names of the second Cainan[420], Cyrenius[421], Abiathar[422], 'Jeremy
the prophet[423];'" to "the sixth hour[424]," and so on;--no great
inconvenience truly will result. But the instant you go a step further,
the difficulty begins. Many of the quotations from the Old Testament may
be made to correspond with the Hebrew, doubtless, without sensible
inconvenience: but there are others which refuse the process. However,
let it be supposed that all such indications of imperfect memory, or
misapprehension of the sense of the Hebrew Scriptures, have been
removed; and here and there, that an irrelevant clause in the reasoning
has been lopped off, or an unscientific remark expunged.--After all this
has been done, I venture to say that the result will be the reverse of
satisfactory, even to the theorist himself. He will infallibly exclaim
secretly,--I seem to have gained wondrous little by this corrective
process. Was it worth while, in order to achieve _this_, to tamper with
the Divine Oracles? The great body of Scripture remains after all, in
all its strangeness, all its perplexing individuality. Meanwhile, piety
and wisdom modestly suggest,--Is it reasonable to think that Evangelists
and Apostles should have stumbled, like children, before dates, and
names, and quotations from their own Scriptures? Surely if _this_ be all
that can be objected against the Bible, the very slenderness of the
charge becomes its sufficient refutation!... _The erasures are so few,
in fact, that they refute the theory._
But if, on the other hand, the pen be freely used, then the result will
be fatal to the theory, _because it will be fatal to the record_. If
an 'Essayist and Reviewer' were to reduce the Gospels to consistency,
according to _his_ view of consistency, the Gospels would scarcely be
recognizable. If he were to reject from St. Paul's writings every
instance of what _he_ thinks fanciful exposition, illogical reasoning,
inexact quotation, and mistaken inference; the result would be
altogether unmanageable. For any one who attends to the matter will
perceive that such things run into the very staple of the Apostle's
argument; and therefore cannot be detached without destroying the whole.
The householder's reason for not removing the tares, ("lest while ye
gather up the tares ye root up also the wheat with them[425],") applies
exactly. If St. Paul's exposition of Melchizedek be fanciful and
untrustworthy, then does the proof of the superiority of our SAVIOUR'S
Priesthood over that of Aaron, fall to the ground. If his handling of
the story of Sarah and Hagar be an uninspired allegory, then does his
argumentation respecting the rejection of the Jews and the calling of
the Gentiles disappear. If the furniture of the Temple, and the
provisions of the Jewish ritual, were not dictated by the SPIRIT of
GOD[426], then will the Epistle wherein it is found be reduced to
proportions which make it meaningless. If Deuteronomy xxv. 4 has no
reference to the Christian Ministry, then the entire context (in two of
St. Paul's Epistles) must go at once[427].... It is useless to multiply
such instances. Any one familiar with the writings of St. Paul will know
the truth of what has been offered; and will admit that the erasures
required by the theory before us will become so numerous as to
prove,--(to a devout mind at least, or indeed to any one of sense and
candour,)--that the theory is altogether untenable.
It cannot escape observation, therefore, that however plausible this
view of Inspiration may sound, as long as some few petty historical,
chronological, and scientific inaccuracies are all that have to be
accounted for;--the theory (unhappily) proves worthless when it comes to
be practically applied; inasmuch as in the writings of St. Paul, for
example, there is little or nothing of the kind just specified, to be
condoned. Erroneous dates, unscientific statements, wrong names, and the
like, form no part of the staple of the New Testament. Such instances
may be counted on one's fingers; and are to be sufficiently explained to
render any special theory of Inspiration in order to meet them, quite a
gratuitous exercise of ingenuity.
3. On the other hand, if a wider class of phenomena is to be dealt with
by this theory, the reader is requested to observe that we involve
ourselves in a gross contradiction; for we forsake the very principle on
which it pretends to be built. The theory set out by reminding us that
"the office of the Bible is to make men wise unto Salvation,"--not to
teach physical Science, nor to deal with facts in chronology and the
like: and the plea was allowed. But the theory which was devised to
account for one class of phenomena is now most unwarrantably applied to
account for another. We have travelled into a widely different
subject-matter,--namely, _Divinity proper!_ Let it therefore be
respectfully asked,--If the Inspiration which the Apostles enjoyed did
not preserve them against unsound inferences in respect of _Holy
Scripture_; and illogical, inconclusive argumentation in _things
Divine_;--pray, of what use was it? We have not been reviewing a set of
_Geological_ mistakes on the part of the great Apostle. To Physical
Science, he has scarcely so much as a single allusion. He deals with
_Christian Doctrine_; with _Divinity_, properly so called; and _with
that only_. Pray, was not Inspiration a sufficient guide to him,
_there_?
4. It is high time also to remind the reader that although the office of
the Bible, confessedly, is "to make men wise unto Salvation," it does
not by any means follow that _that_ is its _only_ office. In other
words, we have no right to assume that we know all the possible ends for
which the Bible was designed; and to lay it down, as if it were an
ascertained fact, that it was _not_ designed to enlighten men in matters
of Chronology, History, and the like; seeing, on the one hand, that all
the evidence we are able to adduce in support of such an opinion, does
not establish so much as a faint presumption that any part of Scripture
is uninspired; and seeing that, on the other, as a plain matter of fact,
historical details constitute so large a part of the contents of the
Bible; and that the sacred volume is _the sole depository_ of the
History and Chronology of the World for by far the largest portion of
the interval since that World's Creation.
5. In passing, it may also be reasonably declared, that it is to take a
very derogatory view of the result of the HOLY SPIRIT's influence, to
suppose that imperfections and inaccuracies can freely abound,--nay, can
exist at all,--in a Revelation which the same HOLY SPIRIT is believed to
have inspired. They ought surely to be _demonstrated_ to exist, before
we are called upon to listen to the apologies which have been invented
to account for their existence!
6. Let me also advert to a dilemma which seems hardly ever to obtain
from a certain class of critics the attention it deserves. If a writing
be not inspired, _it is of no absolute authority_. If a part of a
writing be not inspired, that part is of no absolute authority. If a
single word in the text of Holy Scripture be even uncertain,--(as, for
example, whether we are to read =OS= or =THEOS= in 1 Tim. iii.
16,)--_that word becomes without absolute authority_. We cannot venture
to adduce it _in proof_ of anything. Without therefore, in the remotest
degree, desiring to discourage the application of a _true_ theory of
Inspiration to the phenomena of Holy Scripture, through fear of the
necessary consequences,--may we not call attention to the manifest
awkwardness of a theory which no one knows how to apply, and about the
application of which no two men will ever be agreed?--the issue of the
discussion being, in every case, neither more nor less than
this,--whether the portion of Scripture under consideration is Human,
and therefore _of no absolute authority_; or Divine, and therefore
_infallible_!
7. A far more important consideration remains to be offered, and with
this I shall conclude. Although, when St. Paul appears to reason
inconclusively, some of us do not hesitate to refer the Apostle's
(supposed) imperfect logic to his personal infirmity,--yet, common piety
revolts against the proposal to apply the same solution to the same
phenomenon when it is observed to occur in the Discourses of our Blessed
LORD Himself. It seems to have been providentially ordained, however,
that the discourses of CHRIST Himself should supply examples of every
one of those difficulties which it is thought lawful to account
for,--when an Apostle or an Evangelist is the speaker,--on the
hypothesis of partial, imperfect, or suspended Inspiration. Now, since
_I_, at least, shall not be permitted to be either vague or general, I
proceed to subjoin the proof of what has been thus advanced:--
=1=. The well-known difficulty about "the days of Abiathar," _is found
in one of our LORD'S discourses_[428]. Here then is a case of what, if
an Evangelist or an Apostle had been the author of the statement, would
have been called an historical inaccuracy.
=2=. However unworthy of scientific attention the Mosaic account of the
descent of Mankind from a single pair may be deemed,--the universality
of 'the Noachian Deluge,'--the destruction of the Cities of the
plain,--the fate of Lot's wife,--Jonah in the fish's belly,--and so
forth;--to all these (supposed) unscientific statements our Blessed LORD
commits Himself unequivocally[429].
=3=. When the Holy One inferred the Resurrection of the Dead from the
words spoken to Moses "in the bush[430];"--when He proved that CHRIST is
not the son of David, because "David in spirit calls Him
'LORD[431];'"--and when He shewed from a clause in the 6th verse of the
lxxxiind Psalm, ("I said ye are gods,") that it was not unlawful for
Himself to claim the title of SON of GOD[432];--I humbly think that the
argumentation is of such a nature as would not produce conviction in
captious minds cast in a modern mould[433]. I desire not to dwell
longer upon this subject; and only hope in what I have ventured to say
concerning some of the recorded sayings of Him to whose creative Power
and Goodness I am indebted for the exercise of my own reason,--I have
not written amiss. But the point of what I am urging is, that I defy any
one to bring a charge of faulty logic against passages in St. Paul's
Epistles which might not, _with the same show of reason_, be brought
against certain of our LORD's recorded sayings.
=4=. When the Chief Priests and Scribes remonstrated with our LORD
because of the children crying in the Temple; and asked Him,--"Hearest
Thou what these say?" He replied,--"Yea, have ye never read, 'Out of the
mouths of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected praise[434]?'" ...
Now, this quotation from the viiith Psalm is what an 'Essayist or
Reviewer' would have pronounced irrelevant.
=5=. It seems clear from Gen. ii. 24, that _Adam_ was the author of the
words, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother," &c. And
yet, our LORD (in St. Matth. xix. 4, 5,) as unmistakeably seems to make
GOD the Speaker. An Evangelist or an Apostle would be thought here to
have made a slip of memory.
=6=. In St. John viii. 47, the following words occur. "He that is of God
heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of
God." This passage (as already pointed out[435],) has been adduced by
one who now occupies an Archiepiscopal throne, as containing a logical
fallacy.
Many more examples might be adduced: but these will suffice. It is plain
that when the like phenomena are observed in the writings of Apostles
and Evangelists, we need not, in order to account for them, have
recourse to any theory of partial or imperfect Inspiration; since
nothing of the kind is supposed necessary when they occur in the
Discourses of our LORD.--As much as I care to offer on the subject of
_Inspired Reasoning_ will be found in the course of the Sixth of these
Sermons, where the Doctrine of 'Accommodation' is considered.
To say that the Scriptures, and the things contained in them, can
have no other or farther meaning than those persons thought or had,
who first recited or wrote them; is evidently saying, that those
persons were the original, proper, and sole Authors of those Books,
i.e. _that they are not inspired_: which is absurd, whilst the
authority of those Books is under examination; i.e. till you have
determined they are of no Divine authority at all. Till this be
determined, it must in all reason be supposed, (not indeed that
they have, for this is taking for granted that they are inspired;
but) that they may have, some farther meaning than what the
compilers saw or understood.
BISHOP BUTLER, _Analogy_, P. II. ch. vii.
As the Literal sense is, as it were, the main stream or river, so
the Moral sense chiefly, and sometimes the Allegorical or Typical,
are they whereof the Church hath most use: not that I wish men to
be bold in allegories, or indulgent or light in allusions; but that
I do much condemn that Interpretation of the Scripture _which is
only after the manner as men use to interpret a profane book_.
LORD BACON, _Advancement of Learning_.
The Book of this Law we are neither able nor worthy to open and
look into. That little thereof which we darkly apprehend, we
admire; the rest, with religious ignorance we humbly and meekly
adore.
HOOKER, _Eccl. Pol._ B. I. c. ii. § 5.
OPEN THOU MINE EYES THAT I MAY SEE THE WONDROUS THINGS OF THY LAW!
=OY LOGOS ANTHRÔPÔN, ALLA KATHÔS ESTIN ALÊTHÔS LOGOS THEOY.=
FOOTNOTES:
[390] Preached in Christ-Church Cathedral, Dec. 9th, 1860.
[391] See Sermon VII.
[392] Ibid.
[393] Gen. xxxvi.
[394] See the Hulsean Lectures for 1833, (_The Law of Moses viewed in
connexion with the History and character of the Jews, with a defence of
the Book of Joshua_, &c.) by Henry John Rose, B.D.
[395] 2 St. Peter i. 21.
[396] 1 St. Peter i. 11.
[397] "With the idea of a Prophet," (says Gesenius in his Hebrew
Lexicon, on the noun,) "there was this necessarily attached; that he
spoke not his own words, but those which he had divinely received; (see
Philo, t. iv. p. 116, ed. Pfeifferi,--=prophêtês gar idion men ouden
apophthengetai, allotria de panta hypêchountos heterou=); and that he was
the messenger of GOD, and the declarer of His will. This is clear from a
passage of peculiar authority in this matter, (Ex. vii. 1,)--where GOD
says to Moses,--'I have made thee a god to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy
brother _shall be thy prophet_.'" ... Elsewhere, (speaking of the Hebrew
verb, 'to prophesy,') Gesenius has the following remarkable
statement:--"The _passive forms_, Niphal and Hithpael, are used in this
verb; from the Divine Prophets having been _supposed to be moved rather
by another's powers than their own_." (Just as if the Oracles of GOD
were not express on the subject! viz. "No prophecy ever came by the will
of Man; but, [because they were] borne along (=pheromenoi=) by the HOLY
GHOST, spake those holy men of GOD."--2 St. Pet. i. 21.)
=Prophêtês=, in fact, means 'an interpreter' rather than 'a prophet,'
(for which, in our popular sense, the Greek is rather =mantis=:) hence
the use of the words =prophêtês, prophêteuô, prophêteia= in the New
Testament, e.g. 1 Thess. v. 20. 1 Cor. xi. 4: xii. 10. Rom. xii. 6,
(where see Wordsworth.) See also 1 Cor. xiv. 1, 3, 4, 5, &c.: in all
which places, the =prophêtês= was what we should rather now call _a
preacher_. But then, the expounding of GOD'S Word is the special
function of the preacher's office from which he takes this name.--The
reader is referred to Blomfield's Glossary, _Agam._ v. 399, and to
Liddell and Scott's _Lexicon_; (in both of which, some important
references are given:) also to Trench's _Synonyms of the New Testament_,
pp. 22-26.
[398] See above, pp. 2-5.--The reader will find an interesting passage
based on this analogy, in the Appendix (F).
[399] _Analogy_, P. II. c. vii.--The same thing has been more fully
expressed in a volume of Sermons which deserves to be far better known
than it is:--"I suppose that if there is one portion of the Old
Testament which a discriminator would set aside as less needing to be
reckoned inspired than other parts, it is the Historical; the books
which are strictly narrative. Now it may seem to have been
providentially ordered, in the purpose of meeting this view, that these
books are made to bear on them most peculiarly the stamp and the claim
of Inspiration. For they do not profess to be so much the account of
what Man did, as what GOD did in ruling men, and guiding human events.
They are a history of a providential course of events, and, (which is
the point,) as seen from the providential point of view. They are a
history written not on Earth, but above the skies. Events are spoken of
therefore in this view. A man's obduracy is recorded thus,--'GOD
hardened his heart.' A king numbers his people; it is recorded as a
thing suggested in the spiritual world. In fact, the historic volume of
the Old Testament is a history of the secret springs of things; it is a
narrative of things which none but GOD ALMIGHTY could know; not Man's
Word therefore at all, but GOD'S."--_Sermons_, by the Rev. C. P. Eden,
pp. 153-155. Several other extracts from the same suggestive volume of a
very excellent Divine, will be found in the Appendix.
[400] Eccl. iii. 14. So Deut. iv. 2: xii. 32. Rev. xxii. 19.
[401] See the Appendix (G).
[402] Hooker's _Eccl. Pol._, B. 1. c. ii. § 2
[403] See above, p. 77.
[404] _The Inspiration of the Bible, five Lectures_, by Chr. Wordsworth,
D.D. 1861,--p. 5.
[405] For some remarks on Theories of Inspiration, see the Appendix (H.)
[406] "Quicquid Ille de Suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc
scribendum illis tanquam Suis manibus imperavit."
[407] St. Matth. x. 9.
[408] E.g. =kentyriôn: spekoulatôr: xestês=.
[409] Comp. St. Luke viii. 43, with St. Mark v. 26.
[410] The reader will be grateful for a beautiful and highly suggestive
passage from Eden's _Sermons_, in the Appendix (I.)
[411] Alluding to a sermon preached by the Provost of Queen's.
[412] Ecclus. iii. 19.
[413] Ps. cxi. 10. Prov. ix. 10.
[414] Ps. cxix. 100.
[415] Ps. xix. 8.
[416] St. Mark xii. 24.
[417] Job xlii. 5.
[418] See above, p. 95-99.
[419] St. Luke iii. 1.
[420] Ibid. iii. 36.
[421] Ibid. ii. 2.
[422] St. Mark ii. 26.
[423] St. Matth. xxvii. 9.
[424] St. John xix. 14.
[425] St. Matth. xiii. 29.
[426] Heb. ix. 8.
[427] 1 Cor. ix. 9 and 1 Tim. v. 18.
[428] St. Mark ii. 26.
[429] All will be found more fully insisted upon at the beginning of the
VIIth Sermon.
[430] St. Luke xx. 37-8.
[431] St. Matth. xxii. 41-6.
[432] St. John x. 34-6.
[433] 'Essayists and Reviewers' would reply, that in the first instance,
the supposed inference has no connexion with the premisses:--that in the
second, (1) it has to be proved that the person intended in Psalm cx. is
CHRIST; and (2) it does not follow, because David calls him "lord," that
the person so spoken of is not his "son:"--that in the third instance,
'gods' is used in Psalm lxxxii. of _earthly_ rulers; whereas, when our
SAVIOUR called Himself "the SON of GOD," He claimed to be "_of one
substance with the FATHER,--GOD of GOD_."
[434] St. Matth. xxi. 16.
[435] See above, p. 4.
SERMON V.[436]
* * * * *
INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.--INSPIRED INTERPRETATION.--THE BIBLE
IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED LIKE ANY OTHER BOOK.--GOD, (NOT MAN,) THE REAL
AUTHOR OF THE BIBLE.
* * * * *
ST. MATTHEW iv. 4.
_It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every
word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God._
It is impossible to preserve exact method in Sermons like these,
uncertain in number, and delivered at irregular intervals. It shall only
be stated that, having already spoken at considerable length, of the
INSPIRATION of Holy Scripture;--not, one part more, one part less, but
every part equally inspired throughout; not general, (whatever the exact
notion may be of a book _generally_ inspired,) but particular, by which
I mean that _every word_ is none other than the utterance of the Holy
Ghost[437]: having, moreover, explained the reasonableness,--(the
logical necessity, as it seems,)--of giving such an account of the
Bible;--I propose to-day to proceed to the subject of INTERPRETATION.
Really, it has become the fashion of a School of unbelief which has
lately emerged into infamous notoriety, to deal with both these
questions in so insolent a style of dogmatism, that the preacher is
compelled to halt _in limine_; and to explain that he begs that no
offence may be taken at the account which he has just given of the
Bible; for that really he means no more than Bp. Pearson meant when he
said that "_the Scripture phrase_" is "_the Language of the HOLY
GHOST_[438]:"--that he desires to say no other thing than what _He_
said, by whose Spirit, (as St. Peter declares[439],) the prophets
prophesied;--the preacher, I say, wishes to explain that he desires to
mean no other thing than our LORD JESUS CHRIST Himself meant, when He
spoke of "_every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of GOD_."
I. INTERPRETATION, then, in the largest sense of the term, I take to
denote the discovery of the method and meaning of Holy Scripture.--I
exclude those critical labours which merely aim at establishing a
correct text.--I exclude also the learning which merely investigates the
grammatical force of single words. True, that even to translate is often
to interpret; but this results only from the imperfection of
language,--which can seldom represent the words of one idiom by the
words of another, without at the same time parting with the
associations which belong to the old words, and importing those which
are inseparable from the new.--Moreover, except occasionally, it is
presumed that the lore of the Antiquary, Geographer, and so forth, does
not aspire to the dignity of Interpretation.--To be brief,--whatever
simply puts us on a level with ordinary hearers of ancient days; does no
more than inform us what custom, locality, or date is intended by the
sacred writer; (things which once were obvious, and which _ought not_ to
be any difficulty now;)--all this, I say, seems external to the province
of Interpretation; the purpose of which is to discover _the method_ and
_the meaning_ of Holy Writ. And I find that every extant specimen of
this sacred Science is either (1) what GOD hath Himself revealed; or
(2) what the Church hath with authority delivered; or (3) what
individuals have thought themselves competent to declare.
Of these three authorities concerning the sense of Scripture, it is
evident that the last-named is entitled to least notice. So unimportant
indeed is it, as scarcely to be of any weight at all. What one
individual asserts, on his own unsupported authority, another individual
may, with as much or as little authority, deny; and _who_ is to decide?
But the authority indicated in the second place, clearly challenges very
different attention. When, for example, our own Hooker declares,
concerning the 5th verse of the iiird chapter of St. John, that "of all
the ancients _there is not one to be named_ that ever did otherwise
expound or allege this place than as implying external Baptism[440]," we
perceive at once that such consent, on the part of men in whose ears the
echoes of the Apostolic Age had not yet quite ceased to vibrate; and
who were themselves professors of that Divine Science which takes
cognizance of the subject-matter in hand:--such general consent of
Antiquity, I say, on a point of Interpretation, must evidently be held
to be decisive.