Chapter XVI: Appendix: A Bishop Horsley on the double sense of Prophecy 257 (12)

But, do you not perceive that the great underlying fallacy in all you have been saying, is your own wholly gratuitous assumption that you are a competent judge of what _did_,--what did _not_,--require supernatural aid to deliver? that whatever _seems_ as if it might have been written without Inspiration, _was_ therefore written without it?--I see so many practical inconveniences, or rather I see such glaring absurdity, resulting from the supposition that Inspiration goes and comes before an authentic document, that I am constrained to think that you are altogether mistaken in the office which you assign to Inspiration,--in the kind of notion which you seem to entertain concerning its nature.

An Evangelist, if you please, is inspired. It becomes necessary to introduce a genealogy. Following the Divine guidance, (the nature of which, neither you nor I know anything at all about,) he applies in a certain quarter, and obtains access to a certain document. Or he repairs to a well-known repository of public archives, and out of the whole collection he is guided to make choice of one particular writing. He proceeds to transcribe it,--omitting names (dropping three generations for instance,)--or inserting names (the second Cainan for example,)--or, if you please, neither omitting nor inserting anything. The document, (suppose,) requires no correction whatever.--Well but, this man was inspired a moment ago, in what he was writing; and no reason has been shewn why he should not be inspired still. He has adopted a document, by incorporating it into his narrative. By transcribing it, he has made it his own. I am at a loss to see that its claim to be an inspired writing, from that moment forward, is in any respect inferior to the rest of the narrative in which it stands.

You are requested to remember that when we call the Bible an inspired book, we mean nothing more than that the words of it are the very utterance of the HOLY SPIRIT;--that the Book is as much the Word of GOD as if high Heaven were open, and we heard GOD speaking to us with human voice. All I am contending for _now_, is, that this is at least as true of one part of the Gospel as of another: that if it be true of anything in the Gospel, it is at least _as_ true of the Genealogy of CHRIST. The _subject-matter_ indeed is different; but it is a mere confusion of thought to infer therefrom a different degree of _Inspiration_. Let me try and make this plainer by a few familiar illustrations.

1. When the Sovereign reads a speech from the Throne, does she speak the words of it in any _different sense_ from the words of a speech which she has herself composed?--Nay, are words of investiture, mere words of form and state, in any _less degree spoken_, than words of confidence, and private friendship?

2. Again. The substance of paper and the substance of gold, are widely different. And yet, when paper has been subjected to a certain process, and stamped with a certain impress, there is practically _no difference whatever_ between the value of what was, a moment ago, absolutely worthless, and an ingot of the purest gold.

3. Consider how the case stands with a merely human author. An historian has occasion to introduce into his narrative the descent of a House, or the preamble of an Act, or any other lifeless thing. Does his responsibility cease when he comes to it, and recommence immediately afterwards? Is he not responsible just to the same extent for _that_, as for every other part of his story?

That he did not _compose it himself_, is certain: but _neither did he compose the sayings which he has recorded of great men_.--True also is it that the edification to be derived from the pedigree is not so great,--certainly, not so obvious,--as from certain of the events which he describes. But it is nevertheless henceforth an integral part of his history. He sought for it,--and he found it: he weighed it,--and he approved of it: he transcribed it,--and he interwove it into his narrative. In a word, he adopted; and by adopting, he _made it his own_. Henceforth, it will be quoted as authentic, because it is found to have satisfied _him_.

The utmost praise which can be accorded to any creature is, that it thoroughly fulfils the office whereunto God sends it. A genealogy is not intended to make men wise unto Salvation: the threats and promises of GOD'S Law are not intended to acquaint men with the descent of David's Son. But because _their offices_ are different, it does not follow that _their origin_ shall not he the same! Is a shoe-latchet in any sense less an article manufactured by Man, than a watch? Is the Archangel Michael, burning with glory, and intent on some celestial enterprise, with twelve legions of glittering seraphs in his train;--is such a host as _that_, one atom more a creation of the ALMIGHTY than the handful of yellow leaves which flutter unheeded on the blast?

None of these figures present a strict parallel; and yet, successively, they seem to set forth different aspects of the same case, with sufficient vividness and truth.... So bent am I on conveying to your minds the strong sense of certainty, the clear definite view, which I cherish for myself on this subject, that I take leave to add yet another illustration.

4. If I commission a Servant to deliver a message,--is not the message which he delivers _mine_? If I give him words to deliver,--are not _the words_ which he delivers _mine_? So obvious a proposition is no matter of opinion. You _cannot_ deny it. Nor,--(to apply the illustration to the matter in hand,)--nor _do_ you deny it, probably, so far as _Prophecy_, (in the popular sense of the term,) is concerned: but you begin to doubt, it seems, when any other function of the prophetic office is in question. "Any other function," I say; for, (as all men ought to be aware,) a prophet,--(_nave_ in Hebrew, =prophêtês= in Greek,)--does not, by any means, of necessity imply one who describes _future_ events. =Pro= does not denote futurity of time, but vicariousness of office. The =pro-phêtês= is one who speaketh =pro=, "on behalf of," "in the person of," GOD; whether declaring things past,--(as when Moses describes the Creation of the World, the Fall of Man, the Patriarchal Age): things present,--(as when St. Luke, "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first," writes of them "in order"): things future,--(as when David, and Isaiah, and the rest of the goodly fellowship, "testified beforehand the sufferings of CHRIST, and the glory that should follow[396].") This is no arbitrary statement, but a well-known fact, which modern unbelievers and ancient heathen writers have declared with sufficient plainness[397]. So long then as the message which the Servant delivers is prophetic, you do not object to the notion that it is GOD'S message; nay, that the words spoken are GOD'S words. You begin to doubt, it seems, when a collection of genealogies, (as the two Books of Chronicles;) or when a story like that contained in the Book of Esther is concerned.

But what is this but very trifling, and mere childishness? The message _may_ be mine, it seems, if it be of a lofty character: it may _not_ be mine if it be of a homely, ordinary kind!--I send a message by my Servant, and he delivers it faithfully: but whether it _is_ to be called my message, or is _not_ to be called my message, is to depend entirely on the subject-matter!... Thus, if a King, refusing to appear in person, should issue a reprieve to prisoners under sentence of Death, a proclamation of Peace or of War, an address to the representatives of the constitution, (Clergy, Lords, and Commons,) in parliament assembled,--the message would be _his_. But if, on the contrary, he were only to send a few homely words, the expression of some wish or intention which has nothing that seems particularly royal in it,--then, the message would _cease_ to be his!... I protest that as I am unable to see the reasonableness of such a method of regarding things human, so am I at a loss to understand why men should so regard things Divine.

5. This entire matter may be usefully illustrated by having recourse to an analogy which was established on a former occasion: namely, the analogy between the _Written_ and the _Incarnate_ Word[398]. That our LORD JESUS CHRIST is at once very GOD and very Man, we all fully admit; although _the manner_ of the union of GODHEAD and Manhood in His one Person we confess ourselves quite unable to comprehend. Even so, that there is a human as well as a Divine element in Holy Scripture,--_who_ so blind as to overlook? _who_ so weak as to deny? And yet, to dissect out that human element,--_who_ (but a fool) so rash as to attempt?... To apply this to the matter before us. _Certain parts_ of Holy Scripture you think, (for reasons to yourself best known,) are not to be looked upon as inspired in the same sense as the rest of the volume. Just as reasonably might you try to persuade me that our SAVIOUR was not _in the same sense_ our SAVIOUR when He ate and drank at the Pharisees' board, as when He cast out devils and raised the dead. Was He not equally the Incarnate WORD at every stage of His earthly career; from the time that He was laid in the manger, until the instant when He expired upon the Cross? The degradation which He endured in Pilate's judgment-hall did not affect the reality of the great truth that the GODHEAD was indissolubly joined to the Manhood in His Person. He was not less very GOD as well as very Man when some one spat upon Him, than at His Transfiguration and at His Ascension into Heaven!... Why then should the mean aspect and lowly office of certain parts of Scripture,--(genealogical details and the narrative of what we think ordinary occurrences,)--be supposed to disentitle those parts to the praise of being _as fully inspired as any thing in the whole compass of the Bible?_

I may remind you, in passing, that the narrative of Scripture, even in its humblest, and (to all appearance) most human parts, has a perpetual note of Divinity set upon it. The historical portions are throughout interspersed with indications that the writer is beholding the transactions which he records, from a Divine, (not a human,) point of view. GOD is invariably, (sooner or later,) mentioned as the Agent; or there is some reference made to GOD; or to GOD'S Word. As Butler expresses it,--"The general design of Scripture ... may be said to be, to give us an account of the world, in this one single view,--_as GOD'S world_: by which it appears essentially distinguished from all other books, so far as I have found, except such as are copied from it[399]."

I entreat you therefore to disabuse your minds of the very weak,--aye and very fatal,--notion that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is _less_, or _in any different sense_, inspired, from the rest of the narrative in which it stands. We may not multiply miracles needlessly, it is true; but neither may we deny the miraculous character of certain transactions, (as the two Draughts of Fishes,) which, apart from the recorded attendant circumstances, would not have been deemed miraculous.--In truth, however, Holy Scripture, in one sense, is a miracle from end to end; and if we may not multiply miracles needlessly, certainly we are not at liberty to dismiss the recorded details of a single miracle, as of no account.--Consider also, I entreat you, whether it is credible that Inspiration should be a thing of such a nature, that it comes and goes,--is here and is gone,--once and again in the course of a single page. What? does it vanish, like lightning, when the Evangelist's pen has to record the title on the Cross,--to re-appear the instant afterwards?

This allusion to the title on the Cross of our Blessed LORD, variously given by each of the four Evangelists, reminds me of the singular perversity of mankind when this subject of Inspiration is being treated of; and to this, I now particularly desire to invite your attention.--When a document is simply transcribed by the Evangelist, or may be _supposed_ to have been merely transferred to his pages, men assert that so purely mechanical an act precludes the notion that Inspiration has had any share in the transaction. Be it so!--Behold now, four inspired writers exhibiting the brief title on our LORD'S Cross with considerable verbal diversity; and you will hear the same critics open-mouthed against the Evangelists' claim to Inspiration, for exactly the opposite reason!--It is just so of places quoted from the Old Testament in the New. Faithful transcription, (we are told,) is in the power of all. What note of an inspired author have we here? But the places are _not_ faithfully transcribed. On the contrary. They exhibit every possible degree of deflection from the original standard. And lo, the Apostles of CHRIST are thought not to have quite understood Greek,--to have mistaken the sense of the Hebrew,--and to have been the victims of a most capricious memory.--For the last time. Certain narrative portions of Holy Scripture, (it is assumed,) could have been written without the aid of Inspiration; and therefore it is unphilosophical, (we are told,) to assign to them a divine original. But the marvellous parts of Holy Scripture, which seem to claim a loftier original than man's unaided wit,--_these_ you view with suspicion, or you deny!... "Whereunto shall I liken the men of this generation?"

Before dismissing the subject, I must ask you to observe, that this arbitrary, irreverent method of approaching Holy Scripture, is absolutely fatal; and can result in nothing but general unbelief. It confessedly leaves the individual reader to decide what parts of the Bible he thinks could, what parts could not, have been written without Divine assistance;--a point on which I am bold to say that he is not competent even to form an opinion. In other words, it constitutes every man the judge of how much of the Bible he will retain,--how much he will reject. To put the case yet more plainly, it makes every man a GOD to himself, and the maker of his own Bible.--For, mark you, the exceptions taken against a genealogy, or a catalogue of names, are just as applicable to the account of our LORD'S Discourses as given by St. John. Once convince me that the function of Inspiration ceases when a genealogy has to be set down,--because (say you) it requires no Inspiration to enable an Evangelist to copy _written_ words;--and I shall have no difficulty in convincing myself that St. John's Gospel, from the xivth to the xviith chapters inclusive, is not inspired,--because I cannot _but_ infer that then neither can it require Inspiration to enable an Evangelist to copy _spoken_ words.--The original fallacy, I repeat,--the =prôton pseudos=,--consists in your supposing yourself a competent judge of the nature and office of Inspiration; concerning which, in reality, you know nothing. You can but reverently examine the phenomena of the Book of Inspiration; remembering that you have everything to learn.

The Bible, it cannot be too often repeated, too clearly borne in mind,--the Bible must stand or fall,--or rather, be received or rejected,--_as a whole_. A Divinity hath over-ruled it, that those many Books of which it is composed should come to be spoken of collectively as if they were one Book. As it was formerly called =hê graphê=--"the Scripture,"--so is it happily called "the Bible"--(the Book)--_now_. "Moses--the Prophets--and the Psalms," was the recognized analysis of the volume of the Old Testament. The Gospels, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, exhibits the sum of the contents of the New.--There is no disjoining the Law from the Gospel. There is no disconnecting one Book from its fellows. There is no eliminating one chapter from the rest. There is no taking exception against one set of passages, or supposing that Inspiration has anywhere forgotten her office, or discharged it imperfectly. All the Books of the Bible must stand or fall together. "Nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it[400]." It is a fabric hard as adamant; and the gates of Hell will assuredly never prevail against it. But remove in thought a single stone; and in thought, that goodly work of Lawgivers and Judges--Kings and Prophets--Evangelists and Apostles,--collapses into a shapeless and unmeaning ruin[401].

Nor may it occasion perplexity, or breed mistrust in any thoughtful mind to find this Book of GOD'S Law so complex in its character,--so various in its contents,--so fruitful in its difficulties. Might it not, on the contrary, have been expected beforehand, that some analogy would have been recognizable between the general complexion of GOD'S Works and of GOD'S Word? While I behold the creatures of GOD so various,--their functions so marvellous,--their nature so little understood,--the very purpose of their creation so great a mystery;--shall I think it strange that _that_ Book which is but another expression of GOD'S Mind and Will, proves diverse in texture, and difficult of interpretation?--Shall I grow rebellious against the message, because the history of it is hid in the long night of ages; say rather, in the counsels of GOD'S inscrutable will? or shall I be incredulous that it comes from Heaven, because I see the fingers of a Man's hand writing upon the plaister of the wall? or shall I despise those parts of it of which I cannot detect the medicinal value? As there are riddles in Nature, so are there riddles in Grace. Anomalies too, it may be, are discoverable in both worlds.--Give me leave to add, that as the microscope reveals unsuspected wonders in the one, so does minute examination bring to light undreamed of perfections in the other also; unimagined proofs of divine wisdom, and skill.... But beyond all things, there is perhaps this further thing which it behoves us to consider:--that the field of either is very vast; the subject-matter very complex: and as, in one, many Professors are needed,--(for the Animal kingdom and the Vegetable kingdom are realms apart: the analysis of substances, and the structure of the Earth demand the undivided attention of different minds;)--so does it fare with the other also. The languages of Scripture are in themselves a mighty study; and the collation of the Text is the portion of a long life. The Law of Moses would abundantly engross the time of one who should undertake to explain its depths; as the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST would assuredly fill to overflowing the soul of another who should desire to appreciate its perfections. The Prophetic writings are a distinct field of labour. The same may well be said of the Epistles of St. Paul. It would be easy to multiply departments--; for I have said nothing yet of Sacred History; and above all, of Sacred Exegesis. But enough has been stated to introduce the remark that considering how slenderly one man is able to labour in all these various provinces, it behoves each one of us to be humble; and certainly to be a vast deal more mistrustful of ourselves than some of us unhappily seem to be; especially when the errand on which we propose to come abroad is the assailing of the authenticity, or the morality, or the integrity, or the Inspiration, of any part of the Bible. Our own amazing ignorance,--our many infirmities,--our faculties limited on every side,--might well keep us humble in the presence of Him whose knowledge is infinite;--whose attributes are all perfections;--whose very Name is ALMIGHTY!--Shall we, on the contrary, presume to sit in judgment upon His Word, which claims to be none other than the authentic record of His Providence,--the Revelation of His very mind and will?... Truly, in this behalf, beyond all others, we seem to stand in need of the solemn warning: "Dangerous it were for the feeble brain of Man to wade far into the doings of the Most High: whom although to know be life, and joy to make mention of His Name; yet our soundest knowledge is to know that we know Him not as indeed He is, neither can know Him. And our safest eloquence concerning Him is our silence, when we confess without confession that His glory is inexplicable; His greatness above our capacity and reach. He is above, and we upon earth: therefore it behoveth our words to be wary and few[402]."

And this brings me naturally back to the subject of my first Sermon from this place; and enables me to conclude, as I began, with an earnest entreaty to the younger men present, that,--whatever their future destination in life may be,--but especially if the Ministry is to be their high privilege, (and the blessedness of _that_ choice they can have no idea of, until they prove it by experience!);--an entreaty, I say, that they would _now_ be assiduous, and earnest, and regular, and punctual, and devout, in their daily study of one chapter of the Bible.--And while you read the Bible, read it believing that you are reading an inspired Book:--not a Book inspired in parts only, but a Book inspired in _every_ part:--not a Book unequally inspired, but all inspired equally:--not a Book generally inspired,--the substance indeed given by the Spirit, but the words left to the option of the writers; but the words of it, as well as the matter of it, all--all given by GOD. As it is written,--"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by _every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of GOD_."

I illustrated sufficiently, last time, in what way fulness of Inspiration is consistent with the expression of individual character: even while I availed myself of the ancient illustration that an inspired writer is like an instrument in the harper's hand[403]. I did not, of course, "intend thereby to affirm that the Writers of Holy Scripture were _constrained_ to write, without any volition or consciousness on their part.... ALMIGHTY GOD, while He _inspired_ the Writers of Scripture, did not impair their moral and intellectual faculties, nor destroy their personal identity[404]." Let me not be told therefore that this is to advocate a mechanical theory of Interpretation. Theory I have none[405]. The Bible comes to me as the Word of GOD; and, _as the Word of GOD_, (the LORD being my helper!) I will receive it. I should as soon think of holding a theory of Providence and Freewill, as of holding a theory of Inspiration. I _believe_ in Providence. I _know_ that I am a free agent. And that is enough for me.--The case of Inspiration seems strictly parallel. I _believe_ in the Divine origin of the Bible. I _see_ that the writers of the several books wrote like men.... _That_ outer circle of causation, which, leaving each individual will entirely free, so controuls without coercing, so overrules without occasioning, the actions of men,--that all things shall work together for good in the end, and the great designs of GOD'S Providence find free accomplishment;--all this, far, far transcends your and my powers of comprehension. It is as much beyond us as Heaven is higher than the Earth. And, in like manner, we must be content to own that Inspiration,--the analysis of which is so favourite a problem with this inquisitive age,--is far, far above us likewise. To St. Luke "it seemed good" to write a Gospel; and doubtless he held high communing on the subject,--which may, or may not, have sounded like ordinary human converse,--with St. Paul. St. Mark in like sort, beyond a question, enjoyed the help of St. Peter, while he wrote his Gospel. But St. Peter and St. Mark, and St. Paul and St. Luke, were all alike,--however unconsciously,--held by the Ancient of Days within the hollow of His palm; and, as Augustine says,--"Whatsoever He willed that _we_ should read concerning His acts and sayings,--_that_ He commissioned the Evangelists to write,--as though it had been _Himself_ that wrote it[406]."--The guidance was remote, I grant you. The mechanism which moved the pens of those blessed writers was far above out of their sight; and complex beyond anything which the mind of man can imagine; (so that the publican lisped of "gold, and silver, and brass[407];"--and the companion of St. Peter, at Rome, wrote Latin words in Greek letters[408];--and the Physician of Antioch withheld the statement that the woman who had spent all that she had in consulting many physicians, "was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse[409];"--and the beloved disciple perhaps indulged his own personal love while he recalled so largely the discourses of his LORD:)--but, for all that, the long sequence of cause and effect existed; and the other end of that golden chain which terminated in the man, and the pen, and the ink, and the paper,--the other end of it, I say, was held fast within the Hand of GOD.--The method of Inspiration is but another of the many thousand marvels which on every side surround me; one of the many things I cannot fully understand, much less pretend to explain. But I may at least believe it in silence, and adore[410].

And,--(forgive me for keeping you so long; but I _cannot_ let you go until I have emptied my heart a little more on this great, and most concerning subject;)--mark you, Sirs, however reluctant some of you may be to admit that you agree with me, you _do_ agree with me,--almost to a man. For, what mean your reasonings on Holy Scripture,--your sermons, and your dissertations, and your catechizings,--your formulæ of belief, and your definitions of Faith,--except you believe in a vast deal more than _the substance_ of Holy Scripture? How can you pretend to expound a text, unless you hold _the words_ of that text to be inspired? What inferences can you venture to draw from words, the Divinity of which you dare not affirm? O, to what endless, hopeless scepticism are you pointing the way! What a variety of most unanswerable questionings will you provoke! How can you hope ever to convince or convict, if you begin by acquainting your adversary that it is only for the substantial verity of Scripture that you claim Inspiration; the verbal details being quite a different matter! See you not that you put into his hands a weapon with which he will infallibly slay _yourself?_ Did the Bishops and Doctors of the Church, when they met in solemn Council,--did _they_ hold such a theory concerning Holy Scripture, think you, as that the matter of it alone is Divine,--the language human? More briefly, that _the words_ of Scripture are _not inspired?_ What then mean their weighty definitions of Doctrine;--GOD the FATHER, "Maker of Heaven and Earth,"--GOD the SON, "by whom all things were made:"--the SON, "=Theos ek Theou=,"--"being of _one substance_ with the FATHER:"--"incarnate by the HOLY GHOST of the Virgin Mary:"--who "descended into Hell"--"whose kingdom shall have no end:"--the HOLY GHOST, "=to Kyrion kai to xôopoion=," "who proceeded from the FATHER and the SON?"--What means every article of that Creed to which you and I have given our unfeigned assent, and which Athanasius would have gladly subscribed to,--the most precious jewel in the Church's casket!--Nay, what means St. Paul's commentary on the history of Melchizedek, if the very words _omitted_ from Holy Scripture are not a _Divine_ omission?

You will perhaps be told hereafter, (I am speaking now to the younger men,) that quite fatal to this view of the question, is the state of the Text of Scripture: that no one can maintain that the words of Scripture are inspired, because no one can tell for certain what the words of Scripture _are_; or something to that effect. Now I will not stop to expose the falsity of this charge against the text of Scripture; (which is implied to be a very corrupt text, whereas, on the contrary, it is the best ascertained text of any ancient writing in the world.) Rather let me remind you, once and for ever, how to refute this silly sophism,--the transparent fallacy of which one would have thought unworthy of exposure before men of trained understandings; but that one hears it urged so often and so confidently. See you not that the state of the text of the Bible has no more to do with the Inspiration of the Bible, than the stains on yonder windows have to do with the light of GOD'S Sun? Let me illustrate the matter,--(though it surely cannot need illustration!)--by supposing the question raised whether Livy did or did not write the history which goes under his name. _You_, (suppose,) are persuaded that he _did_,--_I_, that he did _not_. So far, we should both understand, and perhaps respect one another. But what if I were to go on to condemn your opinion as untenable, because of the corrupt state of Livy's _text?_ Would you not reply that I mistook the question entirely: that _you_ were speaking of the _authorship of the work_,--not about the _fate of the copies!_ ... Suppose, however, I were to contend that Livy may indeed have furnished the matter of his history, but that the form of expression must needs have been supplied by some one else; _still_ on the same ground of the corrupt state of the historian's text. What would you think of me _then?_--a man who not only confounded two things utterly dissimilar,--(the authorship of a book, and the amount of care with which it had been transcribed and printed;)--but who was for distinguishing the mind of the writer from the expression of that mind; the _thoughts_, from the _words_ which are essential to their transmission! A hopelessly illogical person, surely!

O no, Sirs! Banish the fancy at once and for ever from your minds. You cannot thus dissect Inspiration into substance and form. It is a mere delusion of these last days,--prated of from man to man, until respectable persons begin to give in to the fallacy; and persuade themselves that they themselves believe it. They hope thus to avoid the danger which is supposed to attach to hearty belief in the Bible as the very Word of GOD; as well as to secure for themselves a side-door, (so to speak,) by which to escape, whenever they are inconveniently hard pressed. How much more faithful, to leave GOD to take care of His own! How much more manly, to be prepared sometimes to confess ignorance!... As for _thoughts_ being inspired, apart from the _words_ which give them expression,--you might as well talk of a tune without notes, or a sum without figures. No such dream can abide the daylight for a moment. No such theory of Inspiration, (for a theory it _is_, and a most audacious one too!), is even intelligible. It is as illogical as it is worthless; and cannot be too sternly put down. The philosophical mind of Greece, (far better taught!), knew of only one word for both Reason and the expression of it. Lodged within the chambers of the brain, or put forth into living energy,--it was still, with them, the =Logos=.--I invite you, as the only intelligible view of the matter,--your only alternative, unless you resolve to run the risk of the most irrational rationalism,--to take this high view of Inspiration: to believe, concerning the Bible, that it is in the most literal sense imaginable, verily and indeed, _the Word_ of GOD.

And do you,--(for I am still addressing myself to the younger men,)--learn to put away from your souls that vile indifferentism which is becoming the curse of this shallow and unlearned age. Be as forgiving as you please of indignities offered to yourselves; but do not be ashamed to be very jealous for the honour of the LORD of Hosts; and to resent any dishonour offered to Him, with a fiery indignation utterly unlike anything you could possibly feel for a personal wrong. Attend ever so little to the circumstance, and you will perceive that every form of fashionable impiety is one and the same vile thing in the essence of it: still Antichrist, disguise it how you will. We were reminded last Sunday that the sensualist, by following the gratification of his own unholy desires, in bold defiance of GOD'S known Law, is in reality setting himself up in the place of GOD, and becoming a GOD unto himself[411]. The same is true of the Idolatry of Human Reason; and of Physical Science: as well as of that misinformed Moral Sense which finds in the Atonement of our LORD nothing but a stone of stumbling and a snare. It is true of Popish error also;--for what else is this but a setting up of the Human above the Divine,--(Tradition, the worship of the Blessed Virgin, the casuistry of the Confessional, and the like,)--and so, once more substituting the creature for the Creator?--What again is the fashionable intellectual sin of the day, but the self-same detestable offence, under quite a different disguise? The idea of Law,--(_that_ old idea which is declared to be only now emerging into supremacy in Science,)--takes the hideous shape of rebellion against its Maker; and pronounces, now Miracles, now Prophecy, now Inspiration itself, to be a thing impossible; or is content to insinuate that the disclosures of Revelation are at least untrue. What is this, I say, but another form of the self-same iniquity,--a setting up of the creature before the Creator who is blessed for evermore; a substitution of some created thing in the place of GOD!

The true antidote to all such forms of impiety, believe me, is not controversy of any sort; but the childlike study of the Bible, each one for himself,--not without prayer.--Humble must we be, as well as assiduous; for the powers of the mind as well as the affections of the heart should be prostrated before the Bible, or a man will derive little profit from his study of it. Humble, I repeat, for mysteries, (remember), are revealed unto the meek[412]; and the fear of the LORD is the beginning of Wisdom[413]; and he that would understand more than the Ancients must keep GOD'S precepts[414]; and it is the commandments of the LORD which give light unto the eyes[415].--The dutiful student of the Bible is permitted to see the mist melt away from many a speculative difficulty; and is many a time reminded of that saying of his LORD,--"Do ye not therefore err, _because ye know not the Scriptures_, neither the power of GOD[416]?" ... The humble and attentive reader of the Bible becomes impressed at last with a sense of its Divinity, analogous I suppose to the conviction of Eleven of the Apostles that the Man they walked with was none other than the SON of GOD. _That_ similarity of allusion,--_that_ sameness of imagery,--_that_ oneness of design,--_that_ uniformity of sentiment,--_that_ ever-recurring anticipation of the Gospel message;--_all_ goes to produce a secret and sure conviction that every writer, under whatever variety of circumstances, had access to but one Treasury,--drew from but one and the same Well of living water. Marks of purpose, shewn in the choice or collocation of single words, often strike an attentive reader; which, singly, might be thought fortuitous; but which, collectively, can only be accounted for on a very different principle. The beautiful structure of the Gospels strikes him especially; and he could as soon believe that a song harmonized for four Angel voices had been the result of accident, as that the Evangelists had achieved their task without special aid, throughout, from Heaven. A lock of very complicated mechanism, which four keys of most peculiar structure will open simultaneously,--must have been as evidently made for them, as they for it.

It is almost treason, in truth, to the Majesty of Heaven to discuss the Bible on the low ground which I have been hitherto forced to occupy. It is quite monstrous, in the first University of the most favoured of Christian lands, that a man should be compelled thus to lift up his voice in defence of the very Inspiration of GOD'S Word. O that Divine narrative, which is for ever rending aside the veil, and disclosing to us the counsels of the presence-chamber of the ALMIGHTY!--O those human characters, beset with all the infirmities of our fallen nature,--whose words and actions yet are shadows of things heavenly and eternal!--O that majestic retinue of types which, from the very birthday of recorded Time, heralded the approach of the King of Glory!--O that scarlet thread which runs through all the seemingly tangled web of Scripture, to terminate only in the cross of CHRIST!--How do the features of the Gospel struggle into sight through the veil of the Law! How do the holy and humble men of heart ever and anon break out into speech, as it were, before the time;--as if they felt the burden of silence too great to be endured!... Whence is it that we dare to handle the pages of GOD'S Book as if they were a common thing,--doubting, questioning, cavilling, disbelieving, denying? Why choose for ourselves the soldiers' part, who buffeted, reviled, smote, spat upon Him?... O my friends, far, far be all this from you and from me! Never imagine, because this day we have thus spoken, that such discussions are congenial to us; or that we deem them the proper theme for addresses from the pulpit; although the coincidence of this day's Collect seems, for once, to lend a kind of sanction to our present endeavours. Look through the whole range of patristic homilies, and you will not find _one_ of the kind, with which, unhappily, our ears are grown so familiar in this place,--ingenious attempts to evacuate Holy Writ of its fulness, on the one hand;--or apologies of some sort for its Divinity and Inspiration, on the other. You will take, if you are wise, far, far higher ground, in your private study of its pages; remembering that "the most generous faith is invariably the truest;"--nor ever stoop so low as _we_ have been this day doing. Waste not thy precious time in cavil about the structure of the casket which contains thy treasure; but unlock it once with the Key of Faith, and make thyself rich indeed.--Already,--(as we were last week reminded),--already the Judge standeth at the door; and assuredly, thou and I, (to whom GOD hath entrusted so much!) shall have to render a very strict account of the use we have made of the Bible,--when we shall stand face to face with its undoubted Author. The season of the year reminds us, as with a trumpet, of that tremendous hour when the veil will be withdrawn from our eyes,--and the office of Faith will be ended,--and we shall be confronted with One who hath "a vesture dipped in blood, and whose Name is called THE WORD OF GOD." ... "I _have heard of Thee_," (we shall, every one of us, exclaim),--"I _have heard of Thee_, by the hearing of the ear; but _now_,--mine eye _seeth_ Thee[417]!"

SUPPLEMENT TO SERMON IV

There is yet another view of the nature and office of Inspiration,--another 'Theory' as it would perhaps aspire to be called,--which limits _the extent_ of the Divine help and guidance which the writers, confessedly inspired, may be supposed to have enjoyed. According to this view, it is admitted that Inspiration was, from first to last, a continuous influence; exerted equally throughout: but then, it has been suggested that perhaps _its office_ was not to protect a Writer against a certain class of errors. The office of the Bible, (it is argued,) is to make men wise unto Salvation. It does not follow that Inspiration, because it guided a sacred writer so long as he wrote of Christian Doctrine, so as to make what he wrote unerringly true, should have protected him against slips of memory; preserved him from inaccuracies of statement; from inconclusive reasonings; from incorrect quotations; from mistaken inferences; from scientific errors.--This is what is said: and because this is a view of the question which is observed to recommend itself occasionally to candid, and even to reverential minds, it seems to deserve distinct and careful consideration.

But I must preface all I have to reply by remarking that "a Book cannot [properly] be said to be inspired, or to carry with it the authority of being GOD'S Word, if only _portions_ come from Him, and there exists no plain and infallible sign to indicate _which_ those portions are; and if the same Writer may give us in one verse of the Bible a revelation from the MOST HIGH, and in the next verse a blunder of his own. How can we be certain, that the very texts, upon which we rest our doctrines and hopes, are not the _uninspired_ portions? What can be the meaning or nature of an Inspiration to teach Truth, which does not guarantee its recipient from error?"--So far a living sceptical writer.

1. Now, the first thing which strikes one in this theory, is its extreme vagueness. We hardly know what we have to consider; for nothing is definitely stated. Neither are we informed how many of the phenomena of Inspiration, this view is intended to explain. Again, does the theory apply equally to the Old Testament and to the New? If it does apply equally to the Old Testament, (and I can see no possible reason why it should _not_,) then, I apprehend this theory will be found _practically_ to run up into, and to identify itself with, that last described[418]. For a guidance _which has failed to guide_, has been no guidance at all; and since whole chapters of the Old Testament will occur to every one's memory which may be thought to have no connexion whatever with 'Christian Doctrine,'--to conduce wondrous little to the 'making men wise unto Salvation,'--it will follow that Inspiration is, according to this theory, in effect, of the nature already described,--namely, a quality which can never be predicated of any passage of Scripture with entire certainty. The larger part of the Old Testament in fact, by this theory, is exhibited in the light of a common book; having no pretension to be regarded as part of the Inspired Canon.

But if this theory simply shirks the question of the Old Testament, then, those who are inclined to accept it, are bound to explain why there should be one theory of Inspiration applicable to the Old Testament, and another for the New:--in which difficulty, I must candidly profess that I am not able to render any assistance at all. It is clearly not allowable to overlook the intimate connexion which subsists between the two great divisions of Holy Scripture; the habitual references of the Writers of the New Testament to the writers of the Old,--Moses, David, Isaiah, and the rest;--or rather, _to the utterance of the_ HOLY GHOST, _speaking by the mouth of those writers_. Whatever may have been the Inspiration of the Authors of the New Testament must be assumed to have been that of the Authors of the Old Testament also.

2. But further,--(to confine our remarks to the Scriptures of the New Testament; which, it is manifest, the view under consideration specially contemplates;)--however plausible in the abstract a theory may sound, which would account for a Chronological difficulty,--the insertion of what seems to be a wrong name,--a quotation made with singular license,--an unscientific statement,--the apparent inconsistency of two or more accounts of one and the same transaction, in respect of lesser details,--a (supposed) inconclusive remark, or specimen of reasoning which seems to be fallacious;--on the supposition that it is not the office of Inspiration to enlighten the understanding on points like these, or to preserve the pen from error;--however plausible, I say, this theory, abstractedly considered, may appear;--it will be found that it will not bear the searching test of a practical application.

It would indeed be a great advantage to the cause of Truth, and a great help to individual minds, as well as wonderfully promote the arriving at a sound conclusion in this perilous department of speculative Divinity,--if, instead of putting up with a vague theory, (like the present,) regardless of its logical bearings and necessary issues;--men would compel themselves to apply their view to the actual phenomena of Holy Scripture: to carry it out to its legitimate consequences, and steadily to contemplate the result. I venture to predict that the theory which we are now considering, when submitted to such a test, would be found not only inconvenient, but absolutely untenable. The inconsistency and absurdity which results from it, can, I think, easily be made to appear.

For if any one who is disposed to regard it with favour,--instead of idly, (as is the way with nine-tenths of mankind,) repeating the formula in terms more or less vague and indefinite; and straightway wincing, falling back on generalities, and in a word shirking the point, the instant it is proposed to bring the question to a definite issue;--if a favourer of the present theory I say, instead of so acting, would take up a copy of the New Testament, and proceed, with a pen in his hand, to _apply_ the theory, by running his pen through the places, (and they _must_ be capable of individual specification!), which he suspects of being external to the influence of Inspiration;--or, if you please, which he thinks have been penned without that Divine help which makes what is written infallible;--I venture to predict that such an one will speedily admit that his erasures are either so very few, or so very many, as to be fatal to the theory of which they are the expression.

If they be confined to "the fifteenth year of Tiberius[419]; to the names of the second Cainan[420], Cyrenius[421], Abiathar[422], 'Jeremy the prophet[423];'" to "the sixth hour[424]," and so on;--no great inconvenience truly will result. But the instant you go a step further, the difficulty begins. Many of the quotations from the Old Testament may be made to correspond with the Hebrew, doubtless, without sensible inconvenience: but there are others which refuse the process. However, let it be supposed that all such indications of imperfect memory, or misapprehension of the sense of the Hebrew Scriptures, have been removed; and here and there, that an irrelevant clause in the reasoning has been lopped off, or an unscientific remark expunged.--After all this has been done, I venture to say that the result will be the reverse of satisfactory, even to the theorist himself. He will infallibly exclaim secretly,--I seem to have gained wondrous little by this corrective process. Was it worth while, in order to achieve _this_, to tamper with the Divine Oracles? The great body of Scripture remains after all, in all its strangeness, all its perplexing individuality. Meanwhile, piety and wisdom modestly suggest,--Is it reasonable to think that Evangelists and Apostles should have stumbled, like children, before dates, and names, and quotations from their own Scriptures? Surely if _this_ be all that can be objected against the Bible, the very slenderness of the charge becomes its sufficient refutation!... _The erasures are so few, in fact, that they refute the theory._

But if, on the other hand, the pen be freely used, then the result will be fatal to the theory, _because it will be fatal to the record_. If an 'Essayist and Reviewer' were to reduce the Gospels to consistency, according to _his_ view of consistency, the Gospels would scarcely be recognizable. If he were to reject from St. Paul's writings every instance of what _he_ thinks fanciful exposition, illogical reasoning, inexact quotation, and mistaken inference; the result would be altogether unmanageable. For any one who attends to the matter will perceive that such things run into the very staple of the Apostle's argument; and therefore cannot be detached without destroying the whole. The householder's reason for not removing the tares, ("lest while ye gather up the tares ye root up also the wheat with them[425],") applies exactly. If St. Paul's exposition of Melchizedek be fanciful and untrustworthy, then does the proof of the superiority of our SAVIOUR'S Priesthood over that of Aaron, fall to the ground. If his handling of the story of Sarah and Hagar be an uninspired allegory, then does his argumentation respecting the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles disappear. If the furniture of the Temple, and the provisions of the Jewish ritual, were not dictated by the SPIRIT of GOD[426], then will the Epistle wherein it is found be reduced to proportions which make it meaningless. If Deuteronomy xxv. 4 has no reference to the Christian Ministry, then the entire context (in two of St. Paul's Epistles) must go at once[427].... It is useless to multiply such instances. Any one familiar with the writings of St. Paul will know the truth of what has been offered; and will admit that the erasures required by the theory before us will become so numerous as to prove,--(to a devout mind at least, or indeed to any one of sense and candour,)--that the theory is altogether untenable.

It cannot escape observation, therefore, that however plausible this view of Inspiration may sound, as long as some few petty historical, chronological, and scientific inaccuracies are all that have to be accounted for;--the theory (unhappily) proves worthless when it comes to be practically applied; inasmuch as in the writings of St. Paul, for example, there is little or nothing of the kind just specified, to be condoned. Erroneous dates, unscientific statements, wrong names, and the like, form no part of the staple of the New Testament. Such instances may be counted on one's fingers; and are to be sufficiently explained to render any special theory of Inspiration in order to meet them, quite a gratuitous exercise of ingenuity.

3. On the other hand, if a wider class of phenomena is to be dealt with by this theory, the reader is requested to observe that we involve ourselves in a gross contradiction; for we forsake the very principle on which it pretends to be built. The theory set out by reminding us that "the office of the Bible is to make men wise unto Salvation,"--not to teach physical Science, nor to deal with facts in chronology and the like: and the plea was allowed. But the theory which was devised to account for one class of phenomena is now most unwarrantably applied to account for another. We have travelled into a widely different subject-matter,--namely, _Divinity proper!_ Let it therefore be respectfully asked,--If the Inspiration which the Apostles enjoyed did not preserve them against unsound inferences in respect of _Holy Scripture_; and illogical, inconclusive argumentation in _things Divine_;--pray, of what use was it? We have not been reviewing a set of _Geological_ mistakes on the part of the great Apostle. To Physical Science, he has scarcely so much as a single allusion. He deals with _Christian Doctrine_; with _Divinity_, properly so called; and _with that only_. Pray, was not Inspiration a sufficient guide to him, _there_?

4. It is high time also to remind the reader that although the office of the Bible, confessedly, is "to make men wise unto Salvation," it does not by any means follow that _that_ is its _only_ office. In other words, we have no right to assume that we know all the possible ends for which the Bible was designed; and to lay it down, as if it were an ascertained fact, that it was _not_ designed to enlighten men in matters of Chronology, History, and the like; seeing, on the one hand, that all the evidence we are able to adduce in support of such an opinion, does not establish so much as a faint presumption that any part of Scripture is uninspired; and seeing that, on the other, as a plain matter of fact, historical details constitute so large a part of the contents of the Bible; and that the sacred volume is _the sole depository_ of the History and Chronology of the World for by far the largest portion of the interval since that World's Creation.

5. In passing, it may also be reasonably declared, that it is to take a very derogatory view of the result of the HOLY SPIRIT's influence, to suppose that imperfections and inaccuracies can freely abound,--nay, can exist at all,--in a Revelation which the same HOLY SPIRIT is believed to have inspired. They ought surely to be _demonstrated_ to exist, before we are called upon to listen to the apologies which have been invented to account for their existence!