Sciences,--Moral Science not excepted,--are the handmaids of Theological
Science: and Morality, to which we omitted before to assign an office,
we have stationed somewhere beneath the footstool, which is before the
Throne, of the Most High.--But this day's Sermon,--(and with these words
I conclude, sorry to have felt obliged to detain you so long!)--_this_
Day's Sermon has had for its object to remind you, that THE BIBLE is
none other than _the voice of Him that sitteth upon the Throne_! Every
Book of it,--every Chapter of it,--every Verse of it,--every word of
it,--every syllable of it,--(_where_ are we to _stop_?)--every letter of
it--is the direct utterance of the Most High!--=Pasa graphê theopneustos=.
"Well spake the HOLY GHOST, by the mouth of" the many blessed Men who
wrote it.--The Bible is none other than _the Word of GOD_: not some part
of it, more, some part of it, less; but all alike, the utterance of Him
who sitteth upon the Throne;--absolute,--faultless,--unerring,--supreme!
* * * * *
=Egô men oun iôta hen ê mian keraian ou pisteuô kenên einai theiôn
mathêmatôn.=
ORIGENES, Comment. in S. Matth. tom. xvi. c. 12. p. 734.
=Tauta moi eirêtai ... pros systasin tou mêden mechri syllabês argon ti
einai tôn theopneustôn rhêmatôn.=
BASILIUS, in Hex. Hom. vi. c. 11. tom. i. p. 61 c.
Scripturæ quidem perfectæ sunt, quippe a VERBO DEI, et SPIRITU ejus
dictæ.
IRENÆUS, Contr. Hær. lib. ii. c. xxviii. 2.
=Mêdemia hypenantiôsis ê atopia en tois theiois logois.=
METHODIUS, Tyrius Episcopus, ap. Routh Reliqq. t. v. p. 351.
=Esti gar en tois tôn Graphôn rhêmasin ho Kyrios.=
ATHANASIUS, ad Marcellinum.
=HOsa hê theia graphê legei, tou Pneumatos eisi tou HAgiou phônai.=
GREGORIUS NYSSEN, Contr. Eunom. Orat. vi.
Cedamus igitur et consentiamus auctoritati Sanctæ Scripturæ, quæ
nescit falli nec fallere.
AUGUSTINUS, De Peccator. Merit. lib. i. c. 22.
FOOTNOTES:
[330] Preached in Christ-Church Cathedral, 25th Nov. 1860.
[331] =Pasai hai theopneustoi graphai=,--as it is worded in the Epistle
sent by the Council of Antioch in the case of Paul of Samosata, A.D.
269. (Routh _Reliqq._ iii. 292.) See Middleton _on the Greek Article_,
(Rose's ed.) _in loc._ And so, in effect, Wordsworth and Ellicott.--It
is right to add that it has been contended that =pasa graphê= = "the
whole of Scripture." See Lee _on Inspiration_, p. 263, (note.) So
Athanasius seems to have taken it: =Pasa hê kath' hêmas graphê, palaia te
kai kainê, theopneustos esti=. (_Ep. ad Marcell._ i. 982.)
[332] That =theopneustos= is the predicate, seems sufficiently obvious.
So Athanasius, in the passage above quoted. So Gregory of Nyssa: =dia
touto pasa graphê theopneustos legetai, dia to tês theias empneuseôs=
=einai didaskalian=. (_Contr. Eunom._ Orat. VI. ii. 605.) Amphilochius,
Bishop of Iconium, quotes the place in the same way.--Basil also,
saying--=Pasa graphê theopneustos kai ôphelimos, dia touto syngrapheisa
para tou Pneumatos=, (_Hom. in Psalm._ I. i. 90,)--clearly adopts the
construction assumed in the text.--Ambrose (_De Spir. Sancto_, lib. II.
c. 16. ii. 688,) says,--"In Scriptura Divina, =theopneustos= omnis ex hoc
dicitur, quod Deus inspiret quæ locutus est Spiritus." (The above are
from Lee _on Inspiration_, which see, pp. 260, 493, 599.)--Tertullian
(quoted by Tisch.) says, "Legimus omnem Scripturam ædificationi habilem,
divinitus inspirari."--A few modern scholars have suggested that
=theopn.= may be an epithet, not a predicate. The _doctrine_ will remain
the same either way; for the meaning of the place can only be, "Every
Scripture, _being_ inspired, is also _profitable_," &c. This is Origen's
view: but his criticism is not in point, inasmuch as he read the text
differently, (omitting the =kai=.) Lee aptly compares the construction
of =pan ktisma Theou kalon, kai ouden apoblêton=. (1 Tim. iv. 4.)
[333] Thess. ii. 13.
[334] 1 Cor. ii. 13.
[335] 2 St. Pet. iii. 16,--where see Wordsworth.
[336] 1 Cor. vii. 40.
[337] 1 Cor. vii. 10.
[338] 1 Cor. vii. 6. (=Touto de legô kata syngnômên, ou kat' epitagên.=)
[339] St. Matth. xix. 6 (= St. Mark x. 9:) and the following
places,--St. Matth. v. 32: xix. 9 (= St. Mark x. 11, 12.): St. Luke xvi.
18.
[340] Montfaucon, _præf. ad Euseb. Comm. in Psalm._, cap. x. See also
Æsch. Prom. V. v. 289.
[341] St. Luke xvii. 9. So St. Mark x. 42. St. Luke viii. 18. St. John
v. 39.
[342] Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 9: Gal. ii. 9: Heb. iv. 1.
[343] =To en autois Pneuma Christou=.--1 St. Pet. i. 11.
[344] =hypo Pneumatos HAgiou pheromenoi elalêsan hoi hagioi Theou
anthrôpoi.=--2 St. Pet. i. 21. (_lit._ "impelled,"--like a ship before
the wind.)
[345] =proeipe to Pneuma to HAgion dia stomatos Dabid=.--Acts i. 16.
[346] =kathôs legei to Pneuma to HAgion=.--Heb. iii. 7.
[347] =hypo tou Theou=.--Heb. v. 10.
[348] =Dabid eipen en tô Pneumati tô HAgiô.=--St. Mark xii. 36.
[349] =ho Theos ho poiêsas ton ouranon kai tên gên kai tên thalassan kai
panta ta en autois, ho dia stomatos Dabid tou paidos sou eipôn=.--Acts
iv. 24, 25.
[350] =to Pneuma to HAgion elalêse dia Hêsaiou tou prophêtou=.--Acts
xxviii. 25.
[351] =martyrei de hêmin kai to Pneuma to HAgion=--Heb. x. 15, quoting
Jer. xxxi. 33, 34.
[352] =ho de Theos ... prokatêngeile dia stomatos pantôn tôn prophêtôn
autou pathein ton Christon=.--Acts iii. 18.
[353] =Kyrios ho Theos tou Israêl ... elalêse dia stomatos tôn hagiôn tôn
ap' aiônos prophêtôn autou=.--St. Luke i. 68, 70.
[354] =touto dêlountos tou Pneumatos tou HAgiou.=--Heb. ix. 8.
[355] =ou gar este hymeis hoi lalountes, alla to Pneuma to HAgion.=--St.
Mark xiii. 11.
[356] =ou gar hymeis este hoi lalountes, alla to Pneuma tou Patros hymôn to
laloun en hymin.=--St. Matth. x. 20.
[357] =epei dokimên zêteite tou en emoi lalountos Christou.=--2 Cor.
xiii. 3.
[358] Rev. B. Jowett, in _E. and R._,--p. 345. Yet see Acts iii. 18, 21.
[359] Dr. Temple, in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 25.
[360] _Contra Marcion_, sect. I. p. 9.
[361] See the first foot-note, p. 53. [Our 330]
[362] St. John xix. 14.
[363] St. Mark xv. 25.
[364] The passage may be seen in John Bois' _Vet. Interpretis cum Bezâ
aliisque recentioribus collatio_, (1655,) p. 333.
[365] See a Dissertation by Dr. Townson at the end of his admirable book
on the Gospels.
[366] Viz. St. John i. 39: iv. 6, 52: xix. 14.
[367] And yet, we hear it asserted that we cannot "suppose the Spirit of
absolute Truth" "to suggest accounts _only to be reconciled in the way
of hypothesis and conjecture_."--_E. and R._, p. 179.
[368] E.g. Gen. xxiv. 2-8, compared with ver. 37-41; and again, ver.
12-14, compared with ver. 42-44. Again, Gen. xlii. 10-13, compared with
ver. 31, 32: and again, ver. 14-16, compared with ver. 33, 34. Again,
Gen. xlii. 36-8, compared with xliv. 27-29, &c., &c., &c.
[369] Instances of this will be very familiar to every attentive student
of the Gospels. Thus St. Matth. xxvi. 68 implies acquaintance with a
minute circumstance which is stated in St. Luke xxii. 64:--St. Matth. x.
13 _implies_ what is _expressed_ in St. Luke x. 5, &c., &c., &c.
[370] St. Matth. xxvii. 9.
[371] E.g. St. Jude ver. 14, 15.
[372] Is. lii. 7, and Nahum i. 15.--Is. ii. 2, 3, 4, and Micah iv. 1, 2,
3.--Micah iv. 6, and Zeph. iii. 19.--Is. xi. 9, and Hab. ii. 14.--Micah
iii. 12, and Jer. xxvi. 18, &c., &c.
[373] E.g. Jer. xxiii. 5 and Zech. vi. 13.
[374] See Appendix (C).
[375] See Appendix (D).
[376] See Appendix (E).
[377] The Rev. H. Alford, Dean of Canterbury.
[378] Ezek. iii. 2, 3.
[379] Hooker, _Serm._ v. § 4. (_Works_, vol. iii. p. 663.)
[380] St. Matth. v. 5.
[381] Professor Kingsley's Sermon,--"_Why should we pray for fair
Weather?_"
[382] See at the foot of p. 53, note (a). [Our 330]
[383] Jer. iv. 19.
[384] The complaint is a very old one. See Pearson's _Minor Works_, vol.
i. pp. 429-30.
[385] It becomes necessary to explain, that on the Sunday after the
delivery of the foregoing Sermon, a Sermon was preached _directly
contravening its teaching_. Next week, it became the present writer's
duty to address the same auditory,--which will explain as much of what
follows in the present Sermon, (including something at p. 79,) as may
seem to require explanation. It was impossible to proceed with the
argument, until what had been advanced of a directly opposite tendency
had been thus disposed of.
[386] St. Luke xviii. 8.
[387] Davison's _Discourses on Prophecy_,--p. 7.
[388] _Ibid._
[389] Davison's _Discourses on Prophecy_,--p. 8.--The following passage
is from Bp. Horsley's _Primary Charge to the Clergy of Rochester_,
(1796,):--"The question in this case is not abstract,--what Reason _may
have_ the ability to do. The question is upon a matter of fact,--_what
she did_. Were these things, in point of fact, man's own discovery?--The
sacred history is explicit that they were not. And notwithstanding the
many useful lessons of Morality we find in the writings of the heathen
sages,--the many eloquent discourses upon providence, and the
immortality of the soul,--the many subtile disquisitions upon the great
questions of necessity and moral freedom, upon fate and chance,--I am
persuaded, that had it not been for the early communications of the
Creator with mankind, Man never would have raised the conceptions of his
mind to the idea of a God; he never would have dreamt of the immaterial
principle within himself; and he never would have formed any general
notions of Right and Wrong in the abstract; he would have had no
Religion, perhaps no Morality.... The prudent dispensers of the Word
will resort to Revelation for his first principles, as well as for more
mysterious truths. He will not trust to philosophy for any discoveries.
He will suffer philosophy to be nothing more than his assistant in the
study of the inspired Word. She must herself be instructed by those
lively oracles before she can be qualified to take part in the
instruction of men. To lay the foundation of Revelation upon any
previous discoveries of Reason, is in fact to make Reason the superior
teacher. It is not improbable, that Idolatry itself had its first
beginning in an early adoration of this phantom of Natural
Religion,--the idol, in later ages, of impolitic metaphysical
Divines."--_Charges_, pp. 50, 51.--Bp. Butler says the same thing, but
more briefly, in his _Analogy_, P. II., c. ii.: also P. I., c. vi.
SERMON IV.[390]
* * * * *
THE PLENARY INSPIRATION OF EVERY PART OF THE BIBLE, VINDICATED AND
EXPLAINED.--NATURE OF INSPIRATION.--THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE.
* * * * *
ST. JOHN xvii. 17.
_Thy Word is Truth._
I thankfully avail myself of the opportunity which, unexpected and
unsolicited, so soon presents itself, to proceed with the subject which
was engaging our attention when I last occupied this place.
Let me remind you of the nature of the present inquiry, and of the
progress which we have already made.
Taking Holy Scripture for our subject, and urging, as best we knew how,
its paramount claims on the daily attention of the younger men,--who at
present are our hope and ornament; to be hereafter, as we confidently
believe, our very crown and joy;--even while we held in our hands that
volume which our Fathers were content to call the volume of Inspiration,
we were constrained to recollect that its claim to be inspired has of
late years been repeatedly called in question. It has even become the
fashion to cavil at almost everything which the Bible contains. We are
grown so exceedingly wise, have made so many strange discoveries, and
have become so clear-sighted, that the more advanced among us are kindly
bent on disabusing the minds of their less gifted brethren of that most
venerable delusion of all,--(for it is coeval with Christianity,)--that
the Bible is in any special sense the Word of GOD. I do not say that
Theologians talk thus. But pretenders to Natural Science, knowing
nothing whatever of Divinity, and therefore intruding into a realm of
which they do not understand so much as the language;--together with,
(sad to relate!) men bearing a commission in the Church of CHRIST, (and
who ought therefore to be building up, where they are seeking to
destroy,)--are employing the powers which GOD has given them, in this
direction. It becomes indispensable, in consequence, that we should say
somewhat on behalf of those Oracles which have been so vigorously
impugned; and it should not seem strange if we oppose to such
destructive dogmatism, the most uncompromising severity of counter
statement.
The objections which have been raised against the Bible, although they
have been industriously gleaned from various quarters, will all be most
effectually met, I am persuaded, by getting men to acquaint themselves
with the contents of the deposit itself. And yet, inasmuch as it is the
nature of doubts, when once injected into the mind, to fester and to
spread; inasmuch also as the bold confidence of plausible assertion,
especially when recommended by men of reputation, and set off with some
ability and skill, is apt to impose on youth and inexperience;--we seem
reduced to a kind of necessity, to examine; and, as far as the limits of
a sermon will allow, to refute; the charges which have been so
industriously brought forward against the Bible.
The favourite objections of the day come partly from without,--partly
from within. The classification is not exact, but it may serve to assist
the memory. One class of objections is, in a manner, destructive,--for
it results in entire disbelief of the Bible:--the other class,
suggesting imperfections, results in a low and disparaging estimate of
its contents. When exception is taken against certain portions of Holy
Scripture, on the ground of discoveries in Physical Science,--of the
dictates of the Moral Sense,--of the supremacy of mechanical Laws,--and
the like,--we consider that the supposed difficulties come _from
without_. As much as we care to say on this class of objections has
either been already offered, or must be reserved for a subsequent
occasion[391].--When doubts are insinuated, arising out of the
subject-matter of the Bible, we consider the difficulties to proceed
_from within_. The apparent contradictions of the Evangelists, are of
this nature. Supposed errors or misstatements, come under the same head.
Very imperfectly, yet sufficiently for our immediate purpose, we have
touched upon both subjects. Those portions of the Old Testament which
savour in the highest degree of the marvellous, must be reserved for
separate consideration[392]. To-day I propose to speak of another kind
of objection; but which arises, like the others, out of the
subject-matter of the Bible. Moreover, it is the kind of difficulty
which most readily presents itself to any who listened with unwilling
ears to my last discourse. Some here present may remember my repeated
and unequivocal assertion that Holy Scripture is inspired from the Alpha
to the Omega of it;--not some parts more, some parts less, but all
equally, and all to overflowing;--that we hold it to be, not generally
inspired, but particularly; that we see not how with logical consistency
we can avoid believing the words as well as the sentences of it; the
syllables as well as the words; the letters as well as the syllables;
every "jot" and every "tittle" of it, (to use our LORD'S expression,) to
be divinely inspired:--and further, that until the contrary has been
_proved_, we shall maintain that no misapprehension or misstatement, no
error or blot of any kind, can possibly exist within its pages:--that we
hold the Bible to be as much the Word of GOD, as if GOD spoke to us
therein with human lips;--and that, as the very utterance of the HOLY
GHOST, we cannot _but_ think that it must be absolute, faultless,
unerring, supreme.
I. To this, it has been objected as follows:--
You cannot possibly mean what you say. You will not pretend to assert
that the list of the Dukes of Edom[393], is as much inspired,--inspired
in _the same sense_,--as the Gospel of St. John.--To which I make
answer, that I believe one to be just as much inspired as the other: and
before I leave off, I will endeavour to bring my hearers to the same
opinion. In the meantime, it is only fair to the objector, to hear him
out: to follow his guidance; and to see whither he would lead us. It
will be quite competent for us _then_ to retrace our steps; to point out
"a more excellent way;" and to entreat him, with all a brother's
earnestness, to reconsider the matter, and to follow _us_.
The objection may, I believe, be fairly stated as follows.--It is
unreasonable to consider any part of Holy Scripture inspired which the
author was competent to write without the aid of Inspiration. Just as
you would not multiply miracles needlessly, and ascribe to special
Divine interference results which might be otherwise accounted for, so
neither ought you to call in the aid of Inspiration where it may clearly
be dispensed with. A genealogy,--a catalogue of names, whether of places
or persons,--whatever may reasonably be suspected to have been an
extract from public Archives;--nothing of this sort need you, nor
indeed, properly speaking, _can_ you, call "inspired." More than that.
All mere narratives of ordinary transactions,--or indeed of transactions
extraordinary;--whatever, in short, a writer, having first beheld it
with his eyes, appears to have simply described with his pen, it is
unreasonable to regard as the work of Inspiration. For it is plain to
common sense,--(so at least I have heard it said,) that there is much,
both in the Old and in the New Testament, the delivery of which required
no other than the ordinary gifts of men:--actual observation, good
memory, high intellect, clearness of statement, honesty of purpose. Look
at the preface to St. Luke's Gospel. It seems only to convey that the
author of it believed himself to be bringing out a superior edition of a
narrative which had already been attempted by many. I would apply, (it
is said,) to the whole of the Old Testament the same observations which
I apply to the New. There are parts which evidently required nothing but
opportunity of experience, or research, and the ordinary qualities of a
trustworthy historian.--This then is the way the case is put. There is
no intentional irreverence on the part of the objector: no conscious
hostility to GOD'S Truth. Very much the reverse. But having once
assumed that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is not to be regarded as
an inspired document, he has logical consistency enough to perceive that
he cannot exactly stop _there_. And so, he carries his speculations a
little further. He tries to take (what he calls) a "common sense" view
of the question. He says that he thinks it a dangerous proceeding on the
part of the preacher to insist on the infallibility of Apostles and
Evangelists. Meanwhile, I suspect that he is not by any means without a
suspicion that he is on a platform beset with _far greater dangers_,
himself. He has walked a little this way, and that way; and his "common
sense" has shewn him that there is an ugly precipice on every side. Nay;
he perceives that the ground trembles, and cracks, and shakes,--and even
yawns beneath his feet.
For I request you to observe, that there is absolutely no middle state
between Inspiration and non-inspiration. If a writing be inspired, it is
Divine: if it be not inspired, it is human. It is absurd to shirk the
alternative. _Some_ parts of the Bible, it is allowed, _are_ inspired;
other parts, it is contended, are _not_. Let it be conceded then, for
the moment, that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is _not_ an inspired
writing; and let it be ejected from the Bible accordingly. We must by
strict parity of reasoning, eject the xth chapter of Genesis, which
enumerates the descendants of Japheth, of Ham, and of Shem, with the
countries which they severally occupied,--that truly venerable record
and outline of the primæval settlement of the nations! The ten
Patriarchs before, and the ten after Noah: the many enumerations
contained in the Book of Numbers: much of the two Books of Chronicles:
together with the Genealogies of our SAVIOUR as given by St. Matthew and
St. Luke.
It is clear that the history of the Flood,--very much of it at
least,--is of the same nature: a kind of calendar as it were, and record
of dates.
But we may go on faster, and use the knife far more freely. Every thing
in the Pentateuch of which Moses had been an eye or ear-witness, and
which he set down from his own personal knowledge, may be eliminated
from the Bible, as not inspired. According to the principle already
enunciated by yourself, I call upon you to excise from the Book of GOD'S
Law, Exodus, and Leviticus, and Numbers, and Deuteronomy: those passages
only excepted which are prophetical,--as the xxxiiird of Deuteronomy.
Joshua must go of course: for if the son of Nun did not write the Book
which goes under his name,--(as the wise men in Germany say, or used to
say, he did not[394],)--of course the narrative is not authentic; and if
he _did_, _you_ say that it ought not to be regarded as inspired. Judges
and Ruth cannot hope to stand; for they are mere stories,--narratives of
events which any contemporary author who enjoyed "actual observation,
good memory, high intellect, clearness of statement, and honesty of
purpose," was abundantly qualified--(according to _your_ view of the
matter)--to commit to writing. The Books of Samuel and of Kings cannot
be claimed as the work of Inspiration, of course. Chronicles we have got
rid of already. No imaginable plea can be invented for the Books of
Ezra, of Nehemiah, and of Esther; those writings having evidently
required nothing (to use your own phrase) but "opportunity of experience
or research, and the ordinary qualities of a trustworthy historian." The
prophetical books you spare; natural piety suggesting that since
"Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of GOD
spake as they were moved by the HOLY GHOST[395];"--the writings of
Isaiah and the rest, must be retained as inspired. We expunge those
portions only which are simply historical and moral; since to these, by
the hypothesis, the spirit of Inspiration cannot be thought to have
extended.
We come now to the New Testament; and two of the Gospels are found to be
mutilated already, by the elimination of one chapter of St. Matthew and
one of St. Luke. But on the principle that personal observation, a good
memory, honesty of purpose, and so forth, are the only requirements
necessary, we may proceed to carry forward the work of excision with
spirit, so that we be but careful to use discernment. For example, we
may begin with the Call of St. Matthew, and the Feast which he made to
our LORD in his own house. _Who_ so competent to relate this, as the
Evangelist himself? Whenever, in short, the Twelve were present, St.
Matthew, (as one of the Twelve,) may be assumed to have written from
personal observation; and _that_ portion of his narrative is to be
rejected accordingly as uninspired.
It is painful to anticipate what will be the fate of St. John's Gospel,
on this principle,--together with most of the Divine Discourses therein
recorded. Not, to be sure, that we shall lose the conversation with
Nicodemus, nor that with the woman of Samaria; because St. John was not
present when either of those conversations took place: but all, from the
xivth to the xviith chapter inclusive; as well as the discourse in the
vith chapter, must of course be dismissed. The matter of these
discourses, it will be urged,--(with more of logical consistency, alas!
than of essential truth,)--might have been faithfully handed down by St.
John without any extraordinary gift. He was bound to our LORD by more
than ordinary affection. He was ever nearest to Him. Is it not
conceivable, (we are asked,) that these two causes, aided by a retentive
memory, would at least _enable_ him to give us the record which he has
given?