Chapter I: INTERPRETATION, then, in the largest sense of the term, I take to (2)

IV. Such then, (to conclude,) is _the Divine method of Interpretation_. We are not concerned now to classify, and sort it out under different heads. _To apply_, even to a small extent, the principles we have been labouring to establish, would not only lead us much too far, but would constrain us to travel out of our proper subject and prescribed province. Our purpose has only been, to vindicate the profundity, or rather _the fulness_ of Holy Writ[514]; and to shew that under the obvious and literal meaning of the words, there lies concealed a more recondite, and a profounder sense: call that sense mystical, or spiritual, or Christian, or what you will. Unerringly to elicit that hidden sense is the sublime privilege of inspired Writers; and they do it by allusion, by quotation, by the importation of a short phrase[515], by the adoption of a single word[516],--to an extent which no one would suspect who had not carefully studied the subject. How that method of theirs is to be _applied by ourselves_, it is impossible, I repeat, for me even to hint at in a single discourse. But _this_, I will say; and with _this_ I dismiss the subject;--that Interpretation would be a hopeless task, but for the solemn circumstance that the whole of the Bible is inspired by one and the self-same Spirit; so that one part may always be safely compared with any other part of it, you please. Nay, by no other method can you hope to understand the Bible, than by such a laborious comparison of its several parts. "Non nisi ex Scripturâ Scripturam potes interpretari." The more you study the Book, the more you will feel convinced that its many authors all resorted to one and the same Fountain of Inspiration. They all use the same imagery; they all speak the same language; they all mean the same thing. St. John the Divine, in the Book of Revelation, shuts up the Canon by reproducing the combined imagery of all the ancient prophets,--by declaring that the Song of Moses and of the LAMB is sung by the redeemed in Heaven,--by marvellous words about "the Tree of Life," which is "in the midst of the Paradise of GOD." The Inspired writers of either Testament all draw from the same Treasury, and therefore all say the same things. The Heavenly Jerusalem, (with her gates of pearl and streets of gold,) is the home of the spirit of each one of them[517]; JESUS CHRIST, and He Crucified, is the abiding theme of them all. And O, how their words do sometimes teem, and their phrases swell, almost to bursting, with their blessed argument[518]! You shall be troubled with only one example of what I mean.--Moses having described the interview between Melchizedek and Abraham, the mighty secret of MESSIAH'S priesthood which therein lay enshrined was curtained all so close, that neither Angels nor Men could possibly discern it. Must it then remain a mystery for 2000 years? Not so! Midway between the day of Abraham and the day of CHRIST,--just midway,--David, speaking by the HOLY GHOST,--(of _that_, our LORD Himself assures us[519],)--David, I say, when a thousand years had rolled by, utters the cxth Psalm; and in the fulness of his prophetic fervour, the great secret bursts unexpectedly into light! A thousand years had passed since Abraham returned from 'the slaughter of the Kings.' It wanted yet a thousand years to the date of our SAVIOUR'S Birth. And lo, midway, a voice is heard, shouting to Him across the gulf of Ages,--"_Thou_ art a Priest for ever _after the order of Melchizedek_!"

"And let not Reason be alarmed. Her vocation is not gone. Yea rather, I know not if Human Intellect ever had a loftier problem presented to her than to follow out that deep Analogy which has been noticed above; and to learn, (if it may be called Reason's learning,) how to deal with Holy Scripture as Apostles and Evangelists deal with it. Let not Reason be alarmed. She is only asked to listen, and to discern the nature and laws of Sacred Study. She is asked but to discern the evidence which there is of her being in a world which she imperfectly understands.... The student of the Bible is advised so to address himself to the study of that Book, so to deal with its language, as one should deal with THE WORD OF GOD,--the measure of whose import is in the infinite, not in the finite World.--Surely, by these things the LORD tries the spirits of us all; tries other men by other means, but tries the intellectual man by the Word of GOD[520], and watches him as he reads it; hardens the obdurate; blinds the self-blinded; but pours into the humble mind the riches of His divine Wisdom like showers into a valley; making it soft with the drops of rain and blessing the increase of it[521]."

V. Friends and brethren, it is not without reluctance that on a Sunday in Lent, when penitential thoughts should rather occupy us,--and in this place too, where the promotion of practical piety should rather be our aim,--I have so addressed you. But indeed, I seem to have no choice. It is idle crying "peace, peace," when there is _no_ peace. If the Inspiration of Holy Scripture be a deceit, and the Divine meaning of Holy Scripture a superstition,--then, farewell to all our hopes in Life and in Death; farewell to peace in days of despondency and gloom. Our faith is gone, and our teaching becomes a hollow heartless thing. Since, under the name of freedom of discussion, unbounded licentiousness of speculation is openly the fashion of the age, we are constrained to give a reason for the hope which is in us; and to defend, without compromise or hesitation, that Bible, which is the great bulwark of the Faith. It shall not be said that we can condemn, but that we make no answer. It must be seen that we put forth in reply the ancient Truths; and it will be felt that before the majesty of those ancient Truths, the arts of the enemy will prove weak and unavailing,--rather, will stand revealed in all their native deformity. If English Clergymen, coming abroad in the cast-off clothes of German unbelief[522], and decked out with the exploded sophisms of the last century, are to declare openly that the faith of our Fathers is already looked upon among ourselves as 'a kind of fossil of the Past,'--then is it high time that voices should be heard vindicating _that_ ancient method of our Fathers; and boldly proclaiming that this imputation against the Clergy of England is a disreputable untruth. The Church of England, (GOD be praised!) hath _not_ left her first love; hath _not_ given up her ancient method; Christianity is _not_ 'a difficulty to the highest minds.' The Christian Religion embraces, as much as ever it did, "the thought of men upon the Earth." "All the tendencies of Knowledge" are _not_ "opposed to it." The Gospel is still immeasurably before the age. Intellect has not gone,--the loftiest order of well-trained intellects will never go,--the other way[523]. It is, on the contrary, none but a very shallow wit which errs. Had it confined its speculations to the cloister, or come abroad with sorrow and shame, we should have pitied in silence, and in silence also have lamented. But when it comes insultingly abroad, and sets up a claim to intellectual superiority even while it denies the most sacred truths;--_then_ pity gives way before indignation and disgust. Crown the whole with the iniquity of imputing these views generally to the more thoughtful of the English Clergy[524],--and we are constrained openly to resent the grievous wrong. We declare it to be an unfounded calumny; a calumny which, in the name of the whole Church, I solemnly repel before GOD,--and His Holy Angels,--and _you_!

Vain, utterly vain,--worthless, utterly worthless,--must any superstructure of intellectual, moral, or religious training be, which is built up on the doctrine that the Bible is to be interpreted like any other Book; in other words, that the Bible _is_ a common Book; in other words, that _Inspiration is a fable and a dream_. We have no fear whatever that _your_ high instincts, (with all your faults!),--_your_ English manliness,--will, to any extent be led astray, by sophistry worthless as that which we have been exposing. But we know you look to your appointed Teachers from this place, (as well you may,) for advice, and support, and encouragement, in your better aspirations;--and let _me_, at least, in plain language, warn you that novelties in Religion never _can_ be true. "Philosophia," says the great Bishop Pearson speaking of Physical Science; "Philosophia quotidie progressu: Theologia nisi _regressu_ non crescit[525]." "Ask for the old paths!" ... The faith, remember, was =hapax=,--_once for all_,--delivered to the Saints. There will be no new deposit. There can be no new doctrines. There has been no fresh Revelation,--no new principle of guidance vouchsafed to man. A new method of interpreting Scripture is _quite_ impossible. And the true method,--the only _true_ method--_must_ be that which was adopted by our SAVIOUR, by His Evangelists, and by His Apostles: a method which _they_ taught to their first disciples, and which those early Bishops and Doctors handed on in turn to the generation which came after them. That method, by GOD'S great goodness, has descended in an unbroken stream, even to ourselves; who have described it this morning, feebly indeed and unworthily,--yet, in the main, as it would have been described at _any_ time, by _any_ of the glorious company of the Apostles, the goodly fellowship of the Prophets, the noble army of Martyrs,--by any of the Doctors and Fathers of the Holy Church throughout the world! O let it be our great concern,--yours and mine,--to preserve with undiminished lustre the whole deposit of Heaven-descended teaching which is the Church's treasure!... Like runners in a certain ancient race of which we all have read, let it be _our_ pride and joy,--yours and mine,--to grasp the torch of Truth with a strong unwavering hand; to run joyously with it so long as the days of this earthly race shall last; and dying, to hand it on to another, who, with strength renewed like the eagle's, may again,--swiftly, steadily, exultingly,--run with it, till he fails!... _So_, when the Judge of quick and dead appeareth,--_so_ let Him find _you_ occupied,--O young men, (many of you, my friends,) who are already the hope of half the English Church! So faithfully may _we_, Brethren and Fathers, one and all, be found employed, when He cometh,--whose answer to the Tempter is emphatically _the_ text of the present solemn season, as well as a mighty voucher for the Divine origin, and sustaining efficacy of that Book concerning which I have been detaining you so long,--"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone; but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of GOD!"

Ut verum fatear, semper existimavi, allusiones istas, (ad quas
confugiunt quidam tanquam ad sacrum suæ ignorantiæ asylum,)
plerumque nihil aliud esse, quam Sacræ Scripturæ abusiones
manifestas.

BISHOP BULL, _Harmonia Apostolica_, cap. xi. sect. 3.

There would be no need to scruple the term, if it were not meant to
imply that this Accommodation was arbitrary on the part of the
Evangelist; or that the mind of THE SPIRIT that spoke by the
Prophet does not most fully include this application.

DR. W. H. MILL.

FOOTNOTES:

[436] Preached at St. Mary-the-Virgin, on the Third Sunday in Lent, March 3rd, 1861.

[437] "It cannot be said that this, [viz. that _the Bible is the Word of God_,] is always remembered. It cannot be said that they who write respecting the Bible, even Christian writers who are looked up to, always appear to have been in that frame of mind while contemplating the statements of the Sacred Volume, which they, the same men, would have been in if they had been listening _for a voice out of a cloud_; a word reaching them which was simply, and in that sense, the Word of GOD. Yet the Sacred Volume comes to us with no less claims than as conveying such a message; and on every feature of it, it carries that claim. It professes to be this,--an account of what went on in the secret council-chamber of the MOST HIGH."--Eden's _Sermons_, pp. 150-1.

[438] _Exposition of the Creed_, Art. II. ("Our LORD,")--vol. i. p. 183.

[439] 1 St. Peter i. 11.

[440] _Eccl. Pol._, B. v. c. lix. § 3.

[441] Bp. Bull, _Defensio Fid. Nic._ I. i. 9, (_Works_, vol. v. i. p. 22.)

[442] Disc. v. _The state of Man before the Fall._ Bull's Works, vol. ii. p. 99.

[443] "DEUS novit cordis mei secreta: in dogmatis theologicis a novaturiendi prurigine (quam etiam supremi Judicis tribunal insiliens fidenter mihi tribuit theologiæ professor) adeo alienus sum, ut quæcunque catholicorum Patrum et veterum episcoporum consensu comprobata sunt, etiamsi meum ingeniolum ea non assequatur, tamen omni reverentia amplexurus sim. Nimirum non paucis experimentis monitus didiceram, cum adhuc juvenis Harmoniam scriberem, (quod mihi jam confirmata ætate persuasissimum est,) _neminem catholico consensui repugnare posse, quin is_ (utcunque ipsi aliquantisper adblandiri videantur sacræ Scripturæ loca nonnulla perperam intellecta, et levicularum ratiuncularum phantasmata) _tandem et Divinis Oraculis et sanæ rationi repugnasse deprehendatur_."--Bp. Bull's _Works_, vol. iv. p. 313.

[444] In days of unbelief, one is tempted to add a note even on a Theological truism like that in the text,--"Esto igitur, inquies; fuerit Deus, qui in Veteri Testamento, sive per Angelum, sive sub angelicâ repræsentatione sanctis viris apparuit et locutus est; at quâ demum ratione adducti crediderunt doctores, fuisse DEI FILIUM? Respondeo: _Ratione, ni fallor, optimâ, quam ex traditione Apostolicâ edidicerant_."--_Def. Fid. Nicæn._ I. i. 12. Bp. Bull's Works, vol. v. i. p. 27.

[445] =All' hê ekklêsia, ô hagiôtate Eusebie, heterôs ta peri toutou nomizei kai ouch hôs sy. ton men gar en tê batô phanenta tô Môysê theologei· ton de en HIerichô tô met' auton ophthenta, ton tôn HEbraiôn epistasian lachonta, machairan espasmenon, kai tô Iêsou lysai prostattonta to hypodêma, touton de ge ton archangelon hypeilêphe Michaêl, k. t. l.=--The entire passage may be seen in the best annotated editions of Eusebius, (lib. I. c. ii. § 17.) since that of Valesius, who first introduced it to notice. But to read it in a truly valuable context, reference should be made to Dr. Mill's _Christian Advocate's_ publication for 1841, p. 92. The note alluded to has been reprinted in Dr. Lee's Discourses _On Inspiration_, p. 535.

[446] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 31.

[447] See Appendix (J).

[448] St. John i. 1-3.

[449] So Bp. Butler, in a passage which will be found below, at p. 165-6.--Very different is the judgment of Professor Jowett, who is of opinion that "it will be a further assistance in the consideration of this subject, to observe that _the Interpretation of Scripture has nothing to do with any opinion respecting its origin_."--_Essays and Reviews_, p. 350.

[450] See above, pp. 55-57.

[451] Professor Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 393-402. He adds,--"Discussions respecting the use of the Greek article, have gone far beyond the line of utility. There seem to be reasons for doubting whether any considerable light can be thrown on the New Testament from inquiry into the language.... Minute corrections of tenses or particles are no good." (p. 393.) And this, from a Regius Professor of Greek!

[452] See below, pp. 164-5.

[453] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 372.

[454] St. Matth. ii. 15:17, 18:23.

[455] Hos. xi. 1.

[456] Jer. xxxi. 15.

[457] e.g. Is. xi. 1. Also Zech. iii. 8: vi. 12. Jer. xxiii. 5 and xxxiii. 15.

[458] St. Matth. viii. 17.

[459] Is. liii. 4.

[460] For consider Exod. ix. 19, Jonah iv. 11, &c.

[461] 1 Cor. ix. 8-10, quoting Dent. xxv. 4. See also 1 Tim. v. 18.--"It seems providentially appointed that texts of the Old Testament should be called out into Christian meaning which are the very texts we might have dismissed into a transitory interest. 'Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.' 'Humane provision!', modern observation might say. 'Is it for oxen God careth? is an Apostle's interpretation of the same text; 'or saith He it altogether _for our sakes?_'.... It is a law, we find, prospectively set down for the Christian Church."--Eden's _Sermons_, p. 189.

[462] Ps. viii. 7.

[463] Heb. ii. 6-8. 1 Cor. xv. 25, and Eph. i. 22.--See Shuttleworth's _Paraphrase_ of the first place cited, p. 394.

[464] Exod. xiv. 22, 29.

[465] 1 Cor. x. 1-4.

[466] St. John vi. 32-58.

[467] Hebr. ix. 6-9.

[468] Ibid. v. 11, 12.

[469] =Dia tou katapetasmatos, toutesti tês sarkos hautou.= Hebr. x. 20.

[470] Hebr. ix. 2-5.

[471] Hebr. xiii. 11, 12.

[472] Eph. v. 30-32.

[473] =Hô kai hêmas antitypon nyn sôzei baptisma=. 1 St. Pet. iii. 21.

[474] Hebr. v. 10.

[475] Hebr. vii. 1-10. The student in Divinity will find it well worth his while to inquire for a Latin Dissertation by the late learned Dr. W. H. Mill on this subject.

[476] _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 338, 375, 377, 419-20, 426, 428, 429, &c. The advice is Professor Jowett's.

[477] Hebr. v. 11.

[478] Gen. xiv. 18.

[479] =Nôthroi gegonate tais akoais=.--Hebr. v. 11.

[480] Hebr. v. 12-14.

[481] Dr. Temple in _Essays and Reviews_.

[482] 2 Cor. iii. 12-16.--Take notice that in allusion to the place, Exod. xxxiv. 34, (=hênika d' an eiseporeueto Môysês enanti Kyriou lalein autô, periêreito to kalymma=,) St. Paul says,--=hênika d' an epistrepsê pros Kyrion, periaireitai to kalymma=. The expression is altered in order to bring out more clearly the allegorical meaning.

[483] St. Luke xxiv. 25-27.

[484] Acts xxviii. 23.

[485] Acts xxvi. 22, 23.

[486] St. John v. 46, 47.

[487] Zech. ix. 11, 12.

[488] Bp. Pearson.

[489] Consider St. John ii. 17, 22: xii. 16. St. Luke xxiv. 8, 45. Acts xi. 16.

[490] =En stigmê chronou=.--St. Luke iv. 5.

[491] St. Matth. xix. 5. St. Luke xvii. 27 and 32. St. Matth. xi. 23: xii. 4 and 42. St. Luke iv. 25-27.

[492] Prov. vi. 26. Consider v. 9. Eccl. vii. 26. Gen. xxxix. 20. 2 Sam. xi. 15. St. Mark vi. 25.

[493] The learned reader,--(and the unlearned reader too, who will bear in mind that =apekdysamenos=, [in the E. V. 'having spoiled,'] certainly means 'having stripped off from himself,')--is invited to consider with attention those words of Col. ii. 15:--=apekdysamenos tas archas kai tas exousias, edeigmatisen en parrêsia, thriambeusas autous= [not =autas=, observe;] =en autô= [sc. =tô staurô=. See by all means Pearson _on the Creed_, Art. v. note (_l_): (ed. Burton, vol. ii. p. 217-8.) Cf. Eph. ii. 16. Consider St. Luke xi. 22.] To complete the teaching of the passage, the reader is invited to study also, in connexion with what goes before, 1 Cor. ii. 6-8; taking notice, that =hoi archontes tou aiônos toutou= are not, (as the marginal references suggest,) the powers of the visible, but of the _invisible_ World. See St. John xii. 31: xiv. 30: xvi. 11, and Ephes. ii. 2: vi 12.--See Ignatius _Ep. ad Ephes._ c. xix., (with the notes in Jacobson's ed.) See also Dr. Mill _on the Temptation_, p. 165.

[494] See Sermon VI.

[495] Professor Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 378.

[496] Professor Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 338.

[497] Consider St. John xii. 16: x. 6: xi. 13. St. Luke xviii. 34. St. Matth. xvi. 11, 12. St. John viii. 27, &c., &c.

[498] See St. John xi. 49-52: vi:. 37-39.

[499] _Analogy_, Part ii. ch. vii.

[500] Augustine, speaking of the New Testament, says,--"Factum quidem est, et ita ut narratur, impletum; sed tamen etiam ipsa, quæ a DOMINO facta sunt, aliquid significantia erant,--quasi verba (si dici potest) visibilia, et aliquid significantia."--_Opp._, tom. v. p. 421 F.

[501] _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 368, 372.

[502] Professor Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 374.

[503] Professor Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, p. 418.

[504] Is. lxiii. 2, 3.

[505] Is. liii.

[506] Comp. Ps. xxxi. 5 with St. Luke xxiii. 46.

[507] By Professor Jowett for example. "The time will come when educated men will no more be able to believe that the words of Hos. xi. 1 _were intended by the prophet_ to refer to the return of Joseph and Mary from Egypt, than," &c.--_E. and R._, p. 418. _When_ did "educated men" ever believe anything of the kind?

[508] St. John xi. 50. Comp. xviii. 14.

[509] Davison on _Prophecy_, p. 192.

[510] Zech. xi. 12, 13.

[511] Is. l. 6.

[512] Ps. xxii. 16. Zech. xiii. 13.

[513] Ps. xxii. 18.

[514] "Adoro Scripturæ plenitudinem."--Tertullian _adv. Hermog._, c. 22.

[515] Comp. St. Matth. ii. 20, with the LXX Version of Exod. iv. 19: St. Matth. iii. 4, with the same version of 2 Kings i. 8: St. Matth. xxvi. 38 with Ps. xlii. 5. St. Luke i. 37, with Gen. xviii. 14,--i. 48, with 1 Sam. i. 11, and with Gen. xxx. 13,--i. 50, with Ps. ciii. 17. St. John i. 52, with Gen. xxviii. 12,--&c., &c.

[516] A few examples may prove suggestive to a thoughtful reader:--=exodos=, in St. Luke ix. 31 and in 1 St. Pet. i. 15:--=apokatastêsei=, in St. Matth. xvii. 11, (cf. Mal. iv. 5): =sitometrion=, in St. Luke xii. 42, (cf. Gen. xlvii. 12): =paradeisos=, in St. Luke xxiii. 43. The reference is of course always to the _Septuagint_ version.

[517] Ps. xlvi. 4: xlviii. 1, 8: lxxxvii. 3. Is. lii. 1: lx. 14. Ezek. xlviii. Ephes. ii. 19, 20. Phil. iii. 20. Gal. iv. 26. Hebr. xi. 10: xii. 22: xiii. 14. Rev. xxi. 2, 10: iii. 12, &c.

[518] "Scriptores =theopneustoi=, de typo disserentes, divinius quiddam ex inopinato pati solent, et ad antitypum vehementiore Spiritus afflatu rapi et elevari. Assertionis hujusce veritas inde constat, quod verba quædam haud expectata sæpius inferant, quæ MESSIÆ vel solum vel aptius quam Illius typo congruant."--Spencer _De Legg. Hebr._, vol. ii. p. 1035. Consider such places as Ps. ii. 6, 7: xli. 9, 10: xlv. 10, 11: lxi. 6: lxxii. 5, 7, 11, 16, 17: lxxxix. 29. Gen. xlix. 18. Is. lxi. 1, 2, 3. Zech. vi. 11, 12.

[519] St. Mark xii. 36.

[520] "And their manner of treating this subject when laid before them, shews what is in their heart, and is an exertion of it." Bp. Butler's _Analogy_, P. II. ch. vi.--See Appendix (C).

[521] Eden's _Sermons_, pp. 192-5.

[522] "With the exception of the still-imperfect science of Geology," (says Dr. Pusey,) "the Essays and Reviews contain nothing with which those acquainted with the writings of unbelievers in Germany have not been familiar these thirty years." Even the Apologist for the volume in question assures us that one who "had looked ever so cursorily through the works of Herder, Schleiermacher, Lücke, Neander, De Wette, Ewald, &c., would see that the greater part of the passages which have given so much cause for exultation or for offence in this volume, have their counterpart in those distinguished Theologians."--_Edinb. Rev._, Ap. 1861, p. 480.

[523] Rev. B. Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 374-5.

[524] Rev. B. Jowett in _Essays and Reviews_, pp. 372, (_bottom_,) 340, 374, &c.

[525] _Minor Works_, vol. ii. pp. 9-10.--"In Christianity, there can be no concerning truth which is not ancient; and _whatsoever is truly new is certainly false_."--Epistle Dedicatory prefixed to Pearson _on the Creed_, p. x.

SERMON VI.[526]

* * * * *

THE DOCTRINE OF ARBITRARY SCRIPTURAL ACCOMMODATION CONSIDERED.

* * * * *

ROMANS x. 6-9.

_"But the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise,--'Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into Heaven?' (that is, to bring CHRIST down from above:) or, 'Who shall descend into the deep?' (that is, to bring up CHRIST again from the dead.) But what saith it? 'The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thine heart:' that is, the word of Faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the LORD JESUS, and shalt believe in thine heart that GOD hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."_

It is quite marvellous in how many different ways different classes of professing Christians have contrived to nullify the value of their admission that the Bible is _inspired_. Some would distinguish the inspiration of the Historical Book from that of those which we call Prophetical. Others profess to lay their finger on what are _the proper subjects_ of Inspiration, and what are not. Some are for a general superintending guidance which yet did not effectually guide; while others represent the sacred Writers as subject, in what they delivered, to the conditions of knowledge in the age where their lot was cast. The view of Inspiration which Scripture itself gives us,--namely, that God _is therein speaking by human lips_[527]; so that 'holy men of GOD' delivered themselves as they were 'impelled,' 'borne along,' or 'lifted up,' (=pheromenoi=) _by the HOLY GHOST_[528];--_this_ plain account of the matter, I say, which converts 'all Scripture' into something '_breathed into by GOD_,' (=theopneustos=,)[529]--men are singularly slow to acknowledge. The methods which they have devised in order to escape from so plain a revealed Truth, are 'Legion.'

Second to none of the enemies of Holy Writ, practically, are they who deny its depth and fulness. It is only another, and a more ingenious way, of denying the Inspiration of the Bible, to evacuate its more mysterious statements. Those who are for eluding the secondary intention of Prophecy, the obviously mystical teaching of Types, the allegorical character of many a sacred Narrative,--are no less dangerous enemies of GOD's Word than those who frame unworthy theories in order to dwarf Inspiration to the standard of their own conceptions of its nature and office. I say, it is only another way of denying the Inspiration of Scripture, to deny what is sometimes called its mystical, sometimes its typical, sometimes its allegorical sense.... And thus,--what with the arbitrary decrees of our own unsupported opinion, or the self-sufficient exercise of our own supposed discernment;--what with our insolent mistrust; or our shortsighted folly and presumption; or, lastly, our coldness and deadness of heart,--our slender appetite for Divine things, which makes us yearn back after Earth, at the very open gate of Heaven;--in one way or other, I repeat, we contrive to evacuate our own admission that the Bible is an inspired Book: we fasten discredit on its every page: we become profane men, like Esau: we despise our birthright.

But the most subtle enemy of all remains yet to be noticed. It is he, who,--finding the plain Word of GOD against him: finding himself refuted in his endeavour to fix one intention only on the words of the HOLY GHOST, and _that_ intention, the most obvious and literal one; finding himself refuted even by the express revelation of the same HOLY GHOST, elsewhere delivered;--bends himself straightway to resist, and explain away, that later revelation of what was the earlier meaning. It is a marvellous thing but so it is, that the very man who contended so stoutly a moment ago for the literal meaning of Scripture, _now_ refuses, and denies it. Anything but _that_! If he allows that St. Matthew, or St. Paul,--yea, or even our Blessed LORD Himself,--are to be _literally_ understood; are severally to be taken to _mean_ what they _say_;--then, Moses and David,--narrative, law, and psalm,--besides their literal meaning, have, at least _sometimes_,--and they _may_ have _always_,--a mystical meaning also. _Under_ the evident, palpable signification of the words, there lies concealed something grander, and deeper, and broader; high as Heaven,--deep as Hell.

And this supposition is so monstrous an one; seems so derogatory to their notions of the mind of GOD;--it is deemed so improbable a thing, that the words of Him, whose ways are not like Man's ways, should span the present and the future, at a grasp;--that He whose "thoughts are very deep," should, with language thereto corresponding, be setting forth CHRIST and His Redemption, while He tells of Patriarchs and Lawgivers,--Judges and Kings,--priests and prophets of the LORD:--I say, it is deemed so incredible a thing that Moses should have written concerning CHRIST, (though our SAVIOUR CHRIST Himself declares that Moses did write concerning Him)[530]; or that the occasional expressions of the Prophets should really contain the far-reaching allusions which in the New Testament are assigned to them; that the men I speak of,--men of learning (sometimes), and of piety too,--will condescend to every imaginable artifice in order to escape the cogency of the Divine statement. St. Paul--was infected with the Hebrew method of interpretation. (It is of course _assumed_ that this method was essentially erroneous! It is overlooked that our LORD had recourse to it, as well as St. Paul! It is either forgotten, or denied, that the HOLY GHOST, speaking by the mouth of St. Paul, acquiesced in every instance of such interpretation on the part of His chosen vessel!) ... As for St. Matthew, he addressed his Gospel to the Jews, and therefore reasoned as a Jew would. (St. Matthew's Gospel was not of course intended for the Christian Church! The blessed Evangelist was also deeply learned,--it is of course reasonable to suppose,--in the sacred hermeneutics of the Hebrew Schools!) ... The other Sacred Writers, it is pretended, all wrote according to the prejudices of the age in which they lived.--In all these cases, it is contended that _merely in the way of Accommodation_, is the language of the Old Testament cited in the New. What was said of one thing is transferred to quite another,--to suit the purpose of the later writer; to illustrate his reasoning, to adorn or to enforce his statements.... And this brings me to a question of so much importance, that I pause to make a few remarks upon it. In the present discourse, it shall suffice to remark on the doctrine of _Scriptural_ ACCOMMODATION; for which it is presumed that the text, (selected not without reference to the present Sacred Season,) affords ample scope, as well as supplies a fair occasion.

Now, it is not to the _term_ "Accommodation," that we entertain any dislike; but to the _notion_ which it seems intended to convey; and to the _principle_ which we believe that it actually embodies. That the HOLY SPIRIT in the New Testament sometimes accommodates to His purpose a quotation in the Old,--is very often a mere matter of fact. In all those places, for instance, where St. Paul inverts the clauses of a place cited,--there is a manifest accommodation of Scripture, in the strictest sense of the word. When two, three, or more texts, widely disconnected in the Old Testament, are continuously exhibited in the New,--a species of accommodation has, of course, been employed. The same may be said when a change of construction is discoverable. Again, there is accommodation, of course, when narrative,--legal enactment,--or prophecy, is _so exhibited_ that the point of its hidden teaching shall become apparent. Nay, in a certain sense of the word, there is "accommodation," as often as a prophecy, however plain, is applied to the historical event which it purports to foretel. The prophecy may be said,--(with no great propriety indeed, but still, intelligibly,)--to have been accommodated to its fulfilment.--Occasionally, a general promise is made particular,--as in Hebrews xiii. 6; and perhaps _this_ might be called an accommodation of the text to the needs of an individual believer. Yet is it plain that in all these cases '_application_' or '_adaptation_' would be a better word.

But such ways of adducing Holy Scripture, we suspect, are not by any means what is _meant_ by 'Accommodation;' and they do not certainly correspond with the notion which the term is calculated to convey. The place in the Old Covenant, seems, (from the term employed,) to have been forced, against its conscience, as it were, to bear witness in behalf of the New. It has been wrenched away from its natural bearing and intention; and made to accommodate itself,--and, on the part of the writer, quite arbitrarily,--to a purpose, with which it has, in reality, no manner of connexion. This, I say, is the notion which the term "Accommodation" seems to convey.

I am supposing, of course,--(as the opposite school is, of course, supposing,)--_not_ an _illustration_,--which obviously _any_ writer, whether ordinary or inspired, has a right to introduce at will; but a case where the cogency of the argument depends entirely on the place cited. A sudden and unforeseen requirement arose;--nothing entirely fit and applicable occurred to the memory: but by an arbitrary handling of the ancient Oracles of GOD,--(altogether illogical and inconclusive indeed, yet entitled to a certain measure of respectful consideration at our hands, and certainly having a strong claim on our indulgence,)--the later writer saw that he should be able to substantiate his position, or to strengthen his argument, or to prove his point. And he did not hesitate to do so. It is surprising that his hearers or his readers should have accepted his statements, and admitted his reasoning;--very! But they _did_. And it is for us, the heirs of the wisdom of all the ages, to detect the time-honoured fallacy and to expose it.--This, I say, is the notion which the term "Accommodation" seems calculated to convey; and it is to be feared, _does_ very often represent.

And the introduction of this principle, as already explained, I cannot but regard as the most insidious device of all. It admits fully all that we have elsewhere laboured to establish. It freely grants that Apostles and Evangelists were inspired. But then, it denies that much of what they deliver in the way of interpretation of Scripture, is to be regarded as _real_ interpretation. By a taste for Allegory; by Rhetorical license; on _any_ principle, it seems, _but one_, is the Divine method to be accounted for; and the plain facts of the case to be obscured, or explained away.

Now I _altogether reject_ this principle of arbitrary "Accommodation." I hold it to be a mere dream and delusion. And I reject it on the following grounds:--

1. It is evidently a mere excuse for Human ignorance,--a transparent deceit. Men do not see how to explain, or account for, the apparent license of the Divine method; and so they have invented this method of escape. Most cordially do I subscribe to the opinion expressed by Bishop Bull, in his discussion of the very text which we are now about to consider:--"Atque, ut verum fatear, semper existimavi, allusiones istas, (ad quas confugiunt quidam tanquam ad sacrum suæ ignorantiæ asylum,) plerumque aliud nihil esse, quam sacræ Scripturæ abusiones manifestas[531]."

2. The "theory of Accommodation," (as it is called,) is attended with this fatal inconvenience,--that, (like certain other expedients which have been invented to get over difficulties in Religion,) it altogether fails of its object. For even if we should grant, (for argument's sake,) that some quotations from the Old Testament _can_ be explained on this principle,--so long as there remain others which defy it altogether, nothing is gained by the proposed expedient. Thus, so long as attention is directed to certain of the places in St. Paul's writings already referred to[532], there is certainly _no absurdity_ in adducing them as instances of Rhetorical license. But how can it be pretended that the text whereby St. Paul establishes, (on two distinct occasions,) the right of the Christian Ministry to a liberal maintenance,--with what propriety can it be thought that Deut. xxv. 4 lends itself to such a theory? Those words _seem_,--and, apart from Revelation, might without hesitation have been declared,--to have _nothing at all to do with the matter_[533]! To talk of the "accommodation" of words so eminently unaccommodating, is unreasonable, and even absurd.

3. But, allowing the advocates of this theory all they can possibly require, the result of their endeavours is but to make the Sacred writers ridiculous after all. For it attributes to them a method, which, if it be a _mere_ exhibition of human fancy, often seems to be but a species of ingenious trifling,--scarcely entitled to serious attention at our hands. There is no alternative, in short, between certain of the expositions which we meet with, being Divine,--and therefore worthy of all acceptation; or Human,--and therefore entitled to no absolute deference whatever.

4. On the other hand, learned research has hitherto invariably tended to shew that the meaning claimed for Scripture by an Apostle or Evangelist, _does_ actually exist there. Thus, it has been admirably demonstrated that the Evangelical meaning attributed by St. Matthew, (in the first chapters of his Gospel,) to certain places in the ancient Prophetical Scriptures of the Jewish people, derives nothing but corroboration from the inquiries of Piety and Learning[534].... It is proposed on the present occasion, without pretending to bring to the question any such helps as these, to examine the portion of Holy Scripture already under our notice, with a view to ascertaining what light it will throw on the main question at issue. To this task, I now address myself.

St. Paul's words, from the 6th to the 9th verse (inclusive) of the xth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, present probably, as fair an example as could be desired of what is sometimes called "Accommodation." To say the truth, I know not an instance of what, _in any uninspired writing_, I should have been myself more inclined to stigmatize as such. The Apostle begins an affectionate remonstrance with his countrymen by declaring that they "did not understand the Righteousness of GOD;" (that is, the Divine method whereby GOD wills that we shall be made righteous, by faith _in CHRIST_;) but desired to set up (=stêsai=) a righteousness of their own, on the worthless foundation of their own Works[535]. "For," (he proceeds; with plain reference to _what_ "the Righteousness of GOD" _is_;)--"_For_ CHRIST is the end" (aim, or object,) "of the Law[536] to every one who hath faith" in CHRIST. St. Paul straightway proceeds, (as his manner is,) to establish this latter proposition. How does he do it? "_For_," (he begins again,)--"Moses describes the nature of the righteousness which proceeds from the Law, when he declares [in Leviticus xviii. 5,] that '_The man who hath done_ the deeds commanded by the Law, shall live thereby.'--But concerning the Righteousness which proceeds from Faith,"--[it was called before, 'the Righteousness of GOD,']--"Moses writes as follows[537]:--'Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into Heaven? (that is, to bring CHRIST down:) or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring CHRIST up from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach: because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the LORD JESUS, and shalt believe in thine heart that GOD raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Here then is a quotation from the xxxth chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy,--a quotation introduced in the way of argument, in support of a proposition: the remarkable circumstance being, that St. Paul adduces the words of Moses with extraordinary license. For first, he omits as many of the Prophet's words as make little for his purpose, while he introduces a very remarkable alteration in some of the words which he retains: amounting to a substitution of one sentence for another. And next, there is one single word, which he expands into an important phrase; and _that_ merely to suit his own argument. But the strangest thing of all is the interpretation which he delivers of words, which as we have just seen, are partly his own,--partly, the words of Moses: by which interpretation, the most strikingly _Christian_ character is fastened upon sayings pronounced by the ancient Lawgiver in the land of Moab, to the Jewish people.--We do further, for our own part, most freely admit, that the place,--as it stands in the Old Testament,--neither at first, nor at second sight, seems to have any such meaning as the Apostle assigns to it. I will remind you of the words in Deuteronomy, by reading the entire passage:--"This commandment which I command thee this day, ... is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in Heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to Heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." ... Now, I say, one of ourselves might read this passage in the Book of Deuteronomy over a hundred times, and never suspect that Moses, when he so wrote, was writing concerning faith in CHRIST: and yet we have the sure testimony of the HOLY SPIRIT to the fact that he _was_.--The inquiry, "Who shall ascend into Heaven?", signifies, we are told, "Who shall ascend,--_to bring down CHRIST from above_?"--And just so, the other clause, "Who shall descend into the deep?", is declared to be an incomplete expression: the full phrase being,--"Who shall descend,--_to bring up CHRIST[538] from the dead_." ... Now we never desire to see a non-natural sense fastened on the Inspired Word. With Hooker, we "hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that, where a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the letter is commonly the worst." We contend therefore that whereas we have here the explicit assurance that Moses wrote of none other than CHRIST,--though his words do not bear upon them any evidence of the fact,--it is a mere trifling with holy things, to call the fact in question.

Here, however, we shall be reminded that the great Apostle,--though professing to quote,--confessedly argues in part from _his_ own language, which is _not_ the language of Moses. Moses says,--"Who shall go _over the sea_ for us?" (=tis diaperasei hêmin eis to peran tês thalassês?=) And since the version of the LXX is what the Author of the Epistle to the Romans follows in this place, it is reasonable to expect that he would adhere to that version, or at least to the sense of that version, in the exhibition of so important a clause as the present. Whereas, instead of "Who shall go _over the sea_," we find St. Paul writing,--"Who shall _go down into the deep?_" (=Tis katabêsetai eis tên abysson?=)--language evidently highly suggestive of the mysterious transaction to which the same St. Paul says it contains a reference[539]; but certainly _not_ the language of Moses. And we shall be reminded that this is not merely phraseology rescued from vagueness, and made definite; but it is the actual substitution of one thought for another. This is what will be said; and if it be followed up by the assertion that here, therefore, we have a clear example of Scriptural Accommodation, it might seem, at first sight, impossible to deny the fact.

For our own parts, we are inclined to meet the present difficulty, and every similar one, in quite another spirit; and dispose of the objection, somewhat in the following way. The same GOD who gave us the Scriptures of the Old Testament, gave us the New Testament also. The Bible is _one_. He who inspired the Law, inspired the Gospel. The HOLY GHOST pleads with us in both alike.--Surely, therefore, He who spake of old time by the Prophets, may be allowed, when, in the last days, He speaks by the Apostles of CHRIST,--to explain His earlier meaning, if He will. Surely, He may tell the Israel of GOD,--if He pleases,--what He meant by the language He held of old time to Israel after the flesh! Yea, and if it seemeth good to Him to call in the wealth of His ancient treasury, in order to recoin it that He may the more enrich us thereby:--if it pleases Him to take His ancient speeches back again into His mouth, in order that He may syllable them anew,--making them sweeter than honey to our lips, yea, sweeter than honey and the honeycomb;--what is _Man_ that he should reply against GOD? What should be our posture, at witnessing such a spectacle, but one of Adoration? What, our becoming language, but praise?

It is easy to anticipate the answer that will be made to all this. We shall be told that we are, in some sort, begging the question. The Bible is an Inspired Book, indeed: but _what is Inspiration_?--Moses wrote the Book called "Deuteronomy:" St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans. And St. Paul,--quoting a passage out of the older record,--has substituted a sentiment of his own for a sentiment contained in the writings of Moses. He does the same thing in other places; and elsewhere, as here, he proceeds to reason upon the data he has so obtained. _This_, it will be said, is the phenomenon which we have to deal with.

But, we reply, it is manifest that he who so argues,--with all his apparent good sense, and fairness,--is entirely committed to a theory concerning Inspiration; and _that_ a very unworthy one. The Bible comes to us as an Inspired Book; claiming to be the very Word of GOD. The Holy Church throughout all the World, doth acknowledge it to be so. Surely, therefore, it is for _us_ to study its contents by the light of this previous fact.--But quite contrary is the method of our opponents. They treat the Bible as if it were an ordinary Book. They submit its contents to the same irreverent handling as they would the productions of a merely human intellect. They not only reason _about_ its claims from its contents,--but they would even pronounce _upon_ its claims, from the same evidence. They dare to sit in judgment upon it. Hence their lax notions on the subject of Inspiration. They first run riot among statements which are too hard for them; and when they have perplexed themselves with these, till the field is strewed with doubts, and the limits of unbelief and mistrust have become extended on every side,--Inspiration, like an ill-defined boundary-line on a map, is suffered faintly to hem in, and enclose the utmost verge of the unhappy domain.--Whereas, we maintain that a belief in the Bible, as an Inspired Book, should, at the outset, prescribe a limit to human speculations.

Let this belief encircle us exactly, and entirely; and define, at once, the area within which all our reasonings must be taught to marshal themselves, and to find their full development. In brief, our opponents meet our remonstrance by another; but, as we contend, an unreasonable one;--at least, as proceeding from men who, no less than ourselves, allow freely the Inspiration of Scripture. _We_ say,--The Bible is the word of GOD. Fill your heart with this conviction, and then humbly address yourself to the study of its pages.--It is argued on the other side,--The pages of the Bible are full of perplexing statements. They evolve strange phenomena, interminably. Convince yourself of this; and then make up your mind, if you can, about the Inspiration of the Bible[540].... I shall have occasion, by and by, to explain more in detail the spirit in which the Divine Logic,--_Inspired reasoning_ as it may be called,--is to be approached. For the moment, I am content to waive the question; and to be St. Paul's apologist, almost as if I had met with his words in an uninspired book.

Solemnly protesting, then, that the ground we have just occupied is the only _true_ ground on which to take our stand; but withdrawing from it because we do not fear the appeal to unassisted Reason, even in matters of Faith,--so that the proper limits and conditions of inquiry be but observed;--we proceed to inquire whether,--apart from Revelation,--there be not good ground for believing that the words of the ancient Hebrew Lawgiver and Prophet contain and mean the very thing which the Christian Apostle _says_ they do.--We change our language at this stage of the inquiry. We no longer assert, (as before we did,) that the HOLY GHOST speaking by the mouth of Moses, _must have meant_, what the same HOLY GHOST, speaking by the mouth of St. Paul, declares that He _did_ mean. We are willing to study the sacred text solely by the light which grave criticism and patient learning have thrown upon it.--Our inquiry now, is this;--Although the words in Deuteronomy, read over attentively by ourselves, suggest no such Christian meaning as we find affixed to them in the Epistle to the Romans,--is there no reason, traditional or otherwise, for supposing that they _do_ envelope that meaning; yea, so teem and swell with it, that the germ of the flower may be actually detected in the yet unopened bud?... I proceed to this inquiry.

1. And first, it is obvious, to any one reading the xxixth and xxxth chapters of the last Book of Moses, that they contain _another Covenant_, beside that of Horeb. This is expressly stated in the first verse of the xxixth chapter:--"These are the words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, _beside the Covenant which He made with them in Horeb_[541]." Not to stand too stiffly thereupon, however[542], let it be at least freely allowed that even if we choose to regard this chapter and the next as a _renewal_ only of the Covenant made in Horeb, it is a _distinct_ renewal;--both in respect of time and of place. Of time,--for whereas the Covenant of Sinai belongs to the _first_ of the forty years of wandering, the Covenant of Moab belongs to the _last_. Of place,--for whereas the other was made at the furthest limit of the people's wanderings, _this_ belongs to their nearest approach to Canaan.--And I confidently ask, After _such_ an announcement, and at a moment like _that_,--the forty years of typical wandering ended, and the earthly type of the heavenly inheritance full in view, Jordan alone intercepting the vision of their Rest;--shall we wonder, if here and there a ray of coming glory shall be found to flash through the language of the dying patriarch? if some traces shall be discernible, even in the language of Moses, of the dayspring of the Gospel of CHRIST?

2. We find that it contains not a few sayings in support of such a presumption. The 10th verse opens the covenant, and in the following solemn language:--"Ye stand, this day, all of you, before the LORD your GOD: the Captains of your tribes, your Elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel;--your little ones, your wives, and the stranger that is in thy camp,--from the hewer of thy wood, to the drawer of thy water." And what was the _intention_ of this solemn standing before the LORD? Even--"that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the LORD thy GOD, and enter into His oath, which the LORD thy GOD maketh with thee this day."--The purport of the Covenant thus to be made, was, that GOD might establish Israel that day for a people unto Himself, and that He might be unto them a GOD,--(an expression elsewhere appropriated by the Great Apostle to the Christian Church[543],)--as He had ... sworn unto their fathers, _to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob_. So that we have here the renewal of the _Evangelical Covenant_ made with Abraham, and renewed to Isaac and Jacob,--which is clearly distinguished in Scripture from the _Legal_ Covenant, made with their children 430 years after; and which is declared ineffectual to disannul the earlier one, confirmed before by GOD, and pointing entirely to CHRIST[544]. That earlier Evangelical Covenant then, it was, which was renewed in the land of Moab;--in the course of renewing which, the words of the text occur.

3. And that it was indeed the Evangelical, (not the Legal Covenant,) which is here spoken of, is abundantly confirmed by the subsequent language of the passage: for Moses proceeds,--"Neither with you only do I make this Covenant and this oath; but with him that standeth here this day with us before the LORD our GOD, and _also with him that is not here with us this day_[545]:" meaning, (as the ancient Targum expounds the place,) "_with every generation that shall rise up unto the world's end_." It was the same Covenant, therefore, which is made with _ourselves_; "for the promise is unto" us, and to our "children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our GOD shall call[546]:" "_not_ according to the Covenant which GOD made with the Fathers of Israel in the day that He took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt[547]."

Yet more remarkably perhaps is this established by the language of the ensuing chapter: for GOD therein promises that _Circumcision of the heart_ whereby men should be enabled to love the LORD their GOD with _all their heart_ and with _all their soul_. Now this seems clearly to intimate not legal but Evangelical obedience,--the result of the free outpouring of the HOLY SPIRIT of GOD; of which, in the Law, (properly so called,) we find no promise whatever. Here then we discover another anticipation of something which belongs to the times of the Gospel.