objectors, on some subsequent occasion. But I shall be rendering the
younger men a far more important service if to-day I address my remarks
to a different class of objectors altogether: _that_ far larger body, I
mean, who without at all desiring to impugn the Inspiration of GOD'S
Oracles, yet make no secret of their belief that the Bible is full of
inaccuracies and misstatements. These men ascribe a truly liberal amount
of human infirmity to the Authors of the several Books of the
Bible;--slips of memory, misconceptions, imperfect intelligence, partial
illumination, and so forth;--and, under one or other of those heads,
include whatever they are themselves disposed to reject. The writers who
come in for the largest share of this indulgence, are the Evangelists;
because the Historians of our LORD'S life, having happily left us four
versions of the same story, and often three versions of the same
transaction, the evidence whereby _they_ may be convicted of error is in
the hands of all. Truly, mankind has not been slow to avail itself of
the opportunity. You will seldom hear a Gospel difficulty discussed,
without a quiet assumption on the part of the Reverend gentleman that
_he_ knows all about the matter in question, but that the Evangelist did
_not_. His usual method is, calmly to inform us that it is useless to
look for strict consistency in matters of minute detail; that _general
agreement_ between the four Evangelists there does exist, and _that_
ought to be enough. The inevitable inference from his manner of handling
the Gospels, is, that if his actual thoughts could find candid
expression, we should hear him address their blessed authors somewhat as
follows:--"You are four highly respectable characters, no doubt; and you
_mean_ well. But it cannot be expected that persons of your condition in
life should have described so many intricate transactions so minutely
without making blunders. I do not say it unkindly. I often make blunders
myself,--_I_, who have a "clearness of understanding," "a power of
discrimination between different kinds of Truth[359]" unknown to the
Apostolic Age!" ... Of course the preacher does not _say_ all this. He
has too keen a sense of "the dignity of the pulpit." And so he puts it
somewhat thus:--"While we are disposed to recognize substantial
agreement, and general conformity in respect of details, among the
synoptical witnesses, in their leading external outlines, we are yet
constrained to withhold our unqualified acceptance of any theory of
Inspiration which should claim for these compilers exemption from the
oscitancy, and generally from the infirmities of humanity." ... This
sounds fine, you know; and is thought an ingenious way of wrapping up
the charge which the Reverend preacher brings against the
Evangelists;--of having, in plain terms,--_made blunders_.
It will be convenient that we should narrow the ground to this single
issue: for the time is short. And in the remarks I am about to offer, I
shall not imitate the example of those preachers who dress out an easy
thought in a superfluity of inflated language, only in order that its
deformity may escape detection. Be not surprised if I speak to you this
morning in uncommonly plain English; for I am determined that the
simplest person present shall understand at least what _I_ mean. The
dignity of the Blessed Evangelists, who walked with JESUS, and whom
JESUS loved,--the dignity of that Gospel which I believe to be
penetrated through and through with the Holy Spirit of GOD,--for _that_,
I confess to a most unbounded jealousy. As for the "dignity of the
pulpit,"--I hate the very phrase! It has been made too often the shield
of impiety and the cloak of dulness.
To begin, then,--Is it, I would ask you, a reasonable anticipation that
the narrative of one inspired by GOD would prove full of
inconsistencies, misstatements, slips of memory:--or indeed, that it
should contain _any_ misstatements, _any_ inaccuracies at all? What then
is the difference between an inspired and an uninspired writing,--the
Word of GOD and the Word of Man?
The answer which I shall receive, is obvious. As a matter of fact (it is
replied) there _are_ these inaccuracies: that is, the same transaction
is described by two or more writers, and their accounts prove
inconsistent. Thus, St. Matthew begins his account of the healing of the
blind at Jericho, with the words,--"And as they were _going out_ of
Jericho:" but St. Luke, "While He was _drawing nigh_ to Jericho."--There
_are_ these slips of memory; as when St. Matthew ascribes to "Jeremy the
prophet" words which are found in the prophet Zechariah.--There _are_
these misstatements, as where the Census of the Nativity is said to
have taken place under the presidentship of Cyrenius.--And these are but
samples of a mighty class of difficulties, (it is urged:)--the two
Genealogies; the Call of the four Disciples; the healing of the
Centurion's servant; the title on the Cross; the history of the
Resurrection:--and again, "the sixteenth of Tiberius;" "the days of
Abiathar;" with many others.--Let me then briefly discuss the three
examples first cited,--which really came spontaneously. Each is the type
of a class; and the answer to one is, in reality, applicable to all the
rest. I humbly ask for your patience and attention; promising that I
will abuse neither, though I must tax both.
The great fundamental truth to be first laid down, is _this_--that the
Gospels are not _four_--but _one_. The Ancients knew this very well.
=Euangelistai men tessares,--Euangelion de hen=--says Origen[360]: "the
Gospel-_writers_ are four,--but the _Gospel_ is one." And the ancients
recorded this mighty verity four times over on the first page of the
Gospel, lest it should ever be forgotten; and there it stands to this
day:--the Gospel,--the _one_ Gospel =kata=,--_according to_--St.
Matthew,--_according to_ St. Mark,--_according to_ St. Luke,--_according
to_ St. John. Like that river which went out of Eden to water the
Garden,--it was by the HOLY GHOST "parted, and became into four
heads."--The Gospels therefore, (to call them by their common name,) are
not to be regarded as four witnesses, or rather as four culprits,
brought up on a charge of fraud. Rather are they Angelic voices singing
in sweetest harmony, but after a method of Heavenly counterpoint which
must be studied before it can be understood of Men.
And next,--There is one great principle, and one only, which needs to be
borne in mind for the effectual reconciliation of _every discrepancy_
which the four narratives present: namely, that you should approach them
in exactly the same spirit in which you approach the statement of any
man of honour of your acquaintance. Whether the Apostles of the
LAMB,--men whom we believe to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit of
the Everlasting GOD,--are not entitled to far higher respect, far higher
consideration, at our hands,--I leave _you_ to decide. As one whose joy
and crown it has been to weigh every word in the Gospel in hair-scales,
I am prepared to risk the issue. Be only as fair to the four Evangelists
as you are to one another; and I am quite confident about the result.
I appeal to the experience of every thoughtful man among you who has at
all given his mind to the subject of evidence, whether it be not the
fact,--(1st) That when two or more persons are giving true versions of
the same incident, their accounts will sometimes differ so considerably,
that it will seem at first sight as if they could not possibly be
reconciled: and yet (2ndly), That a single word of explanation, the
discovery of one minute circumstance,--perfectly natural when we hear it
stated, yet most unlikely and unlooked-for,--will often suffice to
remove the difficulty which before seemed unsurmountable; and further,
that when this has been done, the entire consistency of the several
accounts becomes apparent; while the harmony which is established is
often of the most beautiful nature. (3rdly) That when (for whatever
reason) two or more versions of the same incident are _not_ correct, no
ingenuity can ever possibly reconcile them, _as they stand_. They lean
apart in hopeless divergence. In other words, they _contradict_ one
another.
Now, these principles are fully admitted in daily life. If your friend
comes to you with ever so improbable a tale, the last thing which enters
into your mind is to disbelieve him. Is he in earnest? Yes, on his
honour. Is he sure he is not mistaken? _That_ very doubt of yours
requires an apology: but your friend says,--"I am as sure as I am of my
existence." "Give it me under your hand and seal then." Your friend
begins to suspect your sanity; but the matter being of some importance,
he complies. "It must be so then," you exclaim, "though I _cannot_
understand it.".... I only wish that men would be as fair to the
Evangelists as they are to their friends!
You are requested to observe,--for really you _must_ admit,--that _any_
possible solution of a difficulty, however _improbable_ it may seem, any
_possible_ explanation of the story of a competent witness, is enough
logically and morally to exempt that man from the imputation of an
incorrect statement. The illustration which first presents itself may
require an apology; but the dignity of the pulpit shall not outweigh the
dignity of _His_ Gospel after whose blessed Name this House is
called[361]: and I can think of nothing as apposite as what follows.
It is a conceivable case, that, hereafter, three persons of known
truthfulness should meet, in a Court of Justice at the Antipodes; where
the entire difficulty should turn on a question of time. The case is
conceivable, that the first should be heard to declare that at Oxford,
on such a day, of such a year, he had seen such an one standing before
Carfax Church while the clock _was striking one_:--that the second
should declare that he also, on the same day of the same year, had seen
the same person passing by St. Mary's, when the clock of _that_ Church
was also striking one:--that the third should stand up and assert,--"I
also saw the same person on that same day, but it was on the steps _of
the Cathedral_ I met him; and I also remember hearing the clock at that
moment strike one."--Now I can conceive that the result of such evidence
would be adverted upon in some such way as the following:--"While we are
disposed to recognize the substantial agreement, and general conformity
in respect of details, among the synoptical witnesses, in their leading
external outlines, we are yet constrained,"--and the rest of the
impertinence we had before. Whereas you and I know perfectly that the
three clocks in question were, till lately, _kept five minutes apart_: a
sufficient interval, (I beg you to observe in passing,) for the
individual in question to have been seen _by you_ walking in an easterly
direction; and _by me_ due west; and by a third person, due east again.
Highly improbable circumstances, I freely grant, every one of them; and
yet, by the hypothesis, all perfectly _true_! Meantime, it is
conceivable that Judge and jury would have the indecency openly to tax
the three men I spoke of with inexactitude in their statements: and it
is conceivable that those three honest men--(the _only_ true men, it
might be, in the Colony, after all,)--would carry to their grave the
imputation of untruth. Here and there, a generous heart would be found
to say to them,--_I_ share not in the vulgar cry against you! _I_
nothing doubt that it all fell out precisely as you assert. Either, the
clocks in Oxford went wrong that day;--or there had been some trick
played with the clocks;--any how, _I_ believe _you_, for I have evidence
that you are marvellously exact in all your little statements; and you
cannot have been mistaken in a plain matter like this. I have heard too
that you are not the ordinary men you seem.... The men make no answer.
_They_ care nothing for _your opinion_, and _my opinion_. The rashness
of mankind may astonish the Angels perhaps; but the Apostles and
Evangelists of CHRIST are already safe within the veil!
The difficulty supposed is not an imaginary one. St. John says that when
Pilate sat in judgment on the LORD of Glory, "it was about the sixth
hour[362]." But since St. Mark says that at the third hour they
crucified Him[363],--the two statements seem inconsistent. The
ancients,--(giants at interpretation, babes in criticism,)--_altered the
text_. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 300, says that he had seen it
in the very autograph of St. John[364]. A learned man of our own,
however, a hundred years ago, ascertained that, in the Patriarchate of
Ephesus, the hours were not computed after the Jewish method: but,
(strange to say,) exactly _after our own English method_[365]. And yet,
not so strange either; for the Gospel first came to us from there.--You
see at a glance that all the four mentions of time of day in St.
John[366], which used to occasion so much difficulty, become beautifully
intelligible at once.
To come then to the three samples of difficulty propounded a moment ago.
And first, for the blind men of Jericho.
I. The difficulty lies all on the surface. Listen to a plain tale.
Our SAVIOUR, attended by His Disciples and followed by a vast concourse
of persons, had reached the outskirts of Jericho. A certain blind man
was sitting by the roadside begging. He heard the noise of a passing
crowd, and inquired what it meant? He was told that Jesus of Nazareth
was passing by. He rose at once,--hastened down the main street through
which, in due time, CHRIST perforce must come; joined another blind man,
(named Bartimæus,--a well-known character, who, like himself, was
accustomed to sit and beg by the road side;) and the two companions in
suffering, having stationed themselves at the exit of Jericho, waited
till the Great Physician should appear.
The crowd begins to approach; and the two blind men implore the Son of
David to have pity on them. So importunate is their suit, that the
foremost of the passers-by rebuke them. The men grow more urgent. Our
SAVIOUR pauses, and orders that they shall be called. At this gracious
summons, both draw near; the more remarkable applicant flinging his
outer garment from him as he rises from his seat; but both, when they
appear in our SAVIOUR'S presence, making the same request. The Holy One,
touched with compassion, laid His Hands upon their eyes, and grants
their prayer: whereupon they both follow Him in the way.
Well, (you will ask,)--what then?--"What then?" I answer. _Then_ there
is no difficulty in the three accounts about which you spoke so
unbecomingly a moment ago. Assume this plain, and not at all improbable
version of the incident, to be true, and you will find that no
difficulty remains whatever. Every recorded circumstance is accounted
for, and fits in exactly with it. I wish there were time to enlarge on
some of the details, and to make some remarks on the manner of the
Evangelists in relating events: but there _is_ no time.
Besides,--without a huge copy of the Gospel open before us all, I could
not hope to make my meaning understood.
For of course you are to believe that he who would understand the Gospel
must first _study_ it. You must ascertain, by some crucial test,
confirmed by a large and careful induction, what the character of a
narrative purporting to be inspired, _is_. You have no right first to
assume exactly _what_ Inspiration shall result in, and then to deny that
there is Inspiration because you fail to discover your assumed
result[367]. That were foolish.
I shall perhaps be thought to lay myself open to the
rejoinder,--"Neither have _you_ any right to assume that Inspiration
will result in Infallibility." But the retort is without real point. I
do but assert that, just as every man of honour claims to be believed
until he has been convicted of a falsehood,--inspired Prophets,
Evangelists, and Apostles have a right to our entire confidence in the
scrupulous accuracy of every word they deliver, until it can be _shewn_
that they have once made a mistake.
If you will take the trouble to compare any of the cases,--in Genesis
for example,--where a conversation is first set down, and then reported
by one of the speakers,--you will find that it is deemed allowable to
omit or to add clauses, even when the discourse is related in the first
person[368]. Something before inserted, is withheld: or something before
withheld, is inserted. No discourse was probably ever set down, word for
word, as it was delivered. In sacred, as in profane writings, the exact
_substance_, or rather, the real _purport_, of what was spoken, very
reasonably stands for what was _actually_ spoken. The difference is
this;--that a narrative, by man abridged, _may_ convey a wrong
impression: whereas an inspired abridgement of any history soever
_cannot_ mislead.
Other characteristics of an inspired narrative,--the lesser Laws of the
Divine Harmony, as they may be called,--will be discovered by the
attentive reader. For example, that intervening circumstances are often
passed over, without any notice taken of them whatever: while yet it is
singular how often the Evangelist shews himself conscious of what he
omits by some very minute allusion to it[369]. This must suffice
however. It would require a whole sermon, a whole volume rather, to
enumerate all the features of the Evangelical method.
II. The next sample of difficulty will not occupy us long. St. Matthew
is charged with a bad memory, because he ascribes to "Jeremy the
prophet[370]" words which are said to be found in Zechariah.--Strange
that men should be heard to differ about a plain matter of fact! _I_
have never been able to find these words in Zechariah yet!... There are
words _something like them_,--but not those very words, by any
means,--in Zech. xi. 12. Why then is St. Matthew to be taxed with a bad
memory? Are there not other prophecies quoted in the New Testament not
to be found in the Old? Yes[371]. Is not the self-same prophecy
sometimes found in two different prophets,--as in Isaiah and Nahum?
Yes[372]. Are not some prophetic passages _common to Jeremiah and
Zechariah?_ Yes[373]. The Jews even had a saying that the Spirit of the
one was in the other. _Where_ then remains a pretence for supposing that
St. Matthew was troubled with a bad memory?
III. So, it is generally assumed that St. Luke made a mistake when he
said that the census of the Nativity was made when Cyrenius was
President of Syria,--because not Cyrenius but _Varus_ is known to have
been President about that time.--Now, there are three fair
conjectures,--each of which is sufficient to meet this difficulty: but
instead of developing them, I will simply remind you of a minute
circumstance in Jewish story which shews how dangerous it is to press a
general fact against a particular statement.--In the year 4 B.C.,
Matthias was undeniably the Jewish High-priest. Now, if St. Luke,
describing the events of a certain day in September, B.C. 4, had
recorded that the High-priest's name was _Joseph_, you would have
thought him guilty of a misstatement: but the error would have been all
your own,--for it has been discovered that a person bearing that name
held the office of High-priest for _one single day_,--namely, the 10th
of Tisri.... "A very unlikely circumstance!" you will exclaim. O
yes,--_a very unlikely circumstance indeed_: but, you will have the
kindness to observe that _that_ is not exactly the point in question.
Why then are difficulties of this, or of any kind, permitted in the
Gospel at all? it may be asked.--I answer,--that they may prove
instruments of probation to you and to me. The sensualist has _his_
trials; and the ambitious man, _his_. The difficulties in Holy
Scripture,--which are numerous, and diverse, and considerable,--are
admirable tests of the moral, the spiritual, the intellectual temper of
Man[374]. Experience shews moreover that some of the minutest
discrepancies of all, if they be but of a character almost hopeless, are
more potent to create perplexity in minds of a certain constitution,
than the gravest doubts which ever burthened the soul of Speculation.
I have confined myself to one class of objections, for an obvious
reason. Difficulties which arise out of the _matter_ of Scripture, as it
is emphatically embodied in quotations from the Old Testament made in
the New, must be separately considered in one or more Sermons on
_Interpretation_. I must be content to-day with repudiating, in the most
unqualified way, the notion that a mistake of _any kind whatever_ is
consistent with the texture of a narrative inspired by the Holy Spirit
of GOD. The allusion in St. Stephen's speech to "the sepulchre that
Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the son" (not
_the father_, but _the son_) "of Sychem," is a good example of confusion
apparently existing in an inspired speaker; but, in reality, only in the
writings of those who have sat in judgment upon his words[375].
To keep to the case of the Evangelists,--I appeal to your sense of
fairness, whether it be not reasonable to assume, that until those
blessed writers have been convicted of _one_ single inaccuracy of
statement, their narratives ought to be accounted faultless, like Him
whose Life they record;--like Him by whose Spirit they are inspired. I
would to Heaven that men would have the decency to suspect themselves,
and one another, rather than the Evangelists,--of mistake; or at least,
before they venture publicly to impugn the Authors of the Everlasting
Gospel, that they would be at the pains to weigh the evidence with the
care _that_ evidence deserves, but which I am _sure_ that sermon-writers
and essayists do not bestow. Let them spend the long summer days of many
a Long Vacation--from early morning until twilight,--dissecting every
syllable of the blessed pages; and then they will learn to adore instead
of to cavil. They will deem them absolutely faultless, instead of daring
to charge all their own pitiful misconceptions, and weak
misapprehensions, and miserable blunders, upon _them_.--They will be
inclined, rather, to challenge the world to establish one blot in what
they love so well; and would gladly stake all upon the issue of a
conflict before a fair tribunal,--if submission might follow upon
defeat.
As for mistakes of the paltry kind last noticed--(the days of Abiathar,
the sixteenth of Tiberius, and so forth,)--I wonder the glaring
absurdity of charging them against Evangelists, does not strike any
modest man of sane mind. To suppose that St. Matthew quoted the wrong
prophet, or that St. Luke did not know the regnal years of the reigning
Emperor; that St. Stephen confused Abraham with Jacob, and Sychem with
Hebron;--all this is really so _grossly_ absurd, that I can hardly
condescend to discuss the question. It is like maintaining that Sir
Isaac Newton, after discovering the Law of Gravitation, and calculating
the pathway of a planet, persisted in saying that two and two make five:
or that Columbus, after discovering America, despaired of finding the
way to his own door. It is simply ridiculous!--Admirable as a subject
for men to exercise their wits upon,--as instruments of _cavil_,
objections like these are about as formidable as a child's sword of
lathe in the day of battle.