Chapter XV: Appendix: A Bishop Horsley on the double sense of Prophecy 257 (11)

I hear some one say,--It seems to trouble _you_ very much that inspired writers should be thought capable of making mistakes; but it does not trouble _me_,--Very likely not. It does not trouble _you_, perhaps, to see stone after stone, buttress after buttress, foundation after foundation, removed from the walls of Zion, until the whole structure trembles and totters, and is pronounced insecure. Your boasted unconcern is very little to the purpose, unless we may also know how dear to you the safety of Zion is. But if you make indignant answer,--(as would to Heaven you may!)--that your care for GOD'S honour, your jealousy for God's oracles, is every whit as great as our own,--_then_ we tell you that, on _your_ wretched premises, men more logical than yourself will make shipwreck of their peace, and endanger their very souls. There is no stopping,--no knowing where to stop,--in this downward course. Once admit the principle of fallibility into the inspired Word, and the whole becomes a bruised and rotten reed. If St. Paul a little, why not St. Paul much? If Moses in some places, why not in many? You will doubt our LORD'S infallibility next!... It might not trouble _you_, to find your own familiar friend telling you a lie, every now and then: but I trust this whole congregation will share the preacher's infirmity, while he confesses that it would trouble _him_ so exceedingly that after one established falsehood, he would feel unable ever to trust that friend implicitly again.

Do you mean to say then, (I shall be asked,) that you maintain the theory of Verbal Inspiration?--I answer, I refuse to accept any _theory_ whatsoever[376]. But I believe that the Bible is the Word of GOD--and I believe that GOD'S Word must be absolutely infallible. I shall therefore believe the Bible to be absolutely infallible,--until I am convinced of the contrary. "_Theories of Inspiration_," (as they are called,) are the growth of an unbelieving age: and it is enough to disgust any one with the term, to find how it has been understood in some quarters. A well-known living editor of the Gospel[377], says,--"According to the Verbal-Inspiration Theory, each Evangelist has recorded the exact words of the Inscription on the Cross;--not _the general sense_, but _the Inscription itself_;--not a letter less nor more. This is absolutely necessary to the theory." The advocates of the theory (he proceeds) "may here find an _undoubted_ example of the absurdity of their view.... Let us bear this in mind when the narrative of words spoken, or of events, differs in a similar manner."--It is certainly very kind of the learned writer thus to apprize us of the danger of accepting a theory, which, so explained, we certainly never heard of before,--and trust we may never hear of again.

But if, instead of the "Theory of Verbal Inspiration," I am asked whether I believe _the words_ of the Bible to be inspired,--I answer, To be sure I do,--every one of them: and every syllable likewise. Do not _you?_--_Where_,--(if it be a fair question,)--Where do you, in your wisdom, stop? The _book_, you allow _is_ inspired. How about the chapters? How about the verses? Do you stop at the verses, and not go on to the words? Or perhaps you enjoy a special tradition on this subject, and hold that Inspiration is a general, vague kind of thing,--here more, there less: strong, (to speak plainly,) where you make no objection to what is stated,--weak, when it runs counter to some fancy of your own.--O Sir, but this "general vague kind of thing" will not suffice to anchor the fainting soul upon, in the day of trouble, and in the hour of death! "Here _more_, there _less_," will not satisfy a parched and weary spirit, athirst for the water of Life, and craving the shadow of the great Rock. What security can _you_ offer _me_, that the promise which has sustained me so long occurs in the "more," and not in the "less?" How am I to know that your Bible is _my_ Bible: in other words, what proof is there that either of us possesses the Word of GOD,--the authentic utterance of GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT,--_at all_?

And do you not feel, that this "will o' the wisp" phantom of your brain, can prove no guide to either of us in the pilgrimage of life? Perceive you not that the unworthy spirit in which you approach the Book of GOD'S Law must effectually prevent you from getting any wisdom from it? Why, the pages which you look so coldly and carnally at, are written within and without, and burn from end to end with unutterable meaning! While you are quarrelling about the title on the Cross, you are missing the common salvation! You keep us, Sunday after Sunday, disputing outside the gates of Paradise, instead of bidding us enter in, and eat of the delicious fruit! While _you_ are persisting that there is no beauty in the garden, (because you choose to be deaf as well as blind,)--the shadows are lengthening out, and the glory is departing, and the angels are getting weary of harping upon their harps!

No, Sirs! The Bible (be persuaded) is the very utterance of the Eternal;--as much GOD'S Word, as if high Heaven were open, and we heard GOD speaking to us with human voice. Every book of it, is inspired alike; and is inspired entirely. Inspiration is not a difference of degree, but of kind. The Apocryphal books are not one atom more inspired than Bacon's Essays. But the Bible, from the Alpha to the Omega of it, is filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit of GOD: the Books of it, and the sentences of it, and the words of it, and the syllables of it,--aye, and the very letters of it. "Nihil in Scripturis est otiosum," (said the great Casaubon): "non dictio, non dictionis forma, non syllaba, non littera." ... The difficulty which attends quotations, I must explain another day. It is _not_ a difficulty.--The seeming paradox of calling a pedigree inspired, is only seeming.--The _text_ of Holy Scripture has nothing at all to do with the question. Is a dead poet responsible for the clumsiness of him who transcribes his copy, or for the carelessness of the apprentice in the printer's attic?--Least of all do we overlook the personality of the human writers, when we so speak. The styles of Daniel,--of St. John,--of St. Paul,--of St. James,--differ as much as the sounds emitted by organ pipes of wholly diverse construction. But those human instruments were fabricated, one and all, by the Hands of the same Divine Artist: and I have yet to learn that when the same man builds an organ, fills it with breath, and performs upon it a piece of his own composition with matchless skill,--I have yet to learn that any part of the honour, any part of the praise, any part of the glory of the performance is to be withheld from _him!_ ... The illustration is at least as old as Christianity itself. Pray take it in the noble words of Hooker.--"They neither spoke nor wrote one word of their own: but uttered syllable by syllable as the Spirit put it into their mouths; no otherwise than the harp or the lute doth give a sound according to the discretion of his hands that holdeth and striketh it with skill. The difference is only this: an instrument, whether it be pipe or harp, maketh a distinction in the times and sounds, which distinction is well perceived of the hearer, the instrument itself understanding not what is piped or harped. The prophets and holy men of GOD not so. 'I opened my mouth,' saith Ezekiel, 'and GOD reached me a scroll, saying, Son of Man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this I give thee. I ate it, and it was sweet in my mouth as honey,' saith the prophet[378]. Yea, sweeter, I am persuaded, than either honey or the honeycomb. For herein, they were not like harps or lutes, but they felt, they felt the power and strength of their own words. When they spake of our peace, every corner of their hearts was filled with joy. When they prophesied of mourning, lamentations, and woes, to fall upon us, they wept in the bitterness and indignation of spirit, the Arm of the LORD being mighty and strong upon them[379]."

To conclude. The first time I enjoyed this privilege, I urged the younger men to a diligent and painful daily study of the Bible. On the next occasion, opening the Bible at the first page, I attempted to define the provinces of Theological and of Physical Science. All that was then offered may be summed up in one brief formula:--_GOD'S works CANNOT contradict GOD'S Word_. I adverted to the method of would-be geologists, (a class all apart from the grave and learned few who give their days and nights to a truly noble branch of study,)--because from _them_ the most malignant attacks have proceeded: and I took my stand on the first chapter of Genesis, because the enemies of GOD'S Truth have made that chapter their favourite point of attack. But my argument was not directed more against Geology than against any other of the physical Sciences. They are all alike the handmaids of _Theological_ Science. Geology, however, singularly honoured by the Creator in that He hath bequeathed for her inspection so many marvels of primæval Time,--evidences of how He was working in this remote planet before the Creation of Man;--Geology, I say, it especially behoves to be humble: partly, because she is the youngest of all the sciences; and partly, because the weak guesses of her childhood are yet in the memory of us all. If indeed she would _inherit the Earth_, let her remember that she asks for the blessing which CHRIST hath promised to none but _the meek_[380].

We altogether repudiated, then, the contrast which is often implied between Theology and Science; as if Theology were _not_ a Science, but some other thing. Theological Science we declared to be the noblest of the Sciences,--the very Queen and Mistress of them all. And yet, supreme as she is, she not only admits, but desires, and thankfully accepts the ministerial offices of the other Sciences; all of which, like dutiful servants in a household, have it in their power to render her most important acts of homage. Language, for example, carries the keys of the casket wherein she keeps her treasures; and for that reason Theology hath promoted Language to great honour. History, and Geography, and Chronology, have each had their respective tasks assigned them. It is for Astronomy to make answer if question be raised of the date of Paschal full Moon, or of Eclipse. Let the physiologist explain, if he can, Scriptural allusions to the vegetable and animal kingdoms. How precious are the guesses of Geology, as she tries to fathom the Ocean of unrecorded Time!--_Who_ would desire the silence of the Professor of _any_ department of physical Science? Morals also have their place and their function assigned them; and a thrice blessed place,--a most holy function is theirs! Why should not Moral Science have an office even in the Court of Theology? Was not Morality the Schoolmaster of the sons of Japheth, what time there was dew on the fleece only, but it was dry upon all the earth beside? What are Morals else but the echoes of the voice of GOD yet lingering in the Hall of Conscience, or rather in the Chambers of Memory?.... Her function therefore is to bear willing witness to the Goodness, the Wisdom, the Justice of the Eternal: and her place,--the loftiest which can be imagined for a creature,--is somewhere beneath the footstool of Almighty GOD.

But when, instead of the submissive manners of a well-ordered Court, symptoms of insolence and insubordination are witnessed on every side,--then, the least and humblest takes leave, (time, and place, and occasion serving,) to speak out fearlessly on behalf of that which he loves with an unworthy, but a most undivided heart.--When Language impugns those Oracles which she was hired to decypher,--and pretends to doubt the Inspiration of that Book of which, confessedly, she barely understands the Grammar:--when History and Chronology cry out that the annals of Theology are false, and her record of Time a fable; that the Deluge, for instance, is an old wives' story, and the economy of times and seasons a human fabrication:--when Astronomical and Mechanical Science strut up to the Throne whereon sits the Ancient of Days,--prate to _Him_, (the first Author of Law,) about the "supremacy of Law,"--and tell Him to His face that His miracles are things impossible:--when Physiology insinuates that Mankind cannot be descended from one primæval pair; and that the lives of the Patriarchs cannot be such as they are recorded to have been:--when the pretender to Natural Philosophy gravely assures us that we ought not to pray for fair weather, because the weather depends _not_ upon "arbitrary changes in the will of GOD," _but_ upon laws as fixed and certain "as the laws of gravitation[381],"--which, mark you, Sirs, is no longer a dry verbal speculation, but is nothing less than an invasion of that inner chamber where you or I have retired to pour out the fulness of an aching heart, in prayer that GOD would prolong, if it may be, the life of the dearest thing we have on earth; and rudely to bid us rise from our knees and be silent, for that the health of Man depends not on the will of GOD, but on fixed physiological laws:--lastly, when the pretender to Geological skill denies the authenticity of the First Chapter of Genesis; which is to deny the Inspiration of all the rest; and therefore of the whole Bible;--and thus to rob Life's weary pilgrim of that rod and staff concerning which he has many a time exclaimed,--"they _comfort_ me!":--whenever, as now, such things are spoken and printed,--not in a corner, and by insignificant persons, and in ambiguous language,--but in plain English, by clergymen and scholars in authority, openly in the face of GOD'S sun;--then it is high time, even for the humblest and least among you,--if no man of mark will speak up, and speak out, for GOD'S Truth,--to deliver a plain message with that freedom which Englishmen hold to be a part of their birthright. It should breed no offence, I say, if the most unworthy of GOD'S servants, here, before you all,--before these younger men especially, who have been drawn hither by the fame of your piety and your learning,--and who have been entrusted to your guardianship through the precious years of early manhood, with a well-grounded confidence that you would give them to eat not only of the Tree of Knowledge, but also largely of the fruit of the Tree of Life:--in this Holy House too where he received his commission[382], and vowed before GOD and Man, that he would "be ready," (the LORD being his helper,) "with all faithful diligence to drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to GOD's Word:"--before _such_ an audience, and in such a place, it must and _shall_ be lawful for me solemnly to denounce as false and deadly,--full of nothing but pernicious consequence,--that system of practical Infidelity which enjoys such unhappy popularity at this hour; which, under the mask of Science, and under the specious name of Progress, is spreading like a fatal contagion through the length and breadth of the land; and which, if suffered to go unchastised and unchecked, will end by shaking both the Altar and the Throne!.... Look well to it, Sirs, if you care for the safety of the Ark of GOD. For my part,--like one of old time whose words I am not worthy to take upon my lips,--"I cannot hold my peace: because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war[383]!"

The case is not altered,--rather is it made worse,--if this hostility to GOD's Truth proceeds from persons bearing Orders in the English Church. ("O my soul, come not thou into their secret!") The case is not altered: for the requirements of Physical Science are still the plea; and _Divines_, in _no_ sense, these men are, however unsuccessful they may prove in establishing their claim to the title of _philosophers_ either. Nay, Sirs,--suffer one of yourselves to ask you, whether these disgraceful developments are not the lawful result of your own incredible system, of sending forth, year by year, men to be teachers and professors of Divinity,--to whom you have yet never imparted _any Theological training whatever_[384].

You are requested to observe, that not only cannot GOD's Works contradict GOD's Word,--simply because they are twin utterances of one and the same Divine Intelligence;--but also the deductions of Physical Science cannot possibly run counter to the decrees of Theology[385],--simply because they are respectively in a wholly diverse subject-matter. Had Theology even _once_ delivered a Geological decree, or pretended even _once_ to pronounce upon any Astronomical problem; then, indeed, there would be reason why her disciples should watch with alarm the rapid advance of Physical Science,--instead of hailing it, as they do, with wonder and delight. Then, indeed, we should be constrained to admit that the day might be coming when Theology would have to reconsider the platform whereon she stands; and possibly to "give way." But it is an undeniable fact that there exist _no_ Theological dogmas on matters Geological,--no, _not one!_ Theology cannot retreat from ground on which she has never set foot. She cannot retract, what she has never advanced, or recal the words which she has never spoken. The decrees of Theology are all confined to the Science of Theology,--and with _that_ subject-matter, the other Sciences have simply _no concern_. Their office _there_, as I have again and again explained, is simply ministerial; and when they enter the presence chamber of the great King, they are bid not to draw too nigh. "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet; for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground!"

And how about Moral Science,--whom we beheld, a moment since, shrouded in her mantle, beneath the footstool of the ALMIGHTY;--afraid to look up into His awful Face,--and not presuming to speak, unless called upon to bear her solemn witness to what she learned of Him "in the beginning?"--Must we imagine _her_ too rising from her lowly seat, and presuming to sit in judgment upon the Author of her Being? Are we to picture her arraigning the Goodness of Him who commanded Abraham to slay his son;--or the Justice of Him who sent Saul to destroy the Amalekites;--or the Mercy of Him who inspired certain of David's Psalms;--or the Wisdom of Him who made the everlasting Gospel the mysterious four-fold thing it is?--Then, were she to do so, we should perforce exclaim,--This judgment of thine cannot possibly be just! For the echo _must_ resemble the voice which woke it! Other spirits must have been intruding here; and the unholy din of their voices must have drowned the clear, yet still and small utterance of ALMIGHTY GOD within thy breast!.... In other words, if there _be_ antagonism, Ethics,--not Theology, _but_ (_that which calls itself_) _Moral Science_,--must instantly and hopelessly give way.

For doubtless, that inference of ours as to what had happened, would be a true inference.--It _will_ be the fact, I fear, before the end of all things; for it seems to be implied,--(a more heart-sickening sentence in all Scripture, I know not!),--that when the Son of Man cometh, He will not find the Faith on the Earth[386]. And if not _the Faith_ (=tên pistin=),--what then? _The Moral Sense?_ Hardly! for where was the Moral Sense when she _let go_ the Faith?--It was the fact, (if I read the record rightly,) eighteen centuries ago: for children had then forgotten their duty to their Parents; and the sanctity of Marriage was unknown; and (O prime note of a darkened conscience!) men not only _did_ things worthy of Death, but "_had pleasure in them that did them_." Read the first chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and say what was _then_ the condition of the Moral Sense in man. Tell me, while your cheek is yet burning, whether you think Moral Science was _then_ competent to sit in judgment on a Revelation sent from the GOD of Purity, until GOD's own SON had republished the sanctions of the Moral Law, and informed Man's conscience afresh!... No Sirs. We are told expressly, that "as they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge, GOD gave them over to a reprobate mind,"--"gave them up unto vile affections." And why? Hear the Apostle! It was because "when they knew GOD, they glorified Him not as GOD; neither were thankful:"--hence, they were suffered to become vain in their imaginations, and, "_their foolish heart was darkened!_"--In other words, the candle of the LORD, the light of conscience within them, was well nigh _put out_.

This will explain the reason why, when "THE WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us," He so frequently delivered precepts,--yea, preached whole Sermons,--on what would now-a-days be called mere "Morality." He was _republishing the Moral Law_. He was graving afresh those letters which had been wellnigh worn out through tract of Time, and the wear and tear of Man's ungoverned lusts.--Hence, to this hour, when question is raised of Right and Wrong,--the appeal is made, by the common consent of Christian men, _not_ to the inner consciousness of the creature, but to the Creator's external Revelation of His mind and will. Let abler men explain to us what we mean when we talk about Immutable Morality. I am by no means sure that I understand myself. Sure only am I that it will carry us a very little way. Aristotle would never have made the average moral sense of mankind his standard, had _he_ known of a =logos theopneustos=. The principles of Morality do indeed seem to be fixed and eternal;--=aei pote zê tauta=:--but it is no longer true, =oudeis oiden ex hotou 'phanê=. Ever since the Gospel came into the world, _general opinion_ has ceased to be the standard of Truth: for the Bible has simply superseded it; and put forth a standard to which "general opinion" itself must bow. "_I_ am the Way, _the Truth_, and the Life." So spake the Eternal SON while yet on Earth. And He foresaw that there would come a day when the world would still ask, with Pilate, "What is Truth?" Accordingly, we heard his solemn reply in this Morning's Second Lesson--"THY WORD,"--"THY WORD is Truth." ... "GOD made two great lights," I grant you: but what I maintain is, that He made "_the greater Light_ to rule _the Day_."

And therefore are we very bold to assert that it is all too late for men _now_ to vaunt the authority of the Moral Sense, as a thing to be set up against the fixed and immutable Revelation of GOD'S mind and will. "The sufficiency of Natural Religion is a paradox of modern invention, and the boast of it comes with an ill grace, and under great suspicions, so late in the day of trial[387]." Aye, it comes all too late. Here in England, (GOD be praised!) the moral sense is indeed strong. Is it _as_ strong, think you, among those continental nations which are under the spiritual yoke of Rome? Is it as strong among the Hindoos? Is it as strong among the savage inhabitants of central Australia?... Perceive you not that if Moral Science speaks with a loud and clear voice in Christian lands, it is because there the Moral Sense has been in those lands informed afresh by Revelation? "That the principles of Natural Religion have come to be so far understood and admitted, may fairly be taken for one of the effects of the Gospel[388]." The echoes of the voice of GOD are now so distinct, only because GOD hath suffered His awful voice to be heard on earth again: and if among ourselves those echoes are the loudest and the clearest, is it not because among ourselves the Bible is read the most?

"The fact" (says the thoughtful writer already quoted,)--"the fact is not to be denied; the Religion of Nature _has_ had the opportunity of rekindling her faded taper by the Gospel light,--whether furtively or unconsciously availed of. Let her not dissemble the obligation, and make a boast of the splendour, as though it were originally her own; or had always, in her hands, been sufficient for the illumination of the World."--"It is not to be imagined that men fail to profit by the light that has been shed upon them, though they have not always the integrity to own the source from which it comes; or though they may turn their back upon it, whilst it fills the very atmosphere in which they move, with glory[389]."

I say, therefore, that it is _all too late_ to vaunt the supremacy of Conscience as opposed to Revelation,--Moral as opposed to Theological Science. Moral Science owes all its renewed strength and vigour to Theology. And so, were Moral Science to dare call in question, (as she sometimes _has_ done, and may dare to do again!), the Morality of the Bible,--we should find her monstrous image nowhere so fitly as in that of the man whose withered hand CHRIST healed in the Synagogue,--if the same man had proved such a wretch, as straightway to lift up his arm with intention to smite his Benefactor and his GOD.

Physical Science therefore, (for the last time!)--_all_ the other Sciences,--Moral Science not excepted,--are the handmaids of Theological Science: and Morality, to which we omitted before to assign an office, we have stationed somewhere beneath the footstool, which is before the Throne, of the Most High.--But this day's Sermon,--(and with these words I conclude, sorry to have felt obliged to detain you so long!)--_this_ Day's Sermon has had for its object to remind you, that THE BIBLE is none other than _the voice of Him that sitteth upon the Throne_! Every Book of it,--every Chapter of it,--every Verse of it,--every word of it,--every syllable of it,--(_where_ are we to _stop_?)--every letter of it--is the direct utterance of the Most High!--=Pasa graphê theopneustos=. "Well spake the HOLY GHOST, by the mouth of" the many blessed Men who wrote it.--The Bible is none other than _the Word of GOD_: not some part of it, more, some part of it, less; but all alike, the utterance of Him who sitteth upon the Throne;--absolute,--faultless,--unerring,--supreme!

* * * * *

=Egô men oun iôta hen ê mian keraian ou pisteuô kenên einai theiôn
mathêmatôn.=

ORIGENES, Comment. in S. Matth. tom. xvi. c. 12. p. 734.

=Tauta moi eirêtai ... pros systasin tou mêden mechri syllabês argon ti
einai tôn theopneustôn rhêmatôn.=

BASILIUS, in Hex. Hom. vi. c. 11. tom. i. p. 61 c.

Scripturæ quidem perfectæ sunt, quippe a VERBO DEI, et SPIRITU ejus
dictæ.

IRENÆUS, Contr. Hær. lib. ii. c. xxviii. 2.

=Mêdemia hypenantiôsis ê atopia en tois theiois logois.=

METHODIUS, Tyrius Episcopus, ap. Routh Reliqq. t. v. p. 351.

=Esti gar en tois tôn Graphôn rhêmasin ho Kyrios.=

ATHANASIUS, ad Marcellinum.

=HOsa hê theia graphê legei, tou Pneumatos eisi tou HAgiou phônai.=

GREGORIUS NYSSEN, Contr. Eunom. Orat. vi.

Cedamus igitur et consentiamus auctoritati Sanctæ Scripturæ, quæ
nescit falli nec fallere.

AUGUSTINUS, De Peccator. Merit. lib. i. c. 22.

FOOTNOTES:

[330] Preached in Christ-Church Cathedral, 25th Nov. 1860.

[331] =Pasai hai theopneustoi graphai=,--as it is worded in the Epistle sent by the Council of Antioch in the case of Paul of Samosata, A.D. 269. (Routh _Reliqq._ iii. 292.) See Middleton _on the Greek Article_, (Rose's ed.) _in loc._ And so, in effect, Wordsworth and Ellicott.--It is right to add that it has been contended that =pasa graphê= = "the whole of Scripture." See Lee _on Inspiration_, p. 263, (note.) So Athanasius seems to have taken it: =Pasa hê kath' hêmas graphê, palaia te kai kainê, theopneustos esti=. (_Ep. ad Marcell._ i. 982.)

[332] That =theopneustos= is the predicate, seems sufficiently obvious. So Athanasius, in the passage above quoted. So Gregory of Nyssa: =dia touto pasa graphê theopneustos legetai, dia to tês theias empneuseôs= =einai didaskalian=. (_Contr. Eunom._ Orat. VI. ii. 605.) Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, quotes the place in the same way.--Basil also, saying--=Pasa graphê theopneustos kai ôphelimos, dia touto syngrapheisa para tou Pneumatos=, (_Hom. in Psalm._ I. i. 90,)--clearly adopts the construction assumed in the text.--Ambrose (_De Spir. Sancto_, lib. II. c. 16. ii. 688,) says,--"In Scriptura Divina, =theopneustos= omnis ex hoc dicitur, quod Deus inspiret quæ locutus est Spiritus." (The above are from Lee _on Inspiration_, which see, pp. 260, 493, 599.)--Tertullian (quoted by Tisch.) says, "Legimus omnem Scripturam ædificationi habilem, divinitus inspirari."--A few modern scholars have suggested that =theopn.= may be an epithet, not a predicate. The _doctrine_ will remain the same either way; for the meaning of the place can only be, "Every Scripture, _being_ inspired, is also _profitable_," &c. This is Origen's view: but his criticism is not in point, inasmuch as he read the text differently, (omitting the =kai=.) Lee aptly compares the construction of =pan ktisma Theou kalon, kai ouden apoblêton=. (1 Tim. iv. 4.)

[333] Thess. ii. 13.

[334] 1 Cor. ii. 13.

[335] 2 St. Pet. iii. 16,--where see Wordsworth.

[336] 1 Cor. vii. 40.

[337] 1 Cor. vii. 10.

[338] 1 Cor. vii. 6. (=Touto de legô kata syngnômên, ou kat' epitagên.=)

[339] St. Matth. xix. 6 (= St. Mark x. 9:) and the following places,--St. Matth. v. 32: xix. 9 (= St. Mark x. 11, 12.): St. Luke xvi. 18.

[340] Montfaucon, _præf. ad Euseb. Comm. in Psalm._, cap. x. See also Æsch. Prom. V. v. 289.

[341] St. Luke xvii. 9. So St. Mark x. 42. St. Luke viii. 18. St. John v. 39.

[342] Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 9: Gal. ii. 9: Heb. iv. 1.

[343] =To en autois Pneuma Christou=.--1 St. Pet. i. 11.

[344] =hypo Pneumatos HAgiou pheromenoi elalêsan hoi hagioi Theou anthrôpoi.=--2 St. Pet. i. 21. (_lit._ "impelled,"--like a ship before the wind.)

[345] =proeipe to Pneuma to HAgion dia stomatos Dabid=.--Acts i. 16.

[346] =kathôs legei to Pneuma to HAgion=.--Heb. iii. 7.

[347] =hypo tou Theou=.--Heb. v. 10.

[348] =Dabid eipen en tô Pneumati tô HAgiô.=--St. Mark xii. 36.

[349] =ho Theos ho poiêsas ton ouranon kai tên gên kai tên thalassan kai panta ta en autois, ho dia stomatos Dabid tou paidos sou eipôn=.--Acts iv. 24, 25.

[350] =to Pneuma to HAgion elalêse dia Hêsaiou tou prophêtou=.--Acts xxviii. 25.

[351] =martyrei de hêmin kai to Pneuma to HAgion=--Heb. x. 15, quoting Jer. xxxi. 33, 34.

[352] =ho de Theos ... prokatêngeile dia stomatos pantôn tôn prophêtôn autou pathein ton Christon=.--Acts iii. 18.

[353] =Kyrios ho Theos tou Israêl ... elalêse dia stomatos tôn hagiôn tôn ap' aiônos prophêtôn autou=.--St. Luke i. 68, 70.

[354] =touto dêlountos tou Pneumatos tou HAgiou.=--Heb. ix. 8.

[355] =ou gar este hymeis hoi lalountes, alla to Pneuma to HAgion.=--St. Mark xiii. 11.

[356] =ou gar hymeis este hoi lalountes, alla to Pneuma tou Patros hymôn to laloun en hymin.=--St. Matth. x. 20.

[357] =epei dokimên zêteite tou en emoi lalountos Christou.=--2 Cor. xiii. 3.

[358] Rev. B. Jowett, in _E. and R._,--p. 345. Yet see Acts iii. 18, 21.

[359] Dr. Temple, in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 25.

[360] _Contra Marcion_, sect. I. p. 9.

[361] See the first foot-note, p. 53. [Our 330]

[362] St. John xix. 14.

[363] St. Mark xv. 25.

[364] The passage may be seen in John Bois' _Vet. Interpretis cum Bezâ aliisque recentioribus collatio_, (1655,) p. 333.

[365] See a Dissertation by Dr. Townson at the end of his admirable book on the Gospels.

[366] Viz. St. John i. 39: iv. 6, 52: xix. 14.

[367] And yet, we hear it asserted that we cannot "suppose the Spirit of absolute Truth" "to suggest accounts _only to be reconciled in the way of hypothesis and conjecture_."--_E. and R._, p. 179.

[368] E.g. Gen. xxiv. 2-8, compared with ver. 37-41; and again, ver. 12-14, compared with ver. 42-44. Again, Gen. xlii. 10-13, compared with ver. 31, 32: and again, ver. 14-16, compared with ver. 33, 34. Again, Gen. xlii. 36-8, compared with xliv. 27-29, &c., &c., &c.

[369] Instances of this will be very familiar to every attentive student of the Gospels. Thus St. Matth. xxvi. 68 implies acquaintance with a minute circumstance which is stated in St. Luke xxii. 64:--St. Matth. x. 13 _implies_ what is _expressed_ in St. Luke x. 5, &c., &c., &c.

[370] St. Matth. xxvii. 9.

[371] E.g. St. Jude ver. 14, 15.

[372] Is. lii. 7, and Nahum i. 15.--Is. ii. 2, 3, 4, and Micah iv. 1, 2, 3.--Micah iv. 6, and Zeph. iii. 19.--Is. xi. 9, and Hab. ii. 14.--Micah iii. 12, and Jer. xxvi. 18, &c., &c.

[373] E.g. Jer. xxiii. 5 and Zech. vi. 13.

[374] See Appendix (C).

[375] See Appendix (D).

[376] See Appendix (E).

[377] The Rev. H. Alford, Dean of Canterbury.

[378] Ezek. iii. 2, 3.

[379] Hooker, _Serm._ v. § 4. (_Works_, vol. iii. p. 663.)

[380] St. Matth. v. 5.

[381] Professor Kingsley's Sermon,--"_Why should we pray for fair Weather?_"

[382] See at the foot of p. 53, note (a). [Our 330]

[383] Jer. iv. 19.

[384] The complaint is a very old one. See Pearson's _Minor Works_, vol. i. pp. 429-30.

[385] It becomes necessary to explain, that on the Sunday after the delivery of the foregoing Sermon, a Sermon was preached _directly contravening its teaching_. Next week, it became the present writer's duty to address the same auditory,--which will explain as much of what follows in the present Sermon, (including something at p. 79,) as may seem to require explanation. It was impossible to proceed with the argument, until what had been advanced of a directly opposite tendency had been thus disposed of.

[386] St. Luke xviii. 8.

[387] Davison's _Discourses on Prophecy_,--p. 7.

[388] _Ibid._

[389] Davison's _Discourses on Prophecy_,--p. 8.--The following passage is from Bp. Horsley's _Primary Charge to the Clergy of Rochester_, (1796,):--"The question in this case is not abstract,--what Reason _may have_ the ability to do. The question is upon a matter of fact,--_what she did_. Were these things, in point of fact, man's own discovery?--The sacred history is explicit that they were not. And notwithstanding the many useful lessons of Morality we find in the writings of the heathen sages,--the many eloquent discourses upon providence, and the immortality of the soul,--the many subtile disquisitions upon the great questions of necessity and moral freedom, upon fate and chance,--I am persuaded, that had it not been for the early communications of the Creator with mankind, Man never would have raised the conceptions of his mind to the idea of a God; he never would have dreamt of the immaterial principle within himself; and he never would have formed any general notions of Right and Wrong in the abstract; he would have had no Religion, perhaps no Morality.... The prudent dispensers of the Word will resort to Revelation for his first principles, as well as for more mysterious truths. He will not trust to philosophy for any discoveries. He will suffer philosophy to be nothing more than his assistant in the study of the inspired Word. She must herself be instructed by those lively oracles before she can be qualified to take part in the instruction of men. To lay the foundation of Revelation upon any previous discoveries of Reason, is in fact to make Reason the superior teacher. It is not improbable, that Idolatry itself had its first beginning in an early adoration of this phantom of Natural Religion,--the idol, in later ages, of impolitic metaphysical Divines."--_Charges_, pp. 50, 51.--Bp. Butler says the same thing, but more briefly, in his _Analogy_, P. II., c. ii.: also P. I., c. vi.

SERMON IV.[390]

* * * * *

THE PLENARY INSPIRATION OF EVERY PART OF THE BIBLE, VINDICATED AND EXPLAINED.--NATURE OF INSPIRATION.--THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE.

* * * * *

ST. JOHN xvii. 17.

_Thy Word is Truth._

I thankfully avail myself of the opportunity which, unexpected and unsolicited, so soon presents itself, to proceed with the subject which was engaging our attention when I last occupied this place.

Let me remind you of the nature of the present inquiry, and of the progress which we have already made.

Taking Holy Scripture for our subject, and urging, as best we knew how, its paramount claims on the daily attention of the younger men,--who at present are our hope and ornament; to be hereafter, as we confidently believe, our very crown and joy;--even while we held in our hands that volume which our Fathers were content to call the volume of Inspiration, we were constrained to recollect that its claim to be inspired has of late years been repeatedly called in question. It has even become the fashion to cavil at almost everything which the Bible contains. We are grown so exceedingly wise, have made so many strange discoveries, and have become so clear-sighted, that the more advanced among us are kindly bent on disabusing the minds of their less gifted brethren of that most venerable delusion of all,--(for it is coeval with Christianity,)--that the Bible is in any special sense the Word of GOD. I do not say that Theologians talk thus. But pretenders to Natural Science, knowing nothing whatever of Divinity, and therefore intruding into a realm of which they do not understand so much as the language;--together with, (sad to relate!) men bearing a commission in the Church of CHRIST, (and who ought therefore to be building up, where they are seeking to destroy,)--are employing the powers which GOD has given them, in this direction. It becomes indispensable, in consequence, that we should say somewhat on behalf of those Oracles which have been so vigorously impugned; and it should not seem strange if we oppose to such destructive dogmatism, the most uncompromising severity of counter statement.

The objections which have been raised against the Bible, although they have been industriously gleaned from various quarters, will all be most effectually met, I am persuaded, by getting men to acquaint themselves with the contents of the deposit itself. And yet, inasmuch as it is the nature of doubts, when once injected into the mind, to fester and to spread; inasmuch also as the bold confidence of plausible assertion, especially when recommended by men of reputation, and set off with some ability and skill, is apt to impose on youth and inexperience;--we seem reduced to a kind of necessity, to examine; and, as far as the limits of a sermon will allow, to refute; the charges which have been so industriously brought forward against the Bible.

The favourite objections of the day come partly from without,--partly from within. The classification is not exact, but it may serve to assist the memory. One class of objections is, in a manner, destructive,--for it results in entire disbelief of the Bible:--the other class, suggesting imperfections, results in a low and disparaging estimate of its contents. When exception is taken against certain portions of Holy Scripture, on the ground of discoveries in Physical Science,--of the dictates of the Moral Sense,--of the supremacy of mechanical Laws,--and the like,--we consider that the supposed difficulties come _from without_. As much as we care to say on this class of objections has either been already offered, or must be reserved for a subsequent occasion[391].--When doubts are insinuated, arising out of the subject-matter of the Bible, we consider the difficulties to proceed _from within_. The apparent contradictions of the Evangelists, are of this nature. Supposed errors or misstatements, come under the same head. Very imperfectly, yet sufficiently for our immediate purpose, we have touched upon both subjects. Those portions of the Old Testament which savour in the highest degree of the marvellous, must be reserved for separate consideration[392]. To-day I propose to speak of another kind of objection; but which arises, like the others, out of the subject-matter of the Bible. Moreover, it is the kind of difficulty which most readily presents itself to any who listened with unwilling ears to my last discourse. Some here present may remember my repeated and unequivocal assertion that Holy Scripture is inspired from the Alpha to the Omega of it;--not some parts more, some parts less, but all equally, and all to overflowing;--that we hold it to be, not generally inspired, but particularly; that we see not how with logical consistency we can avoid believing the words as well as the sentences of it; the syllables as well as the words; the letters as well as the syllables; every "jot" and every "tittle" of it, (to use our LORD'S expression,) to be divinely inspired:--and further, that until the contrary has been _proved_, we shall maintain that no misapprehension or misstatement, no error or blot of any kind, can possibly exist within its pages:--that we hold the Bible to be as much the Word of GOD, as if GOD spoke to us therein with human lips;--and that, as the very utterance of the HOLY GHOST, we cannot _but_ think that it must be absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme.

I. To this, it has been objected as follows:--

You cannot possibly mean what you say. You will not pretend to assert that the list of the Dukes of Edom[393], is as much inspired,--inspired in _the same sense_,--as the Gospel of St. John.--To which I make answer, that I believe one to be just as much inspired as the other: and before I leave off, I will endeavour to bring my hearers to the same opinion. In the meantime, it is only fair to the objector, to hear him out: to follow his guidance; and to see whither he would lead us. It will be quite competent for us _then_ to retrace our steps; to point out "a more excellent way;" and to entreat him, with all a brother's earnestness, to reconsider the matter, and to follow _us_.

The objection may, I believe, be fairly stated as follows.--It is unreasonable to consider any part of Holy Scripture inspired which the author was competent to write without the aid of Inspiration. Just as you would not multiply miracles needlessly, and ascribe to special Divine interference results which might be otherwise accounted for, so neither ought you to call in the aid of Inspiration where it may clearly be dispensed with. A genealogy,--a catalogue of names, whether of places or persons,--whatever may reasonably be suspected to have been an extract from public Archives;--nothing of this sort need you, nor indeed, properly speaking, _can_ you, call "inspired." More than that. All mere narratives of ordinary transactions,--or indeed of transactions extraordinary;--whatever, in short, a writer, having first beheld it with his eyes, appears to have simply described with his pen, it is unreasonable to regard as the work of Inspiration. For it is plain to common sense,--(so at least I have heard it said,) that there is much, both in the Old and in the New Testament, the delivery of which required no other than the ordinary gifts of men:--actual observation, good memory, high intellect, clearness of statement, honesty of purpose. Look at the preface to St. Luke's Gospel. It seems only to convey that the author of it believed himself to be bringing out a superior edition of a narrative which had already been attempted by many. I would apply, (it is said,) to the whole of the Old Testament the same observations which I apply to the New. There are parts which evidently required nothing but opportunity of experience, or research, and the ordinary qualities of a trustworthy historian.--This then is the way the case is put. There is no intentional irreverence on the part of the objector: no conscious hostility to GOD'S Truth. Very much the reverse. But having once assumed that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is not to be regarded as an inspired document, he has logical consistency enough to perceive that he cannot exactly stop _there_. And so, he carries his speculations a little further. He tries to take (what he calls) a "common sense" view of the question. He says that he thinks it a dangerous proceeding on the part of the preacher to insist on the infallibility of Apostles and Evangelists. Meanwhile, I suspect that he is not by any means without a suspicion that he is on a platform beset with _far greater dangers_, himself. He has walked a little this way, and that way; and his "common sense" has shewn him that there is an ugly precipice on every side. Nay; he perceives that the ground trembles, and cracks, and shakes,--and even yawns beneath his feet.

For I request you to observe, that there is absolutely no middle state between Inspiration and non-inspiration. If a writing be inspired, it is Divine: if it be not inspired, it is human. It is absurd to shirk the alternative. _Some_ parts of the Bible, it is allowed, _are_ inspired; other parts, it is contended, are _not_. Let it be conceded then, for the moment, that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is _not_ an inspired writing; and let it be ejected from the Bible accordingly. We must by strict parity of reasoning, eject the xth chapter of Genesis, which enumerates the descendants of Japheth, of Ham, and of Shem, with the countries which they severally occupied,--that truly venerable record and outline of the primæval settlement of the nations! The ten Patriarchs before, and the ten after Noah: the many enumerations contained in the Book of Numbers: much of the two Books of Chronicles: together with the Genealogies of our SAVIOUR as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke.

It is clear that the history of the Flood,--very much of it at least,--is of the same nature: a kind of calendar as it were, and record of dates.

But we may go on faster, and use the knife far more freely. Every thing in the Pentateuch of which Moses had been an eye or ear-witness, and which he set down from his own personal knowledge, may be eliminated from the Bible, as not inspired. According to the principle already enunciated by yourself, I call upon you to excise from the Book of GOD'S Law, Exodus, and Leviticus, and Numbers, and Deuteronomy: those passages only excepted which are prophetical,--as the xxxiiird of Deuteronomy. Joshua must go of course: for if the son of Nun did not write the Book which goes under his name,--(as the wise men in Germany say, or used to say, he did not[394],)--of course the narrative is not authentic; and if he _did_, _you_ say that it ought not to be regarded as inspired. Judges and Ruth cannot hope to stand; for they are mere stories,--narratives of events which any contemporary author who enjoyed "actual observation, good memory, high intellect, clearness of statement, and honesty of purpose," was abundantly qualified--(according to _your_ view of the matter)--to commit to writing. The Books of Samuel and of Kings cannot be claimed as the work of Inspiration, of course. Chronicles we have got rid of already. No imaginable plea can be invented for the Books of Ezra, of Nehemiah, and of Esther; those writings having evidently required nothing (to use your own phrase) but "opportunity of experience or research, and the ordinary qualities of a trustworthy historian." The prophetical books you spare; natural piety suggesting that since "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of GOD spake as they were moved by the HOLY GHOST[395];"--the writings of Isaiah and the rest, must be retained as inspired. We expunge those portions only which are simply historical and moral; since to these, by the hypothesis, the spirit of Inspiration cannot be thought to have extended.

We come now to the New Testament; and two of the Gospels are found to be mutilated already, by the elimination of one chapter of St. Matthew and one of St. Luke. But on the principle that personal observation, a good memory, honesty of purpose, and so forth, are the only requirements necessary, we may proceed to carry forward the work of excision with spirit, so that we be but careful to use discernment. For example, we may begin with the Call of St. Matthew, and the Feast which he made to our LORD in his own house. _Who_ so competent to relate this, as the Evangelist himself? Whenever, in short, the Twelve were present, St. Matthew, (as one of the Twelve,) may be assumed to have written from personal observation; and _that_ portion of his narrative is to be rejected accordingly as uninspired.

It is painful to anticipate what will be the fate of St. John's Gospel, on this principle,--together with most of the Divine Discourses therein recorded. Not, to be sure, that we shall lose the conversation with Nicodemus, nor that with the woman of Samaria; because St. John was not present when either of those conversations took place: but all, from the xivth to the xviith chapter inclusive; as well as the discourse in the vith chapter, must of course be dismissed. The matter of these discourses, it will be urged,--(with more of logical consistency, alas! than of essential truth,)--might have been faithfully handed down by St. John without any extraordinary gift. He was bound to our LORD by more than ordinary affection. He was ever nearest to Him. Is it not conceivable, (we are asked,) that these two causes, aided by a retentive memory, would at least _enable_ him to give us the record which he has given?

Quite superfluous must it be to state that the Acts of the Apostles, under the expurgatory process which now engages our attention, will cease to be regarded as an inspired Book; and therefore must be at once disconnected from the confessedly inspired portions of Holy Scripture.--St. Paul's Epistles, you say, on the contrary, are probably inspired, and therefore are probably to be spared.... And I really think we need go no further. If your own handling of Holy Scripture,--your own method, by yourself applied,--be not a _reductio ad absurdum_, I know of nothing in the world which is.... Look only at that handful of mutilated pages in the hands of one who is supposed to be the impersonation of "common sense;" turn the tattered and mangled leaves over and over, which _you_ are pleased to call the Volume of Inspiration; and get all the comfort and help out of it you can. But be not surprised to hear that you are exposing yourself to the ridicule of the sane part of Mankind,--even while haply you are acting a part which makes the Angels weep.... How much of the Bible will remain, when _Science_, (Physical, Moral, Historical,) has further done _her_ work, I forbear now to inquire: but I shrewdly suspect that she will leave you very little beyond the back and the covers.

Let us not be told, (as we doubtless shall,) that the human parts of Scripture need not be _ejected_ from the Canon because they are human: that they may be allowed to stand with the rest, although uninspired; and the like. About this, _we_ at least are competent judges. We are now bent on discovering how much of Holy Scripture is _the Word of GOD_; and we refuse, for the moment, to regard as such, and to retain, a single passage which, being (as you say) uninspired, is simply _the word of Man_.

II. Let me now be permitted to lay before you a somewhat different view of the office of Inspiration. Since the illumination of Science, falsely so called, and the process of Common Sense, would seem to have resulted in the extinction of the deposit, I ask your patience while I try to shew, that common sense, informed by a somewhat loftier Theological Instinct, may give such an account of the matter as will enable us to preserve every word of the deposit entire.

You call my attention to the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom, and tell me that it required no supernatural aid to enable Moses to write it. How, may I ask, do you ascertain that fact? No specimens of the documentary evidence of the land of Seir in the days of Moses, are known now to exist on the earth's surface. You therefore know absolutely nothing whatever about the matter of which you speak so confidently.

But, that we may grapple with the question fairly, let us come down from an age concerning which neither of us knows anything beyond what the Bible teaches, to a period with which all are familiar, and to documents of which we know at least a little. It will suit your purpose far better that you should instance the two Genealogies of our LORD,--of which you also say that it is impossible to maintain that they exhibit the work of Inspiration in the same sense as when some lofty statement of Christian doctrine comes before us. Indeed, you deny that they are inspired at all. I, on my side, am willing to admit that it is quite possible,--even probable,--that the first and the third Evangelist had access to extant documents of which they respectively availed themselves, when they recorded our LORD'S descent.