allegorize the earlier pages of the Bible,--to scoff at the story of the
Flood, to reject the outlines of Scripture Chronology;--but which would
dispute the most emphatic details of Revelation itself. Consistent, this
method is, at all events. Let it have the miserable praise which is so
richly its due. To logical consistency, it may at least lay claim. It
refuses to stop anywhere: as why should it stop? Faith is denied her
office, because Reason fails to see the reasonableness of Faith: and
accordingly, unbelief enters in with a flood-tide. Miracles, for
example, are now to be classed, (we learn,) among "the difficulties" of
Christianity[316]. It was to have been expected. (_Who_ foresees not
what must be the fate of such "difficulties" as these?) And will you
tell me that you may reject the miraculous transactions recorded in the
Old and New Testaments, and yet retain the narrative which contains
them? That were indeed absurd! Will you then reject one miracle and
retain another? Impossible! You can make no reservation, even in favour
of the Incarnation of our LORD,--the most adorable of all miracles, as
it is the very keystone of our Christian hope. Either, with the best and
wisest of all ages, you must believe _the whole_ of Holy Scripture; or,
with the narrow-minded infidel, you must _dis_believe the whole. There
is no middle course open to you.
Do we then undervalue the discoveries of Natural Science; or view with
jealousy the progress she has of late been making? GOD forbid! With
unfeigned joy we welcome her honest triumphs, as so many fresh evidences
of the wisdom, the power, the goodness of GOD. "Thou, LORD, hast made me
glad through Thy works[317]!" The very guesses of Geology are precious.
What are they but noble endeavours to unfold a page anterior to the
first page of the Bible; or rather, to discover what secrets are locked
up in the first verse of it? But when, instead of being a faithful
Servant, Natural Science affects the airs of an imperious
Mistress,--what can she hope to incur at the hands of Theology, but
displeasure and contempt? She forgets her proper place, and overlooks
her lawful function. She prates about the laws of Nature in the presence
of Him who, when He created the Universe, invented those very laws, and
impressed them on His irrational creatures.--Does it never humble her to
reflect that it was but yesterday she detected the fundamental Law of
Gravitation? Does she never blush with shame to consider that for well
nigh six thousand years men have been inquisitively walking this Earth's
surface; and yet, that, one hundred years ago, the provident notions
concerning fossil remains, and the Earth's structure, were such as
now-a-days would be pronounced incredibly ridiculous and absurd?
To conclude. The very phraseology with which men have presumed to
approach this entire question, is insolent and unphilosophical. The
popular phraseology of the day, I say, hardly covers, so as to conceal,
a lie. We constantly find SCIENCE and THEOLOGY opposed to one another:
just as if Theology were _not_ a Science! History forsooth, with all her
inaccuracy of observation, is a Science: and Geology, with all her weak
guesses, is a Science: and comparative Anatomy, with nothing but her
laborious inductions to boast of, is a Science: but Theology,--which is
based on the express revelation of the Eternal,--is some other thing!
What do you mean to tell us that Theology is, but the very queen of
Sciences? Would Aristotle have bestowed on Ethic the epithet
=architektonikê=, think you, had he known of that =theios logos=, which
his friend,--"not blind by choice, but destined not to see[318],"--felt
after yet found not? that "more excellent way," which you and I, by
GOD'S great mercy, possess? Go to! For popular purposes, if you will,
let the word "Science" stand for the knowledge of the phenomena of
Nature; somewhat as, in this place, the word stands for the theory of
Morals, and some of the phenomena of Mind: and so, let Science be
contrasted with THEOLOGY, without offence taken, because none is
intended. But let it never be forgotten that Theology is _the_ great
Science of all,--the only Science which really deserves the name. What
have other sciences to boast of which Theology has not? Antiquity,--such
as no other can, in any sense, lay claim to: a Literature,--which is
absolutely without a rival: a Terminology,--which reflects the very
image of all the ages: Professors,--of loftier wit, from the days of
Athanasius and Augustine, down to the days of our own Hooker and
Butler,--men of higher mark, intellectually and morally,--than adorn the
annals of any other Science since the World began: above all things, a
subject-matter, which is the grandest imagination can conceive; and a
foundation, which has all the breadth, and length, and depth and
height[319], which the Hands of GOD Himself could give it.
For subject-matter, what Science will you compare with this? All the
others in the world will not bring a man to the knowledge of GOD and of
CHRIST! They will not inform him of the will of GOD, although they may
teach him to observe His Works. "The Heavens declare the glory of
GOD,"--but, as Lord Bacon remarked long since, we do not read that they
declare His will. Neither do the other sciences of necessity lead to any
belief at all in the GOD of Revelation[320].
And, for that whereon they are built, what Science again will you
compare with this? Let the pretender to Geological skill,--(I say not
the true Geologist, for _he_ never offends!)--let the conceited
sciolist, I say, go dream a little longer over those implements of
chipped flint which have called him into such noisy activity,--and
discover, as he _will_ discover, that the assumed inference from the
gravel and the bones is fallacious after all[321].--Let the Historian go
spell a little longer over that moth-eaten record of dynasties which
never were, by means of which he proposes to set right the clock of
Time[322]. Let the Naturalist walk round the stuffed or bleached wonders
of his museum, and guess again[323]. Theological Science not so! _Her_
evidence is sure, for her Rule is GOD'S Word. No laborious Induction
here,--fallacious because imperfect; imperfect because human: but a
direct message from the presence-chamber of the LORD of Heaven and
Earth,--decisive because inspired; infallible because Divine. The
express Revelation of the Eternal is that whereon Theological Science
builds her fabric of imperishable Truth: _that_ fabric which, while
other modes change, shift, and at last become superseded, shines
out,--yea, and to the very end of Time will shine out,--unconscious of
decay, incapable of improvement, far, far beyond the reach of fashion: a
thing unchanged, because in its very nature unchangeable[324]!
O sirs,--we are constrained to be brief in this place. The field must
perforce be narrowed; and so, for this time, it must suffice to have
warned you against the men who resort to the armoury of Natural Science
for weapons wherewith to assail GOD'S Truth. Regard them as the enemies
of your peace; and learn to reject their specious, yet most
inconsequential reasonings, with the scorn which is properly their due.
Contempt and scorn GOD implanted in us, precisely that we might bestow
them on reasonings worthless in their texture, and foul in their object,
as these; which teach distrust of the earlier pages of GOD'S Word, on
the pretence that they are contradicted by the evidence of GOD'S Works.
Learn to abhor that spurious liberality which is liberal only with what
is _not its own_; and which reminds one of nothing so much as the
conduct of leprous persons who are said to be for ever seeking to
communicate and extend their own unhappy taint to others. I allude to
that sham liberality which under pretence of extending the common
standing ground of Christian men, is in reality attenuating it until it
proves incapable of bearing the weight of a single soul. There is room
on the Rock for all; but it is only on the Rock that we are safe. To
speak without a figure,--He who surrenders the first page of his Bible,
surrenders all. He knows not where to stop. Nay, you and I cannot in
any way _afford_ to surrender the beginning of Genesis; simply because
upon the truth of what is there recorded depends the whole scheme of
Man's salvation,--the need of that "second Man" which is "the LORD from
Heaven[325]." It is not too much to say that the beginning of Genesis is
the foundation on which all the rest of the Bible is built[326]. We may
not go over to those who would mutilate the Book of Life, or evacuate
any part of its message. It is they, on the contrary, who must come over
to us.--Much has it been the fashion of these last days, (I cannot
imagine why,) to vaunt the character and the Gospel of St. John, "the
disciple of Love," as he is called; as if it were secretly thought that
there is a latitudinarianism in Love which would wink at Doctrinal
obliquity; whereas _St. John is the Evangelist of Dogma_; and if there
be anything in the world which is _jealous_, that thing is _Love_.
Indifference to Truth, and laxity of Belief, are the growing
characteristics of the age. But you will find that St. John has about
four or five times as much about TRUTH as all the other three
Evangelists; while _the act_ of Faith receives as frequent mention in
his writings alone as in all the rest of the New Testament Canon put
together[327].
Let me end, as the manner of preachers is, by gathering out of what has
been spoken one brief practical consideration.--This whole visible frame
of things wherein we play our part, is hastening to decay. Everything we
behold,--ourselves included,--carries with it the prophecy of its own
speedy dissolution.--What, amid the wreck of worlds, will be our
confidence?... It is an inquiry worth making, in these the days of
health, and vigour, and security, and peace. O my soul, (learn to ask
yourselves,)--O my soul, when the Heavens shall depart, and the Earth
reel before the Second Advent of its Maker;--when the Sun puts on
mourning, and the very powers of Heaven are shaken;--what shall be _our_
confidence,--_our_ hope,--in that tremendous day? Whither shall we
betake ourselves, amid the overthrow of universal Nature, but to the
sure mercies of Him who "in the beginning created the Heaven and the
Earth?"--To those strong Hands, we intend, (GOD helping us!) with
unswerving confidence to commend our fainting spirits[328].... _Him_,
then, in life let us learn to reverence, on whom in death we propose so
implicitly to lean! And we only know Him in, and through, and by His
WORD. Nor can we in any surer way shew Him reverence or dishonour, than
by the manner in which we receive His message,--yea, by the spirit in
which we unfold this, the first page of it,--where stands recorded that
primæval act of Almighty power which is the ground of all our
confidence,--the very warrant for our own security.... "Blessed" of a
truth, in that day, will he be, "that hath the GOD of Jacob for his
help, and whose hope is in the LORD his GOD:--_who made the Heaven and
the Earth,--the Sea and all that therein is:--who keepeth His promise
for ever_[329]!"
FOOTNOTES:
[271] Preached in Christ-Church Cathedral, Nov. 11th, 1860.
[272] "The whole period, from the beginning of the primary fossiliferous
strata to the present day, _must be great beyond calculation_, and only
bear comparison with the astronomical cycles, as might naturally be
expected; the earth being without doubt of the same antiquity with the
other bodies of the solar system."--Mrs. Somerville's _Physical
Geography_.
[273] Col. i. 16.
[274] Neh. ix. 6.
[275] Eph. i. 11.
[276] Hooker's _Eccl. Pol._, B. I. c. iii. § 2.
[277] Ps. xxxiii. 6.
[278] Alluding to a catastrophe which had recently occurred at St.
Mary's Church, and which necessitated considerable repairs; in
consequence of which, the first four of these Sermons were preached in
the Cathedral.
[279] Is. xl. 12.
[280] Amos v. 8 and ix. 6.
[281] St. Matth. xxvii. 45.
[282] Exod. x. 21-23.
[283] St. Matth. xxiv. 29.
[284] Job ix. 5-7.
[285] Ps. xxxiii. 9.
[286] Gen. i. 4.
[287] "Can any one sensible of the value of words suppose," (asks Mr.
Goodwin,) "that nothing more is here described, or intended to be
described, than _the partial clearing away of a fog_?" (_Essays and
Reviews_, pp. 227-8.) No one,--we answer. But to the question, we
venture to rejoin another. To _whom_ does this philosopher suppose his
pleasantry likely to prove injurious? Is he making Moses ridiculous,
or--himself?
[288] St. John ix. 5, &c.
[289] 1 Tim. vi. 16.
[290] 2 Cor. iv. 6.
[291] "Whether the writer regarded them as already existing, and only
waiting to have a proper place assigned them, may be open to question."
(_E. and R._, p. 221.) We accept the alternative given us by Mr.
Goodwin.
[292] Job xxxviii. 7.
[293] Alluding to 1 Kings vii. 21.
[294] The test of _Elohim_ and _Jehovah_ has been, by the Germans
themselves, given up; "and for this plain reason,--that in many parts of
Genesis, [e.g. ch. xxviii. 16-22: xxxi.: xxxix., &c.] it is utterly
untenable; the names being so intermingled as to admit of no such
division." See the Appendix (C) to the Rev. Henry John Rose's _Hulsean
Lectures_ for 1833,--p. 233.
[295] Besides in Gen. i. 2, the expression (_tohu bohu_) recurs in Jer.
iv. 23 and Is. xxxiv. 11,--both times with clear reference to the
earlier place. Jeremiah in fact _quotes_ Genesis.
[296] _Eccl. Pol._, B. I. c. iii. § 2.
[297] Ps. cxlviii. 5, 6.
[298] South's _Sermons_, (Serm. II.)
[299] See St. Matth. xix. 4 to 6,--where Gen. i. 27 as well as Gen. ii.
24, are quoted by our SAVIOUR.
[300] "Holding," (says Hugh Miller,) "that the _six_ days of the Mosaic
account were not natural days, but lengthened periods, I find myself
called on, as a geologist, to account for but three out of the six. Of
the period during which light was created; of the period during which a
firmament was made to separate the waters from the waters; or of the
period during which the two great lights of the earth, with the other
heavenly bodies, became visible from the Earth's surface;--we need
expect to find no record in the rocks."--_Testimony_, &c., p. 134.--This
is ingenious, and is piously meant. But the first three days remain to
be accounted for _by somebody_, all the same. If the last three days
represent "lengthened periods," so, I suppose, do the _first_ three.
[301] Exod. xx. 11.
[302] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 252.
[303] _Ibid._
[304] _Id._ p. 253.
[305] _Id._ p. 252.
[306] Pattison's _The Earth and the World_, p. 99.
[307] Col. ii. 3.
[308] Josh. x. 12.
[309] Prov. iii. 20.
[310] St. John iii. 8.
[311] St. John iii. 5.
[312] St. Matth. xxvi. 26.
[313] St. John viii. 58.
[314] St. John x. 30.
[315] Ps. xciv. 9.
[316] On this subject, the reader is referred to Serm. VII.
[317] Ps. xcii. 4.
[318] Cowper.
[319] Eph. iii. 18.
[320] This paragraph is mostly copied from a Sermon (MS.) preached
before the University by the late Professor Hussey, Oct. 12, 1856.
[321] Professor Phillips refers me to a paper by Mr. Prestwich in the
_Proceedings of the Royal Society_, 1859, vol. x. No. 35, p. 58. Also in
the _Transactions of the R. S._ for 1860, p. 308.
[322] I allude to the supposed disclosures of Egyptian monuments.
[323] I allude to a recent work on the Origin of Species.
[324] The reader is requested to read what Bishop Pearson has most
eloquently written on this subject. It will be found in the Appendix
(B).
[325] 1 Cor. xv. 47.
[326] Ibid. xv. 22, &c.
[327] =Pistis= _does not occur once_ in St. John's Gospel: =pisteuô=
(which is found about thirty-five times, in all, in the first three
Gospels,) occurs about _one hundred times_, in the Gospel of St. John
alone.
[328] St. Luke xxiii. 46, (quoting Ps. xxxi. 5:) words which are alluded
to in 1 St. Pet. iv. 19.
[329] Ps. cxlvi. 5,--words quoted by the early Church of Jerusalem, Acts
iv. 24.
SERMON III.[330]
* * * * *
INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE.--GOSPEL DIFFICULTIES.--THE WORD OF GOD
INFALLIBLE.--OTHER SCIENCES SUBORDINATE TO THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.
* * * * *
2 Tim. iii. 16.
_All Scripture is given by inspiration of God._
But _that_ is not exactly what St. Paul says. The Greek for _that_,
would be =pasa Hê graphê=--not =pasa graphê--theopneustos=. St. Paul does
not say that _the whole_ of Scripture, collectively, is inspired. More
than _that_: what he says is, that _every writing_,--every _several
book_ of those =hiera grammata=, or Holy Scriptures, in which Timothy had
been instructed from his childhood,--is inspired by God[331]. It _comes_
to very nearly the same thing; but it is _not_ quite the same thing. St.
Paul is careful to remind us that every Book in the Bible is an inspired
Book[332]. And this statement is not confined to one place.--Elsewhere,
he calls his message "the Word of GOD;" and says that it had been
received by the disciples not as the Word of Men, but as it is in truth,
the Word of GOD[333].--Elsewhere, "Which things also we speak, not in
the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the HOLY GHOST
teacheth[334]:"--where, if I at all understand the Apostle, (and he
speaks very plainly!) he says that _his words_ were inspired by the HOLY
GHOST.--Accordingly, St. Peter declares that the Epistles of his
"beloved brother Paul" are part of the Holy Scriptures[335];--Divinely
inspired, therefore, like all the rest.
But does not St. Paul himself in a certain place express a doubt--saying
"I _think_ that I have the Spirit of GOD[336]?" and does he not contrast
his own sayings with the Divine sayings, ("not I but the LORD[337]"),
clearly implying that his own were _not_ Divine? and does he not say
that he delivers certain things "by permission, and not of
commandment[338]," whereby he seems to insinuate a gradation of
authority in what he delivers?--No. Not one of these things does he do.
He says, indeed, of a certain hint to married persons that he offers it
"by way of _advice_ to them not by way of _precept_:" but _giving
advice_ to _men_ is a very different thing from _receiving permission_
from GOD. Again, "Unto the married," (he says,) "I command, yet not I
but the LORD,"--alluding to our LORD'S words, as set down by St.
Matthew, chap. xix. verse 6[339]; which is simply an historical allusion
to the Gospel.--So far from "_thinking_" he had the Spirit of GOD, (as
if it were an open question whether he had it or not,) he says the very
contrary. =Dokeô=, in all such places, implies, not _doubt_ but
_certainty[340]_: (as when our LORD asks,---"Doth he thank that servant
because he did the things commanded him? =ou dokô=,"--I fancy not
indeed[341]!) On St. Paul's lips, as every scholar knows, the phrase is
not one of doubt, but one of indignant, or at least emphatic
asseveration[342].--A man had need be very sure he _understands_ the
record, (let me just remark in passing,) before he presumes to criticize
it.
"_The Spirit of CHRIST_" is said by St. Peter to have been "_in the
prophets_[343]:" and in another place he declares that they "_spake as
they were moved by the HOLY GHOST_[344]." The HOLY GHOST accordingly is
said to have spoken the xlist Psalm "by the mouth of David[345]." The
xcvth Psalm is declared absolutely to be the utterance of the HOLY
GHOST[346]. Once, the cxth Psalm is ascribed simply to GOD[347]; and
once, to David speaking under the influence of _the HOLY GHOST_[348]. The
iind Psalm is described as the language of GOD the FATHER "by the mouth
of His Servant David[349]." "_Well spake the HOLY GHOST_ by Esaias the
Prophet unto our Fathers[350],"--was the exclamation of the Apostle
Paul, quoting the 9th and 10th verses of his vith chapter. When Jeremiah
speaks, the HOLY GHOST is declared, (not Jeremiah, _but the HOLY GHOST_)
to witness unto us[351]. The assertion is express that it was "GOD" who,
"_by the mouth of all His Prophets_," foretold the Death of CHRIST[352]:
"_the LORD GOD of Israel_" who, "_by the mouth of His holy Prophets of
old_," gave promise of CHRIST'S coming[353]. "_The HOLY GHOST
signified_" what the Mosaic Law enjoined[354]. "It is not ye that
speak, _but the HOLY GHOST_[355]"--was our SAVIOUR'S word of promise and
of consolation to the Twelve: and, on an earlier occasion,--"It is not
ye that speak; but the SPIRIT of your Father, _which speaketh in
you_[356]." And this promise became so famous, that St. Paul says the
Corinthians challenged him to _prove_ that CHRIST was speaking in
him[357].... But why multiply places? The use which our SAVIOUR makes in
the New Testament of the words of the Old,--from the writings of Moses
to the writings of Malachi,--would be simply nugatory unless those words
were much more than human. And the record of the Apostle is express and
emphatic:--"All Scripture--every Book of the Bible,--is given _by
Inspiration of GOD_."--In the face of such testimony, by the way, we
deem it not a little extraordinary to be assured (by an individual who
has acquired considerable notoriety within the last few months) that
"for any of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration there is no
foundation in the Gospels or Epistles[358]."
Strange to say, there is a marvellous indisposition in Man to admit the
notion of such a heaven-sent message. Not to dispute with those who deny
Inspiration altogether, (for that would be endless,) there are
many,--and, we fear, a daily increasing number of persons,--who,
admitting Inspiration in terms, yet so mutilate the notion of it, that
their admission becomes a practical lie. "St. Paul was inspired, no
doubt. So was Shakspeare." He who says this, intending no quibble,
declares that in his belief St. Paul was _not inspired at all_.
But this is a monstrous case, with which I will not waste your time. Far
more numerous are they, who, admitting that the Authors of the Bible
were inspired in quite a different sense from Homer and Dante, are yet
for modifying and qualifying this admission after so many strange and
arbitrary fashions, that the residuum of their belief is really worth
very little. One man has a mental reservation of exclusion in favour of
the two Books of Chronicles, or the Book of Esther, or of
Daniel.--Another, is content to eliminate from the Bible those passages
which seem to him to run counter to the decrees of physical
Science;--the History of the Six Days of Creation,--of the Flood,--of
the destruction of Sodom,--and of Joshua's address to Sun and
Moon.--Another regards it as self-evident that nothing is trustworthy
which savours supremely of the marvellous;--as the Temptation of our
first Parents,--the Manna in the Wilderness,--Balaam reproved by the
dumb ass,--and the history of Jonah.--There are others who cannot
tolerate the Miracles of the Old and the New Testament. The more timid,
explain away as much of them as they dare. What remains, troubles them.
The more logical sweep them away altogether. A miracle (they say) cannot
be true because it implies a violation of the fixed and immutable laws
of Nature.
And then,--(so strangely constituted are some men's minds,)--there are
not a few persons who, without exactly denying the inspiration of the
Bible in any of its more marvellous portions,--(for _that_ would be an
inconvenient proceeding,)--are yet content to regard much of it as a
kind of inspired myth. This is a class of ally (?) with whom one really
knows not how to deal. The man does not reason. He assumes his right to
disbelieve, and yet will not allow that he is an unbeliever. The world
is singularly indulgent toward persons of this unphilosophical,
illogical, presumptuous class.