one would refer to the passages that he has bracketed, or that all would
be too ignorant to know the utter groundlessness of his assumption. If
there are, in the whole Scripture, two past prophecies which were
signally and remarkably fulfilled, they are the first two which he has
selected as instances to be dropped down, without a remark, of the
failure of Scripture prophecies! And as to the third passage, surely it
implies an 'incuria' which might be deemed 'crassa' to have asserted
that it contained an instance of the non-fulfilment of Prophecy: for it
implies that Mr. Jowett has read the verses to which he refers with so
little attention as not to have discovered that the prediction which
failed of its fulfilment was _no utterance of Amos_, but was _the
message of Amaziah, the priest of Bethel_, in which he falsely
attributes to Amos _words he had not spoken_!... Surely such slips as
these are as discreditable to a scholar as a Divine[225]!"
And this, from a gentleman who has the impertinence to remind us
oracularly, that "he who would understand the nature of Prophecy in the
Old Testament, should have _the courage to examine how far its details
were minutely fulfilled_!" (p. 347.) Are we then to infer that Mr.
Jowett's courage failed him when he came to Amos vii. 10-17?
(=2=) "The mention of a name later than the supposed age of the
prophet is not allowed, as in other writings, to be taken in evidence of
the date. (Isaiah xlv. 1.)" (p. 343.)
But what is the meaning of this complaint when applied to Isaiah's well
known prophecy concerning Cyrus? In the words of the excellent critic
last quoted,--"We know not that we could point to such an instance as
this in the writings of any other author of credit. Of course, Mr.
Jowett knows as well as we do the distinction between History and
Prophecy; and that the mention in any document of the name of one who
was unborn at the time fixed as the date of the writing, would be at
once a complete _disproof_ of its accuracy as a history of the past, and
a _proof_ of its accuracy as a prediction of the future. Of course he
also remembers that the point he has _to prove_ is that this passage is
History and not Prediction; and his mode of proving is this; _he
assumes that it is a history of the past_,--advancing as a charge
against the believers of Revelation, that they do not, (as they would in
any other History,) reject the genuineness of the passage because it
embalms a future name in a past history!... This audacious, (for we
cannot use a weaker word,) _assumption_ of what he has _to prove_,
pervades his Essay[226]."
And thus, into whatever department of speculation we follow this writer,
the tortuous path is still found to conduct us back to the same
underlying fallacious _assumption_,--viz. that _the Bible is like any
other Book_; in other words, is _not inspired_.
(=3=) Persons in Mr. Jowett's position, "find themselves met by a _sort
of presupposition that 'GOD speaks not as Man speaks_.'"--(p. 343.)
"A sort of presupposition," indeed!... Does the Reverend gentleman
really expect that we will stoop so low as argue _this_ point also with
him? It shall suffice to have branded him with his own words.
"The suspicion of Deism, or perhaps of Atheism, awaits inquiry. By such
fears, a good man (!) refuses to be influenced: a philosophical mind (!)
is apt to cast them aside with too much bitterness. It is better to
close the book, than to read it under conditions of thought which are
imposed from without." (p. 343.)
Well surely, the proximity to Balliol College of the scene of Cranmer
and Ridley's martyrdom, must have turned the brain of the Regius
Professor of Greek!--Let him be well assured however that not rational
"Inquiry," but irrational _assumption_; not the modest cogitations of "a
philosophical mind," but the _arrogant dreams of a weak and confused
intellect_, are what have excited such general indignation of late,
among "good men," from one end of the Kingdom to the other. Nor could
anything probably of equal pretensions be readily appealed to, which is
nevertheless more truly unphilosophical, fallacious, and foolish, than
the Essay now under consideration.
(iv) Subsequently, (p. 344,) Mr. Jowett professes to grapple with the
phenomenon of Inspiration. His method is instructive. He begins by
inadvertently advancing a direct untruth: for he asserts that for none
"of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration is there _any
foundation_ in the Gospels or Epistles." (p. 345.)--Had he then
forgotten St. Paul's statements in Gal. i. 1, 11-17: ii. 2, 7-9. 1 Cor.
xv. 3. Ephes. iii. 3, &c., &c.? But I have established the contradictory
of the Professor's position in the ensuing Sermons, p. 53 to p. 57, to
which the reader must be referred.--This done, he proceeds to assert
that,
(=1=) Inspiration does not preserve a writer from inaccuracy. And the
charge is substantiated by the following ridiculous enumeration:--"One
[Evangelist] supposes the original dwelling-place of our LORD'S Parents
to have been Bethlehem[227], another Nazareth[228]." (This from a
Lecturer on Divinity! Does Mr. Jowett then suppose that his readers have
never opened the Gospels, and do not know better? Why, _both_ his
statements are simply _false!_)--"They trace His genealogy in different
ways." (Yes. In two. And why not _in twenty?_ Is Mr. Jowett not aware
that a genealogy may be differently traced through different
ancestors?)--"One mentions the thieves blaspheming: another has
preserved to after ages the record of the penitent thief:" (And why
should he not?)--"They appear to differ about the day and hour of the
Crucifixion." (Yes, _they appear_ to differ: but _they do not
differ_!)--"The narrative of the woman who anointed our LORD'S feet with
ointment is told in all four, each narrative having more or less
considerable variations." (There is no conceivable reason why this
should _not_ have been as Mr. Jowett relates; but, as a matter of fact,
we have here another of this Gentleman's private _blunders_,--shewing
what an uncritical reader he must be, of that book concerning which he
presumes to dogmatize so freely.)--"These are a few instances of the
differences which arose in the traditions of the earliest ages
respecting the history of our LORD." (Nay, but this is to beg the whole
question!)--"He who wishes to investigate the character of the sacred
writings _should not be afraid_ to make a catalogue of them all, with
the view of estimating their cumulative weight." (p. 346.) (Truly, it
would be well for Mr. Jowett if he had as little to fear from such
"investigations" as the Evangelists!)
"In the same way, he who would understand the nature of Prophecy in the
Old Testament, should have the courage to examine how far its details
were minutely fulfilled. _The absence of such a fulfilment_ may further
lead him to discover that he took the letter for the spirit in expecting
it." (p. 347.) But really this is again simply to beg the whole
question. Unbecoming in any writer, how absurd also is such a sentence
from the pen of one who, (as we have lately seen,) no sooner descends to
particulars than he makes himself ridiculous by betraying his own
excessive ignorance.... "The letter for the spirit," also! which is one
of the 'cant' expressions of Mr. Jowett and his accomplices in 'free
handling,'--based evidently on a misconception of the meaning of 2 Cor.
iii. 6. The contrast recurs at pp. 36, 357, 375, 425, &c., &c.
(=2=) Still bent on shewing that Inspiration does not secure Scripture
from blots and blemishes, Mr. Jowett proceeds as follows. (I must
present him to the reader, for a short space, _in extenso_; since by no
other expedient can the complicated fallacies of his very intricate and
perverse method be exposed.)
"Inspiration is a fact which we infer from the study of Scripture,--not
of one portion only, but of the whole." (p. 347.) (Now even _this_ is
not a correct way of stating the case. Still, because the words _may_
bear an honourable sense, we pass on.)--"Obviously then, it embraces
writings of very different kinds,--the book of Esther, for example, or
the Song of Solomon, as well as the Gospel of St. John." (That _the
volume_ of Inspiration is of this complex character, and that _it_
embraces writings so diverse, is beyond dispute.)--"It is reconcileable
with the mixed good and evil of the characters of the Old Testament,
which nevertheless does not exclude them from the favour of GOD." (_Why_
the Inspiration of a writer should not be 'reconcileable' with _any_
amount of wickedness in the persons about whom he writes,--I am quite at
a loss to perceive. Neither do I see why "the mixed good and evil" of
certain "characters of the Old Testament," (or of the New either,)
should "exclude them from the favour of GOD." What else becomes of your
hope, and mine, of Eternal Life?)--"Inspiration is also reconcileable,"
(he proceeds,)--"with the attribution to the Divine Being of _actions at
variance with that higher revelation which He has given of Himself in
the Gospel_." (Is this meant as an insult to "the Divine Being?" or
simply as a slur on Revelation? Either way, we reject the charge with
indignation[229].)--"It is not inconsistent with imperfect or opposite
aspects of the Truth, as in the Book of Job or Ecclesiastes:" (Nothing
which comes from GOD should be called "imperfect:" but why _different_
aspects of the Truth should not be brought out, by different writers, as
by St. Paul and by James,--it is hard to see.)--"With variations of fact
in the Gospels, or the Books of Kings and Chronicles:" (We do not admit
that Inspiration is consistent with "variations of _fact;_" but with
_different versions_ of the same incident, it is confessedly
compatible.)--"With inaccuracies of language in the Epistles of St.
Paul." (With _grammatical inelegancies_, no doubt; but not with _logical
inaccuracies_.)--"For these are all found in Scripture:" (This
statement, by the way, should have been substantiated by at least as
many references as there are heads in the indictment,)--"neither is
there any reason why they should not be; except a general impression
that Scripture ought to have been written in a way different from what
it has." (Just as if Mankind for 1800 years had been the victims of an
_à priori_ conception as to _how_ Holy Scripture _ought to have been_
written!)--"A principle of progressive revelation admits them all; and
this is already contained in the words of our SAVIOUR, 'Moses because of
the hardness of your hearts;' or even in the Old Testament, 'Henceforth
there shall be no more this proverb in the house of Israel?'" (O if
Catholic writers were to expound Holy Scripture with the license of
_these_ gentlemen!... That the scheme of Revelation has been
progressive, is a Theological truism. What that has to do with the
question in hand, I see not.)--"For what is progressive is necessarily
imperfect in its earlier stages:" ("Imperfect" in what sense?)--"and
_even erring_ to those who come after." (No, not in _that_ sense
imperfect, certainly!) ... "There is no more reason why _imperfect
narratives_ should be excluded from Scripture than imperfect grammar; no
more ground for expecting that the New Testament would be logical or
Aristotelian in form, than that it would be written in Attic Greek."
(Now _why_ this cloudy shuffling about "imperfect narratives,"--instead
of saying _what you mean_, like a man! Further,--Is Mr. Jowett so weak
as not to perceive that there is _no force whatever_ in his supposed
parallel? The Discourses of the Incarnate SON, for instance, are
certainly anything but "Aristotelian in form." His dialect,--(Angels
bowed to catch it, I nothing doubt!)--was that of the despised Galilee.
But need _the teaching it conveyed_ have _therefore_ been "imperfect?"
Why may not the least perfect _Greek_ be the vehicle for the more
perfect _Doctrine_? What connexion is there between the casket and the
jewel which it encloses?)
(=3=) The Reverend writer promises us help, from "another consideration
which has been neglected by writers on this subject." (The announcement
makes us attentive.)--"It is this,--that any true Doctrine of
Inspiration must conform to all well-ascertained facts of History or of
Science." (We scarcely see the drift of this ill-worded proposition; but
are disposed to assent.)--"The same fact cannot be true and untrue,"
(Who ever supposed that it could?)--"any more than the same words can
have two opposite meanings." (But why glide at once into a gross
falsity? Are there not plenty of words and speeches, of the kind called
'equivocal' or 'ambiguous,' which are of this nature? I am content to
refer this writer to _his own pages_, for the abundant refutation of his
own assertion. No man in the world knows better than Mr. Jowett that
"_the same words can have two opposite meanings_.") "The same fact
cannot be true in Religion, when seen by the light of Faith; and untrue
in Science, when looked at through the medium of evidence or
experiment." (Why not? For example,--'He maketh His Sun to rise.' 'If
GOD so clothe the grass of the field.' 'GOD said, Let there be light.'
Who sees not that the view which Faith and which Physical Science
respectively take of the same phenomenon, may essentially differ?)--"It
is ridiculous to suppose that the Sun goes round the Earth in the same
sense in which the Earth goes round the Sun;" (Very ridiculous.)--"or
that the world appears to have existed, but has not existed, during the
vast epochs of which Geology speaks to us." (Leave out the words,
"appears to have," and this also is undeniable.)--"But if so, there is
no need of elaborate reconcilements of Revelation and Science." (How
does that follow? If what is thought to be Divinely revealed, and what
is thought to be scientifically ascertained, seem to be conflicting
truths,--why should not an effort be made to reconcile them?) "They
reconcile themselves the moment any scientific truth is distinctly
ascertained." (Yes: by the Human simply trying to thrust the Divine out
of doors!)--"As the idea of Nature enlarges, the idea of Revelation also
enlarges:" (I deny that there is any such intimate connexion as this
author supposes between Physical Science and Divinity,)--"it was a
temporary misunderstanding which severed them." (But _when_ were Nature
and Revelation ever for an instant "severed?")--"And as the knowledge of
Nature which is possessed by the few is communicated in its leading
features at least, to the many, they will receive it with a higher
conception of the ways of GOD to Man. It may hereafter appear as natural
to the majority of Mankind to see the Providence of GOD in the order of
the world, as it once was to appeal to interruptions of it." (p. 349.)
(As if an increased _knowledge of Nature_ were the condition of
Theological enlightenment!... I presume that the latter clause,--so hazy
and the reverse of obvious in its meaning!--is intended to convey the
sentiment which Mr. Baden Powell expresses as follows:--"The inevitable
progress of research must, within a longer or shorter period, unravel
_all that seems most marvellous_; and what is at present least
understood will become as familiarly known to the Science of the future,
as those points which a few centuries ago were involved in equal
obscurity, but now are thoroughly understood[230].")
(=4=) We are next informed "that there are a class of scientific facts
with which popular opinions on Theology often conflict.... Such
especially are the facts relating to the formation of the Earth and the
beginnings of the Human Race." (p. 349.) (And pray, what "_facts_" are
these, relative to the "beginnings of the Human Race," which conflict
with Scripture?) ... "Almost all intelligent persons are agreed that the
earth has existed for myriads of ages:" (Which is perfectly true.)--"The
best informed are of opinion that the history of nations extends back
_some thousand years_ before the Mosaic Chronology." (Which is
decidedly false.)--"Recent discoveries in Geology _may perhaps_ open a
further vista of existence for the human species; while _it is possible,
and may one day be known_, that Mankind spread not from one but from
many centres over the globe; or, (as others say,) that the supply of
links which are at present wanting in the chain of animal life _may
lead_ to new conclusions respecting the origin of Man." (A cool way,
this, of anticipating that something which '_may_'--(or _may not!_)--be
discovered hereafter, will demonstrate that the beginning of the Bible
is all a fable!)--"Now," (proceeds our author,) "let it be granted that"
"_the proof_ of some of these facts, especially of those last-mentioned,
_is wanting_; still it is a false policy to set up Inspiration or
Revelation _in opposition to them_, a principle which can have _no
influence on them_, and should be kept rather out of their way."
(Considerate man!) "The Sciences of Geology and comparative Philology
are steadily gaining ground. Many of the guesses of twenty years ago
have been certainties; and the guesses of to-day may hereafter become
so. Shall we peril Religion (!) on the possibility of their untruth? on
such a cast to stake the life of Man, implies not only a recklessness of
facts (!), but a misunderstanding of the nature of the Gospel. If it is
fortunate for Science, it is perhaps more fortunate for Christian Truth,
that the admission of Galileo's discovery has for ever settled the
principle of the relations between them."--(pp. 349-50.) ...
Now, what a curious picture of a perverse and crooked mind does such a
sentence exhibit! Divine Revelation can "_have no influence_" of course,
on facts of _any_ kind, (including facts in Physical Science,) when
once those facts have been well ascertained. But, _in the entire absence
of such facts_, why should we refuse to listen to the _well ascertained
Revelation of GOD_? Nothing is more emphatic, for example, than the
Divine declaration that the whole Human family is derived from a single
pair; and the origin of Man is plainly set down in Genesis. Why then
oppose to this, the confessedly _undiscovered_ fact that "mankind spread
from many centres;" and the purely speculative possibility that,
hereafter, a certain theory "_may lead_ to new conclusions respecting
the origin of Man?"--As for "Religion" being "perilled on the
possibility" of the truth or untruth of the Sciences of Geology and
comparative Philology;--we really would submit that _GOD may be safely
left to take care of His own;_ and that "peril," there is,--there _can_
be,--_none!_
And then, the maudlin tenderness of an "Essayist and Reviewer" (of all
persons in the world!) for "_the life of Man_,"--meaning thereby his
Christian hope, and Faith in the REDEEMER!... As if, (first,) Man's
"_Life_" were _in any sense_ endangered, by our upholding the honour and
authority of the Bible! And (secondly,) as if the age had shewn itself
in the least degree impatient of scientific investigation! And
(thirdly,) as if Religion depended, or could be made to depend, on
Physical phenomena, or on the progress of Natural Science, _at all!_ ...
I scruple not to say that arguments like these impress me with the
meanest opinion of Mr. Jowett's intellectual powers: while they prove to
demonstration that he does not in the least understand the subject on
which he yet writes with such feeble vehemence.
But I may not proceed any further, or my pages will equal in extent
those of the gentleman already named. Indeed, to follow that most
confused of thinkers, and crooked of disputants, through all his
perverse pages; to expose his habitual paltry evasive dodging,--his
shifting equivocations,--his misapplications of Scripture,--his unworthy
insinuations,--his plaintive puerilities of thought and
sentiment;--would require a thick volume.--If Mr. Jowett does not deny
the Personality of the HOLY GHOST, he ought to be thoroughly ashamed of
himself for penning sentences which can lead to no other inference. For
he ought to know that when men talk of words "receiving _a more exact
meaning than they will truly bear_;" and of what "is _spoken in a
figure_ being construed with the severity of a logical statement, while
_passages of an opposite tenour are overlooked or set
aside_:"--(p. 360.) men mean to repudiate the doctrine which those words
are thought to convey; not to imply their acceptance of it.--So again,
if Mr. Jowett holds the doctrine of Original Sin, he ought to be
heartily ashamed of himself for having insinuated that it depends "on
_two figurative expressions of St. Paul to which there is no parallel in
any other part of Scripture_." (p. 361.)--Nor, however moderate his
attainments as a teacher of Divinity, ought he to be capable of putting
forth such a notorious misstatement as that the doctrine of Infant
Baptism _rests upon a verse in the Acts_ (xvi. 33,)--which verse has
really _nothing whatever to do with the question_[231]. (p. 360.)
Professor Jowett shuts up his Essay with a passage which, for a certain
amount of tender pathos in the sentiment, has been often quoted, and
sometimes admired, He says:--
"The suspicion or difficulty which attends critical inquiries is no
reason for doubting their value. The Scripture nowhere leads us to
suppose that the circumstance of all men speaking well of us is any
ground for supposing that we are acceptable in the sight of God. And
there is no reason why the condemnation of others should be witnessed to
by our own conscience. Perhaps it may be true that, owing to the
jealousy or fear of some, the reticence of others, the terrorism of a
few, we may not always find it easy to regard these subjects with
calmness and judgment. But, on the other hand, these accidental
circumstances have nothing to do with the question at issue; they cannot
have the slightest influence on the meaning of words, or on the truth of
facts....
"Lastly, there is some nobler idea of truth than is supplied by the
opinion of mankind in general, or the voice of parties in a Church.
Every one, whether a student of Theology or not, has need to make war
against his prejudices no less than against his passions; and, in the
religious teacher, the first is even more necessary than the last.... He
who takes the prevailing opinions of Christians and decks them out in
their gayest colours,--who reflects the better mind of the world to
itself--is likely to be its favourite teacher. In that ministry of the
Gospel, even when assuming forms repulsive to persons of education (!),
no doubt the good is far greater than the error or harm. But there is
also a deeper work which is not dependent on the opinions of men, in
which many elements combine, some alien to Religion, or accidentally at
variance with it. That work can hardly expect to win much popular
favour, so far as it runs counter to the feelings of religious parties.
But he who bears a part in it may feel a confidence, which no popular
caresses or religious sympathy could inspire, that he has by a Divine
help been enabled to plant his foot somewhere beyond the waves of Time.
He may depart hence before the natural term, worn out with intellectual
toil; regarded with suspicion by many of his contemporaries; yet not
without a sure hope that the love of Truth, which men of saintly lives
often seem to slight, is, nevertheless, accepted before
GOD."--(pp. 432-3.)
My respect for a fellow-man induces me to offer a few remarks on all
this.