Chapter I: INTERPRETATION, then, in the largest sense of the term, I take to (4)

2. There is no time to consider, as I fain would, any other story; that of Jacob for example. It is quite amazing to hear the presumptuous speeches concerning that great Saint, in which good men sometimes permit themselves: as if the sum total of Jacob's history were _this_:--that he once obtained an ungenerous advantage over his Brother, and then shamefully deceived his blind and aged Father. Whereas those were the two great blots in an otherwise holy life! actions which were followed by severe, aye lifelong punishment.--But I must not enter on Jacob's history,--even to shew you that a careless reader overlooks certain circumstances which go a very long way indeed to excuse the actions just alluded to. I prefer reminding you that since, at Bethel, GOD blessed the exile's slumbers with a glorious vision, and most comfortable promise, on his first setting out for Haran; and again at Jabbok, as well as at Mahanaim, blessed him with a vision of Angels, and a renewal of the blessing, on his return; _from this point_, as before, it will be our wisdom to reason; and we shall reason backwards. Had Scripture been quite silent in all other respects, such proofs of the Divine approval ought to be enough to convince a believing heart that the only thing wanting must be fuller details,--more evidence,--in order to shew us that the Patriarch _deserved_ the SPIRIT'S praise. But in truth, in Jacob's case, the details are abundant and the evidence decisive.

3. Of all the other (so called) difficulties which occur to my memory,--as the extinction of the Canaanites, (who yet were _not_ extinguished,)--the Sacrifice of Isaac, (who yet was _not_ sacrificed,)--the life of David;--I have only to say that before you can pretend to have an opinion upon the subject you must be sure that you "know the Scriptures:" else, I make bold to say, you will inevitably err in your cogitations concerning them. Thus, men are heard to insinuate astonishment that the King who so basely compassed Uriah's death should have been "a man after GOD'S own heart:" whereas the Hebrew original, (as they would know, _if they knew the Scriptures_,) conveys nothing of the kind; while the murder of Uriah is found to have drawn down upon David unmitigated wrath and terrible punishment from the right Hand of Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.

II. Turn we now, briefly, to the physical Marvels which are described in the Bible; and chiefly those which occur in the Old Testament.

I am about to speak of Miracles in general; but it may be convenient to say a few words first about certain mighty transactions which eclipse, by their vastness or their strangeness, most isolated events. Thus, as the Nativity, Temptation, Transfiguration, Resurrection, Ascension, of our LORD, together with the Coming of the HOLY GHOST, eclipse in a manner the other Miracles of the New Testament,--so the Temptation of our first Parents, the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and the fate of Lot's wife, the burning bush, the Plagues which prepared the way for the Exode, the crossing of the Red Sea, the Manna, and the brazen Serpent; Balaam's ass, and the fate of the walls of Jericho; the history of Jonah, and of Daniel among the lions:--events like these stand out from the Old Testament narrative and challenge astonishment.

Of all these latter events, viewed as difficulties,--(for it is as difficulties _in the way of Revelation_ that we are now expected to look on Miracles,)--you are requested to observe that they enjoy, one and all, the confirmation of _express citation in the New Testament_. I am saying that either St. Paul, or St. Peter, or St. James, or (above all) our Blessed LORD Himself, appeal to, or else explain, every one of these marvellous passages in Old Testament History. And this is the only remark I propose to offer concerning any of them. It will certainly prove unavailing to convince a certain class of persons of the historical reality of the Deluge, to find that our SAVIOUR, that St. Peter, and St. Paul, have all spoken of it as an actual event:--Men who are disposed to reject the story of the dumb ass speaking with man's voice, will not perhaps believe it one whit the more because they find it appealed to by St. Peter[609]:--and the Divine exposition offered by CHRIST Himself of Jonah, three days and three nights in the fish's belly, will not, it may be feared, reconcile others to an event which strikes them as being too improbable to be true. But _this_, at least, will infallibly result from the discovery:--men will perceive that they must positively make their election; and either accept the Bible as a whole, or else reject it as a whole; for that there is no middle course open to them. The New Testament stands committed irrevocably to the Old. Every Book of the Bible stands committed to all the other Books. Not only does our LORD quote the Canon in its collected form, and call it "the Law and the prophets,"--or simply =hê graphê=, "the Scripture,"--and so set His seal upon it, as one undivided and indivisible roll of Inspiration; but He and His Apostles single out the very narratives which the imbecility of Man was most likely to stumble at, and employ them for such purposes, and in such a manner, that escape from them shall henceforth be altogether hopeless. To eliminate the marvels of Scripture, I say, is impossible; for a Divine Hand has been laid upon almost every one of them. The subsequent references are not only most numerous, but they run into the very staple of the narrative,--and will not,--_cannot_ be eradicated.

I question whether all students of the inspired page are aware of the extent to which what I have been saying holds true. Let me only invite you to investigate the structure of the Bible under this aspect, and you will be astonished at the result. For you will find that the system of tacit quotation and allusive reference is so perpetual, that it is as if the design had been that the fibres should be incapable of being disentangled any more. Balaam's story for example in the Book of Numbers, is found alluded to in Deuteronomy, in Joshua, in Micah, in Nehemiah; by St. Peter, by St. Jude, and by St. John in the Apocalypse[610].--The Exodus, with its attendant wonders, is alluded to in Joshua, and in Judges, and in Job, and in the Psalms; in Amos, and Isaiah, and Micah, and Hosea, and Jeremiah, and Daniel; in Kings, in Samuel, in Nehemiah; and in the New Testament repeatedly[611]. The Evangelists quote one another times without number. In the Epistles, the Gospels are quoted upwards of fifty times; and St. Peter quotes St. Paul again and again. It is a favourite device of these last days to hint at the allegorical character of the beginning of Genesis. But I find upwards of thirty references in the New Testament to the first two Chapters of Genesis[612]. Certain parts of Daniel have incurred suspicion,--for no better reason, as it seems, than because certain persons have found it hard to believe that Prophecy can be "an anticipation of History[613]." Now it is strange certainly to find a thing objected to for being what it is: and "Prophecy is nothing _but_ the history of events before they come to pass,"--as Butler remarked long ago[614]. Waiving this, however, you are requested to observe that our SAVIOUR quotes from _those very parts of Daniel which have been objected to_. You cannot get rid of those parts of Daniel therefore. You are not to suppose that the Bible is like an old house, where a window may be darkened, or a door blocked up, according to the caprice of every fresh occupant. The terms on which men dwell there are that every part of the structure shall be inhabited; and that every part shall be retained in its integrity. What I am insisting upon is, that the sacred Writers plainly say,--We stand or we fall together. They reach forth their hands, and they hold one another fast. They rehearse comprehensive Genealogies,--they furnish a summary view of long histories,--they enumerate the various worthies of old time, and cite their deeds in order. They recognize one another's voices, and they interpret one another's thoughts, and they adopt one another's sayings. Verily the Bible is _not_ "like any other Book!" The prophets and Apostles and Evangelists of either covenant reach out one to another; and lo, among them is seen the form of One like the SON of GOD.... How far it may be rational _to reject the Bible_, I will not now discuss: but it is demonstrable that a man cannot accept the Bible, and straightway propose to omit from it one jot or one tittle of its contents. As for abstracting from Scripture the marvels of Scripture, it is precisely for the protection and preservation of _them_, as I have been shewing, that the most curious and abundant provision has been made.

1. The miracles, properly so called, whether of the Old or New Testament, have lately been cavilled at with exceeding bitterness[615]. That they are sufficiently attested, is allowed[616]; the objection is a (so called) Philosophical one, and is briefly this,--that the Laws of Nature being fixed and immutable, it is contrary not only to experience, but also to reason, to suppose that they have ever been suspended, or violated, or interrupted. Events "contrary to the order of Nature,"--events which would introduce "disorder" into Creation,--are pronounced incredible.--This is a very old objection; but it has been lately revived. I will dispose of it as briefly as I can.

You are requested to observe then, that this difficulty,--(such as it is,)--is entirely occasioned by the terms in which it is stated. _Who_ ever asserted that Miracles are "violations of natural causes[617]?" "suspensions of natural laws[618]?" Who ever said that the effect of Miracles is to "interrupt"--"violate"--"reverse,"--the Laws of Nature? Why assume "contrariety" and "disorder" in a =kosmos= which seems to have had no experience of either?

But GOD is, I suppose, superior to His own Laws! He is not the creature of circumstances,--even of His own creating. Supreme is He in Creation,--albeit in a manner which baffles thought. He does not even suspend His Laws, perhaps, so much as fulfil them after a Diviner fashion;--somewhat as He was fulfilling the Mosaic Economy even while He seemed to be violating one or other of its sanctions. He does not reverse or disorder the fixed course of Nature, so much as rise above it, and shew Himself superior to it. He does not disturb anything, but our notions of His mode of acting. GOD coming suddenly to view in Nature, (which is an essential part of the notion of a miracle,) occasions perplexity, it is true; but only because we do not understand fully either Nature or GOD. "We know Him not as He is, neither indeed can know Him." While of Nature, we know nothing but a few Laws which we have discovered by a long and laborious induction of phenomena. In fact, this whole manner of speaking concerning the Creator of the Universe, with reference to the Laws which He is found to have prescribed to things natural, has, I suspect, some great foolishness in it: for, even if we do not so far dishonour GOD as to imagine that He is subject to Law, yet we seem to imply that we think ourselves capable of understanding the relation in which He stands to Law. Whereas, the very notion of Law may be utterly inapplicable to GOD,--who is not only its first Author, (as He is indeed the first Author of all things,) but the very source and _cause_ of it also. So that what are Laws to ourselves may be not so much as Law at all to GOD; but, (if I may so speak,) something which depends on "the counsel of His will," and which, (considered as a restraining cause,) is to Him as if it were not. There can be no miracles with GOD[619]!

Briefly then:--That He who, (surely I may say _confessedly_,) is above Law, when He manifests Himself in the midst of Creation, should act in a manner which defies conception; and yet should disturb nothing, reverse nothing, violate nothing;--(except to be sure, possibly, certain preconceived notions of His rational creatures;)--in _this_, I say, there is surely nothing either incredible or absurd.

2. So much, to say the truth, seems to be admitted, by all but professed Atheists. But then, certain formulæ have been invented to bridge over the difficulty, which Miracles are supposed to occasion, which I cannot but think are just as objectionable as unbelief itself.

By way of saving the credit of "the Laws of the Universe," a kind of compromise has been discovered; to which I do not find that GOD has been made any party.

The idea of Law, which has been falsely declared to be only now "emerging into supremacy in Science[620]," seems to have usurped such a dominion over the minds of a few persons, superficially acquainted with Physical studies, that Miracles can be only tolerated on the supposition that they are "the exact fulfilment of much more extensive Laws than those we suppose to exist[621]." We are kindly assured that what we call a Miracle is not "an exception to those laws which we know, but really the fulfilment of a wider Law which we did not know before[622]." Men are eager to remind us that this is the view of Bp. Butler[623], (whom every one, I observe, is fond of having for an ally.) Thus, a very recent writer says,--"What we call interferences may, (as Bp. Butler observed long ago,) be fulfilments of general laws not perfectly apprehended by us[624]."--But I cannot find that Bp. Butler anywhere says anything of the sort. What Butler says, is,--that we know nothing of the laws of storms and earthquakes,--tempers and geniuses;--yet we conclude, (but only from analogy,) that all these seemingly accidental things are the result of general laws. Now, (he proceeds,) since it is only "from our finding that the course of Nature, in some respects and so far, goes on by general laws, that we conclude this of the rest;"--it is credible "that GOD'S miraculous interpositions may have been, all along, in like manner, _by general laws of WISDOM_." Butler says that it "may have been by _general laws_," "that the affairs of the world, being permitted to go on _in their natural course_ so far, should, just at such a point, have a new direction given them _by miraculous interposition_." He does not say, you observe, that those "miraculous interpositions" are "the exact fulfilment of _much more extensive Laws_ than those we suppose to exist;" (as if _a larger induction_ were all that was needed, in order to get rid of the obnoxious word "Miracle:")--not, that Miracles may be "fulfilments of general laws _not perfectly apprehended by us_;" (as if the only thing wanted, were an enlargement of the human formula, in order to bring a miraculous interposition within the definition of an extraordinary phenomenon.) Such notions belong altogether to the inventors of calculating machines; whose speculations, even concerning Divine things, clearly cannot soar above their instrument[625]. It is called the "argument from laws intermitting[626];" and evidently reduces a miracle to a phenomenon of periodical recurrence. The aloe, watched for ninety-nine years and observed to blossom in the hundredth, is (according to this view) an emblem of the constitution of Nature at last interrupted by a Miracle.

I will not waste your time further with this view of the subject, having exposed its fallacy. Station yourself, in thought, at the grave of Lazarus; and see him that was dead and had been four days buried, come forth bound hand and foot with grave-clothes;--and then prate of any "general Laws," except those "OF WISDOM," to as many as you can get to listen to you. A "miraculous interposition," (as Butler phrases it,) has given a new direction to affairs which, so far, had been permitted to go in their natural course. That "general Laws" of inscrutable Wisdom determined such a "_miraculous interposition_"--is a position which, so far from objecting to, I embrace with both the arms of my heart[627].

3. Another favourite recipe there is for escaping from the bondage of Miracles, which is so childish, that it would seem scarcely to deserve notice: but that it has been largely resorted to by writers of whom the world thinks highly. Those men, in a word, try to _explain them away_ where they can: where they cannot, they _pare them down_ as much as they are able, or rather as much as they dare. Demoniacal possession? Symptoms like those described are known to accompany epilepsy. Manna? Something like it falls in the wilderness of Sinai to this hour. The Red Sea parted? Well, but a strong East wind blew all night. Stilling the storm, and healing Peter's wife's mother? Every storm is stilled if let alone; and a fever will burn out, often without occasioning death. The miraculous draught of fishes, and the stater in the fish's mouth?... but you can readily supply a suggestion for yourselves.

Now, two remarks present themselves on this kind of handling, which may be worth stating. (1) Those who so speak forget that the Devils are related to have _conversed with CHRIST_[628]:--that the manna, (of which so many miraculous properties are related[629],) fed 600,000 men for forty years, _and then suddenly ceased_[630]:--that the waters of the Red Sea were _a wall to the children of Israel, on their right hand and on their left_[631]:--that when CHRIST said to the waves of the sea of Galilee "Peace, be still," "there was _a great calm_[632]:"--that Peter's wife's mother, cured of her fever, "rose and _ministered unto_," (that is "waited upon,") her Benefactor[633].... It is worse than absurd to explain away _part_ of a miracle, with a view to getting rid of the whole of it: as if the essence of the miracle were not sure to reside in the residuum,--in the very part which is left unaccounted for! (2) But above all, what place have such explanations in the recorded cases of feeding the multitudes, opening the eyes of one born blind, and raising the dead? While you leave the chiefest miracles of the Gospel untouched, you may not flatter yourself that you have got at the kernel of the matter; or indeed that the real question at issue has been touched by you, at all.

4. There remains to notice one subtle and most treacherous method of dealing with the marvels of Scripture,--(moral and physical alike,)--to which I desire in conclusion to direct your special attention; and which I would brand with burning words if I had them at command. I allude to what is called "IDEOLOGY,"--the plain English for which term is, _a denial of the historical reality of Scripture_. I will not waste time with inquiring whether this method is old or new. It is certainly much in fashion; and it is certainly finding advocates in high quarters. I therefore make no apology for introducing the monstrous thing to your notice. It requires, I should hope, only to be understood, to be rejected with unqualified indignation.

You and I, then, have been taught to believe that "the WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us," in the way St. Matthew and St. Luke describe: that our LORD was Baptized and Tempted of Satan; that He wrought Miracles,--casting out Devils, and even raising the Dead; that He was Transfigured on a mountain; that He was Crucified, died, and was buried; that He rose again the Third Day, ascended into Heaven, and at last, (as on this day,) sent down the PARACLETE to dwell with His Church for ever. All this, I say, you and I,--with the whole Church Catholic for 1800 years,--have been taught to believe as plain historical truths, mere matters of fact; past telling wonderful indeed, but yet as _historically true_, as that I am standing here and you are sitting yonder,--neither more nor less.

But you are to understand that we, and all mankind with us, have been under a very curious delusion on this head. We are assured that every one of these things, or at least that some of them, are only _ideologically_ true: that _Historically_, they are false. In plain language, we are requested to believe that they never occurred at all. It is only a lively way of putting it,--no more!

You will inevitably suppose that I must be trifling with you: I therefore proceed to give you a sample of this kind of teaching. A living dignitary of our Church writes as follows concerning the Transfiguration of CHRIST. "It may be asked, of what kind was the vision which we here call the Transfiguration? Was it an effect produced within on the minds of the Apostles; or was it that an actual external change came for the time over the person of our LORD? We cannot say." I give you this as the mildest form of the poison. Quite evident is it that the same suggestion is just as applicable to our LORD'S Birth, or to His Death; to His Temptation, or to His Resurrection. But to see whither all this _tends_, and what it really _means_, you must have recourse to the pages of a more advanced proficient in the Science of Ideology. He admits that its "application to the interpretation of Scripture, to the doctrines of Christianity, to the formularies of the Church, may undoubtedly be pushed so far as to leave in the sacred records _no historical residue whatever_. An example of the critical ideology carried to excess," (he says,) "_resolves into an ideal_" the whole of our LORD'S Life and Doctrine; and "_substitutes a mere shadow_ for the JESUS of the Evangelists." But for all that, (says the writer I am quoting,) "there are traits in the Scriptural person of JESUS, which are better explained by referring them to an ideal than an historical origin: parts of Scripture are more usefully interpreted ideologically than in any other manner,--as for instance, the history of the Temptation by Satan, and accounts of Demoniacal possession." This writer, (who is a clergyman of the Church of England, and a Graduate in Divinity,) goes on to idealize the descent of Mankind from Adam and Eve, together with the chiefest marvels of the Old Testament: insisting that "the force, grandeur, and reality of these ideas are not a whit impaired," although we discredit and reject the history, _as_ history. So, our SAVIOUR, (he says,) "is none the less the Son of David, in idea and spiritually, even if it be unproved whether He were so in historic fact." "The spiritual significance is still the same," (he says,) "of the Transfiguration, of opening blind eyes, of causing the tongue of the stammerer to speak plainly, of feeding multitudes with bread in the wilderness, of cleansing leprosy,--whatever links may be deficient in the traditional record of particular events."

"Whatever links may be deficient!" O that men would have the courage or the honesty to _say_ what they _mean_! Why not say plainly, "_however untrustworthy we may account the narrative to be_?" And this writer cannot mean any other thing; for missing "links," assuredly, there are _none_.--In truth this method of wrapping up a monstrous abortion in "purple and fine linen," in order to make it look like "a proper child," is so much in vogue, that plain men are obliged first to _translate_ a fallacy in order to understand it. Thus, a recent Apologist for the very writer I have been quoting,--after surrendering the beginning of Genesis as "parabolic," (that is, _not historically true_,) is yet so obliging as to contend that "there still remain events" in Scripture,--our LORD'S Resurrection to wit,--"in which the garb of flesh,"--(pray mark the phraseology!)--"in which _the garb of flesh_ seems to be so indispensable a vehicle for the spirit within, that we can hardly conceive how the one could have sustained itself in the world, unless it had been from the beginning allied to the other[634]." In plain English, the writer is so candid as to admit that if the Resurrection of our LORD JESUS CHRIST from death be a mere fabrication,--in plain terms, a hoax practised upon the credulity of an unscientific age,--it is hard to understand how it can have _imposed_ upon mankind so completely for the last eighteen hundred years.

I will not insult the understanding of those who hear me so grossly as to suppose that dreams like these,--(and really they are no more!)--require answer or refutation. Such desperate shifts to elude the meaning of plain words, as the whole theory of Ideology discloses, would be even ludicrous, if the subject-matter were not so very sacred and solemn. As in the case of certain acts of flagrant dishonesty which one sometimes reads of,--one cannot forbear exclaiming, The man must certainly have felt himself _very sore pressed indeed_ to have been induced to resort to a step so utterly disgraceful to his character!... Anyhow, since certain persons have adopted this course, I do but plead for consistency. Only let them be sure that they apply this precious method of Interpretation to the History of England, and to everything their friend tells them: and let them not feel surprised if the same kind of ideological handling is bestowed upon everything they tell their friend. Idealize away, and be sure you stick at nothing! _Why_ be outdone in logical consistency by such an one as Strauss? Let men also make their election whether Scripture shall be a lie or not. And when they have made up their minds, let them, in the Name of GOD, instead of dealing in unmanly insinuations, and dark hints, and shuffling equivocations,--let them declare themselves plainly, that we may know at least _with whom_ and _with what_ we have to do. For while false Brethren are thus playing fast and loose with Revelation, they are trifling with the faith of thousands,--and imperilling other immortal souls besides their own.

But I shall be reminded that the subject-matter of daily life, and of the Everlasting Gospel, is very different: and that the marvellous character of certain events recorded in the Bible constrains us to relegate those events to a distinct region. A child's plea, which was effectually disposed of upwards of a century ago! What does it amount to but this,--that what is _supernatural_, or even highly extraordinary, must be also untrue?... When, however, the argument is shifted, and is made an appeal _ad misericordiam_:--when I am entreated to remember that though _I_ believe in the Resurrection of CHRIST from Death, the same event is a "stumbling block" to many; and that I am "bound to treat with tenderness those who prefer to lean on the other, and, as _they_ think, _more secure foundation_[635];" (viz. on the hypothesis that the Resurrection of the Son of Man is all a fable;)--I say, when I am so addressed, really, friends and Brethren, I am constrained to cry out that there is a limit beyond which Nature cannot endure; and that _that_ limit has now been overstepped. Will men try to persuade us that _the idea_ of our LORD'S Resurrection is a more secure basis for the Church's faith than _the fact_ of our LORD'S Resurrection? Why, they might as well try to convince the world that a broken reed is a better support than an oaken staff;--or that a handful of waste paper is of more value than the title-deeds of an estate. How _can_ a shadow,--how _can_ what is confessedly an imagination,--be, in any sense, or for any body, a "secure foundation;" or indeed, _any foundation at all_? how, above all, can a fancy be a "_more_ secure foundation" than _a fact_?... Not only will I _not_ treat men with tenderness who put forth such blasphemous folly,--(men who, in their rashness, their recklessness, their arrogance, shew no manner of tenderness or consideration for others!)--but I will hold them up to ridicule, to the very utmost of my power. Nay, I would make them objects of unqualified reprobation to all, if I could, as they deserve to be reprobated; for they are the worst enemies of the Gospel of CHRIST[636]. "If CHRIST be not risen, then is our preaching vain, _and your faith is vain also_[637]!" "The Apostle _rests the truth of the Christian Religion_ on the fact that CHRIST was risen.... The whole system turns upon this central point; the several doctrines gather round it, they depend upon it, they grow out of it; so that without it, Christianity would have no coherence or meaning[638]."

You and I know very well "that nothing could more effectually shake the whole fabric of Revealed Religion, than thus converting its history into fable, and its realities into fiction. For if the narratives most usually selected for the purpose may thus be explained away; what part of the Sacred History will be secure against similar treatment? Nay, what doctrines, even those the most essential to Christianity, might not thus be undermined? For are not those doctrines dependent upon the _facts_ recorded in Scripture for the evidence of their truth? Does not, for instance, the whole system of our Redemption presuppose the reality of the Fall as an historical fact? And do not the proofs of the Divine authority of the whole, rest upon the verification of its Prophecies and Miracles, as events which have actually taken place? Allegory thus misapplied is therefore worse than frivolous or useless; it strikes a deadly blow at the very vitals of the Christian Faith[639]." Away then with that very questionable form of liberality, which makes most free with _what belongs to GOD_! The truths of Revelation are yours and mine, I grant you: but only _so_ yours and mine that, to our eternal blessedness, we embrace,--to our eternal loss, we let them slip! We add to them, or we take away from them, under peril of GOD'S curse.... Away too with that mawkish sentimentality which can find no better object for its sympathy than the hardened blasphemer, and the confirmed sceptic! _My_ sympathy shall be reserved for those who have never so offended, but are, on the contrary, full of precious promise;--for the young and as yet inexperienced;--for _you_, who will have the battle of CHRIST and His Church to fight, when _we_ shall be mouldering in the grave. Let those who do not know me, deem me uncharitable if they will. I care not. The uncharitable man,--mark me, Brethren!--the truly uncharitable man, is he, who shews no consideration for weak and unstable souls; who does not regard the trials and perils of the young; who beguiles unsteady feet to the edge of the precipice, and there forsakes them; whose destructive method, (for constructiveness is no part of that man's philosophy!)--whose destructive method leaves the young without chart and compass,--aye, without moon or stars to sail by; who labours hard to communicate the taint of his own foul leprosy to those who were before unpolluted; who dims the eye, and deadens the ear, and defiles the thoughts, and darkens the hope of as many as have the misfortune to come in his way, and feels no pity!--Yes, yes! The man who sows his own vile doubts broadcast over two continents,--doing his very best to destroy the faith of those for whom CHRIST died,--he, _he_ is the uncharitable man[640]! Not he who, forsaking the flowery fields of the Gospel, (whither he would far, far rather lead you!) and foregoing the free mountain air of imperishable Truth, for your sakes only keeps treading these dreary stifling paths of speculation;--a friend of yours, I mean, who with stammering eloquence, (the more's the pity!) clings thus to you, Sunday after Sunday,--imploring you, with all a brother's earnestness, not to venture where to venture is to die; and warning you against the men who have conspired against your _life_;--even while he labours hard to shew you what he _knows_ to be "a more excellent way;" and implores you to come where CHRIST Himself hath promised that "ye shall find rest to your souls!"

This is all there is time for, to-day. Let me, in the fewest possible words, gather up what has been spoken into a practical shape.

Friends and brethren,--(I am still addressing the younger men present!)--Divinity is not debate; and Religion is not controversy; and Life is not long enough for perpetual disputings. "He that cometh unto GOD must believe that _He is_." The heart dries up, and the affections wither away, and the soul faints, amid an atmosphere of cloudy doubts, and captious difficulties, and perverse disputations. You must rise above it, if you would discern the colours on the everlasting hills, and behold the beauty of the promised Land, and see objects as they really are. O put away from yourselves, (if any of you are so unhappy as to have acquired it,) a habit of mind which will effectually unfit you for profiting by what you read in Holy Scripture: and you, who are free from such dreadful bondage, beware lest, by the indulgence of some sin,--whether of the flesh or of the spirit,--you darken that spiritual eye by which alone spiritual things are to be discerned. It is like talking about colours to the blind, or about sounds to the deaf, to discuss with a certain class of persons the Inspiration, or the Interpretation, or the Marvels of Scripture. The Bible is, with them, _a common book_,--"to be _interpreted like any other book_." Prophecy is denied, and Miracles are rejected or explained away,--on the plea that they are alike incredible. These men lay claim to intellectual gifts above their fellows; and know not that they are "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." Rebels are they against the Most High; and find their exact image in those citizens who "sent a message after Him, saying, We will not have this Man to reign over us[641]." The gist of all they deliver, is _rebellion against GOD_.

But it is not so with yourselves, who have yet everything to learn in respect of Divine things. O beware lest it ever become your own dreadful case! Begin betimes to acquaint yourselves with the wealth of that celestial armoury which contains a weapon which must prove fatal to every foe; but which it depends _on yourselves_ whether you shall have the skill to wield or not. Suffer not yourselves to be cheated of your birthright, the Bible, either by the novel fictions of unstable men, or by the exploded heresies of a bygone age, revived and recommended by living unbelievers. You, especially, who aspire to the Ministerial office, and are destined hereafter to undertake the cure of souls, O do you be doubly watchful! Give to the Bible the undivided homage of a childlike heart; and bow down before its revelations with a suppliant understanding also; and let no characteristic of its method by any means escape you. Notice how it is indeed all one long narrative, from end to end; and see therein GOD'S provision that nothing shall be idealized, nothing explained away. Learn too that Man is thus called upon to look outward, and to sustain himself by an external Law; _not_ to depend on the promptings of his own conscience, and so to become a god unto himself. The Bible, I repeat, is all severest history, from the Alpha to the Omega of it. But then, underneath the surface there are meanings high as Heaven, deep as Hell: and why? because _the true Author of it is not Man, but GOD_!

Let it quicken you in your desire to understand that Book out of which you will have hereafter to preach, reprove, rebuke, exhort[642],--sometimes to bethink yourselves of the flocks which already are expecting you; and among which GOD already sees your future going out and coming in; your faithful teaching, or (GOD forbid!) your betrayal of a most sacred trust. Acquaint yourselves in due time, by all means, with the scientific grounds on which the Bible is to be received as the Word of GOD: but of a truth, hereafter, you will forget to require that external testimony; for you will be convinced of its Divine origin, when you have become the adoring witnesses of its Divine power. Truly _that_ must be from GOD which can so change the life and affect the heart; which can sustain the spirit under bereavement, and become the soul's satisfying portion under every form of adversity! It has already altered the aspect of the World; and it has still a mighty work to do in India, and in China, and in Africa, and in the Islands of the Sea.

Difficulties there are in Scripture, doubtless: but I should be far more perplexed by the absence of them, than I shall ever be by their presence. Nay, they are a chief source of joy to a rightly constituted mind; for they exercise the moral nature and the intellectual powers, in the noblest possible way. It is the office of the highest Intellect to know when to walk _by Faith_, and when _by sight_: and when, to "ask for the old paths." It needs a mind of no common order fully to recognize the distinctive difference between a system which comes from GOD; and one which has been elaborated by human Reason: the latter progressive,--the former incapable of progress; the one liable to change,--the other, unchangeable for ever. There are certain indelible characteristics of a Divine Revelation, I say, which it is the office of the keenest wit to detect and hold fast,--which it is a prime note of imbecility in a thoughtful man to overlook and let go.... The Bible in truth, as one grows older,--(to me at least it seems so,)--becomes almost the only thing in the world really deserving of a man's attention. _Above_ Reason, many things in it confessedly are: but _against_ Reason, I do not know of _one_. Meantime, is it not a glorious anticipation for you and for me, that to understand those hard things fully may be hereafter a part of our chiefest bliss? There is but a step between us and death[643]; and assuredly when we wake up after His likeness, we shall be satisfied with it[644]!... Already "the shadows of the evening are stretched out[645]." Be patient, O my soul, "until the day break, and the shadows flee away[646]!"

* * * * *

THY STATUTES HAVE BEEN MY SONGS IN THE HOUSE OF MY PILGRIMAGE.

FOOTNOTES:

[589] Preached at St. Mary-the-Virgin, Whit-Sunday, May 19th, 1861.

[590] Acts xxiii. 8. For the phrase in the text, see _Essays and Reviews_, p. 151. Also p. 174.

[591] See the Appendix (C).

[592] Should one not as readily acknowledge a hint which was gathered from the conversation of the thoughtful Vicar of Stanford-in-the-Vale, as if it had been derived from some of his published writings?

[593] 1 Sam. xv. 6.

[594] Numb. x. 29-32.

[595] A hint has here been taken from one of Dr. W. H. Mill's admirable _University Sermons_, pp. 239-40.

[596] Judges iv. 6.

[597] Ibid. iv. 17.

[598] Ibid. v. 6.

[599] Judges v. 6, 7, 11.

[600] Ibid. iv. 4, 5.

[601] Ibid. v. 7.

[602] Ibid. v. 5 and 9.

[603] 1 Sam. xii.

[604] Gen. xlix. 5.

[605] Comp. Judges v. 14, 17, with Numb, xxxii. 39, 40, and Josh. xiii. 31.--Consider Ps. lxxx. 2.

[606] 2 Kings vi. 16.

[607] 1 Kings xx. 42.

[608] St. John i. 17.

[609] 2 St. Peter ii. 16.

[610] Numb. xxii., xxiii., xxiv., xxv., xxxi. 8 and 16. Joshua xxiv. 9, 10: xiii. 22. Micah vi. 5. Nehem. xiii. 1, 2 (quoting Deut. xxiii. 3, 4.) 2 St. Peter ii. 14-16. St. Jude ver. 11. Rev. ii. 14.

[611] Exod. xiv. 19-31, &c. is thus referred to in Josh. ii. 10: iv. 23. Judges v. 4, 5. Job xxvi. 12. Ps. lxxiv. 13: cvi. 7-11: cxiv. 1-8: lxxvii. 14-20: lxvi. 6: lxxviii. 12-31. Amos ii. 10. Hos. xii. 13. Is. lxiii. 11-13: xliii. 16: li. 9, 10, 15. Micah vi. 4-5. Jer. ii. 6: xxxii. 20-1. Dan. ix. 15. 2 Sam. vii. 23. 2 Kings xvii. 7. Neh. ix. 9-21. Acts vii. 30-41. 1 Cor. x. 1-11. 2 Tim. iii. 8. Hebr. xi. 29. Rev. xv. 3.

[612] Gen. i. 1, (Heb. xi. 3:) 3, (2 Cor. iv. 6:) 5, (1 Thess, v. 5:) 6, 9, (2 St. Pet. iii. 5:) 11, 12, (1 St. John iii. 9:) 14, (Phil. ii. 15: Rev. xxi. 11:) 24, (Acts x. 12: xi. 6:) 26, (St. James iii. 9:) 26, 27, (Col. iii. 10:) 27, (1 Cor. xi. 7: St. Matth. xix. 4: St. Mark x. 6:) 28, (Ps. viii. 6-8, commented on in Heb. ii. 5-9: 1 Cor. xv. 25: Eph. i. 22.)--Gen. ii. 2, (Heb. iv. 4, 10:) 7, (1 Cor. xv. 45, 47:) 9, (Rev. ii. 7: xxii. 2, 14, 19:) 18, (1 Cor. xi. 9:) 22, (1 Tim. ii. 13:) 23, (Eph. v. 30:) 24, (Eph. v. 31: St. Matth. xix. 5: St. Mark x. 7: 1 Cor. vi. 16:) &c.

[613] "It is a very misleading notion of Prophecy," says Dr. Arnold,--(a writer to whom, more than to any other person, I conceive that we are indebted for "Essays and Reviews;" _that_ unhappy production being the lawful development and inevitable result of the late Head-master of Rugby's most unsound and mischievous religious teaching:)--"It is a very misleading notion of Prophecy, if we regard it as an anticipation of History." (_Sermons_, i. p. 375.) "I think that, with the exception of those prophecies which relate to our LORD, the object of Prophecy is rather to delineate principles and states of opinion which shall come, than external events. I grant that Daniel _seems to furnish an exception_." (_Life and Correspondence_, p. 59.) This was written in 1825. In 1840, we are informed:--"The latter chapters of Daniel, _if genuine, would be a clear exception to my Canon of Interpretation_.... But I have long thought that the greater part of the Book of Daniel is most certainly a very late work, of the time of the Maccabees; and the _pretended prophecy_ about the Kings of Grecia and Persia, and of the North and South, is _mere history, like the poetical prophecies in Virgil and elsewhere_.... That there may be genuine fragments in it, is very likely." (_Ibid._, p. 505.)--In other words, Dr. Arnold, rather than suppose "_my_ Canon of Interpretation" (!) worthless, is prepared to eject the Book of Daniel from the Inspired Canon. Any thing is "very likely," in short, except that God could foretell future events, and Dr. Arnold be in error!... =Ar' ouch hybris tad'?=

[614] Analogy, P. II. ch. vii.

[615] _Throughout_ the volume entitled "Essays and Reviews;" while the third Essay is simply an affirmation of their _impossibility_.

[616] And yet, Bp. Butler says,--"The facts, both miraculous and natural, in Scripture, appear in all respects to stand upon the same foot of historical evidence:" ... "and though testimony is no proof of enthusiastic opinions, or of any opinions at all; yet, it is allowed, in all other cases, to be a proof of facts."--_Analogy_, P. II. ch. vii. (ed. 1833, pp. 285 and 293.)

[617] _Essays and Reviews_, p. 140.

[618] _Ibid._, p. 104.

[619] There are some admirable observations on this subject in the 'Preliminary Essay' prefixed to Dean Trench's _Notes on the Miracles._--See pp. 10, 12, 15, 60, &c.

[620] Dr. Temple.

[621] Mr. Babbage's _Bridgewater Treatise_, (2nd. Ed. 1838,) p. 92.

[622] "_Why we should pray for Fair Weather_: being Remarks on Professor Kingsley's Sermon,"--by a Member of the University [of Cambridge,]--12mo. Cambridge, 1860, p. 8.

[623] "The view taken of Miracles in chapter viii., is the same as that contained in the work of Butler, on _the Analogy_" &c.--Babbage (as above), p. 191.

[624] _Edinburgh Review_, for April 1861, p. 486.

[625] How exactly, in this instance, has Dr. Whewell's anticipation received fulfilment!;--"We may, with the greatest propriety, deny to the mechanical Philosophers and Mathematicians of recent times any authority with regard to their views of the administration of the Universe; we have no reason whatever to expect from their speculations any help, when we ascend to the first Cause and supreme Ruler of the Universe. But we might perhaps go further, and assert that _they are in some respects less likely than men employed in other pursuits, to make any clear advance towards such a subject of speculation_."--(Whewell's _Bridgewater Treatise_, p. 334.)--Scarcely less acute is the remark which the late excellent Hugh James Rose has somewhere left on record, concerning the chapter wherein the preceding remark occurs,--That the world would not easily forgive Dr. Whewell for those two chapters on "Inductive" and "Deductive Habits."

[626] Babbage (as before), p. 92, (heading of ch. viii.)

[627] See the _Analogy_, P. II. ch. iv. sect. iii.

[628] St. Mark i. 24. St. Luke iv. 34: viii. 28, 30-32, &c. &c.

[629] Exod. xvi. 18-21: 22-24:--25-27: 31: 33-34. Add Wisdom xvi. 20-1.

[630] Exod. xvi. 35, and Josh. v. 12.

[631] Exod. xiv. 22, 29.

[632] St. Matth. viii. 26. St. Mark iv. 39.

[633] St. Matth. viii. 15.

[634] _Edinburgh Review_, (art. on 'Essays and Reviews,') April 1861, p. 487.

[635] _Edinburgh Review_, (art. on 'Essays and Reviews,') April 1861, p. 487.

[636] I have softened the expression originally employed in this place, out of deference to the opinions of some wise and good men. But I do not think that St. John, (the Evangelist and Apostle _of Dogma_,) would have thought my language too strong: nor St. Paul either. =Ei tis ou philei=,--

[637] 1 Cor. xv. 14.

[638] From a Sermon by the pious and learned chaplain to the English congregation at Rome, the Rev. F. B. Woodward,--_CHRIST risen the Foundation of the Faith_,--preached on Easter Day, 1861. (Rivingtons.)

[639] Van Mildert's _Bampton Lectures_ for 1814, ("An Inquiry into the general principles of Scripture-Interpretation,")--pp. 242-3.

[640] The reader is particularly requested to read what Dr. Moberly has said on this subject in _Some Remarks on 'Essays and Reviews,'_ being the _Revised Preface to the Second Edition of 'Sermons on the Beatitudes_,'--p. xxii to p. xxv.--The _constructive_ value of the 'Remarks' of that excellent Divine will long outlive the occasion which has called them forth. I allude particularly to the considerations which occur from p. xxxii to p. lxiii.

[641] St. Luke xix. 14.

[642] 2 Tim. iv. 2.

[643] 1 Sam. xx. 3.

[644] Ps. xvii. 16.

[645] Jer. vi. 4.

[646] Song of S. ii. 17: iv. 6.