Chapter XIV: Appendix: A Bishop Horsley on the double sense of Prophecy 257 (10)

You are never to forget the great fundamental position, that the Bible claims to be the Word of GOD; and that _GOD'S Word can never contradict or be contradicted by GOD'S works_. We therefore reject, _in limine_, all insinuations about the "unscientific" character of the Bible. A scientific man does not cease to be scientific because he does not choose always to express himself scientifically. Again. A man of universal Science does not forfeit his scientific reputation, if, in the course of a _moral_ or _religious_ argument, his allusions to _natural_ phenomena are expressed in the ordinary language of mankind. Even so, Almighty God, "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge[307],"--speaking to us by the mouth of His holy Prophets, never, that I am aware, teaches them to speak a strictly scientific language,--_except when the Science of Theology is being discoursed of_. On other occasions, He suffers their language to be like yours or mine. "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon[308]:"--"The clouds drop down the dew[309]:"--"The wind bloweth where it listeth[310]."--Not so when _Theology_ is the subject. _Then_ the language becomes scientific. "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of GOD[311]:"--"Take, eat, This is My Body[312]:"--"Before Abraham was, I am[313]:"--"I and the FATHER are One[314]."

But there is this great difference between the cases supposed. A man of universal scientific attainment will be less strong in one subject than another: and in the course of his _Geological_ allusions, if _Mechanical_ Science be his forte,--in the course of his _Metaphysical_ allusions, if _Mathematical_ Science be his proper department,--he may easily err. Above all, the limits of the knowledge of unassisted Man must infallibly be those of the age in which he lives. But, with the Ancient of Days, it is not so. _He_ at least _cannot_ err. Nothing that man has ever discovered by laborious induction was not known to Him from the beginning: nothing that _He_ hath ever commissioned His servants to deliver, will be found inconsistent with the anterior facts of History. "He that _made_ the eye, shall _He_ not see[315]?" The records of Creation then _cannot_ be incorrect. The course of Man's history _must_ be that which, speaking by the mouth of His Prophets, GOD hath described.

"I never said the contrary," is the reply. "All I say is that you interpret the records of Creation wrongly: and that you are disposed to lay greater stress on the historical accuracy of the Bible than the narrative will bear."

O but, sir, whoever you may be who censure me thus, let me in all kindness warn you of the pit, at the very edge whereof you stand!

Far be it from such an one as the preacher to assume that he so apprehends the First Chapter of Genesis, that if an Angel were to turn interpreter, he might not convince me of more than one misapprehension in matters of detail. But of this, at least, I am _quite_ certain; that when I find it recorded that GOD took counsel about Man's Creation: and made him in "His own image," and "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," whereby man became "a living soul:" and further, when I find it stated that Adam bestowed names upon all creatures: and spake oracularly of his spouse:--I am _certain_, I say, when I read such things, that GOD intended me to believe that Man was created with a Godlike understanding, and with the perfect fruition of the primæval speech. Further, I boldly assert that he who could prove the contradictory, would make the Bible, even as a Theological Book, nothing worth, to you and me.

The same must be said of the Bible chronology. And here I will adopt the words of one who is justly entitled to be listened to in this place; and who must at least be allowed to be a competent judge of the matter, for he made Chronology his province. Mr. Clinton says:--"Those who imagine themselves at liberty to enlarge the time [which elapsed from the Creation to the Deluge, and from the Deluge to the Birth of Abraham,] to an indefinite amount,--mistake the nature of the question. The uncertainty here is not an uncertainty arising from want of testimony: (like that which occurs in the early chronology of Greece, and of many other countries; when the times are uncertain because no evidence is preserved.) ... The uncertainty here is of a peculiar character, belonging to this particular case. The evidence exists, but in a double form; and we have to decide which is the authentic and genuine copy. But if the one is rejected, the other is established:" the difference between the two being exactly 1,250 years.--Men are free to _reject_ the evidence, to be sure; but we defy them to _explain it away_. The chronological details of the Bible are as emphatically set down as anything can be; and,--(with the exception of a few particulars, chiefly in the Book of Kings, which are to the record what misprints are to a printed book,)--they are entirely consistent; and hang perfectly well together. Let us not be told, then, that we entertain groundless apprehensions for the authority of GOD'S Word when we hear it proposed to refer the Creation of Man to a period of unheard-of antiquity. Destroy my confidence in the Bible as an historical record, and you destroy my confidence in it altogether; for by far the largest part of the Bible _is_ an historical record. If the Creation of Man,--the longevity of the Patriarchs,--the account of the Deluge;--if _these_ be not true histories, what is to be said of the lives of Abraham, of Jacob, of Joseph, of Moses, of Joshua, of David,--of our _Saviour Christ_ Himself?

But there is a scornful spirit abroad which is not content to allegorize the earlier pages of the Bible,--to scoff at the story of the Flood, to reject the outlines of Scripture Chronology;--but which would dispute the most emphatic details of Revelation itself. Consistent, this method is, at all events. Let it have the miserable praise which is so richly its due. To logical consistency, it may at least lay claim. It refuses to stop anywhere: as why should it stop? Faith is denied her office, because Reason fails to see the reasonableness of Faith: and accordingly, unbelief enters in with a flood-tide. Miracles, for example, are now to be classed, (we learn,) among "the difficulties" of Christianity[316]. It was to have been expected. (_Who_ foresees not what must be the fate of such "difficulties" as these?) And will you tell me that you may reject the miraculous transactions recorded in the Old and New Testaments, and yet retain the narrative which contains them? That were indeed absurd! Will you then reject one miracle and retain another? Impossible! You can make no reservation, even in favour of the Incarnation of our LORD,--the most adorable of all miracles, as it is the very keystone of our Christian hope. Either, with the best and wisest of all ages, you must believe _the whole_ of Holy Scripture; or, with the narrow-minded infidel, you must _dis_believe the whole. There is no middle course open to you.

Do we then undervalue the discoveries of Natural Science; or view with jealousy the progress she has of late been making? GOD forbid! With unfeigned joy we welcome her honest triumphs, as so many fresh evidences of the wisdom, the power, the goodness of GOD. "Thou, LORD, hast made me glad through Thy works[317]!" The very guesses of Geology are precious. What are they but noble endeavours to unfold a page anterior to the first page of the Bible; or rather, to discover what secrets are locked up in the first verse of it? But when, instead of being a faithful Servant, Natural Science affects the airs of an imperious Mistress,--what can she hope to incur at the hands of Theology, but displeasure and contempt? She forgets her proper place, and overlooks her lawful function. She prates about the laws of Nature in the presence of Him who, when He created the Universe, invented those very laws, and impressed them on His irrational creatures.--Does it never humble her to reflect that it was but yesterday she detected the fundamental Law of Gravitation? Does she never blush with shame to consider that for well nigh six thousand years men have been inquisitively walking this Earth's surface; and yet, that, one hundred years ago, the provident notions concerning fossil remains, and the Earth's structure, were such as now-a-days would be pronounced incredibly ridiculous and absurd?

To conclude. The very phraseology with which men have presumed to approach this entire question, is insolent and unphilosophical. The popular phraseology of the day, I say, hardly covers, so as to conceal, a lie. We constantly find SCIENCE and THEOLOGY opposed to one another: just as if Theology were _not_ a Science! History forsooth, with all her inaccuracy of observation, is a Science: and Geology, with all her weak guesses, is a Science: and comparative Anatomy, with nothing but her laborious inductions to boast of, is a Science: but Theology,--which is based on the express revelation of the Eternal,--is some other thing! What do you mean to tell us that Theology is, but the very queen of Sciences? Would Aristotle have bestowed on Ethic the epithet =architektonikê=, think you, had he known of that =theios logos=, which his friend,--"not blind by choice, but destined not to see[318],"--felt after yet found not? that "more excellent way," which you and I, by GOD'S great mercy, possess? Go to! For popular purposes, if you will, let the word "Science" stand for the knowledge of the phenomena of Nature; somewhat as, in this place, the word stands for the theory of Morals, and some of the phenomena of Mind: and so, let Science be contrasted with THEOLOGY, without offence taken, because none is intended. But let it never be forgotten that Theology is _the_ great Science of all,--the only Science which really deserves the name. What have other sciences to boast of which Theology has not? Antiquity,--such as no other can, in any sense, lay claim to: a Literature,--which is absolutely without a rival: a Terminology,--which reflects the very image of all the ages: Professors,--of loftier wit, from the days of Athanasius and Augustine, down to the days of our own Hooker and Butler,--men of higher mark, intellectually and morally,--than adorn the annals of any other Science since the World began: above all things, a subject-matter, which is the grandest imagination can conceive; and a foundation, which has all the breadth, and length, and depth and height[319], which the Hands of GOD Himself could give it.

For subject-matter, what Science will you compare with this? All the others in the world will not bring a man to the knowledge of GOD and of CHRIST! They will not inform him of the will of GOD, although they may teach him to observe His Works. "The Heavens declare the glory of GOD,"--but, as Lord Bacon remarked long since, we do not read that they declare His will. Neither do the other sciences of necessity lead to any belief at all in the GOD of Revelation[320].

And, for that whereon they are built, what Science again will you compare with this? Let the pretender to Geological skill,--(I say not the true Geologist, for _he_ never offends!)--let the conceited sciolist, I say, go dream a little longer over those implements of chipped flint which have called him into such noisy activity,--and discover, as he _will_ discover, that the assumed inference from the gravel and the bones is fallacious after all[321].--Let the Historian go spell a little longer over that moth-eaten record of dynasties which never were, by means of which he proposes to set right the clock of Time[322]. Let the Naturalist walk round the stuffed or bleached wonders of his museum, and guess again[323]. Theological Science not so! _Her_ evidence is sure, for her Rule is GOD'S Word. No laborious Induction here,--fallacious because imperfect; imperfect because human: but a direct message from the presence-chamber of the LORD of Heaven and Earth,--decisive because inspired; infallible because Divine. The express Revelation of the Eternal is that whereon Theological Science builds her fabric of imperishable Truth: _that_ fabric which, while other modes change, shift, and at last become superseded, shines out,--yea, and to the very end of Time will shine out,--unconscious of decay, incapable of improvement, far, far beyond the reach of fashion: a thing unchanged, because in its very nature unchangeable[324]!

O sirs,--we are constrained to be brief in this place. The field must perforce be narrowed; and so, for this time, it must suffice to have warned you against the men who resort to the armoury of Natural Science for weapons wherewith to assail GOD'S Truth. Regard them as the enemies of your peace; and learn to reject their specious, yet most inconsequential reasonings, with the scorn which is properly their due. Contempt and scorn GOD implanted in us, precisely that we might bestow them on reasonings worthless in their texture, and foul in their object, as these; which teach distrust of the earlier pages of GOD'S Word, on the pretence that they are contradicted by the evidence of GOD'S Works. Learn to abhor that spurious liberality which is liberal only with what is _not its own_; and which reminds one of nothing so much as the conduct of leprous persons who are said to be for ever seeking to communicate and extend their own unhappy taint to others. I allude to that sham liberality which under pretence of extending the common standing ground of Christian men, is in reality attenuating it until it proves incapable of bearing the weight of a single soul. There is room on the Rock for all; but it is only on the Rock that we are safe. To speak without a figure,--He who surrenders the first page of his Bible, surrenders all. He knows not where to stop. Nay, you and I cannot in any way _afford_ to surrender the beginning of Genesis; simply because upon the truth of what is there recorded depends the whole scheme of Man's salvation,--the need of that "second Man" which is "the LORD from Heaven[325]." It is not too much to say that the beginning of Genesis is the foundation on which all the rest of the Bible is built[326]. We may not go over to those who would mutilate the Book of Life, or evacuate any part of its message. It is they, on the contrary, who must come over to us.--Much has it been the fashion of these last days, (I cannot imagine why,) to vaunt the character and the Gospel of St. John, "the disciple of Love," as he is called; as if it were secretly thought that there is a latitudinarianism in Love which would wink at Doctrinal obliquity; whereas _St. John is the Evangelist of Dogma_; and if there be anything in the world which is _jealous_, that thing is _Love_. Indifference to Truth, and laxity of Belief, are the growing characteristics of the age. But you will find that St. John has about four or five times as much about TRUTH as all the other three Evangelists; while _the act_ of Faith receives as frequent mention in his writings alone as in all the rest of the New Testament Canon put together[327].

Let me end, as the manner of preachers is, by gathering out of what has been spoken one brief practical consideration.--This whole visible frame of things wherein we play our part, is hastening to decay. Everything we behold,--ourselves included,--carries with it the prophecy of its own speedy dissolution.--What, amid the wreck of worlds, will be our confidence?... It is an inquiry worth making, in these the days of health, and vigour, and security, and peace. O my soul, (learn to ask yourselves,)--O my soul, when the Heavens shall depart, and the Earth reel before the Second Advent of its Maker;--when the Sun puts on mourning, and the very powers of Heaven are shaken;--what shall be _our_ confidence,--_our_ hope,--in that tremendous day? Whither shall we betake ourselves, amid the overthrow of universal Nature, but to the sure mercies of Him who "in the beginning created the Heaven and the Earth?"--To those strong Hands, we intend, (GOD helping us!) with unswerving confidence to commend our fainting spirits[328].... _Him_, then, in life let us learn to reverence, on whom in death we propose so implicitly to lean! And we only know Him in, and through, and by His WORD. Nor can we in any surer way shew Him reverence or dishonour, than by the manner in which we receive His message,--yea, by the spirit in which we unfold this, the first page of it,--where stands recorded that primæval act of Almighty power which is the ground of all our confidence,--the very warrant for our own security.... "Blessed" of a truth, in that day, will he be, "that hath the GOD of Jacob for his help, and whose hope is in the LORD his GOD:--_who made the Heaven and the Earth,--the Sea and all that therein is:--who keepeth His promise for ever_[329]!"

FOOTNOTES:

[271] Preached in Christ-Church Cathedral, Nov. 11th, 1860.

[272] "The whole period, from the beginning of the primary fossiliferous strata to the present day, _must be great beyond calculation_, and only bear comparison with the astronomical cycles, as might naturally be expected; the earth being without doubt of the same antiquity with the other bodies of the solar system."--Mrs. Somerville's _Physical Geography_.

[273] Col. i. 16.

[274] Neh. ix. 6.

[275] Eph. i. 11.

[276] Hooker's _Eccl. Pol._, B. I. c. iii. § 2.

[277] Ps. xxxiii. 6.

[278] Alluding to a catastrophe which had recently occurred at St. Mary's Church, and which necessitated considerable repairs; in consequence of which, the first four of these Sermons were preached in the Cathedral.

[279] Is. xl. 12.

[280] Amos v. 8 and ix. 6.

[281] St. Matth. xxvii. 45.

[282] Exod. x. 21-23.

[283] St. Matth. xxiv. 29.

[284] Job ix. 5-7.

[285] Ps. xxxiii. 9.

[286] Gen. i. 4.

[287] "Can any one sensible of the value of words suppose," (asks Mr. Goodwin,) "that nothing more is here described, or intended to be described, than _the partial clearing away of a fog_?" (_Essays and Reviews_, pp. 227-8.) No one,--we answer. But to the question, we venture to rejoin another. To _whom_ does this philosopher suppose his pleasantry likely to prove injurious? Is he making Moses ridiculous, or--himself?

[288] St. John ix. 5, &c.

[289] 1 Tim. vi. 16.

[290] 2 Cor. iv. 6.

[291] "Whether the writer regarded them as already existing, and only waiting to have a proper place assigned them, may be open to question." (_E. and R._, p. 221.) We accept the alternative given us by Mr. Goodwin.

[292] Job xxxviii. 7.

[293] Alluding to 1 Kings vii. 21.

[294] The test of _Elohim_ and _Jehovah_ has been, by the Germans themselves, given up; "and for this plain reason,--that in many parts of Genesis, [e.g. ch. xxviii. 16-22: xxxi.: xxxix., &c.] it is utterly untenable; the names being so intermingled as to admit of no such division." See the Appendix (C) to the Rev. Henry John Rose's _Hulsean Lectures_ for 1833,--p. 233.

[295] Besides in Gen. i. 2, the expression (_tohu bohu_) recurs in Jer. iv. 23 and Is. xxxiv. 11,--both times with clear reference to the earlier place. Jeremiah in fact _quotes_ Genesis.

[296] _Eccl. Pol._, B. I. c. iii. § 2.

[297] Ps. cxlviii. 5, 6.

[298] South's _Sermons_, (Serm. II.)

[299] See St. Matth. xix. 4 to 6,--where Gen. i. 27 as well as Gen. ii. 24, are quoted by our SAVIOUR.

[300] "Holding," (says Hugh Miller,) "that the _six_ days of the Mosaic account were not natural days, but lengthened periods, I find myself called on, as a geologist, to account for but three out of the six. Of the period during which light was created; of the period during which a firmament was made to separate the waters from the waters; or of the period during which the two great lights of the earth, with the other heavenly bodies, became visible from the Earth's surface;--we need expect to find no record in the rocks."--_Testimony_, &c., p. 134.--This is ingenious, and is piously meant. But the first three days remain to be accounted for _by somebody_, all the same. If the last three days represent "lengthened periods," so, I suppose, do the _first_ three.

[301] Exod. xx. 11.

[302] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 252.

[303] _Ibid._

[304] _Id._ p. 253.

[305] _Id._ p. 252.

[306] Pattison's _The Earth and the World_, p. 99.

[307] Col. ii. 3.

[308] Josh. x. 12.

[309] Prov. iii. 20.

[310] St. John iii. 8.

[311] St. John iii. 5.

[312] St. Matth. xxvi. 26.

[313] St. John viii. 58.

[314] St. John x. 30.

[315] Ps. xciv. 9.

[316] On this subject, the reader is referred to Serm. VII.

[317] Ps. xcii. 4.

[318] Cowper.

[319] Eph. iii. 18.

[320] This paragraph is mostly copied from a Sermon (MS.) preached before the University by the late Professor Hussey, Oct. 12, 1856.

[321] Professor Phillips refers me to a paper by Mr. Prestwich in the _Proceedings of the Royal Society_, 1859, vol. x. No. 35, p. 58. Also in the _Transactions of the R. S._ for 1860, p. 308.

[322] I allude to the supposed disclosures of Egyptian monuments.

[323] I allude to a recent work on the Origin of Species.

[324] The reader is requested to read what Bishop Pearson has most eloquently written on this subject. It will be found in the Appendix (B).

[325] 1 Cor. xv. 47.

[326] Ibid. xv. 22, &c.

[327] =Pistis= _does not occur once_ in St. John's Gospel: =pisteuô= (which is found about thirty-five times, in all, in the first three Gospels,) occurs about _one hundred times_, in the Gospel of St. John alone.

[328] St. Luke xxiii. 46, (quoting Ps. xxxi. 5:) words which are alluded to in 1 St. Pet. iv. 19.

[329] Ps. cxlvi. 5,--words quoted by the early Church of Jerusalem, Acts iv. 24.

SERMON III.[330]

* * * * *

INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE.--GOSPEL DIFFICULTIES.--THE WORD OF GOD INFALLIBLE.--OTHER SCIENCES SUBORDINATE TO THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.

* * * * *

2 Tim. iii. 16.

_All Scripture is given by inspiration of God._

But _that_ is not exactly what St. Paul says. The Greek for _that_, would be =pasa Hê graphê=--not =pasa graphê--theopneustos=. St. Paul does not say that _the whole_ of Scripture, collectively, is inspired. More than _that_: what he says is, that _every writing_,--every _several book_ of those =hiera grammata=, or Holy Scriptures, in which Timothy had been instructed from his childhood,--is inspired by God[331]. It _comes_ to very nearly the same thing; but it is _not_ quite the same thing. St. Paul is careful to remind us that every Book in the Bible is an inspired Book[332]. And this statement is not confined to one place.--Elsewhere, he calls his message "the Word of GOD;" and says that it had been received by the disciples not as the Word of Men, but as it is in truth, the Word of GOD[333].--Elsewhere, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the HOLY GHOST teacheth[334]:"--where, if I at all understand the Apostle, (and he speaks very plainly!) he says that _his words_ were inspired by the HOLY GHOST.--Accordingly, St. Peter declares that the Epistles of his "beloved brother Paul" are part of the Holy Scriptures[335];--Divinely inspired, therefore, like all the rest.

But does not St. Paul himself in a certain place express a doubt--saying "I _think_ that I have the Spirit of GOD[336]?" and does he not contrast his own sayings with the Divine sayings, ("not I but the LORD[337]"), clearly implying that his own were _not_ Divine? and does he not say that he delivers certain things "by permission, and not of commandment[338]," whereby he seems to insinuate a gradation of authority in what he delivers?--No. Not one of these things does he do. He says, indeed, of a certain hint to married persons that he offers it "by way of _advice_ to them not by way of _precept_:" but _giving advice_ to _men_ is a very different thing from _receiving permission_ from GOD. Again, "Unto the married," (he says,) "I command, yet not I but the LORD,"--alluding to our LORD'S words, as set down by St. Matthew, chap. xix. verse 6[339]; which is simply an historical allusion to the Gospel.--So far from "_thinking_" he had the Spirit of GOD, (as if it were an open question whether he had it or not,) he says the very contrary. =Dokeô=, in all such places, implies, not _doubt_ but _certainty[340]_: (as when our LORD asks,---"Doth he thank that servant because he did the things commanded him? =ou dokô=,"--I fancy not indeed[341]!) On St. Paul's lips, as every scholar knows, the phrase is not one of doubt, but one of indignant, or at least emphatic asseveration[342].--A man had need be very sure he _understands_ the record, (let me just remark in passing,) before he presumes to criticize it.

"_The Spirit of CHRIST_" is said by St. Peter to have been "_in the prophets_[343]:" and in another place he declares that they "_spake as they were moved by the HOLY GHOST_[344]." The HOLY GHOST accordingly is said to have spoken the xlist Psalm "by the mouth of David[345]." The xcvth Psalm is declared absolutely to be the utterance of the HOLY GHOST[346]. Once, the cxth Psalm is ascribed simply to GOD[347]; and once, to David speaking under the influence of _the HOLY GHOST_[348]. The iind Psalm is described as the language of GOD the FATHER "by the mouth of His Servant David[349]." "_Well spake the HOLY GHOST_ by Esaias the Prophet unto our Fathers[350],"--was the exclamation of the Apostle Paul, quoting the 9th and 10th verses of his vith chapter. When Jeremiah speaks, the HOLY GHOST is declared, (not Jeremiah, _but the HOLY GHOST_) to witness unto us[351]. The assertion is express that it was "GOD" who, "_by the mouth of all His Prophets_," foretold the Death of CHRIST[352]: "_the LORD GOD of Israel_" who, "_by the mouth of His holy Prophets of old_," gave promise of CHRIST'S coming[353]. "_The HOLY GHOST signified_" what the Mosaic Law enjoined[354]. "It is not ye that speak, _but the HOLY GHOST_[355]"--was our SAVIOUR'S word of promise and of consolation to the Twelve: and, on an earlier occasion,--"It is not ye that speak; but the SPIRIT of your Father, _which speaketh in you_[356]." And this promise became so famous, that St. Paul says the Corinthians challenged him to _prove_ that CHRIST was speaking in him[357].... But why multiply places? The use which our SAVIOUR makes in the New Testament of the words of the Old,--from the writings of Moses to the writings of Malachi,--would be simply nugatory unless those words were much more than human. And the record of the Apostle is express and emphatic:--"All Scripture--every Book of the Bible,--is given _by Inspiration of GOD_."--In the face of such testimony, by the way, we deem it not a little extraordinary to be assured (by an individual who has acquired considerable notoriety within the last few months) that "for any of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration there is no foundation in the Gospels or Epistles[358]."

Strange to say, there is a marvellous indisposition in Man to admit the notion of such a heaven-sent message. Not to dispute with those who deny Inspiration altogether, (for that would be endless,) there are many,--and, we fear, a daily increasing number of persons,--who, admitting Inspiration in terms, yet so mutilate the notion of it, that their admission becomes a practical lie. "St. Paul was inspired, no doubt. So was Shakspeare." He who says this, intending no quibble, declares that in his belief St. Paul was _not inspired at all_.

But this is a monstrous case, with which I will not waste your time. Far more numerous are they, who, admitting that the Authors of the Bible were inspired in quite a different sense from Homer and Dante, are yet for modifying and qualifying this admission after so many strange and arbitrary fashions, that the residuum of their belief is really worth very little. One man has a mental reservation of exclusion in favour of the two Books of Chronicles, or the Book of Esther, or of Daniel.--Another, is content to eliminate from the Bible those passages which seem to him to run counter to the decrees of physical Science;--the History of the Six Days of Creation,--of the Flood,--of the destruction of Sodom,--and of Joshua's address to Sun and Moon.--Another regards it as self-evident that nothing is trustworthy which savours supremely of the marvellous;--as the Temptation of our first Parents,--the Manna in the Wilderness,--Balaam reproved by the dumb ass,--and the history of Jonah.--There are others who cannot tolerate the Miracles of the Old and the New Testament. The more timid, explain away as much of them as they dare. What remains, troubles them. The more logical sweep them away altogether. A miracle (they say) cannot be true because it implies a violation of the fixed and immutable laws of Nature.

And then,--(so strangely constituted are some men's minds,)--there are not a few persons who, without exactly denying the inspiration of the Bible in any of its more marvellous portions,--(for _that_ would be an inconvenient proceeding,)--are yet content to regard much of it as a kind of inspired myth. This is a class of ally (?) with whom one really knows not how to deal. The man does not reason. He assumes his right to disbelieve, and yet will not allow that he is an unbeliever. The world is singularly indulgent toward persons of this unphilosophical, illogical, presumptuous class.

Now, I shall have something to say to all these different kinds of objectors, on some subsequent occasion. But I shall be rendering the younger men a far more important service if to-day I address my remarks to a different class of objectors altogether: _that_ far larger body, I mean, who without at all desiring to impugn the Inspiration of GOD'S Oracles, yet make no secret of their belief that the Bible is full of inaccuracies and misstatements. These men ascribe a truly liberal amount of human infirmity to the Authors of the several Books of the Bible;--slips of memory, misconceptions, imperfect intelligence, partial illumination, and so forth;--and, under one or other of those heads, include whatever they are themselves disposed to reject. The writers who come in for the largest share of this indulgence, are the Evangelists; because the Historians of our LORD'S life, having happily left us four versions of the same story, and often three versions of the same transaction, the evidence whereby _they_ may be convicted of error is in the hands of all. Truly, mankind has not been slow to avail itself of the opportunity. You will seldom hear a Gospel difficulty discussed, without a quiet assumption on the part of the Reverend gentleman that _he_ knows all about the matter in question, but that the Evangelist did _not_. His usual method is, calmly to inform us that it is useless to look for strict consistency in matters of minute detail; that _general agreement_ between the four Evangelists there does exist, and _that_ ought to be enough. The inevitable inference from his manner of handling the Gospels, is, that if his actual thoughts could find candid expression, we should hear him address their blessed authors somewhat as follows:--"You are four highly respectable characters, no doubt; and you _mean_ well. But it cannot be expected that persons of your condition in life should have described so many intricate transactions so minutely without making blunders. I do not say it unkindly. I often make blunders myself,--_I_, who have a "clearness of understanding," "a power of discrimination between different kinds of Truth[359]" unknown to the Apostolic Age!" ... Of course the preacher does not _say_ all this. He has too keen a sense of "the dignity of the pulpit." And so he puts it somewhat thus:--"While we are disposed to recognize substantial agreement, and general conformity in respect of details, among the synoptical witnesses, in their leading external outlines, we are yet constrained to withhold our unqualified acceptance of any theory of Inspiration which should claim for these compilers exemption from the oscitancy, and generally from the infirmities of humanity." ... This sounds fine, you know; and is thought an ingenious way of wrapping up the charge which the Reverend preacher brings against the Evangelists;--of having, in plain terms,--_made blunders_.

It will be convenient that we should narrow the ground to this single issue: for the time is short. And in the remarks I am about to offer, I shall not imitate the example of those preachers who dress out an easy thought in a superfluity of inflated language, only in order that its deformity may escape detection. Be not surprised if I speak to you this morning in uncommonly plain English; for I am determined that the simplest person present shall understand at least what _I_ mean. The dignity of the Blessed Evangelists, who walked with JESUS, and whom JESUS loved,--the dignity of that Gospel which I believe to be penetrated through and through with the Holy Spirit of GOD,--for _that_, I confess to a most unbounded jealousy. As for the "dignity of the pulpit,"--I hate the very phrase! It has been made too often the shield of impiety and the cloak of dulness.

To begin, then,--Is it, I would ask you, a reasonable anticipation that the narrative of one inspired by GOD would prove full of inconsistencies, misstatements, slips of memory:--or indeed, that it should contain _any_ misstatements, _any_ inaccuracies at all? What then is the difference between an inspired and an uninspired writing,--the Word of GOD and the Word of Man?

The answer which I shall receive, is obvious. As a matter of fact (it is replied) there _are_ these inaccuracies: that is, the same transaction is described by two or more writers, and their accounts prove inconsistent. Thus, St. Matthew begins his account of the healing of the blind at Jericho, with the words,--"And as they were _going out_ of Jericho:" but St. Luke, "While He was _drawing nigh_ to Jericho."--There _are_ these slips of memory; as when St. Matthew ascribes to "Jeremy the prophet" words which are found in the prophet Zechariah.--There _are_ these misstatements, as where the Census of the Nativity is said to have taken place under the presidentship of Cyrenius.--And these are but samples of a mighty class of difficulties, (it is urged:)--the two Genealogies; the Call of the four Disciples; the healing of the Centurion's servant; the title on the Cross; the history of the Resurrection:--and again, "the sixteenth of Tiberius;" "the days of Abiathar;" with many others.--Let me then briefly discuss the three examples first cited,--which really came spontaneously. Each is the type of a class; and the answer to one is, in reality, applicable to all the rest. I humbly ask for your patience and attention; promising that I will abuse neither, though I must tax both.

The great fundamental truth to be first laid down, is _this_--that the Gospels are not _four_--but _one_. The Ancients knew this very well. =Euangelistai men tessares,--Euangelion de hen=--says Origen[360]: "the Gospel-_writers_ are four,--but the _Gospel_ is one." And the ancients recorded this mighty verity four times over on the first page of the Gospel, lest it should ever be forgotten; and there it stands to this day:--the Gospel,--the _one_ Gospel =kata=,--_according to_--St. Matthew,--_according to_ St. Mark,--_according to_ St. Luke,--_according to_ St. John. Like that river which went out of Eden to water the Garden,--it was by the HOLY GHOST "parted, and became into four heads."--The Gospels therefore, (to call them by their common name,) are not to be regarded as four witnesses, or rather as four culprits, brought up on a charge of fraud. Rather are they Angelic voices singing in sweetest harmony, but after a method of Heavenly counterpoint which must be studied before it can be understood of Men.

And next,--There is one great principle, and one only, which needs to be borne in mind for the effectual reconciliation of _every discrepancy_ which the four narratives present: namely, that you should approach them in exactly the same spirit in which you approach the statement of any man of honour of your acquaintance. Whether the Apostles of the LAMB,--men whom we believe to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit of the Everlasting GOD,--are not entitled to far higher respect, far higher consideration, at our hands,--I leave _you_ to decide. As one whose joy and crown it has been to weigh every word in the Gospel in hair-scales, I am prepared to risk the issue. Be only as fair to the four Evangelists as you are to one another; and I am quite confident about the result.

I appeal to the experience of every thoughtful man among you who has at all given his mind to the subject of evidence, whether it be not the fact,--(1st) That when two or more persons are giving true versions of the same incident, their accounts will sometimes differ so considerably, that it will seem at first sight as if they could not possibly be reconciled: and yet (2ndly), That a single word of explanation, the discovery of one minute circumstance,--perfectly natural when we hear it stated, yet most unlikely and unlooked-for,--will often suffice to remove the difficulty which before seemed unsurmountable; and further, that when this has been done, the entire consistency of the several accounts becomes apparent; while the harmony which is established is often of the most beautiful nature. (3rdly) That when (for whatever reason) two or more versions of the same incident are _not_ correct, no ingenuity can ever possibly reconcile them, _as they stand_. They lean apart in hopeless divergence. In other words, they _contradict_ one another.

Now, these principles are fully admitted in daily life. If your friend comes to you with ever so improbable a tale, the last thing which enters into your mind is to disbelieve him. Is he in earnest? Yes, on his honour. Is he sure he is not mistaken? _That_ very doubt of yours requires an apology: but your friend says,--"I am as sure as I am of my existence." "Give it me under your hand and seal then." Your friend begins to suspect your sanity; but the matter being of some importance, he complies. "It must be so then," you exclaim, "though I _cannot_ understand it.".... I only wish that men would be as fair to the Evangelists as they are to their friends!

You are requested to observe,--for really you _must_ admit,--that _any_ possible solution of a difficulty, however _improbable_ it may seem, any _possible_ explanation of the story of a competent witness, is enough logically and morally to exempt that man from the imputation of an incorrect statement. The illustration which first presents itself may require an apology; but the dignity of the pulpit shall not outweigh the dignity of _His_ Gospel after whose blessed Name this House is called[361]: and I can think of nothing as apposite as what follows.

It is a conceivable case, that, hereafter, three persons of known truthfulness should meet, in a Court of Justice at the Antipodes; where the entire difficulty should turn on a question of time. The case is conceivable, that the first should be heard to declare that at Oxford, on such a day, of such a year, he had seen such an one standing before Carfax Church while the clock _was striking one_:--that the second should declare that he also, on the same day of the same year, had seen the same person passing by St. Mary's, when the clock of _that_ Church was also striking one:--that the third should stand up and assert,--"I also saw the same person on that same day, but it was on the steps _of the Cathedral_ I met him; and I also remember hearing the clock at that moment strike one."--Now I can conceive that the result of such evidence would be adverted upon in some such way as the following:--"While we are disposed to recognize the substantial agreement, and general conformity in respect of details, among the synoptical witnesses, in their leading external outlines, we are yet constrained,"--and the rest of the impertinence we had before. Whereas you and I know perfectly that the three clocks in question were, till lately, _kept five minutes apart_: a sufficient interval, (I beg you to observe in passing,) for the individual in question to have been seen _by you_ walking in an easterly direction; and _by me_ due west; and by a third person, due east again. Highly improbable circumstances, I freely grant, every one of them; and yet, by the hypothesis, all perfectly _true_! Meantime, it is conceivable that Judge and jury would have the indecency openly to tax the three men I spoke of with inexactitude in their statements: and it is conceivable that those three honest men--(the _only_ true men, it might be, in the Colony, after all,)--would carry to their grave the imputation of untruth. Here and there, a generous heart would be found to say to them,--_I_ share not in the vulgar cry against you! _I_ nothing doubt that it all fell out precisely as you assert. Either, the clocks in Oxford went wrong that day;--or there had been some trick played with the clocks;--any how, _I_ believe _you_, for I have evidence that you are marvellously exact in all your little statements; and you cannot have been mistaken in a plain matter like this. I have heard too that you are not the ordinary men you seem.... The men make no answer. _They_ care nothing for _your opinion_, and _my opinion_. The rashness of mankind may astonish the Angels perhaps; but the Apostles and Evangelists of CHRIST are already safe within the veil!

The difficulty supposed is not an imaginary one. St. John says that when Pilate sat in judgment on the LORD of Glory, "it was about the sixth hour[362]." But since St. Mark says that at the third hour they crucified Him[363],--the two statements seem inconsistent. The ancients,--(giants at interpretation, babes in criticism,)--_altered the text_. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 300, says that he had seen it in the very autograph of St. John[364]. A learned man of our own, however, a hundred years ago, ascertained that, in the Patriarchate of Ephesus, the hours were not computed after the Jewish method: but, (strange to say,) exactly _after our own English method_[365]. And yet, not so strange either; for the Gospel first came to us from there.--You see at a glance that all the four mentions of time of day in St. John[366], which used to occasion so much difficulty, become beautifully intelligible at once.

To come then to the three samples of difficulty propounded a moment ago. And first, for the blind men of Jericho.

I. The difficulty lies all on the surface. Listen to a plain tale.

Our SAVIOUR, attended by His Disciples and followed by a vast concourse of persons, had reached the outskirts of Jericho. A certain blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. He heard the noise of a passing crowd, and inquired what it meant? He was told that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. He rose at once,--hastened down the main street through which, in due time, CHRIST perforce must come; joined another blind man, (named Bartimæus,--a well-known character, who, like himself, was accustomed to sit and beg by the road side;) and the two companions in suffering, having stationed themselves at the exit of Jericho, waited till the Great Physician should appear.

The crowd begins to approach; and the two blind men implore the Son of David to have pity on them. So importunate is their suit, that the foremost of the passers-by rebuke them. The men grow more urgent. Our SAVIOUR pauses, and orders that they shall be called. At this gracious summons, both draw near; the more remarkable applicant flinging his outer garment from him as he rises from his seat; but both, when they appear in our SAVIOUR'S presence, making the same request. The Holy One, touched with compassion, laid His Hands upon their eyes, and grants their prayer: whereupon they both follow Him in the way.

Well, (you will ask,)--what then?--"What then?" I answer. _Then_ there is no difficulty in the three accounts about which you spoke so unbecomingly a moment ago. Assume this plain, and not at all improbable version of the incident, to be true, and you will find that no difficulty remains whatever. Every recorded circumstance is accounted for, and fits in exactly with it. I wish there were time to enlarge on some of the details, and to make some remarks on the manner of the Evangelists in relating events: but there _is_ no time. Besides,--without a huge copy of the Gospel open before us all, I could not hope to make my meaning understood.

For of course you are to believe that he who would understand the Gospel must first _study_ it. You must ascertain, by some crucial test, confirmed by a large and careful induction, what the character of a narrative purporting to be inspired, _is_. You have no right first to assume exactly _what_ Inspiration shall result in, and then to deny that there is Inspiration because you fail to discover your assumed result[367]. That were foolish.

I shall perhaps be thought to lay myself open to the rejoinder,--"Neither have _you_ any right to assume that Inspiration will result in Infallibility." But the retort is without real point. I do but assert that, just as every man of honour claims to be believed until he has been convicted of a falsehood,--inspired Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles have a right to our entire confidence in the scrupulous accuracy of every word they deliver, until it can be _shewn_ that they have once made a mistake.

If you will take the trouble to compare any of the cases,--in Genesis for example,--where a conversation is first set down, and then reported by one of the speakers,--you will find that it is deemed allowable to omit or to add clauses, even when the discourse is related in the first person[368]. Something before inserted, is withheld: or something before withheld, is inserted. No discourse was probably ever set down, word for word, as it was delivered. In sacred, as in profane writings, the exact _substance_, or rather, the real _purport_, of what was spoken, very reasonably stands for what was _actually_ spoken. The difference is this;--that a narrative, by man abridged, _may_ convey a wrong impression: whereas an inspired abridgement of any history soever _cannot_ mislead.

Other characteristics of an inspired narrative,--the lesser Laws of the Divine Harmony, as they may be called,--will be discovered by the attentive reader. For example, that intervening circumstances are often passed over, without any notice taken of them whatever: while yet it is singular how often the Evangelist shews himself conscious of what he omits by some very minute allusion to it[369]. This must suffice however. It would require a whole sermon, a whole volume rather, to enumerate all the features of the Evangelical method.

II. The next sample of difficulty will not occupy us long. St. Matthew is charged with a bad memory, because he ascribes to "Jeremy the prophet[370]" words which are said to be found in Zechariah.--Strange that men should be heard to differ about a plain matter of fact! _I_ have never been able to find these words in Zechariah yet!... There are words _something like them_,--but not those very words, by any means,--in Zech. xi. 12. Why then is St. Matthew to be taxed with a bad memory? Are there not other prophecies quoted in the New Testament not to be found in the Old? Yes[371]. Is not the self-same prophecy sometimes found in two different prophets,--as in Isaiah and Nahum? Yes[372]. Are not some prophetic passages _common to Jeremiah and Zechariah?_ Yes[373]. The Jews even had a saying that the Spirit of the one was in the other. _Where_ then remains a pretence for supposing that St. Matthew was troubled with a bad memory?

III. So, it is generally assumed that St. Luke made a mistake when he said that the census of the Nativity was made when Cyrenius was President of Syria,--because not Cyrenius but _Varus_ is known to have been President about that time.--Now, there are three fair conjectures,--each of which is sufficient to meet this difficulty: but instead of developing them, I will simply remind you of a minute circumstance in Jewish story which shews how dangerous it is to press a general fact against a particular statement.--In the year 4 B.C., Matthias was undeniably the Jewish High-priest. Now, if St. Luke, describing the events of a certain day in September, B.C. 4, had recorded that the High-priest's name was _Joseph_, you would have thought him guilty of a misstatement: but the error would have been all your own,--for it has been discovered that a person bearing that name held the office of High-priest for _one single day_,--namely, the 10th of Tisri.... "A very unlikely circumstance!" you will exclaim. O yes,--_a very unlikely circumstance indeed_: but, you will have the kindness to observe that _that_ is not exactly the point in question.

Why then are difficulties of this, or of any kind, permitted in the Gospel at all? it may be asked.--I answer,--that they may prove instruments of probation to you and to me. The sensualist has _his_ trials; and the ambitious man, _his_. The difficulties in Holy Scripture,--which are numerous, and diverse, and considerable,--are admirable tests of the moral, the spiritual, the intellectual temper of Man[374]. Experience shews moreover that some of the minutest discrepancies of all, if they be but of a character almost hopeless, are more potent to create perplexity in minds of a certain constitution, than the gravest doubts which ever burthened the soul of Speculation.

I have confined myself to one class of objections, for an obvious reason. Difficulties which arise out of the _matter_ of Scripture, as it is emphatically embodied in quotations from the Old Testament made in the New, must be separately considered in one or more Sermons on _Interpretation_. I must be content to-day with repudiating, in the most unqualified way, the notion that a mistake of _any kind whatever_ is consistent with the texture of a narrative inspired by the Holy Spirit of GOD. The allusion in St. Stephen's speech to "the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the son" (not _the father_, but _the son_) "of Sychem," is a good example of confusion apparently existing in an inspired speaker; but, in reality, only in the writings of those who have sat in judgment upon his words[375].

To keep to the case of the Evangelists,--I appeal to your sense of fairness, whether it be not reasonable to assume, that until those blessed writers have been convicted of _one_ single inaccuracy of statement, their narratives ought to be accounted faultless, like Him whose Life they record;--like Him by whose Spirit they are inspired. I would to Heaven that men would have the decency to suspect themselves, and one another, rather than the Evangelists,--of mistake; or at least, before they venture publicly to impugn the Authors of the Everlasting Gospel, that they would be at the pains to weigh the evidence with the care _that_ evidence deserves, but which I am _sure_ that sermon-writers and essayists do not bestow. Let them spend the long summer days of many a Long Vacation--from early morning until twilight,--dissecting every syllable of the blessed pages; and then they will learn to adore instead of to cavil. They will deem them absolutely faultless, instead of daring to charge all their own pitiful misconceptions, and weak misapprehensions, and miserable blunders, upon _them_.--They will be inclined, rather, to challenge the world to establish one blot in what they love so well; and would gladly stake all upon the issue of a conflict before a fair tribunal,--if submission might follow upon defeat.

As for mistakes of the paltry kind last noticed--(the days of Abiathar, the sixteenth of Tiberius, and so forth,)--I wonder the glaring absurdity of charging them against Evangelists, does not strike any modest man of sane mind. To suppose that St. Matthew quoted the wrong prophet, or that St. Luke did not know the regnal years of the reigning Emperor; that St. Stephen confused Abraham with Jacob, and Sychem with Hebron;--all this is really so _grossly_ absurd, that I can hardly condescend to discuss the question. It is like maintaining that Sir Isaac Newton, after discovering the Law of Gravitation, and calculating the pathway of a planet, persisted in saying that two and two make five: or that Columbus, after discovering America, despaired of finding the way to his own door. It is simply ridiculous!--Admirable as a subject for men to exercise their wits upon,--as instruments of _cavil_, objections like these are about as formidable as a child's sword of lathe in the day of battle.