professing Christians have contrived to nullify the value of their
admission that the Bible is _inspired_. Some would distinguish the
inspiration of the Historical Book from that of those which we call
Prophetical. Others profess to lay their finger on what are _the proper
subjects_ of Inspiration, and what are not. Some are for a general
superintending guidance which yet did not effectually guide; while
others represent the sacred Writers as subject, in what they delivered,
to the conditions of knowledge in the age where their lot was cast. The
view of Inspiration which Scripture itself gives us,--namely, that God
_is therein speaking by human lips_[527]; so that 'holy men of GOD'
delivered themselves as they were 'impelled,' 'borne along,' or 'lifted
up,' (=pheromenoi=) _by the HOLY GHOST_[528];--_this_ plain account of
the matter, I say, which converts 'all Scripture' into something
'_breathed into by GOD_,' (=theopneustos=,)[529]--men are singularly slow
to acknowledge. The methods which they have devised in order to escape
from so plain a revealed Truth, are 'Legion.'
Second to none of the enemies of Holy Writ, practically, are they who
deny its depth and fulness. It is only another, and a more ingenious
way, of denying the Inspiration of the Bible, to evacuate its more
mysterious statements. Those who are for eluding the secondary intention
of Prophecy, the obviously mystical teaching of Types, the allegorical
character of many a sacred Narrative,--are no less dangerous enemies of
GOD's Word than those who frame unworthy theories in order to dwarf
Inspiration to the standard of their own conceptions of its nature and
office. I say, it is only another way of denying the Inspiration of
Scripture, to deny what is sometimes called its mystical, sometimes its
typical, sometimes its allegorical sense.... And thus,--what with the
arbitrary decrees of our own unsupported opinion, or the self-sufficient
exercise of our own supposed discernment;--what with our insolent
mistrust; or our shortsighted folly and presumption; or, lastly, our
coldness and deadness of heart,--our slender appetite for Divine things,
which makes us yearn back after Earth, at the very open gate of
Heaven;--in one way or other, I repeat, we contrive to evacuate our own
admission that the Bible is an inspired Book: we fasten discredit on
its every page: we become profane men, like Esau: we despise our
birthright.
But the most subtle enemy of all remains yet to be noticed. It is he,
who,--finding the plain Word of GOD against him: finding himself refuted
in his endeavour to fix one intention only on the words of the HOLY
GHOST, and _that_ intention, the most obvious and literal one; finding
himself refuted even by the express revelation of the same HOLY GHOST,
elsewhere delivered;--bends himself straightway to resist, and explain
away, that later revelation of what was the earlier meaning. It is a
marvellous thing but so it is, that the very man who contended so
stoutly a moment ago for the literal meaning of Scripture, _now_
refuses, and denies it. Anything but _that_! If he allows that St.
Matthew, or St. Paul,--yea, or even our Blessed LORD Himself,--are to be
_literally_ understood; are severally to be taken to _mean_ what they
_say_;--then, Moses and David,--narrative, law, and psalm,--besides
their literal meaning, have, at least _sometimes_,--and they _may_ have
_always_,--a mystical meaning also. _Under_ the evident, palpable
signification of the words, there lies concealed something grander, and
deeper, and broader; high as Heaven,--deep as Hell.
And this supposition is so monstrous an one; seems so derogatory to
their notions of the mind of GOD;--it is deemed so improbable a thing,
that the words of Him, whose ways are not like Man's ways, should span
the present and the future, at a grasp;--that He whose "thoughts are
very deep," should, with language thereto corresponding, be setting
forth CHRIST and His Redemption, while He tells of Patriarchs and
Lawgivers,--Judges and Kings,--priests and prophets of the LORD:--I
say, it is deemed so incredible a thing that Moses should have written
concerning CHRIST, (though our SAVIOUR CHRIST Himself declares that
Moses did write concerning Him)[530]; or that the occasional expressions
of the Prophets should really contain the far-reaching allusions which
in the New Testament are assigned to them; that the men I speak of,--men
of learning (sometimes), and of piety too,--will condescend to every
imaginable artifice in order to escape the cogency of the Divine
statement. St. Paul--was infected with the Hebrew method of
interpretation. (It is of course _assumed_ that this method was
essentially erroneous! It is overlooked that our LORD had recourse to
it, as well as St. Paul! It is either forgotten, or denied, that the
HOLY GHOST, speaking by the mouth of St. Paul, acquiesced in every
instance of such interpretation on the part of His chosen vessel!) ...
As for St. Matthew, he addressed his Gospel to the Jews, and therefore
reasoned as a Jew would. (St. Matthew's Gospel was not of course
intended for the Christian Church! The blessed Evangelist was also
deeply learned,--it is of course reasonable to suppose,--in the sacred
hermeneutics of the Hebrew Schools!) ... The other Sacred Writers, it is
pretended, all wrote according to the prejudices of the age in which
they lived.--In all these cases, it is contended that _merely in the way
of Accommodation_, is the language of the Old Testament cited in the
New. What was said of one thing is transferred to quite another,--to
suit the purpose of the later writer; to illustrate his reasoning, to
adorn or to enforce his statements.... And this brings me to a question
of so much importance, that I pause to make a few remarks upon it. In
the present discourse, it shall suffice to remark on the doctrine of
_Scriptural_ ACCOMMODATION; for which it is presumed that the text,
(selected not without reference to the present Sacred Season,) affords
ample scope, as well as supplies a fair occasion.
Now, it is not to the _term_ "Accommodation," that we entertain any
dislike; but to the _notion_ which it seems intended to convey; and to
the _principle_ which we believe that it actually embodies. That the
HOLY SPIRIT in the New Testament sometimes accommodates to His purpose a
quotation in the Old,--is very often a mere matter of fact. In all those
places, for instance, where St. Paul inverts the clauses of a place
cited,--there is a manifest accommodation of Scripture, in the strictest
sense of the word. When two, three, or more texts, widely disconnected
in the Old Testament, are continuously exhibited in the New,--a species
of accommodation has, of course, been employed. The same may be said
when a change of construction is discoverable. Again, there is
accommodation, of course, when narrative,--legal enactment,--or
prophecy, is _so exhibited_ that the point of its hidden teaching shall
become apparent. Nay, in a certain sense of the word, there is
"accommodation," as often as a prophecy, however plain, is applied to
the historical event which it purports to foretel. The prophecy may be
said,--(with no great propriety indeed, but still, intelligibly,)--to
have been accommodated to its fulfilment.--Occasionally, a general
promise is made particular,--as in Hebrews xiii. 6; and perhaps _this_
might be called an accommodation of the text to the needs of an
individual believer. Yet is it plain that in all these cases
'_application_' or '_adaptation_' would be a better word.
But such ways of adducing Holy Scripture, we suspect, are not by any
means what is _meant_ by 'Accommodation;' and they do not certainly
correspond with the notion which the term is calculated to convey. The
place in the Old Covenant, seems, (from the term employed,) to have been
forced, against its conscience, as it were, to bear witness in behalf of
the New. It has been wrenched away from its natural bearing and
intention; and made to accommodate itself,--and, on the part of the
writer, quite arbitrarily,--to a purpose, with which it has, in reality,
no manner of connexion. This, I say, is the notion which the term
"Accommodation" seems to convey.
I am supposing, of course,--(as the opposite school is, of course,
supposing,)--_not_ an _illustration_,--which obviously _any_ writer,
whether ordinary or inspired, has a right to introduce at will; but a
case where the cogency of the argument depends entirely on the place
cited. A sudden and unforeseen requirement arose;--nothing entirely fit
and applicable occurred to the memory: but by an arbitrary handling of
the ancient Oracles of GOD,--(altogether illogical and inconclusive
indeed, yet entitled to a certain measure of respectful consideration at
our hands, and certainly having a strong claim on our indulgence,)--the
later writer saw that he should be able to substantiate his position, or
to strengthen his argument, or to prove his point. And he did not
hesitate to do so. It is surprising that his hearers or his readers
should have accepted his statements, and admitted his reasoning;--very!
But they _did_. And it is for us, the heirs of the wisdom of all the
ages, to detect the time-honoured fallacy and to expose it.--This, I
say, is the notion which the term "Accommodation" seems calculated to
convey; and it is to be feared, _does_ very often represent.
And the introduction of this principle, as already explained, I cannot
but regard as the most insidious device of all. It admits fully all that
we have elsewhere laboured to establish. It freely grants that Apostles
and Evangelists were inspired. But then, it denies that much of what
they deliver in the way of interpretation of Scripture, is to be
regarded as _real_ interpretation. By a taste for Allegory; by
Rhetorical license; on _any_ principle, it seems, _but one_, is the
Divine method to be accounted for; and the plain facts of the case to be
obscured, or explained away.
Now I _altogether reject_ this principle of arbitrary "Accommodation." I
hold it to be a mere dream and delusion. And I reject it on the
following grounds:--
1. It is evidently a mere excuse for Human ignorance,--a transparent
deceit. Men do not see how to explain, or account for, the apparent
license of the Divine method; and so they have invented this method of
escape. Most cordially do I subscribe to the opinion expressed by Bishop
Bull, in his discussion of the very text which we are now about to
consider:--"Atque, ut verum fatear, semper existimavi, allusiones istas,
(ad quas confugiunt quidam tanquam ad sacrum suæ ignorantiæ asylum,)
plerumque aliud nihil esse, quam sacræ Scripturæ abusiones
manifestas[531]."
2. The "theory of Accommodation," (as it is called,) is attended with
this fatal inconvenience,--that, (like certain other expedients which
have been invented to get over difficulties in Religion,) it altogether
fails of its object. For even if we should grant, (for argument's
sake,) that some quotations from the Old Testament _can_ be explained
on this principle,--so long as there remain others which defy it
altogether, nothing is gained by the proposed expedient. Thus, so long
as attention is directed to certain of the places in St. Paul's writings
already referred to[532], there is certainly _no absurdity_ in adducing
them as instances of Rhetorical license. But how can it be pretended
that the text whereby St. Paul establishes, (on two distinct occasions,)
the right of the Christian Ministry to a liberal maintenance,--with what
propriety can it be thought that Deut. xxv. 4 lends itself to such a
theory? Those words _seem_,--and, apart from Revelation, might without
hesitation have been declared,--to have _nothing at all to do with the
matter_[533]! To talk of the "accommodation" of words so eminently
unaccommodating, is unreasonable, and even absurd.
3. But, allowing the advocates of this theory all they can possibly
require, the result of their endeavours is but to make the Sacred
writers ridiculous after all. For it attributes to them a method, which,
if it be a _mere_ exhibition of human fancy, often seems to be but a
species of ingenious trifling,--scarcely entitled to serious attention
at our hands. There is no alternative, in short, between certain of the
expositions which we meet with, being Divine,--and therefore worthy of
all acceptation; or Human,--and therefore entitled to no absolute
deference whatever.
4. On the other hand, learned research has hitherto invariably tended to
shew that the meaning claimed for Scripture by an Apostle or
Evangelist, _does_ actually exist there. Thus, it has been admirably
demonstrated that the Evangelical meaning attributed by St. Matthew, (in
the first chapters of his Gospel,) to certain places in the ancient
Prophetical Scriptures of the Jewish people, derives nothing but
corroboration from the inquiries of Piety and Learning[534].... It is
proposed on the present occasion, without pretending to bring to the
question any such helps as these, to examine the portion of Holy
Scripture already under our notice, with a view to ascertaining what
light it will throw on the main question at issue. To this task, I now
address myself.
St. Paul's words, from the 6th to the 9th verse (inclusive) of the xth
chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, present probably, as fair an
example as could be desired of what is sometimes called "Accommodation."
To say the truth, I know not an instance of what, _in any uninspired
writing_, I should have been myself more inclined to stigmatize as such.
The Apostle begins an affectionate remonstrance with his countrymen by
declaring that they "did not understand the Righteousness of GOD;" (that
is, the Divine method whereby GOD wills that we shall be made righteous,
by faith _in CHRIST_;) but desired to set up (=stêsai=) a righteousness
of their own, on the worthless foundation of their own Works[535].
"For," (he proceeds; with plain reference to _what_ "the Righteousness
of GOD" _is_;)--"_For_ CHRIST is the end" (aim, or object,) "of the
Law[536] to every one who hath faith" in CHRIST. St. Paul straightway
proceeds, (as his manner is,) to establish this latter proposition. How
does he do it? "_For_," (he begins again,)--"Moses describes the nature
of the righteousness which proceeds from the Law, when he declares [in
Leviticus xviii. 5,] that '_The man who hath done_ the deeds commanded
by the Law, shall live thereby.'--But concerning the Righteousness which
proceeds from Faith,"--[it was called before, 'the Righteousness of
GOD,']--"Moses writes as follows[537]:--'Say not in thine heart, Who
shall ascend into Heaven? (that is, to bring CHRIST down:) or, Who shall
descend into the deep? (that is, to bring CHRIST up from the dead.) But
what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart:
that is, the word of faith, which we preach: because if thou shalt
confess with thy mouth the LORD JESUS, and shalt believe in thine heart
that GOD raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Here then is a quotation from the xxxth chapter of the Book of
Deuteronomy,--a quotation introduced in the way of argument, in support
of a proposition: the remarkable circumstance being, that St. Paul
adduces the words of Moses with extraordinary license. For first, he
omits as many of the Prophet's words as make little for his purpose,
while he introduces a very remarkable alteration in some of the words
which he retains: amounting to a substitution of one sentence for
another. And next, there is one single word, which he expands into an
important phrase; and _that_ merely to suit his own argument. But the
strangest thing of all is the interpretation which he delivers of words,
which as we have just seen, are partly his own,--partly, the words of
Moses: by which interpretation, the most strikingly _Christian_
character is fastened upon sayings pronounced by the ancient Lawgiver in
the land of Moab, to the Jewish people.--We do further, for our own
part, most freely admit, that the place,--as it stands in the Old
Testament,--neither at first, nor at second sight, seems to have any
such meaning as the Apostle assigns to it. I will remind you of the
words in Deuteronomy, by reading the entire passage:--"This commandment
which I command thee this day, ... is not hidden from thee, neither is
it far off. It is not in Heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go
up for us to Heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do
it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go
over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do
it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart,
that thou mayest do it." ... Now, I say, one of ourselves might read
this passage in the Book of Deuteronomy over a hundred times, and never
suspect that Moses, when he so wrote, was writing concerning faith in
CHRIST: and yet we have the sure testimony of the HOLY SPIRIT to the
fact that he _was_.--The inquiry, "Who shall ascend into Heaven?",
signifies, we are told, "Who shall ascend,--_to bring down CHRIST from
above_?"--And just so, the other clause, "Who shall descend into the
deep?", is declared to be an incomplete expression: the full phrase
being,--"Who shall descend,--_to bring up CHRIST[538] from the dead_."
... Now we never desire to see a non-natural sense fastened on the
Inspired Word. With Hooker, we "hold it for a most infallible rule in
expositions of sacred Scripture, that, where a literal construction will
stand, the furthest from the letter is commonly the worst." We contend
therefore that whereas we have here the explicit assurance that Moses
wrote of none other than CHRIST,--though his words do not bear upon them
any evidence of the fact,--it is a mere trifling with holy things, to
call the fact in question.
Here, however, we shall be reminded that the great Apostle,--though
professing to quote,--confessedly argues in part from _his_ own
language, which is _not_ the language of Moses. Moses says,--"Who shall
go _over the sea_ for us?" (=tis diaperasei hêmin eis to peran tês
thalassês?=) And since the version of the LXX is what the Author of the
Epistle to the Romans follows in this place, it is reasonable to expect
that he would adhere to that version, or at least to the sense of that
version, in the exhibition of so important a clause as the present.
Whereas, instead of "Who shall go _over the sea_," we find St. Paul
writing,--"Who shall _go down into the deep?_" (=Tis katabêsetai eis tên
abysson?=)--language evidently highly suggestive of the mysterious
transaction to which the same St. Paul says it contains a
reference[539]; but certainly _not_ the language of Moses. And we shall
be reminded that this is not merely phraseology rescued from vagueness,
and made definite; but it is the actual substitution of one thought for
another. This is what will be said; and if it be followed up by the
assertion that here, therefore, we have a clear example of Scriptural
Accommodation, it might seem, at first sight, impossible to deny the
fact.
For our own parts, we are inclined to meet the present difficulty, and
every similar one, in quite another spirit; and dispose of the
objection, somewhat in the following way. The same GOD who gave us the
Scriptures of the Old Testament, gave us the New Testament also. The
Bible is _one_. He who inspired the Law, inspired the Gospel. The HOLY
GHOST pleads with us in both alike.--Surely, therefore, He who spake of
old time by the Prophets, may be allowed, when, in the last days, He
speaks by the Apostles of CHRIST,--to explain His earlier meaning, if He
will. Surely, He may tell the Israel of GOD,--if He pleases,--what He
meant by the language He held of old time to Israel after the flesh!
Yea, and if it seemeth good to Him to call in the wealth of His ancient
treasury, in order to recoin it that He may the more enrich us
thereby:--if it pleases Him to take His ancient speeches back again into
His mouth, in order that He may syllable them anew,--making them sweeter
than honey to our lips, yea, sweeter than honey and the honeycomb;--what
is _Man_ that he should reply against GOD? What should be our posture,
at witnessing such a spectacle, but one of Adoration? What, our becoming
language, but praise?
It is easy to anticipate the answer that will be made to all this. We
shall be told that we are, in some sort, begging the question. The
Bible is an Inspired Book, indeed: but _what is Inspiration_?--Moses
wrote the Book called "Deuteronomy:" St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the
Romans. And St. Paul,--quoting a passage out of the older record,--has
substituted a sentiment of his own for a sentiment contained in the
writings of Moses. He does the same thing in other places; and
elsewhere, as here, he proceeds to reason upon the data he has so
obtained. _This_, it will be said, is the phenomenon which we have to
deal with.
But, we reply, it is manifest that he who so argues,--with all his
apparent good sense, and fairness,--is entirely committed to a theory
concerning Inspiration; and _that_ a very unworthy one. The Bible comes
to us as an Inspired Book; claiming to be the very Word of GOD. The Holy
Church throughout all the World, doth acknowledge it to be so. Surely,
therefore, it is for _us_ to study its contents by the light of this
previous fact.--But quite contrary is the method of our opponents. They
treat the Bible as if it were an ordinary Book. They submit its contents
to the same irreverent handling as they would the productions of a
merely human intellect. They not only reason _about_ its claims from its
contents,--but they would even pronounce _upon_ its claims, from the
same evidence. They dare to sit in judgment upon it. Hence their lax
notions on the subject of Inspiration. They first run riot among
statements which are too hard for them; and when they have perplexed
themselves with these, till the field is strewed with doubts, and the
limits of unbelief and mistrust have become extended on every
side,--Inspiration, like an ill-defined boundary-line on a map, is
suffered faintly to hem in, and enclose the utmost verge of the unhappy
domain.--Whereas, we maintain that a belief in the Bible, as an Inspired
Book, should, at the outset, prescribe a limit to human speculations.
Let this belief encircle us exactly, and entirely; and define, at once,
the area within which all our reasonings must be taught to marshal
themselves, and to find their full development. In brief, our opponents
meet our remonstrance by another; but, as we contend, an unreasonable
one;--at least, as proceeding from men who, no less than ourselves,
allow freely the Inspiration of Scripture. _We_ say,--The Bible is the
word of GOD. Fill your heart with this conviction, and then humbly
address yourself to the study of its pages.--It is argued on the other
side,--The pages of the Bible are full of perplexing statements. They
evolve strange phenomena, interminably. Convince yourself of this; and
then make up your mind, if you can, about the Inspiration of the
Bible[540].... I shall have occasion, by and by, to explain more in
detail the spirit in which the Divine Logic,--_Inspired reasoning_ as it
may be called,--is to be approached. For the moment, I am content to
waive the question; and to be St. Paul's apologist, almost as if I had
met with his words in an uninspired book.