under the expurgatory process which now engages our attention, will
cease to be regarded as an inspired Book; and therefore must be at once
disconnected from the confessedly inspired portions of Holy
Scripture.--St. Paul's Epistles, you say, on the contrary, are probably
inspired, and therefore are probably to be spared.... And I really think
we need go no further. If your own handling of Holy Scripture,--your own
method, by yourself applied,--be not a _reductio ad absurdum_, I know of
nothing in the world which is.... Look only at that handful of mutilated
pages in the hands of one who is supposed to be the impersonation of
"common sense;" turn the tattered and mangled leaves over and over,
which _you_ are pleased to call the Volume of Inspiration; and get all
the comfort and help out of it you can. But be not surprised to hear
that you are exposing yourself to the ridicule of the sane part of
Mankind,--even while haply you are acting a part which makes the Angels
weep.... How much of the Bible will remain, when _Science_, (Physical,
Moral, Historical,) has further done _her_ work, I forbear now to
inquire: but I shrewdly suspect that she will leave you very little
beyond the back and the covers.
Let us not be told, (as we doubtless shall,) that the human parts of
Scripture need not be _ejected_ from the Canon because they are human:
that they may be allowed to stand with the rest, although uninspired;
and the like. About this, _we_ at least are competent judges. We are now
bent on discovering how much of Holy Scripture is _the Word of GOD_; and
we refuse, for the moment, to regard as such, and to retain, a single
passage which, being (as you say) uninspired, is simply _the word of
Man_.
II. Let me now be permitted to lay before you a somewhat different view
of the office of Inspiration. Since the illumination of Science, falsely
so called, and the process of Common Sense, would seem to have resulted
in the extinction of the deposit, I ask your patience while I try to
shew, that common sense, informed by a somewhat loftier Theological
Instinct, may give such an account of the matter as will enable us to
preserve every word of the deposit entire.
You call my attention to the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom, and tell me
that it required no supernatural aid to enable Moses to write it. How,
may I ask, do you ascertain that fact? No specimens of the documentary
evidence of the land of Seir in the days of Moses, are known now to
exist on the earth's surface. You therefore know absolutely nothing
whatever about the matter of which you speak so confidently.
But, that we may grapple with the question fairly, let us come down from
an age concerning which neither of us knows anything beyond what the
Bible teaches, to a period with which all are familiar, and to documents
of which we know at least a little. It will suit your purpose far better
that you should instance the two Genealogies of our LORD,--of which you
also say that it is impossible to maintain that they exhibit the work of
Inspiration in the same sense as when some lofty statement of Christian
doctrine comes before us. Indeed, you deny that they are inspired at
all. I, on my side, am willing to admit that it is quite possible,--even
probable,--that the first and the third Evangelist had access to extant
documents of which they respectively availed themselves, when they
recorded our LORD'S descent.
But, do you not perceive that the great underlying fallacy in all you
have been saying, is your own wholly gratuitous assumption that you are
a competent judge of what _did_,--what did _not_,--require supernatural
aid to deliver? that whatever _seems_ as if it might have been written
without Inspiration, _was_ therefore written without it?--I see so many
practical inconveniences, or rather I see such glaring absurdity,
resulting from the supposition that Inspiration goes and comes before an
authentic document, that I am constrained to think that you are
altogether mistaken in the office which you assign to Inspiration,--in
the kind of notion which you seem to entertain concerning its nature.
An Evangelist, if you please, is inspired. It becomes necessary to
introduce a genealogy. Following the Divine guidance, (the nature of
which, neither you nor I know anything at all about,) he applies in a
certain quarter, and obtains access to a certain document. Or he repairs
to a well-known repository of public archives, and out of the whole
collection he is guided to make choice of one particular writing. He
proceeds to transcribe it,--omitting names (dropping three generations
for instance,)--or inserting names (the second Cainan for example,)--or,
if you please, neither omitting nor inserting anything. The document,
(suppose,) requires no correction whatever.--Well but, this man was
inspired a moment ago, in what he was writing; and no reason has been
shewn why he should not be inspired still. He has adopted a document, by
incorporating it into his narrative. By transcribing it, he has made it
his own. I am at a loss to see that its claim to be an inspired writing,
from that moment forward, is in any respect inferior to the rest of the
narrative in which it stands.
You are requested to remember that when we call the Bible an inspired
book, we mean nothing more than that the words of it are the very
utterance of the HOLY SPIRIT;--that the Book is as much the Word of GOD
as if high Heaven were open, and we heard GOD speaking to us with human
voice. All I am contending for _now_, is, that this is at least as true
of one part of the Gospel as of another: that if it be true of anything
in the Gospel, it is at least _as_ true of the Genealogy of CHRIST. The
_subject-matter_ indeed is different; but it is a mere confusion of
thought to infer therefrom a different degree of _Inspiration_. Let me
try and make this plainer by a few familiar illustrations.
1. When the Sovereign reads a speech from the Throne, does she speak the
words of it in any _different sense_ from the words of a speech which
she has herself composed?--Nay, are words of investiture, mere words of
form and state, in any _less degree spoken_, than words of confidence,
and private friendship?
2. Again. The substance of paper and the substance of gold, are widely
different. And yet, when paper has been subjected to a certain process,
and stamped with a certain impress, there is practically _no difference
whatever_ between the value of what was, a moment ago, absolutely
worthless, and an ingot of the purest gold.
3. Consider how the case stands with a merely human author. An historian
has occasion to introduce into his narrative the descent of a House, or
the preamble of an Act, or any other lifeless thing. Does his
responsibility cease when he comes to it, and recommence immediately
afterwards? Is he not responsible just to the same extent for _that_, as
for every other part of his story?
That he did not _compose it himself_, is certain: but _neither did he
compose the sayings which he has recorded of great men_.--True also is
it that the edification to be derived from the pedigree is not so
great,--certainly, not so obvious,--as from certain of the events which
he describes. But it is nevertheless henceforth an integral part of his
history. He sought for it,--and he found it: he weighed it,--and he
approved of it: he transcribed it,--and he interwove it into his
narrative. In a word, he adopted; and by adopting, he _made it his own_.
Henceforth, it will be quoted as authentic, because it is found to have
satisfied _him_.
The utmost praise which can be accorded to any creature is, that it
thoroughly fulfils the office whereunto God sends it. A genealogy is not
intended to make men wise unto Salvation: the threats and promises of
GOD'S Law are not intended to acquaint men with the descent of David's
Son. But because _their offices_ are different, it does not follow that
_their origin_ shall not he the same! Is a shoe-latchet in any sense
less an article manufactured by Man, than a watch? Is the Archangel
Michael, burning with glory, and intent on some celestial enterprise,
with twelve legions of glittering seraphs in his train;--is such a host
as _that_, one atom more a creation of the ALMIGHTY than the handful of
yellow leaves which flutter unheeded on the blast?
None of these figures present a strict parallel; and yet, successively,
they seem to set forth different aspects of the same case, with
sufficient vividness and truth.... So bent am I on conveying to your
minds the strong sense of certainty, the clear definite view, which I
cherish for myself on this subject, that I take leave to add yet another
illustration.
4. If I commission a Servant to deliver a message,--is not the message
which he delivers _mine_? If I give him words to deliver,--are not _the
words_ which he delivers _mine_? So obvious a proposition is no matter
of opinion. You _cannot_ deny it. Nor,--(to apply the illustration to
the matter in hand,)--nor _do_ you deny it, probably, so far as
_Prophecy_, (in the popular sense of the term,) is concerned: but you
begin to doubt, it seems, when any other function of the prophetic
office is in question. "Any other function," I say; for, (as all men
ought to be aware,) a prophet,--(_nave_ in Hebrew, =prophêtês= in
Greek,)--does not, by any means, of necessity imply one who describes
_future_ events. =Pro= does not denote futurity of time, but
vicariousness of office. The =pro-phêtês= is one who speaketh =pro=, "on
behalf of," "in the person of," GOD; whether declaring things
past,--(as when Moses describes the Creation of the World, the Fall of
Man, the Patriarchal Age): things present,--(as when St. Luke, "having
had perfect understanding of all things from the very first," writes of
them "in order"): things future,--(as when David, and Isaiah, and the
rest of the goodly fellowship, "testified beforehand the sufferings of
CHRIST, and the glory that should follow[396].") This is no arbitrary
statement, but a well-known fact, which modern unbelievers and ancient
heathen writers have declared with sufficient plainness[397]. So long
then as the message which the Servant delivers is prophetic, you do not
object to the notion that it is GOD'S message; nay, that the words
spoken are GOD'S words. You begin to doubt, it seems, when a collection
of genealogies, (as the two Books of Chronicles;) or when a story like
that contained in the Book of Esther is concerned.
But what is this but very trifling, and mere childishness? The message
_may_ be mine, it seems, if it be of a lofty character: it may _not_ be
mine if it be of a homely, ordinary kind!--I send a message by my
Servant, and he delivers it faithfully: but whether it _is_ to be called
my message, or is _not_ to be called my message, is to depend entirely
on the subject-matter!... Thus, if a King, refusing to appear in person,
should issue a reprieve to prisoners under sentence of Death, a
proclamation of Peace or of War, an address to the representatives of
the constitution, (Clergy, Lords, and Commons,) in parliament
assembled,--the message would be _his_. But if, on the contrary, he were
only to send a few homely words, the expression of some wish or
intention which has nothing that seems particularly royal in it,--then,
the message would _cease_ to be his!... I protest that as I am unable to
see the reasonableness of such a method of regarding things human, so am
I at a loss to understand why men should so regard things Divine.
5. This entire matter may be usefully illustrated by having recourse to
an analogy which was established on a former occasion: namely, the
analogy between the _Written_ and the _Incarnate_ Word[398]. That our
LORD JESUS CHRIST is at once very GOD and very Man, we all fully admit;
although _the manner_ of the union of GODHEAD and Manhood in His one
Person we confess ourselves quite unable to comprehend. Even so, that
there is a human as well as a Divine element in Holy Scripture,--_who_
so blind as to overlook? _who_ so weak as to deny? And yet, to dissect
out that human element,--_who_ (but a fool) so rash as to attempt?... To
apply this to the matter before us. _Certain parts_ of Holy Scripture
you think, (for reasons to yourself best known,) are not to be looked
upon as inspired in the same sense as the rest of the volume. Just as
reasonably might you try to persuade me that our SAVIOUR was not _in the
same sense_ our SAVIOUR when He ate and drank at the Pharisees' board,
as when He cast out devils and raised the dead. Was He not equally the
Incarnate WORD at every stage of His earthly career; from the time that
He was laid in the manger, until the instant when He expired upon the
Cross? The degradation which He endured in Pilate's judgment-hall did
not affect the reality of the great truth that the GODHEAD was
indissolubly joined to the Manhood in His Person. He was not less very
GOD as well as very Man when some one spat upon Him, than at His
Transfiguration and at His Ascension into Heaven!... Why then should the
mean aspect and lowly office of certain parts of
Scripture,--(genealogical details and the narrative of what we think
ordinary occurrences,)--be supposed to disentitle those parts to the
praise of being _as fully inspired as any thing in the whole compass of
the Bible?_
I may remind you, in passing, that the narrative of Scripture, even in
its humblest, and (to all appearance) most human parts, has a perpetual
note of Divinity set upon it. The historical portions are throughout
interspersed with indications that the writer is beholding the
transactions which he records, from a Divine, (not a human,) point of
view. GOD is invariably, (sooner or later,) mentioned as the Agent; or
there is some reference made to GOD; or to GOD'S Word. As Butler
expresses it,--"The general design of Scripture ... may be said to be,
to give us an account of the world, in this one single view,--_as GOD'S
world_: by which it appears essentially distinguished from all other
books, so far as I have found, except such as are copied from it[399]."
I entreat you therefore to disabuse your minds of the very weak,--aye
and very fatal,--notion that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is
_less_, or _in any different sense_, inspired, from the rest of the
narrative in which it stands. We may not multiply miracles needlessly,
it is true; but neither may we deny the miraculous character of certain
transactions, (as the two Draughts of Fishes,) which, apart from the
recorded attendant circumstances, would not have been deemed
miraculous.--In truth, however, Holy Scripture, in one sense, is a
miracle from end to end; and if we may not multiply miracles needlessly,
certainly we are not at liberty to dismiss the recorded details of a
single miracle, as of no account.--Consider also, I entreat you, whether
it is credible that Inspiration should be a thing of such a nature, that
it comes and goes,--is here and is gone,--once and again in the course
of a single page. What? does it vanish, like lightning, when the
Evangelist's pen has to record the title on the Cross,--to re-appear the
instant afterwards?
This allusion to the title on the Cross of our Blessed LORD, variously
given by each of the four Evangelists, reminds me of the singular
perversity of mankind when this subject of Inspiration is being treated
of; and to this, I now particularly desire to invite your
attention.--When a document is simply transcribed by the Evangelist, or
may be _supposed_ to have been merely transferred to his pages, men
assert that so purely mechanical an act precludes the notion that
Inspiration has had any share in the transaction. Be it so!--Behold now,
four inspired writers exhibiting the brief title on our LORD'S Cross
with considerable verbal diversity; and you will hear the same critics
open-mouthed against the Evangelists' claim to Inspiration, for exactly
the opposite reason!--It is just so of places quoted from the Old
Testament in the New. Faithful transcription, (we are told,) is in the
power of all. What note of an inspired author have we here? But the
places are _not_ faithfully transcribed. On the contrary. They exhibit
every possible degree of deflection from the original standard. And lo,
the Apostles of CHRIST are thought not to have quite understood
Greek,--to have mistaken the sense of the Hebrew,--and to have been the
victims of a most capricious memory.--For the last time. Certain
narrative portions of Holy Scripture, (it is assumed,) could have been
written without the aid of Inspiration; and therefore it is
unphilosophical, (we are told,) to assign to them a divine original. But
the marvellous parts of Holy Scripture, which seem to claim a loftier
original than man's unaided wit,--_these_ you view with suspicion, or
you deny!... "Whereunto shall I liken the men of this generation?"
Before dismissing the subject, I must ask you to observe, that this
arbitrary, irreverent method of approaching Holy Scripture, is
absolutely fatal; and can result in nothing but general unbelief. It
confessedly leaves the individual reader to decide what parts of the
Bible he thinks could, what parts could not, have been written without
Divine assistance;--a point on which I am bold to say that he is not
competent even to form an opinion. In other words, it constitutes every
man the judge of how much of the Bible he will retain,--how much he will
reject. To put the case yet more plainly, it makes every man a GOD to
himself, and the maker of his own Bible.--For, mark you, the exceptions
taken against a genealogy, or a catalogue of names, are just as
applicable to the account of our LORD'S Discourses as given by St. John.
Once convince me that the function of Inspiration ceases when a
genealogy has to be set down,--because (say you) it requires no
Inspiration to enable an Evangelist to copy _written_ words;--and I
shall have no difficulty in convincing myself that St. John's Gospel,
from the xivth to the xviith chapters inclusive, is not
inspired,--because I cannot _but_ infer that then neither can it require
Inspiration to enable an Evangelist to copy _spoken_ words.--The
original fallacy, I repeat,--the =prôton pseudos=,--consists in your
supposing yourself a competent judge of the nature and office of
Inspiration; concerning which, in reality, you know nothing. You can but
reverently examine the phenomena of the Book of Inspiration; remembering
that you have everything to learn.
The Bible, it cannot be too often repeated, too clearly borne in
mind,--the Bible must stand or fall,--or rather, be received or
rejected,--_as a whole_. A Divinity hath over-ruled it, that those many
Books of which it is composed should come to be spoken of collectively
as if they were one Book. As it was formerly called =hê graphê=--"the
Scripture,"--so is it happily called "the Bible"--(the Book)--_now_.
"Moses--the Prophets--and the Psalms," was the recognized analysis of
the volume of the Old Testament. The Gospels, the Epistles, and the
Apocalypse, exhibits the sum of the contents of the New.--There is no
disjoining the Law from the Gospel. There is no disconnecting one Book
from its fellows. There is no eliminating one chapter from the rest.
There is no taking exception against one set of passages, or supposing
that Inspiration has anywhere forgotten her office, or discharged it
imperfectly. All the Books of the Bible must stand or fall together.
"Nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it[400]." It is a
fabric hard as adamant; and the gates of Hell will assuredly never
prevail against it. But remove in thought a single stone; and in
thought, that goodly work of Lawgivers and Judges--Kings and
Prophets--Evangelists and Apostles,--collapses into a shapeless and
unmeaning ruin[401].
Nor may it occasion perplexity, or breed mistrust in any thoughtful mind
to find this Book of GOD'S Law so complex in its character,--so various
in its contents,--so fruitful in its difficulties. Might it not, on the
contrary, have been expected beforehand, that some analogy would have
been recognizable between the general complexion of GOD'S Works and of
GOD'S Word? While I behold the creatures of GOD so various,--their
functions so marvellous,--their nature so little understood,--the very
purpose of their creation so great a mystery;--shall I think it strange
that _that_ Book which is but another expression of GOD'S Mind and Will,
proves diverse in texture, and difficult of interpretation?--Shall I
grow rebellious against the message, because the history of it is hid in
the long night of ages; say rather, in the counsels of GOD'S inscrutable
will? or shall I be incredulous that it comes from Heaven, because I see
the fingers of a Man's hand writing upon the plaister of the wall? or
shall I despise those parts of it of which I cannot detect the medicinal
value? As there are riddles in Nature, so are there riddles in Grace.
Anomalies too, it may be, are discoverable in both worlds.--Give me
leave to add, that as the microscope reveals unsuspected wonders in the
one, so does minute examination bring to light undreamed of perfections
in the other also; unimagined proofs of divine wisdom, and skill.... But
beyond all things, there is perhaps this further thing which it behoves
us to consider:--that the field of either is very vast; the
subject-matter very complex: and as, in one, many Professors are
needed,--(for the Animal kingdom and the Vegetable kingdom are realms
apart: the analysis of substances, and the structure of the Earth demand
the undivided attention of different minds;)--so does it fare with the
other also. The languages of Scripture are in themselves a mighty study;
and the collation of the Text is the portion of a long life. The Law of
Moses would abundantly engross the time of one who should undertake to
explain its depths; as the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST would assuredly fill
to overflowing the soul of another who should desire to appreciate its
perfections. The Prophetic writings are a distinct field of labour. The
same may well be said of the Epistles of St. Paul. It would be easy to
multiply departments--; for I have said nothing yet of Sacred History;
and above all, of Sacred Exegesis. But enough has been stated to
introduce the remark that considering how slenderly one man is able to
labour in all these various provinces, it behoves each one of us to be
humble; and certainly to be a vast deal more mistrustful of ourselves
than some of us unhappily seem to be; especially when the errand on
which we propose to come abroad is the assailing of the authenticity, or
the morality, or the integrity, or the Inspiration, of any part of the
Bible. Our own amazing ignorance,--our many infirmities,--our faculties
limited on every side,--might well keep us humble in the presence of
Him whose knowledge is infinite;--whose attributes are all
perfections;--whose very Name is ALMIGHTY!--Shall we, on the contrary,
presume to sit in judgment upon His Word, which claims to be none other
than the authentic record of His Providence,--the Revelation of His very
mind and will?... Truly, in this behalf, beyond all others, we seem to
stand in need of the solemn warning: "Dangerous it were for the feeble
brain of Man to wade far into the doings of the Most High: whom although
to know be life, and joy to make mention of His Name; yet our soundest
knowledge is to know that we know Him not as indeed He is, neither can
know Him. And our safest eloquence concerning Him is our silence, when
we confess without confession that His glory is inexplicable; His
greatness above our capacity and reach. He is above, and we upon earth:
therefore it behoveth our words to be wary and few[402]."