Chapter IX: Appendix: A Bishop Horsley on the double sense of Prophecy 257 (5)

But speaking to others,--speaking to _you_, my friends,--let me point out that "the tendencies of _irreligious_ thought in England, 1860-1861," are _indeed_ in a direction where the Prayer-Book is found to be _effectually_ "blocking up the road." (pp. 297-8.) Mr. Pattison is simply dreaming,--haunted by the phantoms of his own brain, and talking the language of the den,--when he complains that "the Philosophy, now petrified into tradition, may once have been a vital Faith; but now that" it is "withdrawn from public life," has ceased to be a "social influence." (p. 298.) And when he would exalt the last century at the expence of the present, (pp. 298-9,) he shews nothing so much as the morbid state of his own imagination,--the disordered condition of his own mind. He has blinded himself; and he will not or he cannot see in the healthier tone of our popular Divinity,--in the increased attention to the study of Holy Scripture,--in the impulse which Liturgical inquiries have received since Wheatly's useful volume appeared;--or again, in the immense number of Schools and Churches which have been recently built,--in the marvellous change for the better which has come over the Clergy of the Church of England within the present century,--in the vast development of our Colonial Episcopate within the last few years,--in the rapid increase of Institutions connected more or less directly with the Church,--and I will add, in the conspicuous loyalty of the nation;--a practical refutation of his own injurious insinuations; a blessed earnest that God has _not_ forsaken us; and that we shall _yet_ be a blessing to the World! The people of England, I am persuaded, are in the main very sincerely attached to their Prayer-Book. To them, it is not "a useless encumbrance, the rubbish of the past, blocking the road." Nay, there is a "rough and ready test" of what is the current temper of the age in things religious, to which I appeal with infinite satisfaction. I mean, _the general burst of execration with which "Essays and Reviews" have been received_, from one end of the kingdom to the other. _The censure of all the Bishops_, and of _both Houses of Convocation_; re-echoed, as it has been, through _all ranks of the community_, is a great fact;--a fact which I cordially recommend to Mr. Pattison's attention, when he would philosophize on the religious tendencies of his countrymen.

The age we live in, (Heaven knows!) has many drawbacks. _What_ age of the Church has _not_ had them? The fatal disposition which prevails to relax all the ancient safeguards,--the desire to tamper yet further with the Law of Marriage, and to desecrate the Christian Sabbath,--these are grievous features of the times; which may well occasion alarm and create perplexity. But nothing of the kind should ever make us despond; much less despair. There is One above "who is over all, GOD blessed for ever." Shall we not rather seek to employ these advantages which we have, with a single heart, a single eye to GOD'S glory; and leave the issue, with a generous confidence, to _Him_?... It was thus that the great philosophic Divine of the last century comforted himself, amid darker days than _we_ shall ever experience.

"As different ages have been distinguished by different sorts of particular errors and vices, the deplorable distinction of ours," (he said,) "is an avowed scorn of Religion in some, and a growing disregard to it in the generality." "It is impossible for me, my brethren,"--(Butler is still addressing the clergy of his Diocese, 1761,)--"to forbear lamenting with you the general decay of Religion in this nation; which is now observed by every one, and has been for some time the complaint of all serious persons. The influence of it is more and more wearing out of the minds of men;" while "the number of those who profess themselves unbelievers, increases, and with their number their zeal. Zeal, it is natural to ask,--for what? Why truly _for_ nothing, but _against_ everything that is sacred and good among us[143]." And yet, in days dark as those, Piety could suggest that "no Christian should possibly despair;" and Faith could assign as the reason of this blessed confidence,--"_For He who hath all power in Heaven and Earth, hath promised that He will be with us to the end of the world._"

It is time to dismiss Mr. Pattison's Essay. In doing so, I will not waste my time and yours by carping at the many errors of detail into which he has (not inexcusably) fallen. These are the accidents,--not the essence of his paper. The root of bitterness with the Author is, clearly enough, _the Theory of Religious Belief in the Church of England_. His concluding words shew this plainly. The sting of the Essay is in the tail:--

"In the Catholic theory the feebleness of Reason is met half-way, and made good by the authority of the Church. When the Protestants threw off this authority, they did not assign to Reason what they took from the Church, but to Scripture. Calvin did not shrink from saying that Scripture 'shone sufficiently by its own light.' As long as this could be kept to, the Protestant theory of belief was whole and sound. At least it was as sound as the Catholic. In both, Reason, aided by spiritual illumination, performs the subordinate function of recognising the supreme authority of the Church, and of the Bible, respectively. Time, learned controversy, and abatement of zeal, drove the Protestants generally from the hardy but irrational assertion of Calvin. Every foot of ground that Scripture lost was gained by one or other of the three substitutes: Church-authority, the Spirit, or Reason. Church-authority was essayed by the Laudian divines, but was soon found untenable, for on that footing it was found impossible to justify the Reformation and the breach with Rome." [O shame!] "The SPIRIT then came into favour along with Independency. But it was still more quickly discovered that on such a basis only discord and disunion could be reared. There remained to be tried Common Reason, carefully distinguished from recondite learning, and not based on metaphysical assumptions. To apply this instrument to the contents of Revelation was the occupation of the early half of the eighteenth century; with what success has been seen. In the latter part of the century the same Common Reason was applied to the external evidences. But here the method fails in a first requisite,--universality; for even the shallowest array of historical proof requires some book-learning to apprehend."--(pp. 328-9.)

Now all this is discreditable to Mr. Pattison as a Philosopher and as a Divine. _When_ did Protestant England "throw off the authority" of the Church?--What are _Calvin's_ opinions to _her_?--How does 'Independency,' 'Rationalism,' or any other unsound principle, affect _us_? Look at our Prayer-Book. Is it not the same which it was from the beginning? The Sarum Use, reformed and revised, has been our unbroken heritage as Christian men, from the first. Essentially remodelled in the days of Edward VI., the recension of our "Laudian Divines" is, (by GOD'S great mercy!) still ours. What other teaching but that of _the Book of Common Prayer_, is, to this hour, the authoritative teaching of the Church of England? Why insinuate there has been vicissitude of Theory, where notoriously there has been none? Why imply that the storms which periodically sweep over the citadel of our Zion are effectual to remove the old foundations and to substitute new? What but a hollow heartless Scepticism _can_ be the result of such an abominable passage as the foregoing?

"Whoever will take the religious literature of the present day as a whole, and endeavour to make out clearly on what basis Revelation is supposed by it to rest, whether on Authority, on the Inward Light, on Reason, on self-evidencing Scripture, or on the combination of the four, or some of them, and in what proportions; would probably find that he had undertaken a perplexing but not altogether profitless inquiry."--(p. 329.) And so the Essay ends.

With a short comment on the proposed problem, I also shall conclude.

No one but a fool would set about the task which Mr. Pattison here proposes. The current "religious literature _of the day_" cannot be supposed, for an instant, to be an adequate exponent of the mind of the Church of England,--or of any other Church. Revelation rests, at this hour, on exactly the same basis on which it has always rested, and on which it will rest, to the end of time; let the age be faithful, or faithless,--learned or unlearned,--rationalizing or scientific,--sceptical or superstitious,--or whatever else you will. And if I am asked to explain myself, I would humbly say,--(always submitting my own statements in such a matter to the judgment of the Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England,)--that we receive the Bible on the authority of _the Church_. The Church teaches us by the concurrent voices of many Fathers, Doctors, Saints, how to interpret the Bible; and convinces us that the three Creeds which she delivers to us as her own independent tradition, may be proved thereby; being in entire conformity with Holy Scripture, though not originally deduced from it. "Self-evidencing" is hardly a correct epithet to bestow upon Scripture. And yet, from the evidence which the New Testament supplies to the Old, and from the interpretation which it puts upon its teaching, we should not despair of proving the Truth of Revelation, to one who had neither darkened the inward Light, nor perverted his Reason.

In truth, however, it is idle thus to speculate. We have been born into the world during the nineteenth Century, whether we wish it or not. We have been nourished, (GOD be thanked!) in the bosom of the Christian Church, whether we would or no. The glory of the Gospel has informed our natural reason, and we cannot undo the blessed process, strive we as much as we will. The "inward Light," (as we call it,) is the lingering twilight of the Day of Creation, in the case of the heathen,--the reflected ray of the noontide of the Gospel, even in the case of the modern unbeliever. We cannot escape from these conditions of our being, although we may affect to ignore them, or pretend to turn our eyes the other way. _No_ help however is to be rejected. _No_ faculty of the soul need be denied the privilege of assisting to convince the doubting heart. The inward Light may not be disparagingly spoken of: for what if it should prove to be a ray sent down from the Father of Lights, to illumine the dark places of the soul? The aid of Reason is not to be excluded; for what is Faith but the highest dictate of the Reason? Faith, (let us ever remember,) being opposed not to _Reason_, but to _Sight_!... And who for a moment supposes that we disparage the office of Reason, because we speak of the authority of the Church, in controversies of Faith? We simply proclaim the Church to be the appointed witness and keeper of Holy Writ; and when we are invited "_to make out clearly_ on what basis Revelation is supposed to rest," (p. 329,) we point,--where else _should_ we point?--unhesitatingly to _her_ unwavering witness from the beginning.

* * * * *

VII. The Essay which brings up the rear in this very guilty volume is from the pen of the "REV. BENJAMIN JOWETT, M.A., [Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, and] Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford,"--"a gentleman whose high personal character and general respectability seem to give a weight to his words, which assuredly they do not carry of themselves[144]." His performance is entitled "ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE:" being, in reality, nothing else but a laborious _denial of its Inspiration_.

Mr. Jowett's quarrel is with the whole body of Commentators on the Bible,--ancient and modern; with the whole Church Catholic. He cannot endure the claim of that Book, (like its Divine object and Author,) to "a Name which is above every other Name." That Plato and Sophocles should be capable of but one method of Interpretation, and _that_ the literal,--while the Bible lays claim to a yet profounder meaning,--so distresses the Regius Professor of Greek, that he has appropriated to himself almost a quarter of the present volume, in order that he may cast laborious and systematic ridicule on the very supposition. Some parts of his method I propose presently to submit to _exactly the same "free handling" which he has himself applied to THE WORD OF GOD_. In the meantime, since it is my intention not only to demonstrate the worthlessness of the structure which Mr. Jowett has with so much perverse industry here built up, by an examination of some parts of it in detail, but also to pull down as much of the fabric as I am able within a small compass,--(the construction of something which it is hoped will prove more durable, being to be found in my IIIrd and IVth, Vth and VIth Sermons,)--I proceed at once to inspect the foundation-stone of his edifice; and briefly to demonstrate its absolute insecurity.

$1.$ Mr. Jowett's fundamental principle is expressed in the following brief precept: "_Interpret the Scripture like any other book._" (p. 377.) To this favourite tune, (although he plays many intricate variations on it,) he invariably reverts in the end[145]. On this preliminary postulate therefore, which, at first sight, to a candid mind, seems fair enough, I proceed to remark as follows:--

Mr. Jowett's formula may be cheerfully and entirely accepted,--_apart from the sinister glosses which he immediately proceeds to put upon it_. By all means "Interpret the Scripture like any other book." Let us see to what result this principle will conduct us. As for the formula itself, I take the liberty to assume that it _ought to mean_ somewhat as follows:--"Approach the volume of Holy Scripture with the same candour, and in the same unprejudiced spirit with which you would approach any other famous book of high antiquity. Study it with at least the same attention. Give at least equal heed to all its statements. Acquaint yourself at least as industriously with its method, and with its principle; employing and applying either, with at least equal fidelity, in its interpretation. Above all, beware of playing tricks with its plain language. Beware of suppressing any part of the evidence which it supplies as to its own meaning. Be truthful, and unprejudiced, and honest, and consistent, and logical, and exact throughout, in your work of Interpretation. 'INTERPRET SCRIPTURE LIKE ANY OTHER BOOK.'"

Now, (not to be tedious,) if _this_ were Mr. Jowett's principle, all further discussion would be at an end. The general question of the right method of interpreting the Bible would be easily settled; but it would be hopelessly settled--_against the Regius Professor of Greek_. As I have briefly shewn, (from p. 144 to p. 160 of the present volume,) our LORD and His Apostles openly and repeatedly claim for Scripture that very depth of meaning, that very extent of signification, which Mr. Jowett so strenuously maintains that it does _not_ possess.--This great fact, he prudently takes no notice of. He simply ignores it. Either he has overlooked it, through inadvertency: or he has omitted it, as not perceiving its force and bearing on the question: or he has disingenuously kept it back. He must choose between these three suppositions. If he has overlooked the fact on which I lay so much stress,--he is a careless and incompetent reader. If he has failed to see its force and bearing on the question,--he is a weak and illogical thinker. If he has deliberately suppressed it, knowing its fatal power,--he is simply a dishonest man. To prevent offence, I may as well state freely that my entire conviction is that he is simply a weak and illogical person. My warrant for this opinion is especially the very sad performance of his now under consideration.

It is clear however that the paraphrase above hazarded does _not_ express Mr. Jowett's principle. "Interpret the Bible like any other book," means with him something else. And what it _does_ mean, the Reverend author does not suffer us to doubt. He shews that his meaning is, _Interpret the Bible like any other book_, FOR _it is like any other book_. I proceed to shew that this _is_ Mr. Jowett's meaning.

It becomes necessary however at once to introduce to the reader's notice the main inference which, (as already hinted,) flows from Mr. Jowett's favourite position. "_Interpret_ Scripture like any other book,"--he says. His business is with _the Interpretation_ of "the Jewish and Christian Scriptures;" and he begins by eagerly assuring us,--and is strenuous in all that follows to make us believe,--(but simply on _à priori_ grounds!)--that "the true glory and note of Divinity in these, is _not_ that they have hidden, mysterious, or double meanings; but _a simple and universal one_, which is beyond them and will survive them." (p. 332.) "Is it admitted," (he asks, at the end of many pages,) "that _the Scripture has one and only one true meaning_?" (p. 368.)

Let us hear what reasons the Reverend author of this seventh Essay is able to produce in support of his favourite opinion. He approaches the subject from a respectful distance:--

(i) "It is a strange, though familiar fact,"--(such are the opening words of his Essay,)--"that great differences of opinion exist respecting the Interpretation of Scripture." (p. 330.)--'Familiar,' the fact is, certainly; but why 'strange?' A Book of many ages,--of immense antiquity,--of most varied character,--treating of the unseen world,--purporting to be a mysterious composition,--and by all Christian men believed to have GOD for its true Author: a book which has come into collision with every form of human error, and has triumphed gloriously over every form of human opposition:--_how_ can it be thought 'strange' that the interpretation of such a book should have provoked "great differences of opinion?" ... Surely none but the weakest of thinkers, unless committed to the assumption that _the Bible is like any other book_, could ever have penned such a silly remark.

(ii) "We do not at once see _the absurdity_ of the same words having many senses, or free our minds from _the illusion_ that the Apostle or Evangelist must have written with a reference to the creeds or controversies or circumstances of other times. Let it be considered, then, that this extreme variety of interpretation _is found to exist in the case of no other book, but of the Scriptures only_." (p. 334.)

But the "phenomenon" which Mr. Jowett represents as "so extraordinary that it requires an effort of thought to appreciate it," (_Ibid._,) does not seem at all extraordinary to any one who does not begin by _assuming_ that the Bible is "like any other book."--If _the Bible be inspired_,--then all is plain!

(iii) "Who would write a bulky treatise about the method to be pursued in interpreting Plato or Sophocles?"--asks Mr. Jowett. (p. 378.)--No one but a fool!--is the obvious reply. Plato and Sophocles are ordinary books; and therefore _are to be interpreted_ like any other book. The Bible not so, as we shall see by and by. Again,--

(iv) "Each writer, each successive age, has characteristics of its own, as strongly marked, or more strongly, than those which are found in the authors or periods of classical Literature. These differences are not to be lost in _the idea of a Spirit from whom they proceed, or by which they were overruled_. And therefore, illustration of one part of Scripture by another should be confined to writings of the same age and the same authors, except where the writings of different ages or persons offer obvious similarities. It may be said, further, that illustration should be chiefly derived, not only from the same author, _but from the same writing, or from one of the same period of his life_. For example, the comparison of St. John and the 'synoptic' Gospels, or of the Gospel of St. John with the Revelation of St. John, will tend _rather to confuse than to elucidate the meaning of either_." (pp. 382-3.)--But really, in reply, it ought to suffice to point out that the result of the Church's experience for 1800 years has been the very opposite of the Professor's. "_The idea of a SPIRIT from whom they proceeded_," is, to the thoughtful part of mankind, _the only intelligible clue_ to the several books of Holy Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation! Hence "the marginal references to the English Bible," (to which Mr. Jowett devotes a depreciatory half page,) so far from being the dangerous or useless apparatus which he represents, we hold to be an instrument of paramount importance for eliciting the true meaning of Holy Writ.--In a word, he is reasoning about the Bible on _the assumption_ that the Bible is _like any other book_.

(v) "To attribute to St. Paul or the Twelve the abstract notion of Christian Truth which afterwards sprang up in the Catholic Church ... is the same error as to attribute to Homer the ideas of Thales or Heraclitus, or to Thales the more developed principles of Aristotle and Plato." (p. 354.)--_Not if St. Paul and the Twelve were inspired._

(vi) He bids us remark, with tedious emphasis, that although the same philological and historical difficulties which occur in Holy Scripture are found in profane writings, yet "the meaning of classical authors is known with comparative certainty; and the interpretation of them seems to rest on a scientific basis.... _Even the Vedas and the Zendavesta_, though beset by obscurities of language probably greater than are found in any portion of the Bible, are interpreted, at least by European scholars, according to fixed rules, and beginning to be clearly understood." (p. 335.)

But at the end of several weak sentences, through which the preceding fallacy is elongated into distressing tenuity, _who_ does not exclaim,--The supposed "scientific" basis on which the interpretation of books in general rests, is simply this; (=1=) that being _merely human_, and (=2=) _not professing_ to have any other than their obvious literal meaning,--they are all interpreted in the obvious ordinary way!

For (=1=),--If any book were even _suspected_ to be Divine, the manner of interpreting it would of course be different. Not that the "basis" of such Interpretation would therefore cease to be "scientific!" Take the only known instance of such a Book. The Bible has been suspected (!) for 1800 years to be inspired. How has it fared with the Bible?

The Science of Biblical Interpretation is one of the noblest and best understood in the world. It has been professed and practised in every country of Christendom. The great Masters of this Science have been such men as Hilary of Poictiers, Basil and the two Gregories in Asia Minor, Epiphanius in Cyprus, Ambrose at Milan, John Chrysostom at Antioch, Jerome in Palestine, Augustine in Africa, Athanasius and Cyril at Alexandria. The names descend in an unbroken stream from the first four centuries of our æra down to the age of Andrewes, and Bull, and Pearson, and Mill. These men all interpret Scripture in one and the same way. Their principles are the same throughout. They were all Professors of _the same Sacred Science_.

But (=2=),--If a book even _professes_ to have a hidden meaning, it is interpreted by a special set of canons. Thus Dante's great poem[146] may not be read as Hume's History of England is read.--To proceed, however.

(vii) Sophocles is perhaps the most subtle of the ancient Greek poets. "Several schools of critics have commented on his works. To the Englishman he has presented one meaning, to the Frenchman another, to the German a third; the interpretations have also differed with the philosophical systems which the interpreters espoused. To one the same words have appeared to bear a moral, to another a symbolical meaning; a third is determined wholly by the authority of old commentators; while there is a disposition to condemn the scholar who seeks to interpret Sophocles from himself only and with reference to the ideas and beliefs of the age in which he lived. And the error of such an one is attributed not only to some intellectual but even to a moral obliquity (!) which prevents his seeing the true meaning." (p. 336.)

It has fared with Sophocles therefore, (according to Mr. Jowett,) _in all respects as it has fared with the Bible_. "It would be tedious," (he justly remarks,) "to follow the absurdity which has been supposed into details. By such methods," Sophocles or Plato might "be made to mean anything." (p. 336.)

But who does not perceive that the obvious way to escape from the supposed difficulty, is to remember that _neither Sophocles nor Plato was inspired_!... Mr. Jowett's difficulty is occasioned by his assumption that _the Bible stands on the same level as Plato and Sophocles_.

(viii) Again,--"If it is not held to be a thing impossible that there should be agreement in the meaning of _Plato and Sophocles_, neither is it to be regarded as absurd, that there should be a like agreement in the interpretation of _Scripture_?" (p. 426.)--The whole force of this argument clearly consisting in the strictly equal claims of these books to Inspiration.--Elsewhere, Mr. Jowett expresses the same thing more unequivocally:--The old "explanations of Scripture," (he says,) "are no longer tenable. They belong to a way of thinking and speaking which was once diffused over the world, but has now passed away." Having quietly _assumed_ all this, the Reverend writer proceeds:--"And what we give up as a general principle, we shall find it impossible to maintain partially; _e.g._ in the types of the Mosaic Law, and the double meanings of Prophecy, at least _in any sense in which it is not equally applicable to all deep and suggestive writings_." (p. 419.)

(ix) "Still one other supposition has to be introduced, which will appear, perhaps, _more extravagant than any which have preceded_. Conceive then that these modes of interpreting Sophocles (!) had existed for ages; that great institutions and interests had become interwoven with them; and in some degree even the honour of Nations and Churches;--is it too much to say that, in such a case, they would be changed with difficulty, and that they would continue to be maintained long after critics and philosophers had seen that they were indefensible?" (pp. 336-7.)

I suppose we may at once allow Mr. Jowett most of what he asks. We may freely grant that if the Tragedies of Sophocles _had_ exercised the same wondrous dominion over the world which the Books of the Bible have exercised:--if Oedipus and Jocasta and Creon; if Theseus and Dejanira and Hercules; if Ajax, Ulysses and Minerva;--_had_ done for the world what Enoch and Noah;--what Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;--what Joseph, and Joshua, and Hannah, and Samuel, and David;--what Elijah and Elisha; what Isaiah and Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, and the rest;--what St. Peter, and St. John, and St. Paul;--what the Blessed Virgin and her name-sakes, have done:--In a word: had Homer's gods and heroes altogether changed the face of society, and revolutionized the world; _so that "great institutions and interests had become interwoven with them, and in some degree even the honour of Nations and Churches_;" (p. 336;)--if, I repeat, all this _had_ really and actually taken place;--_great_ "difficulty" would, no doubt, (as Mr. Jowett profoundly suggests,) be experienced, at the end of 2000 years, in getting rid of them.

But since it unfortunately happens that _they have done nothing of the kind_, we do not seem to be called upon to follow the Regius Professor of Greek into the supposed consequences of what he admits to be an "extravagant supposition;" and which we humbly think is an excessively foolish one also.

When, however, the Reverend Author of this speculation establishes it as _a parallel with what has taken place with regard to the Word of GOD_, we tell him plainly that his insinuation that "critics and philosophers are maintaining the present mode of interpreting Scripture _long after they have seen that it is indefensible_"--is a piece of impertinence which seems to require a public apology. A man may retain Orders in the Church of England, if he pleases, while yet he repudiates her doctrines: may declare that he subscribes her Articles _ex animo_, and yet seem openly to deny them. But he has no right whatever to impute corresponding baseness to others. The charge should be either plainly made out, or openly retracted[147].

By such considerations then does Professor Jowett attempt to shew that we ought to "interpret Scripture like any other book." The gist of his observations, in every case, is one and the same,--namely, from _à priori_ considerations to insinuate that _the Bible is not essentially unlike any other book._

Now, quite apart from its Inspiration,--which is, obviously, THE one essential respect wherein the Bible is wholly unlike every other book in the world; (inasmuch as, if it is inspired, it differs from every other book _in kind_; stands among Books as the Incarnate WORD stood among Men,--_quite alone_; notwithstanding that He spoke their language, shared their wants, and accommodated Himself to their manners;)--_apart_, I say, _from the fact of its Inspiration_, it is not difficult to point out several particulars in which the Bible is _utterly unlike any other Book which is known to exist_; and therefore to suggest an _à priori_ reason why _neither should it be interpreted_ like any other book.

1. The Bible then contains in all (66-9=) 57 distinct writings,--the work of perhaps upwards of forty different Authors[148]. Yet, for upwards of fifteen centuries those many writings have been all collected into one volume: and, for a large portion of that interval, on the writings so collected the Church Universal has agreed in bestowing the name of _the Book_,--=kat' exochên=,--THE BIBLE.

2. The Bible is divided into two parts, which are severed by an interval of upwards of four centuries. On these two great divisions of the Bible, respectively, has been bestowed the title of the Old and the New Covenant. And, what is remarkable,--_The same phenomena which are observable in respect of the whole Bible, are observable in respect of either of its parts._ Thus,

(=1=) The several writings of which the Old Testament is composed,--(39-3=) 36 in all[149], are by many different hands: those of the New Testament, in like manner,--(27-6=) 21 in all, are by eight different authors.

(=2=) Those many writings of the Old Testament are found to have been collected into a single volume about four hundred years before the Christian æra; when they were denominated by a common name, =hê graphê=,--"_The Scripture_[150];" and the supreme authority of the writings so collected together, was axiomatic[151]. One arguing with His Hebrew countrymen was able to appeal to a place in the Psalms, and to remind them parenthetically that "the Scripture _cannot be broken_[152],"--that is, might not be gainsaid, doubted, explained away, or set aside.--Precisely similar phenomena are observable in respect of the writings of the New Testament.

(=3=) Although the books of the Old Covenant are scattered at intervals over the long period of upwards of a thousand years, the writers of the later books are observed to quote the earlier ones, as if by a peculiar secret sympathy: now, incorporating long passages,--now, simply adapting one or two sentences,--now, blending allusive references. For some proof of this assertion, (as far as I am able to produce it at a moment's notice,) the reader is referred to the foot of the page[153].

The self-same phenomenon is observable with regard to the New Testament Scriptures. Although all the books were written within so short a space as about fifty years, the later writers quote the earlier ones to a surprising extent. In the Gospels, the Gospels are quoted times without number. In the Epistles, the Gospels are cited, or referred to, upwards of sixty times. The Epistles contain many references to the Epistles.--The phenomenon thus alluded to will also be found insisted upon in a later part of the present volume[154].

"The fact, I believe, on close examination, will be found to stand thus:--The Holy Bible abounds in quotations, even more perhaps than most other books; but they are introduced in a way which is peculiar to Revelation, and its own. When a Prophet or Apostle mentions one of his own holy brethren, as when Ezekiel names Daniel, or Daniel Jeremiah; when St. Peter speaks of St. Paul, or St. Paul of St. Peter, or of St. Luke the Physician; _when they mention them, they do not quote them; and when they quote them, they do not mention them_[155]."

(=4=) The later writer in the Old Testament who quotes some earlier portion of narrative is often observed to supply independent information,--entering into minute details and particulars which are not to be found in the earlier record.--Now, "with the same Almighty SPIRIT for their guide, what was it to be expected that the historians of our Blessed LORD would do? What, but the very thing which they have done? that they would walk in the path, which the holy Prophets of old had marked out? that they would often tread full in each other's steps; often relate the same miracle, or discourse, or parts of it, in the words of the same prior writer; sometimes compress, sometimes expand; always shew to the diligent inquirer, that they did not derive their information, even of facts which they relate in another's words, from him whom they copy, but wrote with antecedent plenitude of knowledge and truth in themselves; without staying to inform us whether what they deliver is told for the first time, or has its place already in authentic history[156]."

(=5=) It may be worth remarking that though _the Inspiration_ of no part of either Testament has ever been doubted in the Church, there do exist doubts as to the _Authorship_ of more than one of the Books of the Old Testament; and _one_ Book in the New, (the Epistle to the Hebrews,) has been suspected by some orthodox writers _not_ to have been from the pen of St. Paul, but to have been the work of some other inspired and Apostolic writer.

(=6=) History, Didactic matter, and Prophecy,--is found to be the subject of either Testament.

(=7=) In the New Testament, as in the Old, we are presented with the singular phenomenon of more than one Book being in a manner _copied_ from another,--yet with the addition of much independent original matter. It is superfluous to name Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, on one side,--and the Gospels on the other. To the Gospels may be added the Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude.

(=8=) Lastly, the same _modest_ use of the Supernatural is to be found in either Testament.--In both, the writers are observed to pass without effort, and as it were unconsciously, from revelations of the most stupendous character, to statements of the simplest and most ordinary kind[157].--In both, there is the same prominence given to individual characters[158]; the same occasional minuteness of detail where it might have been least expected[159].

3. But by far the most remarkable phenomenon remains to be noticed; namely, the immense number of quotations, (so far more numerous than is commonly suspected,)--extending in length from a single word to nearly a hundred and fifty[160],--together with allusive references, literally without number, which are found in the New Testament Scriptures; _the writings of the elder Covenant being in every instance, exclusively[161], the source of those quotations,--the object of those allusions_.

4. When the nature of these quotations, references, and allusions is examined with care, several extraordinary phenomena present themselves, which it seems impossible to consider without the deepest interest, surprise, and admiration. Thus,--(i.) The New Testament writers, on repeated occasions, display _independent knowledge_ of the Old Testament History to which they make reference[162]. The following instances occur to my memory:--All the later links in our LORD'S Genealogy[163]; the second Cainan[164]: Salmon's marriage with Rahab[165]: the burial-place of the twelve Patriarchs[166]: the age of Moses in Exod. ii. 11[167]: that in the days of Elijah the heaven was shut up for three years _and six months_[68]: that it was _the Devil_ who tempted Eve[169]: the contest for the dead body of Moses[170]: the names of Pharaoh's magicians[171]: how Abraham reasoned with himself when he prepared to offer up his son Isaac[172]: the golden censer, mentioned in Heb. ix. 4: Abraham's purchase of Sychem[173]; and a few other things[174].

(ii.) The same New Testament writers are observed to handle the Old Testament Scriptures with an air of singular authority, and to exercise an extraordinary license of quotation; inverting clauses,--paraphrasing statements,--abridging or expanding;--and always without apology or explanation;--as if they were conscious that they were dealing with _their own_.

(iii.) Most astonishing of all, obviously, as well as most important, is _the purpose_ for which the Evangelists and Apostles of our LORD make their appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures; invariably in order _to establish some part of the Christian Revelation_. "Every thoughtful student of the Holy Scriptures has been struck with the circumstance which I now allude to: the freedom, namely, with which the inspired Writers of the New Testament appeal back to the Old; and see in it, as its one proper theme, the Christian subject. They find themselves in that place, at length, to which former intimations had pointed, and recognize the connexion which they themselves have with their ancient forerunners[175]." ... It is as if for four hundred years and upwards, a mighty mystery,--described in many a dark place of Prophecy, exhibited by many a perplexing type, foreshadowed by many a Divine narrative,--had waited for solution. The world is big with expectation. The long-expected time at last arrives. Up springs the Sun of Righteousness in the Heavens; and lo, the cryptic characters of the Law flash at once into glory, and the dark Oracles of ancient days yield up their wondrous meanings! "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets,"--in these last days speaks "unto us by His SON:" and lo, a chorus of Apostolic voices is heard bearing witness to the Advent of "the Desire of all nations!" ... Such is the relation which the New Testament bears to the Old: such the true nature of the many quotations from the earlier Scriptures, which are found in the later half of the One inspired Volume.

5. And thus we are led naturally to notice the extraordinary connexion which subsists between the two Testaments. "For what is the Law," (asks Justin, A.D. 140,) "but the Gospel foretold? or what is the Gospel, but the Law fulfilled[176]?" "The contents of the Old and New Testament are the same," remarks Augustine: "_there_ foreshadowed, _here_ revealed: _there_ prefigured, _here_ made plain." "In the Old Testament there is a concealing of the New: in the New Testament there is a revealing of the Old[177]."--Mr. Jowett's inquiry,--"If we assume the New Testament as _a tradition running parallel with the Old_, may not the Roman Catholic assume with equal reason a tradition parallel with the New?" (p. 81.)--shews a truly childish misapprehension of the entire question. The New Testament is not a "parallel tradition" at all; but a _subsequent Revelation from Heaven_.

6. Now I might pursue these remarks much further: for it would be well worth while to exhibit what an extraordinary sameness of imagery, similarity of allusion, and unity of purpose, runs through the writings of either Covenant;--phenomena which can only be accounted for in one way. This subject will be found dwelt upon elsewhere; and to what has been already delivered, I must be content here to refer the reader[178].

(Mr. Jowett himself has been struck by the phenomenon thus alluded to: but after hinting at "some natural association" as having suggested the language of the Prophets, he proceeds: "We are not therefore justified in supposing any hidden connexion in the prophecies where [the prophetic symbols] occur. _Neither is there any other ground for assuming design of any other kind in Scripture; any more than in Plato or Homer._" (p. 381.) ... And thus our philosopher, assuming at the outset that the Bible is an uninspired book, is for ever coming back to the lie with which he set out. But to proceed.)

7. Still better worthy of notice, in this connexion, is the singular fact (which will also be found adverted to in another place[179],) that the Old and New Testaments alike profess to be a History of _Earthly_ events from a _Heavenly_ point of view. The writers of either Covenant claim to know _what GOD did_[180]; how characters and events appeared _in His sight_[181]: they profess to find themselves in a familiar, and altogether extraordinary relation with the unseen world[182]. Thus, Moses begins the Bible with an august account of the great Six Days,--when GOD was alone in Creation; the unwitnessed Agent, and Author of all things:--while St. John the Divine, concluding the inspired Canon, relates that he was "in the Spirit on the LORD'S Day;" and heard behind him "a great Voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last[183]." ... "The general design of Scripture," (says Bishop Butler,) "may be said to be, to give us an account of the World, in this one single view,--_as GOD'S World: by which it appears essentially distinguished from all other books, as far as I have found, except such as are copied from it_[184]."

8. And _yet_ the grand external characteristic feature of the Bible remains unnoticed! The one distinctive feature of the Bible, is _this_,--that the four-fold Gospel, _as a matter of fact_, exhibits to us, the WORD "made flesh:" and, (O marvel of marvels!) suffers us to hear His voice, and look upon His form, and observe His actions. It does more. The New Testament professes to be, and is, the complement of the Old. The promise of CHRIST, solemnly, and repeatedly,--"at sundry times and divers manners,"--given in the one, is fulfilled in the other. Henceforth they are no more twain, for they have been by GOD Himself joined together; and the subject of both is none other than our SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST.

Enough surely has been already adduced to warrant a reasonable man in refusing to accept Professor Jowett's repeated asseveration that the Bible is "to be interpreted like any other book." A Book which proves on examination to be so _wholly unlike every other book_,--so entirely _sui generis_,--may surely well create an _à priori_ suspicion that it is not to be interpreted either, after any ordinary fashion. But the grand consideration of all is _still_ behind! The _one_ circumstance which effectually refutes the view of the Reverend Professor, remains yet to be specified; namely, that THE BIBLE PROFESSES TO BE INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. The HOLY GHOST is again and again declared _to speak_ therein, =dia=, "_by the instrumentality_," "_by the mouth_," of Man. In other words, _GOD, not Man, professes to be the Author of the Bible_!

That the Bible _does_ set up for itself such a claim, will be found established at p. 53 to p. 57 of the present volume. Professor Jowett's assurance that "for any of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration, _there is no foundation in the Gospels or Epistles_," (p. 345,)--must therefore be regarded as an extraordinary, or rather as an unpardonable oversight on his part. One would have thought that a single saying, like that in Acts iii. 18 and 21, would have occurred to his memory, and been sufficient to refute him. Other places will be found quoted at p. cxcvii.

Very much is it to be feared however that the same gentleman has overlooked a consideration of at least equal importance; namely, the inevitable _inference_ from the discovery that the origin of the Bible is Divine. He informs us 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_." (p. 350.) "The _meaning_ of Scripture," (he proceeds,) "is one thing: the _Inspiration_ of Scripture is another."--True. But when we find the Reverend Author insisting, again and again, that "it may be laid down that Scripture has _one_ meaning,--_the meaning which it had to the mind of the Prophet or Evangelist who first uttered, or wrote it_," (p. 378,)--we are constrained to remind him that, "To say that the Scriptures, and the things contained in them, can have no other or farther meaning than those persons thought or had, who first recited or wrote them; is evidently saying, _that those persons were the original, proper, and sole authors of those books_, i.e. THAT THEY ARE NOT INSPIRED[185]." So that, in point of fact, _the origin_ of Holy Scripture, so far from being a consideration of no importance, (as Mr. Jowett supposes,) proves to be a consideration of the most vital importance of all. And _the Interpretation_ of Scripture, so far from having "_nothing to do_ with any opinion respecting its origin," is affected by it most materially, or rather depends upon it altogether!

On a review of all that goes before, it will, I think, appear plain to any person of sound understanding, that Professor Jowett's _à priori_ views respecting the Interpretation of Holy Scripture will not stand the test of exact reason. To suggest as he has done that the Bible is to be interpreted like any other book, on the plea that it _is_ like any other book, is to build upon a false foundation. His syllogism is the following:--

If the Bible is a book like any other book, the Bible is to be
interpreted like any other book.

The Bible is a book like any other book.

Therefore,--

But it has been shewn that the learned Professor's minor premiss is false. It has been proved that the Bible is NOT a book like any other book.

Nay, I claim to have done _more_. I claim to have established the contradictory minor premiss. The syllogism therefore will henceforth stand as follows:--

If the Bible can be shewn to be a book like no other book, but
entirely _sui generis_, and claiming to be the work of
Inspiration,--then is it reasonable to expect that it will have to
be interpreted like no other book, but entirely after a fashion of
its own.

But the Bible _can_ be shewn to be a book like no other book;
entirely _sui generis_; and claiming to be the work of Inspiration.

Therefore,--

$2.$ It remains however, now, to advance an important step.--Mr. Jowett, in a certain place, adopts a principle, the soundness of which I am able, happily, entirely to admit. "Interpret Scripture from itself,--like any other book about which we know almost nothing except what is derived from its pages." (p. 382.) "_Non nisi ex Scripturâ Scripturam interpretari potes._" (p. 384.)

Scarcely has he made this important admission however, and enunciated his golden Canon of interpretation, when he hastens to nullify it. His very next words are,--"The meaning of the Canon is only this,--'That we cannot understand Scripture without becoming familiar (!) with it.'"

But, (begging the learned writer's pardon,) so far from _that_ being the whole of the meaning of the Canon, his gloss happens exactly to miss the only important point. The plain meaning of the words,--"Only out of the Scriptures can you explain the Scriptures,"--is obviously rather this:--'That in order _to interpret_ the Bible, our aim must be to _ascertain how the Bible interprets itself_.' In other words,--'Scripture must be made _its own Interpreter_.' More simply yet, in the Professor's own words, (from which, _more suo_, he has imperceptibly glided away,)--"_Interpret Scripture from itself._" (p. 382.) ... How then does Scripture interpret Scripture? _That_ is the only question! for the answer to this question must be held to be decisive as to the other great question which Mr. Jowett raises in the present Essay,--namely, How are _we_ to interpret Scripture?

Now this whole Inquiry has been conducted elsewhere; and will be found to extend from p. 144 to p. 160 of the present volume. It has been there established, by a sufficiently large induction of examples, that _the Bible is to be interpreted as no other book is, or can be interpreted_; and for the plain reason, that _the inspired Writers themselves_, (our LORD Himself at their head!) _interpret it after an altogether extraordinary fashion_. Mr. Jowett's statement at p. 339 that "the mystical interpretation of Scripture originated in the Alexandrian age," is simply false.

And in the course of this proof, (necessarily involved in it, in fact,) it has been incidentally shewn that the sense of Scripture is not, by any means, invariably _one_; and _that_ sense the most obvious to those who wrote, heard, or read it. It has been fully shewn that the office of the Interpreter is _not_, by any means, (as Mr. Jowett imagines,) "to recover the meaning of the words _as they first struck on the ears, or flashed before the eyes of those who heard or read them_." (p. 338.) The Reverend writer's repeated assertion that "we have no reason to attribute to the Prophet or Evangelist any second or hidden sense different from that which appears on the surface," (p. 380,) has been fully, and as it is hoped effectually refuted.

And here I might lay down my pen. For since, at the end of 74 pages, the Professor thus delivers himself, (in a kind of imitation of St. Paul's language[186],)--"Of what has been said, this is the sum,--That Scripture, _like other books_, has _one_ meaning, which has to be gathered from itself ... _without regard to à priori notions about its nature and origin_:" that, "It is to be interpreted _like other books_, with attention to the prevailing state of civilization and knowledge," and so forth; (p. 404;)--it must suffice to say that, having established the very opposite conclusion, I claim to have effectually answered his Essay; because I have overthrown what he admits to be "the sum" of it. Let me be permitted however--before I proceed to review some other parts of his performance,--in the briefest manner, not so much to recapitulate, as to exhibit 'the sum' of what has been hitherto delivered on the other side; in somewhat different language, and as it were from a different point of view.

We are presented then, in the New Testament Scriptures, with the august spectacle of the Ancient of Days holding the entire volume of the Old Testament Scriptures in His Hands, _and interpreting it of Himself_. He, whose Life and Death are set forth in the Gospel;--whose Church's early fortunes are set forth historically in the Acts, while its future prospects are shadowed prophetically in the Apocalypse;--whose Doctrines, lastly, are explained in the twenty-one Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter, St. James and St. John and St. Jude:--He, the Incarnate WORD, who was "in the beginning;" who "was with GOD," and who "was GOD:"--that same Almighty One, I repeat, is exhibited to us in the Gospel, repeatedly, holding the Volume of the Old Testament Scriptures in His Hands, and _explaining it of Himself. "To day is this Scripture fulfilled_ in your ears[187],"--was the solemn introductory sentence with which, in the Synagogue of Nazareth, (after closing the Book and giving it again to the Minister,) He prefaced His Sermon from the lxist chapter of Isaiah.--"Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: _for he wrote of Me_[188],"--"'O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken! Ought not CHRIST to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?' And _beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself_[189]."--"These are the words which I spake unto you, that all things must be fulfilled _which are written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me_[190]."

"CHRIST was before Moses. The Gospel was not made for the Law; but the Law was made for the Gospel. The Gospel is not based on the Law, but the Law is a shadow of the Gospel. In order to believe the Bible, we must look upward; and fix our eyes on JESUS CHRIST, sitting in Heavenly Glory, holding both Testaments in His Hand; sealing both Testaments with His seal; and delivering both Testaments as Divine Oracles, to the World. We must receive the _written Word_ from the Hands of the INCARNATE WORD[191]."

This august spectacle, let it be clearly stated,--(1) Establishes, beyond all power of contradiction, the intimate connexion which subsists between the Old and the New Testament; as well as the altogether unique relation which the one bears to the other:--(2) Invests either Testament with a degree of sacred importance and majestic grandeur which altogether makes the Bible _unlike "any other book_:"--(3) Proves that the Bible is to be interpreted as no other book ever was, or ever can be interpreted:--(4) Demonstrates that it has _more than a single meaning_:--and lastly, Convincingly shews that _GOD, and not Man, is its true Author_.