the Bible,--that he carefully prohibits "the
indiscriminate use of parallel passages" as "useless and uncritical."
... Yet may one not _with discrimination_ refer to the margin?--Better
not! "No good!" (p. 393.) replies the Oracle. "Even the critical use of
parallel passages is _not without danger_." (p. 383.) ... O shame! And
all this from a College Tutor and Lecturer on Divinity! _this_ from one
entrusted with the care of educating young men! _this_ from a Regius
Professor of Greek[224]!
Mr. Jowett congratulates himself that "Biblical criticism has made two
great steps onward,--at the time of the Reformation, and _in our own
day_." But his notion is amply refuted by the known facts of the case:
for when he adds,--"The diffusion of a critical spirit in History and
Literature is affecting the criticism of the Bible in our own day in a
manner not unlike the burst of intellectual life in the fifteenth or
sixteenth centuries;" (p. 340;) he clearly requires to be reminded that
the success of the Divinity of the Reformation was owing to the grand
appeal then made to _the Patristic writings_.
So far then as any of ourselves are resorting to _those_ sources of
information, there may be a faint resemblance _in kind_ between the
spirit which animates us, and that which wrought so nobly in the Fathers
of our spiritual freedom,--Cranmer and Ridley and the other learned and
holy men who revised our Offices. But if "_German_ Commentators" and
_their_ method be supposed to be the ideals to which the age is tending,
_then_ the Theology of the middle of the nineteenth century stands in
marked _contrast_ to what prevailed in the middle of the sixteenth; and
our spirit is _the very reverse of theirs_.--But I hasten on.
(iii) "The uncertainty which prevails in the Interpretation of
Scripture," Mr. Jowett proposes to get rid of,--(this is in fact the aim
of his entire Essay,) by denying that there are in Scripture any deeper
meanings to interpret. In the meantime, by every device in his power, he
seeks from _à priori_ considerations, (as we have seen,) to shew that no
such meanings can exist. We allow ourselves to be biassed, to a singular
extent, he says, "by certain previous suppositions with which we come to
the perusal of Scripture." (p. 342.) _But_ for this, "no one would
interpret Scripture as many do." (_Ibid._) Let us ascertain then what
these erroneous "suppositions" are.
(=1=) "The failure of a prophecy is never admitted, in spite of
Scripture and of history, (Jer. xxxvi. 30. Isaiah xxiii. Amos vii.
10-17.)" (p. 343.)
Now this can only mean two things: viz. first, that a Divine Prophecy is
_not_ an infallible utterance: and secondly, that the three places
quoted from the Old Testament are _proofs_ of the fallibility of
Prophecy; proofs which ought to overcome prejudice, and persuade men to
renounce their "previous supposition" that Prophecy is _in_fallible.
Certainly the charge is a grave one. For if _Prophecy_ is untrue, then
what becomes of Inspiration?