Chapter X: Appendix: A Bishop Horsley on the double sense of Prophecy 257 (6)

It will of course be asked,--Then does Mr. Jowett take no notice at all of this vast and complicated problem? How does he treat of the relation between the Old Testament and the New?... He despatches the entire subject in the following passage:--"The question," (he says,) "runs up into a more general one, 'the relation between the Old and New Testaments.' For the Old Testament _will receive a different meaning accordingly as it is explained from itself, or from the New_." (Very different certainly!) "In the first case,--a careful and conscientious study of each one for itself is all that is required." (That is to say, it will not be explained at all!) "In the second case,--_the types and ceremonies of the Law, perhaps the very facts and persons of the history_, WILL BE ASSUMED (!) to be predestined or made after a pattern corresponding to the things that were to be in the latter days." (p. 370.) (And why not "_will be found_ to be replete with Christian meaning,--full of lofty spiritual significancy?"--the _proved_ marvellousness of their texture, the _revealed_ mysteriousness of their purpose, being an effectual refutation of all Mr. Jowett's _à priori_ notions!)

"And this question," (he proceeds,) "stirs up another question respecting the Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Is such Interpretation to be regarded as the meaning of the original text, or _an accommodation of it to the thoughts of other times_?" (Nay, but Reverend and learned Sir: "nothing so plain," as you justly observe, "that it may not be explained away;" (p. 359;) yet we cannot consent to have the sense of plain words thus clouded over at your mere bidding. It is now _our_ turn to declare that the Interpreter's "object is to read Scripture _like any other book_, with a real interest and not merely a conventional one." It is now _we_ who "want to be able to open our eyes, and see things as they truly are." (p. 338.) We simply petition for leave to "_interpret Scripture like any other book, by the same rules of evidence and the same canons of criticism_." (p. 375.) And if this freedom be but conceded to us, there will be found to be no imaginable reason why the Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New,--(CHRIST Himself being the Majestic Speaker! our present edification and everlasting welfare being His gracious purpose!)--should not be strictly "regarded as _the meaning of the original text_." ... But let us hear the Professor out:--)

"Our object," (he says, and with this he dismisses the problem!)--"Our object is not to attempt here the determination of these questions; but to point out that they must be determined before any real progress can be made, or any agreement arrived at in the Interpretation of Scripture." (p. 370.) ... They must indeed. But can it be right in this slovenly, slippery style to shirk a discussion on the issue of which the whole question may be said to turn? especially on the part of one who scruples not to prejudge that issue, and straightway to apply it, (in a manner fatal to the Truth,) throughout all his hundred pages. Mr. Jowett's method is ever to _assume_ what he ought to _prove_, and then either to be plaintive, or to sneer. "It is a _heathenish or Rabbinical fancy_:"--"Such complexity would place the Scriptures _below human compositions_ in general; for it would deprive them of the ordinary intelligibleness of human language" (p. 382):--&c.

"Is the Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New to be regarded as the _meaning of the original text_; or an _accommodation of it to the thoughts of other times_?" (p. 370.) This is Mr. Jowett's question; the question which it is "_not his object_ to attempt to determine;" but which I, on the contrary, have made it _my_ object to discuss in my VIth Sermon,--p. 183 to p. 220. Without troubling the reader however now to wade through those many pages, let me at least explain to him in a few words what Mr. Jowett's question really amounts to: namely this,--Do the Apostles and Evangelists, does our Blessed LORD Himself, when He professes to explain the mysterious significancy of the Old Testament,--_invariably,--in every instance,--misrepresent "the meaning of the original text_?" And the answer to this question I am content to await from any candid person of plain unsophisticated understanding. Is it credible, concerning the Divine expositions found in St. Matth. xxii. 31, 32,--xxii. 43-5,--xii. 39, 40,--xi. 10,--St. John viii. 17,18,--i. 52,--vi. 31, &c,--x. 34-5:--the Apostolic interpretations found in 1 Cor. ix. 9-11,--x. 1-6,--xv. 20,--Heb. ii. 5-9,--vii. 1-10,--Gal. iv. 21-31:--is it conceivable, I ask, that _not one_ of all these places should exhibit the actual '_meaning of the original text_?' And yet, (as Mr. Jowett himself is forced to admit,)--"If we attribute to the details of the Mosaical ritual a reference to the New Testament, or suppose the passage of the Red Sea to be regarded not merely as a figure of Baptism, but as a preordained type;--_the principle is conceded_!" (p. 369.) "A little more or a little less of the method does not make the difference." (_Ibid._) In a word,--in such case, Mr. Jowett's Essay falls to the ground!... To proceed however.

$3.$ The case of Interpretation has not yet been fully set before the reader. Hitherto, we have merely traced the problem back to the fountain-head, and dealt with it simply as _a Scriptural question_. We have shewn what light is thrown upon _Interpretation_ by the volume of _Inspiration_. The subject has been treated in the same way in the Vth and VIth of my Sermons. But it will not be improper, in this place,--it is even indispensable,--to develope the problem a little more fully; and to explain that it is of much larger extent.

Now, there is a family resemblance in the method of all ancient expositions of Holy Scripture which vindicates for them, however remotely, a common origin. There is a resemblance in the general way of handling the Inspired Word which can only be satisfactorily explained by supposing that the remote type of all was the oral teaching of the Apostles themselves. In truth, is it credible that the early Christians would have been so forgetful of the discourses of the men who had seen the LORD, that no trace of it,--no tradition of so much as _the manner_ of it,--should have lingered on for a hundred years after the death of the last of the Apostles; down to the time when Origen, for example, was a young man?... It cannot possibly be!

(i.) "The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses," (writes the great Apostle to his son Timothy,) "the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also[192]." Provision is thus made by the aged Saint,--_in the last of his Epistles_,--for the transmission of his inspired teaching[193] to a second and a third generation. Now the words just quoted were written about the year 65, at which time Timothy was a young man. Unless we suppose that ALMIGHTY GOD curtailed the lives of the chief depositaries of His Word, Timothy will have lived on till A.D. 100; so that "faithful men" who died in the middle of the next century might have been trained and taught by him for many years. It follows, that the "faithful men" last spoken of will have been "able to teach others also," whose writings (if they wrote at all) would range from A.D. 190 to A.D. 210. Now, just such a writer is Hippolytus,--who is known to have been taught by that "faithful man" Irenæus[194],--to whom, as it happens, the deposit was "committed" by Polycarp,--who stood to St. John in the self-same relation as Timothy to St. Paul!

(ii.) Our SAVIOUR is repeatedly declared to have interpreted the Old Testament to His Disciples. For instance, to the two going to Emmaus, "beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, _He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself_[195]." Moreover, before He left the world, He solemnly promised His Apostles that the HOLY GHOST, whom the FATHER should send in His Name, "should _teach them all things_, and _bring to their remembrance all things which He had spoken to them_[196]." Shall we believe that the Treasury of _Divine Inspiration_ thus opened by CHRIST Himself was straightway closed up by its human guardians, and at once forgotten? Shall we not rather believe that Cleopas and his companion, (for instance,) forthwith repeated their LORD'S words to every member of the Apostolic body, and to others also; that they were questioned again and again by adoring listeners, even to their extremest age; aye, and that they taxed their memories to the utmost in order to recal every little word, every particular of our SAVIOUR'S Divine utterance? It must be so! And the echo, the remote echo of that exposition, depend upon it! descended to a second, aye and to a third generation; yea, and has come down, faintly, and feebly it may be, but yet essentially and truly, even to ourselves!

(iii.) And yet,--(for we would not willingly incur the charge of being fanciful in so solemn and important a matter,)--the great fact to be borne in mind, (and it is the great fact which nothing can ever set aside or weaken,) is, that for the first century at least of our æra, there existed within the Christian Church _the gift of Prophecy_; that is, of _Inspired Interpretation_[197]. The minds of the Apostles, CHRIST Himself "opened, _to understand the Scriptures_[198]." Can it be any matter of surprise that men so enlightened, when they had been miraculously endowed with the gift of tongues[199], and scattered over the face of the ancient civilized World, should have disseminated the same principles of Catholic Interpretation, as well as the same elements of Saving Truth? When this miraculous _gift_ ceased, its _results_ did not also come to an end. The fountain dried up, but the streams which it had sent forth yet "made glad the City of GOD." And by what possible logic can the teaching of the early Church be severed from its source? It cannot be supposed for an instant that such a severance ever took place. The teaching of the Apostolic age was the immediate parent of the teaching of the earliest of the Fathers,--in whose Schools it is matter of history that those Patristic writers with whom we are most familiar, studied and became famous. Accordingly, we discover a method of Interpreting Holy Scripture strictly resembling that employed by our SAVIOUR and His Apostles, _in all the earliest Patristic writings_. As documents increase, the evidence is multiplied; and at the end of two or three centuries after the death of St. John the Evangelist, voices are heard from Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine; from Antioch and from other parts of Syria; from the Eastern and the Western extremities of North Africa; from many regions of Asia Minor; from Constantinople and from Greece; from Rome, from Milan, and from other parts of Italy; from Cyprus and from Gaul;--all singing in unison; all singing the same heavenly song!... In what way but one is so extraordinary a phenomenon to be accounted for? Are we to believe that there was a general conspiracy of the East and the West, the North and the South, to interpret Holy Scripture in a certain way; and that way, the wrong way?

Enough has been said, it is thought, to shew that many of Mr. Jowett's remarks about the value of Patristic evidence are either futile or incorrect; or that they betray an entire misapprehension of the whole question, not to say a thorough want of appreciation of the claims of Antiquity. We do not yield to the 'Essayist and Reviewer' in veneration for the Inspired page; and trust that enough has been said to shew it. Our eye, when we read Scripture, (like his,) "is fixed on the form of One like the Son of Man; or of the Prophet who was girded with a garment of camel's hair; or of the Apostle who had a thorn in the flesh." (p. 338.) We are only unlike Mr. Jowett we fear in _this_,--that _we_ believe _ex animo_ that the first-named was the Eternal SON, "equal to the FATHER," and "of one substance with the FATHER[200]:" and further that St. Paul's fourteen Epistles are all _inspired writings_, in an entirely different sense from the Dialogues of Plato or the Tragedies of Sophocles. It follows, that however riveted our mental gaze may be on the awful forms which come before us in Holy Scripture,--as often as we con _the inspired record of the actions and of the sayings of those men_, we are constrained many a time to look upward, and to exclaim with the Psalmist, "Thy thoughts are very deep[201]!" And often if asked, "Understandest thou what thou readest?"--we must still answer with the Ethiopian, "How can I, except some man should guide me[202]?"

(iv.) To assume however that our defective knowledge "cannot be supplied by the _conjectures_ of Fathers or Divines," (p. 338,) is in some sort to beg the question at issue. To say of the student of Scripture that "the history of Christendom, and all the afterthoughts of Theology, _are nothing to him_:" (p. 338:) that "he has to imagine himself a disciple of CHRIST or Paul, and _to disengage himself from all that follows_:" (_Ibid._:) is not the language of modesty, but of inordinate conceit. In Mr. Jowett it is in fact something infinitely worse; for he shews that his object thereby is to "obtain an unembarrassed opportunity of applying all the resources of a so-called criticism to discredit and destroy the written record itself[203]."

"True indeed it is, that more than any other subject of human knowledge, Biblical criticism has hung (_sic._) to the past;" (p. 340;) but the reason is also obvious. It is because, in the words of great Bishop Pearson, "Philosophia quotidie _progressu_, Theologia nisi _regressu_ non crescit[204]." "O ye who are devoting yourselves to the Divine Science of Theology," (he exclaims,) "and whose cheeks grow pale over the study of Holy Scripture above all; ye who either fill the venerable office of the Priesthood or intend it, and are hereafter to undertake the awful cure of souls:--rid yourselves of that itch of the present age, the love of novelty. Make it your business to inquire for that which was from the beginning. Resort for counsel to the fountain-head. Have recourse to Antiquity. Return to the holy Fathers. Look back to the primitive Church. In the words of the Prophet,--'_Ask for the old paths_[205].'"

When therefore Mr. Jowett classes together "the early Fathers, the Roman Catholic mystical writers, the Swiss and German Reformers, and the Nonconformist Divines," (p. 377,)--he either shews a most lamentable want of intellectual perspective, or a most perverse understanding. So jumbled into one confused heap, it may not be altogether untrue to say of Commentators generally, that "the words of Scripture suggest to them _their own thoughts or feelings_." (p. 377.) But when it is straightway added, "There is nothing in such a view derogatory to _the Saints and Doctors of former ages_," (_Ibid._,) we are constrained, (for the reasons already before the reader,) to remonstrate against so misleading and deceitful a way of putting the case. Mr. Jowett desires to be understood not to depreciate "the genius or learning of famous men of old," when he remarks "that _Aquinas or Bernard did not shake themselves free from the mystical method of the Patristic times_." (_Ibid._) But with singular obtuseness, or with pitiful disingenuousness, he does his best by such words to shut out from view the real question at issue,--namely, _the exegetical value of Patristic Antiquity_. For the Church of England, when she appeals, (as she repeatedly does,) to "the Ancient Fathers," does not by any means intend such names as the Abbot of Clairvaux, who flourished in the middle of the twelfth century; or Thomas of Aquinum, who lived later into the thirteenth. It is the spirit of _the ante-Nicene age_ which she defers to; the Fathers of _the first four or five centuries_ to whose opinion she gives reverent attention; as her formularies abundantly shew. Whether therefore Aquinas and Bernard were or were not able to "shake themselves free from the mystical method _of the Patristic times_," matters very little. The point to be observed is that _the Writers of the Patristic times_, as a matter of fact, "did not shake themselves _free from the mystical method of" CHRIST and His Apostles_!

Very far am I from denying that "any one who, instead of burying himself in the pages of the commentators, would learn the Sacred Writings by heart, and paraphrase them in English, will probably make a nearer approach to their true meaning than he would gather from any Commentary." Quite certain is it that "the true use of Interpretation is to get rid of interpretation, and leave us alone in company with the author." (p. 384.) But this is quite a distinct and different matter, as every person of unsophisticated understanding must perceive at once. The same thing will be found stated by myself, in a subsequent part of the present volume, at considerable length[206]; the qualifying condition having been introduced at p. 16. The truth is, a man can no more divest himself of the conditions of thought habitual to one familiar with his Prayer-Book, than he can withdraw himself from the atmosphere of light in which he moves. _Not_ the abuse of Commentators on Holy Scripture, but _the principle on which Holy Scripture itself is to be interpreted_,--is the real question at issue: the fundamental question which underlies this, being of course the vital one,--namely, _Is the Bible an inspired book, or not_?

Apart from what has been already urged concerning "the torrent of _Patristic_ Interpretation[207]" which flows down not so much from the fountain-head of Scripture, (wherein so many specimens of _Inspired_ Interpretation are preserved,) as from the fontal source of all Wisdom and Knowledge,--even the lips of the Incarnate WORD Himself;--apart from this, a very important Historical circumstance calls for notice in this place.

How did Christianity originate? how did it first establish a footing in the world? "The answer is, By the preaching of living men, who said they were commissioned by GOD to proclaim it. _That_ was the origin and first establishment of Christianity. There is indeed a vague and unreasoning notion prevalent that Christianity was _taken from the New Testament_. The notion is historically untrue. Christianity was widely extended through the civilized world before the New Testament was written; and its several books were successively addressed to various bodies of Christian believers; to bodies, that is, who already possessed the faith of CHRIST in its integrity. When, indeed, GOD ceased to inspire persons to write these books, and when they were all collected together into what we call the New Testament, the existing Faith of the Church, derived from oral teaching, was tested by comparison with this Inspired Record. And it henceforth became the standing law of the Church that nothing should be received as necessary to Salvation, which could not stand that test. But still, though thus tested, (every article being proved by the New Testament,) Christianity is not taken from it; _for it existed before it_.

"What, then, was the Christianity which was thus established? Have we any record of it as it existed before the New Testament became the sole authoritative standard? I answer, we have. The Creeds of the Christian Church are the record of it. That is precisely what they purport to be: not documents taken from the New Testament, but documents transmitting to us the Faith as it was held from the beginning; the Faith as it was preached by inspired men, before the inspired men put forth any writings; the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints. Accordingly you will find that our Church in her viiith Article does not ground her affirmation that the Creeds ought to be 'thoroughly received and believed,' on the fact that they _were taken_ from the New Testament, (which they were _not_;) but on the fact that '_they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture_.'"

It follows therefore from what has been said, that even if bad men could succeed in destroying the authority of the Bible as the Word of GOD, all could not be up with Christianity. There would _still_ remain to be dealt with the Faith as it exists in the world; the Faith held from the beginning; the Faith once delivered to the Saints. None of the assaults on Holy Scripture can touch _that_; for it traces itself to an independent origin. The evil work, therefore, would have to be begun all over again. The special doctrines which are impugned in 'Essays and Reviews' do not stand or fall with the Inspiration or Interpretation of Scripture; but are stereotyped in the Faith of Christendom. "The Fall of Man, Original Sin, the Atonement, the Divinity of CHRIST, the Trinity, all have their place in the Faith held from the beginning. They are imbedded in the Creeds, and in that general scheme of Doctrine which circles round the Creeds, and is involved in them. Nay, curiously enough,--or rather I should say providentially,--the very point against which the attacks of this book are principally directed, namely the Inspiration of the Old Testament, is in express terms asserted there:--_the_ HOLY GHOST '_spake by the Prophets_[208].'"

It remains to shew the bearing of these remarks on Mr. Jowett's Essay.--With infinite perseverance, he dwells upon "the nude Scripture, the merest letter of the Sacred Volume, as if in it and in it alone, resided the entire Revelation of CHRIST, and all possible means of judging what that Revelation consists of: whereas this is very far indeed from being the case. Every single Book of the New Testament was written, as we have seen, to persons _already in possession of Christian Truth_. It is quite erroneous therefore, historically and notoriously erroneous, to suppose either that the Divine Institution of the Church, or that its Doctrines, were literally founded upon the written words of Holy Scripture; or that they can impart no illustration nor help in the Interpretation of those written words.... The complete possession of the saving Truth belonged to the Christian Church not by degrees, nor in lapse of time, but from the first. Of that saving truth, thus taught and thus possessed, _the Apostles' Creed_, growing up as it did on every side of Christendom as the faithful record of the uniform oral teaching of the Apostles, is the true and precious historical monument[209]; and I venture to say that if any person claims to reject the Apostles' Creed as an auxiliary, a great and invaluable auxiliary, in interpreting the writings of the Apostles, he shews himself to be very wanting indeed in appreciation of the comparative value of Historical Evidence, and of the true principles of Historical Philosophy.--And not the Apostles' Creed only; but the whole history and tradition of the universal Church,--needing, no doubt, skill and discretion in its application,--supply, when applied with requisite skill and discretion, very valuable and real aid in interpreting Holy Scripture[210]."

When therefore Mr. Jowett speaks contemptuously of "the attempt to adapt the truths of Scripture to the doctrines of the Creeds," (p. 353,) the kindest thing which can be said is that he writes like an ignorant, or at least an unlearned man. "The Creeds" (he says) "are acknowledged to be a part of Christianity.... Yet it does not follow that they should be pressed into the service of the Interpreter." Why not? we ask. "The _growth of ideas_," (he replies,) "in the interval which separated the first century from the fourth or sixth makes it _impossible_ to apply the language of the one to the explanation of the other. Between Scripture and the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds, _a world of the understanding comes in_; and mankind are no longer at the same point as when the whole of Christianity was contained in the words 'Believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and thou mayest be saved;' when the Gospel centred in the attachment to a living and recently departed friend and Lord." (p. 353.)

But there is a fallacy or a falsity at every step of this argument. For _when_ did the Gospel ever "centre in attachment?" or _when_ was "the whole of Christianity contained" in one short sentence? Supposing too that "a world of the understanding" _does_ come in between the first century and the sixth; how does it follow that it is "impossible" to apply the language of the Creeds to the interpretation of Holy Scripture? Explain to me how that "world of understanding" affects _the Nicene_ Creed? Even in the case of that most precious Creed called the Athanasian,--why need we _assume_ that "the growth of ideas" has been a spurious growth? What if it should prove, on the contrary, that the development has been that of the plant from the seed[211]? Above all, why talk of "the fourth _or sixth_ century,"--as if the Creeds were not essentially much older; nay, _co-eval with Christianity itself_?... Such writing shews nothing so much as a confused mind,--a weak, ill-informed, and illogical thinker.

Indeed Mr. Jowett seems to be altogether in the dark on the subject of the Creeds: for he speaks of them as "the result of three or four centuries of reflection and controversy," (p. 353,)--which is by no means true of all of them; nor, except in a certain sense, of any. But when he inquires,--"If the occurrence of the phraseology of the Nicene age in a verse of the Epistles would detect the spuriousness of the verse in which it was found,--how can the Nicene _or Athanasian Creed_ be a suitable instrument for the interpretation of Scripture?" (p. 354.)--he simply asks a fool's question. The cases are not only not parallel, but there is not even any analogy between them. Let us hear him a little further:--

"Absorbed as St. Paul was in the person of Christ, ... he does not speak of Him as 'equal to the Father,' or 'of one substance with the Father[212].' Much of the language of the Epistles, (passages for example such as Romans i. 2: Philippians ii. 6,) would lose their meaning if distributed in alternate clauses between our LORD'S Humanity and Divinity[213]. Still greater difficulties would be introduced into the Gospels by the attempt to identify them with the Creeds[214]. We should have to suppose that He was and was not tempted[215]; that when He prayed to His Father He prayed also to Himself[216]; that He knew and did not know 'of that hour' of which He as well as the angels were ignorant[217]. How could He have said 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' or 'Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from Me.' How could He have doubted whether 'when the Son of Man cometh He shall find faith upon the earth[218]?' These simple and touching words," (p. 355,)--pah!

Now if what precedes means anything at all,--(I am by no means certain however that it does!)--it means that the writer does not believe in the Divinity of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. Unless the sentence which is without a reference to the foot of the page be not a denial of the fundamental Doctrine of the Faith[219],--I do not understand it. But look at _all_ which precedes; and then say if those are the remarks of a man entitled to dogmatize "On the Interpretation of Scripture." ... If Mr. Jowett really means that the Creeds _cannot be reconciled with the Bible_,--how can he himself subscribe to the VIIIth Article? If he means nothing of the kind,--why does he write in such a weak, cloudy, illogical way?

But the whole of the case has not even yet been stated. Down from the remote period of which we have been hitherto speaking,--the age of primitive Creeds, and oecumenical Councils, and ancient Fathers,--in every country of the civilized world to which the Gospel has spread,--the loftiest Intellect, the profoundest Learning, the sincerest Piety, have invariably endorsed the ancient and original method of interpretation. I am not implying that such corroboration was in any sense _required_; but the circumstance that it has been _obtained_, at least deserves attention. Modes of thought are dependent on times and countries. There is a fashion in all things. Great advances in Science,--grand epochs in civilization,--vicissitudes of opinion,--difference of institutions, national traditions, and the like,--might be supposed to have wrought a permanent change even in this department of Sacred Science. But it is not so. The storm has raged from one quarter or other of the heavens, but has ever spent its violence in vain. Still has the Church Catholic retained her own unbroken tradition. To keep to the history of that Church to which we, by GOD'S mercy, belong:--The constant appeal, at the time of our own great Reformation, was to the Fathers of the first four centuries. Ever since, the temper and spirit of our Commentators has been to revert to the same standard, to reproduce the same teaching. The most powerful minds and the most holy spirits,--English Divines of the deepest thought and largest reading,--let me add, of the soundest judgment and severest discrimination,--have, in every age, down to the present, gratefully accepted not only the method, but even the very details of primitive Patristic Interpretation. But "the acceptance of a hundred generations and the growing authority arising from it,"--like "the institutions based upon such ancient writings, and the history into which they have entwined themselves indissolubly for many centuries,"--all conspire to "constitute a perpetually increasing and strengthening[220]" body of evidence on the subject of Sacred Interpretation.

Now, to oppose to the learning, and piety, and wisdom, of every age of the English Church,--to the unbroken testimony of the Church Universal,--(3) to the torrent of Patristic Antiquity,--(4) the decision of early Councils, and (5) the 'still small voice' of primitive Creeds,--yet more, (6) to the constant practice of the Apostles,--and, above all, (7) to the indisputable method of our Divine LORD Himself;--to oppose to all this mighty accumulation of evidence, the simple _à priori_ convictions of--Mr. Jowett! savours so strongly of the ridiculous, that it really seems superfluous to linger over the antithesis for a single moment.

$4.$ Our task might now be looked upon as completed.--It only remains, in justice to the gentleman whose method we have been considering, to ascertain by what considerations he is induced to reject that method of Interpretation which, as we have seen, enjoys such overwhelming sanction.

(i) In opposition to what goes before, then, he throws out a suggestion, that "nothing would be more likely to restore a natural feeling on this subject than a History of the Interpretation of Scripture. It would take us back to the beginning; it would present in one view the causes which have darkened the meaning of words in the course of ages." (p. 338-9.) "Such a work would enable us to separate the elements of Doctrine and Tradition with which the meaning of Scripture is encumbered in our own day." (p. 339.)

Let us here be well understood with our author. The advantage of a good "History of Interpretation" would indeed be incalculably great. But Mr. Jowett, (like most other writers of his class,) _assumes_ the point he has to _prove_, when he insinuates that the result of such a contribution to our Theological Literature would be to shew that all the world has been in error for 1700 years, and that he alone is right. That 'erring fancy' has _often_ been at work in the fields of sacred criticism,--_who_ ever doubted? That there have been epochs of Interpretation,--different Schools,--and varying tastes, in the long course of so many centuries of mingled light and darkness, learning and barbarism;--what need to declare? A faithful history of Interpretation would of course establish these facts on a sure foundation.

But the Reverend Author forgets his Logic when he goes on from these undoubted generalities to imply that all has been confusion and utter uncertainty until now. Above all, common regard for the facts of the case ought to have preserved him from putting forth so monstrous a falsehood as the following:--"_Among German Commentators_ there is for the first time in the history of the world, an approach to agreement and certainty." (p. 340.)

Let us however,--passing by the many crooked remarks and unsound inferences with which the Reverend writer, (_more suo_,) delights to perplex a plain question[221],--invite him to abide by the test which he himself proposes. For 1700 years, (he says,) the Interpretation of Scripture has been obscured and encumbered by successive Schools of Interpretation. The Interpreter's concern (he says) is _with the Bible itself_. "The simple words of that book he tries to preserve absolutely pure from the refinements of later times.... The greater part of his learning is a knowledge of the text itself." [He is evidently the very man who _sweeps the house to discover the pearl of great price_. (p. 414.)] "He has no delight in the voluminous literature which has overgrown it. He has no theory of Interpretation. A few rules guarding against common errors are enough for him.... He wants to be able to open his eyes, and see or imagine things as they truly are." (p. 338.) [How crooked by the way is all this! "He has no _theory_ of Interpretation[222]?" Why, no; for the best of all reasons. He _denies Inspiration altogether!_ His "theory" is that _the Bible is an uninspired Book!_ ... How peculiar too, and how plaintive is the "want" of the supposed Interpreter, "_to he able to open his eyes_;"--glued up, as they no doubt are, by the superstitious tendencies of the nineteenth century, and the tyranny of an intolerant age!]

But we may perhaps state the matter more intelligibly and simply, thus:--In order to ascertain the _true_ principle of Scriptural Interpretation, let us,--divesting ourselves of the complicated and voluminous lore of 1700 years,--_resort to the Bible itself_. Let us go for our views to the fountain-head; and abide by what we shall discover _there_.

A fairer proposal (as I think) never was made. It exactly describes the method which I have humbly endeavoured myself to pursue in the ensuing Sermons. The inquiry will be found elaborated from p. 141 to p. 160 of the present volume; and the result is to be read on the last-named page, in the following words:--"that it may be regarded as a fundamental rule, that the Bible _is not to be interpreted like a common book_. This I gather infallibly from the plain fact, that _the inspired writers themselves_ habitually interpret it _as no other book either is, or can be interpreted_.--Next, I assert without fear of contradiction that inspired Interpretation, whatever varieties of method it may exhibit, is yet uniform and unequivocal in this one result; namely, that it proves Holy Scripture to be of far deeper significancy than at first sight appears. By no imaginable artifice of Rhetoric or sophistry of evasion,--by no possible vehemence of denial or plausibility of counter assertion,--can it be rendered probable that Scripture has invariably one only meaning; and _that_ meaning, the most obvious and easy."

Now, the reader is requested to observe that what precedes is _the direct contradictory_ of the position which Mr. Jowett has written his Essay in order to establish. And thus we keep for ever coming back to his =prôton pseudos=,--the fundamental falsity which underlies the whole of what he has written.

(ii) But although we have eagerly resorted to Scripture itself in order to ascertain _on what principle_ Scripture ought to be interpreted, we cannot for a moment allow some of the sophistries with which the Reverend Author has encumbered the question, to escape without castigation. He may not first court an appeal to the School of Apostolical Interpretation; and then, before the result of that appeal has been ascertained, go off in praise of the illumination of the present age; and claim to represent the Theological mind of Europe in his own person. "Educated persons," (he has the impertinence to assert,) "are _beginning to ask_ (!), not what Scripture may be _made_ to mean, but what it _does_. And it is no exaggeration to say that he who in the present state of knowledge will confine himself to _the plain meaning of words_, and the study of their context, may know more of the original spirit and intention of the authors of the New Testament _than all the controversial writers of former ages put together_." (pp. 340-1.) This might be tolerated perhaps, in the self-constituted oracle of a Mechanics' Institute; but as proceeding from a Divinity Lecturer in one of the first Colleges in Oxford, I hesitate not to declare that such an opinion is simply disgraceful.

Very much of a piece with this, in point of flippancy,--(though barely consistent with his frequent assertions that the entire subject is hemmed in by grave difficulties,)--are the Regius Professor of Greek's remarks on the value of learning as a help to the Interpretation of Holy Writ. "_Learning obscures_ as well as illustrates." (p. 337.)--"There seem to be reasons for doubting whether any _considerable light_ can be thrown on the New Testament from inquiry into _the language_." (p. 393.)--"Minute corrections of tenses or particles are _no good_." (p. 393.)--"Discussions respecting the chronology of St. Paul's life and his second imprisonment; or about the identity of James, the brother of the LORD; or, in another department, _respecting the use of the Greek article,--have gone far beyond the line of utility_." (p. 393.) "The minuteness of the study of Greek in our own day has also a tendency _to introduce into the text associations_ which are not really found there." (p. 391.)--Lastly, he complains of "the error of interpreting every particle, as though it were a link in the argument; instead of being, as is often the case, _an excrescence of style_." (p. 391.)

So then, in brief, the Fathers are in a conspiracy to mislead: Creeds and Councils encumber the sense: Modern Commentators are not to be trusted: the comparison of Scripture with Scripture, except it be "of the same age and the same authors," "will tend rather to confuse than to elucidate:" (p. 383:) "Learning obscures," and an accurate appreciation of the meaning of the text is "no good!"--"When the _meaning of Greek words_ is once known[223], the young student has almost _all the real materials which are possessed by the greatest Biblical scholar_, in the book itself." (p. 384.) In a word, (as Dr. Moberly has had the manliness to remark,)--"It simply comes to this: A little Greek, (not too much,) and a strong self-relying imagination, and you may interpret Holy Scripture as well as--Mr. Jowett!" (p. lxii.) ... Benighted himself, the unhappy author of this Essay is so apprehensive lest a ray of light from Heaven shall break in upon one of his disciples,--even sideways, as it were, from the margin of the Bible,--that he carefully prohibits "the indiscriminate use of parallel passages" as "useless and uncritical." ... Yet may one not _with discrimination_ refer to the margin?--Better not! "No good!" (p. 393.) replies the Oracle. "Even the critical use of parallel passages is _not without danger_." (p. 383.) ... O shame! And all this from a College Tutor and Lecturer on Divinity! _this_ from one entrusted with the care of educating young men! _this_ from a Regius Professor of Greek[224]!

Mr. Jowett congratulates himself that "Biblical criticism has made two great steps onward,--at the time of the Reformation, and _in our own day_." But his notion is amply refuted by the known facts of the case: for when he adds,--"The diffusion of a critical spirit in History and Literature is affecting the criticism of the Bible in our own day in a manner not unlike the burst of intellectual life in the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries;" (p. 340;) he clearly requires to be reminded that the success of the Divinity of the Reformation was owing to the grand appeal then made to _the Patristic writings_.

So far then as any of ourselves are resorting to _those_ sources of information, there may be a faint resemblance _in kind_ between the spirit which animates us, and that which wrought so nobly in the Fathers of our spiritual freedom,--Cranmer and Ridley and the other learned and holy men who revised our Offices. But if "_German_ Commentators" and _their_ method be supposed to be the ideals to which the age is tending, _then_ the Theology of the middle of the nineteenth century stands in marked _contrast_ to what prevailed in the middle of the sixteenth; and our spirit is _the very reverse of theirs_.--But I hasten on.

(iii) "The uncertainty which prevails in the Interpretation of Scripture," Mr. Jowett proposes to get rid of,--(this is in fact the aim of his entire Essay,) by denying that there are in Scripture any deeper meanings to interpret. In the meantime, by every device in his power, he seeks from _à priori_ considerations, (as we have seen,) to shew that no such meanings can exist. We allow ourselves to be biassed, to a singular extent, he says, "by certain previous suppositions with which we come to the perusal of Scripture." (p. 342.) _But_ for this, "no one would interpret Scripture as many do." (_Ibid._) Let us ascertain then what these erroneous "suppositions" are.

(=1=) "The failure of a prophecy is never admitted, in spite of Scripture and of history, (Jer. xxxvi. 30. Isaiah xxiii. Amos vii. 10-17.)" (p. 343.)

Now this can only mean two things: viz. first, that a Divine Prophecy is _not_ an infallible utterance: and secondly, that the three places quoted from the Old Testament are _proofs_ of the fallibility of Prophecy; proofs which ought to overcome prejudice, and persuade men to renounce their "previous supposition" that Prophecy is _in_fallible.

Certainly the charge is a grave one. For if _Prophecy_ is untrue, then what becomes of Inspiration?

And yet, how stands the case? The writer seems to have expected "that no one would refer to the passages that he has bracketed, or that all would be too ignorant to know the utter groundlessness of his assumption. If there are, in the whole Scripture, two past prophecies which were signally and remarkably fulfilled, they are the first two which he has selected as instances to be dropped down, without a remark, of the failure of Scripture prophecies! And as to the third passage, surely it implies an 'incuria' which might be deemed 'crassa' to have asserted that it contained an instance of the non-fulfilment of Prophecy: for it implies that Mr. Jowett has read the verses to which he refers with so little attention as not to have discovered that the prediction which failed of its fulfilment was _no utterance of Amos_, but was _the message of Amaziah, the priest of Bethel_, in which he falsely attributes to Amos _words he had not spoken_!... Surely such slips as these are as discreditable to a scholar as a Divine[225]!"

And this, from a gentleman who has the impertinence to remind us oracularly, that "he who would understand the nature of Prophecy in the Old Testament, should have _the courage to examine how far its details were minutely fulfilled_!" (p. 347.) Are we then to infer that Mr. Jowett's courage failed him when he came to Amos vii. 10-17?

(=2=) "The mention of a name later than the supposed age of the prophet is not allowed, as in other writings, to be taken in evidence of the date. (Isaiah xlv. 1.)" (p. 343.)

But what is the meaning of this complaint when applied to Isaiah's well known prophecy concerning Cyrus? In the words of the excellent critic last quoted,--"We know not that we could point to such an instance as this in the writings of any other author of credit. Of course, Mr. Jowett knows as well as we do the distinction between History and Prophecy; and that the mention in any document of the name of one who was unborn at the time fixed as the date of the writing, would be at once a complete _disproof_ of its accuracy as a history of the past, and a _proof_ of its accuracy as a prediction of the future. Of course he also remembers that the point he has _to prove_ is that this passage is History and not Prediction; and his mode of proving is this; _he assumes that it is a history of the past_,--advancing as a charge against the believers of Revelation, that they do not, (as they would in any other History,) reject the genuineness of the passage because it embalms a future name in a past history!... This audacious, (for we cannot use a weaker word,) _assumption_ of what he has _to prove_, pervades his Essay[226]."

And thus, into whatever department of speculation we follow this writer, the tortuous path is still found to conduct us back to the same underlying fallacious _assumption_,--viz. that _the Bible is like any other Book_; in other words, is _not inspired_.

(=3=) Persons in Mr. Jowett's position, "find themselves met by a _sort of presupposition that 'GOD speaks not as Man speaks_.'"--(p. 343.)

"A sort of presupposition," indeed!... Does the Reverend gentleman really expect that we will stoop so low as argue _this_ point also with him? It shall suffice to have branded him with his own words.

"The suspicion of Deism, or perhaps of Atheism, awaits inquiry. By such fears, a good man (!) refuses to be influenced: a philosophical mind (!) is apt to cast them aside with too much bitterness. It is better to close the book, than to read it under conditions of thought which are imposed from without." (p. 343.)

Well surely, the proximity to Balliol College of the scene of Cranmer and Ridley's martyrdom, must have turned the brain of the Regius Professor of Greek!--Let him be well assured however that not rational "Inquiry," but irrational _assumption_; not the modest cogitations of "a philosophical mind," but the _arrogant dreams of a weak and confused intellect_, are what have excited such general indignation of late, among "good men," from one end of the Kingdom to the other. Nor could anything probably of equal pretensions be readily appealed to, which is nevertheless more truly unphilosophical, fallacious, and foolish, than the Essay now under consideration.

(iv) Subsequently, (p. 344,) Mr. Jowett professes to grapple with the phenomenon of Inspiration. His method is instructive. He begins by inadvertently advancing a direct untruth: for he asserts that for none "of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration is there _any foundation_ in the Gospels or Epistles." (p. 345.)--Had he then forgotten St. Paul's statements in Gal. i. 1, 11-17: ii. 2, 7-9. 1 Cor. xv. 3. Ephes. iii. 3, &c., &c.? But I have established the contradictory of the Professor's position in the ensuing Sermons, p. 53 to p. 57, to which the reader must be referred.--This done, he proceeds to assert that,

(=1=) Inspiration does not preserve a writer from inaccuracy. And the charge is substantiated by the following ridiculous enumeration:--"One [Evangelist] supposes the original dwelling-place of our LORD'S Parents to have been Bethlehem[227], another Nazareth[228]." (This from a Lecturer on Divinity! Does Mr. Jowett then suppose that his readers have never opened the Gospels, and do not know better? Why, _both_ his statements are simply _false!_)--"They trace His genealogy in different ways." (Yes. In two. And why not _in twenty?_ Is Mr. Jowett not aware that a genealogy may be differently traced through different ancestors?)--"One mentions the thieves blaspheming: another has preserved to after ages the record of the penitent thief:" (And why should he not?)--"They appear to differ about the day and hour of the Crucifixion." (Yes, _they appear_ to differ: but _they do not differ_!)--"The narrative of the woman who anointed our LORD'S feet with ointment is told in all four, each narrative having more or less considerable variations." (There is no conceivable reason why this should _not_ have been as Mr. Jowett relates; but, as a matter of fact, we have here another of this Gentleman's private _blunders_,--shewing what an uncritical reader he must be, of that book concerning which he presumes to dogmatize so freely.)--"These are a few instances of the differences which arose in the traditions of the earliest ages respecting the history of our LORD." (Nay, but this is to beg the whole question!)--"He who wishes to investigate the character of the sacred writings _should not be afraid_ to make a catalogue of them all, with the view of estimating their cumulative weight." (p. 346.) (Truly, it would be well for Mr. Jowett if he had as little to fear from such "investigations" as the Evangelists!)

"In the same way, he who would understand the nature of Prophecy in the Old Testament, should have the courage to examine how far its details were minutely fulfilled. _The absence of such a fulfilment_ may further lead him to discover that he took the letter for the spirit in expecting it." (p. 347.) But really this is again simply to beg the whole question. Unbecoming in any writer, how absurd also is such a sentence from the pen of one who, (as we have lately seen,) no sooner descends to particulars than he makes himself ridiculous by betraying his own excessive ignorance.... "The letter for the spirit," also! which is one of the 'cant' expressions of Mr. Jowett and his accomplices in 'free handling,'--based evidently on a misconception of the meaning of 2 Cor. iii. 6. The contrast recurs at pp. 36, 357, 375, 425, &c., &c.

(=2=) Still bent on shewing that Inspiration does not secure Scripture from blots and blemishes, Mr. Jowett proceeds as follows. (I must present him to the reader, for a short space, _in extenso_; since by no other expedient can the complicated fallacies of his very intricate and perverse method be exposed.)