Inspiration and Interpretation Part 22

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

No, Sirs! The Bible (be persuaded) is the very utterance of the Eternal;--as much G.o.d'S Word, as if high Heaven were open, and we heard G.o.d speaking to us with human voice. Every book of it, is inspired alike; and is inspired entirely. Inspiration is not a difference of degree, but of kind. The Apocryphal books are not one atom more inspired than Bacon's Essays. But the Bible, from the Alpha to the Omega of it, is filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit of G.o.d: the Books of it, and the sentences of it, and the words of it, and the syllables of it,--aye, and the very letters of it. "Nihil in Scripturis est otiosum,"

(said the great Casaubon): "non dictio, non dictionis forma, non syllaba, non littera." ... The difficulty which attends quotations, I must explain another day. It is _not_ a difficulty.--The seeming paradox of calling a pedigree inspired, is only seeming.--The _text_ of Holy Scripture has nothing at all to do with the question. Is a dead poet responsible for the clumsiness of him who transcribes his copy, or for the carelessness of the apprentice in the printer's attic?--Least of all do we overlook the personality of the human writers, when we so speak.

The styles of Daniel,--of St. John,--of St. Paul,--of St. James,--differ as much as the sounds emitted by organ pipes of wholly diverse construction. But those human instruments were fabricated, one and all, by the Hands of the same Divine Artist: and I have yet to learn that when the same man builds an organ, fills it with breath, and performs upon it a piece of his own composition with matchless skill,--I have yet to learn that any part of the honour, any part of the praise, any part of the glory of the performance is to be withheld from _him!_ ... The ill.u.s.tration is at least as old as Christianity itself. Pray take it in the n.o.ble words of Hooker.--"They neither spoke nor wrote one word of their own: but uttered syllable by syllable as the Spirit put it into their mouths; no otherwise than the harp or the lute doth give a sound according to the discretion of his hands that holdeth and striketh it with skill. The difference is only this: an instrument, whether it be pipe or harp, maketh a distinction in the times and sounds, which distinction is well perceived of the hearer, the instrument itself understanding not what is piped or harped. The prophets and holy men of G.o.d not so. 'I opened my mouth,' saith Ezekiel, 'and G.o.d reached me a scroll, saying, Son of Man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this I give thee. I ate it, and it was sweet in my mouth as honey,' saith the prophet[378]. Yea, sweeter, I am persuaded, than either honey or the honeycomb. For herein, they were not like harps or lutes, but they felt, they felt the power and strength of their own words. When they spake of our peace, every corner of their hearts was filled with joy. When they prophesied of mourning, lamentations, and woes, to fall upon us, they wept in the bitterness and indignation of spirit, the Arm of the LORD being mighty and strong upon them[379]."

To conclude. The first time I enjoyed this privilege, I urged the younger men to a diligent and painful daily study of the Bible. On the next occasion, opening the Bible at the first page, I attempted to define the provinces of Theological and of Physical Science. All that was then offered may be summed up in one brief formula:--_G.o.d'S works CANNOT contradict G.o.d'S Word_. I adverted to the method of would-be geologists, (a cla.s.s all apart from the grave and learned few who give their days and nights to a truly n.o.ble branch of study,)--because from _them_ the most malignant attacks have proceeded: and I took my stand on the first chapter of Genesis, because the enemies of G.o.d'S Truth have made that chapter their favourite point of attack. But my argument was not directed more against Geology than against any other of the physical Sciences. They are all alike the handmaids of _Theological_ Science.

Geology, however, singularly honoured by the Creator in that He hath bequeathed for her inspection so many marvels of primaeval Time,--evidences of how He was working in this remote planet before the Creation of Man;--Geology, I say, it especially behoves to be humble: partly, because she is the youngest of all the sciences; and partly, because the weak guesses of her childhood are yet in the memory of us all. If indeed she would _inherit the Earth_, let her remember that she asks for the blessing which CHRIST hath promised to none but _the meek_[380].

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

But when, instead of the submissive manners of a well-ordered Court, symptoms of insolence and insubordination are witnessed on every side,--then, the least and humblest takes leave, (time, and place, and occasion serving,) to speak out fearlessly on behalf of that which he loves with an unworthy, but a most undivided heart.--When Language impugns those Oracles which she was hired to decypher,--and pretends to doubt the Inspiration of that Book of which, confessedly, she barely understands the Grammar:--when History and Chronology cry out that the annals of Theology are false, and her record of Time a fable; that the Deluge, for instance, is an old wives' story, and the economy of times and seasons a human fabrication:--when Astronomical and Mechanical Science strut up to the Throne whereon sits the Ancient of Days,--prate to _Him_, (the first Author of Law,) about the "supremacy of Law,"--and tell Him to His face that His miracles are things impossible:--when Physiology insinuates that Mankind cannot be descended from one primaeval pair; and that the lives of the Patriarchs cannot be such as they are recorded to have been:--when the pretender to Natural Philosophy gravely a.s.sures us that we ought not to pray for fair weather, because the weather depends _not_ upon "arbitrary changes in the will of G.o.d,"

_but_ upon laws as fixed and certain "as the laws of gravitation[381],"--which, mark you, Sirs, is no longer a dry verbal speculation, but is nothing less than an invasion of that inner chamber where you or I have retired to pour out the fulness of an aching heart, in prayer that G.o.d would prolong, if it may be, the life of the dearest thing we have on earth; and rudely to bid us rise from our knees and be silent, for that the health of Man depends not on the will of G.o.d, but on fixed physiological laws:--lastly, when the pretender to Geological skill denies the authenticity of the First Chapter of Genesis; which is to deny the Inspiration of all the rest; and therefore of the whole Bible;--and thus to rob Life's weary pilgrim of that rod and staff concerning which he has many a time exclaimed,--"they _comfort_ me!":--whenever, as now, such things are spoken and printed,--not in a corner, and by insignificant persons, and in ambiguous language,--but in plain English, by clergymen and scholars in authority, openly in the face of G.o.d'S sun;--then it is high time, even for the humblest and least among you,--if no man of mark will speak up, and speak out, for G.o.d'S Truth,--to deliver a plain message with that freedom which Englishmen hold to be a part of their birthright. It should breed no offence, I say, if the most unworthy of G.o.d'S servants, here, before you all,--before these younger men especially, who have been drawn hither by the fame of your piety and your learning,--and who have been entrusted to your guardianship through the precious years of early manhood, with a well-grounded confidence that you would give them to eat not only of the Tree of Knowledge, but also largely of the fruit of the Tree of Life:--in this Holy House too where he received his commission[382], and vowed before G.o.d and Man, that he would "be ready," (the LORD being his helper,) "with all faithful diligence to drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to G.o.d's Word:"--before _such_ an audience, and in such a place, it must and _shall_ be lawful for me solemnly to denounce as false and deadly,--full of nothing but pernicious consequence,--that system of practical Infidelity which enjoys such unhappy popularity at this hour; which, under the mask of Science, and under the specious name of Progress, is spreading like a fatal contagion through the length and breadth of the land; and which, if suffered to go unchastised and unchecked, will end by shaking both the Altar and the Throne!.... Look well to it, Sirs, if you care for the safety of the Ark of G.o.d. For my part,--like one of old time whose words I am not worthy to take upon my lips,--"I cannot hold my peace: because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war[383]!"

The case is not altered,--rather is it made worse,--if this hostility to G.o.d's Truth proceeds from persons bearing Orders in the English Church.

("O my soul, come not thou into their secret!") The case is not altered: for the requirements of Physical Science are still the plea; and _Divines_, in _no_ sense, these men are, however unsuccessful they may prove in establishing their claim to the t.i.tle of _philosophers_ either.

Nay, Sirs,--suffer one of yourselves to ask you, whether these disgraceful developments are not the lawful result of your own incredible system, of sending forth, year by year, men to be teachers and professors of Divinity,--to whom you have yet never imparted _any Theological training whatever_[384].

You are requested to observe, that not only cannot G.o.d's Works contradict G.o.d's Word,--simply because they are twin utterances of one and the same Divine Intelligence;--but also the deductions of Physical Science cannot possibly run counter to the decrees of Theology[385],--simply because they are respectively in a wholly diverse subject-matter. Had Theology even _once_ delivered a Geological decree, or pretended even _once_ to p.r.o.nounce upon any Astronomical problem; then, indeed, there would be reason why her disciples should watch with alarm the rapid advance of Physical Science,--instead of hailing it, as they do, with wonder and delight. Then, indeed, we should be constrained to admit that the day might be coming when Theology would have to reconsider the platform whereon she stands; and possibly to "give way."

But it is an undeniable fact that there exist _no_ Theological dogmas on matters Geological,--no, _not one!_ Theology cannot retreat from ground on which she has never set foot. She cannot retract, what she has never advanced, or recal the words which she has never spoken. The decrees of Theology are all confined to the Science of Theology,--and with _that_ subject-matter, the other Sciences have simply _no concern_. Their office _there_, as I have again and again explained, is simply ministerial; and when they enter the presence chamber of the great King, they are bid not to draw too nigh. "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet; for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground!"

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

For doubtless, that inference of ours as to what had happened, would be a true inference.--It _will_ be the fact, I fear, before the end of all things; for it seems to be implied,--(a more heart-sickening sentence in all Scripture, I know not!),--that when the Son of Man cometh, He will not find the Faith on the Earth[386]. And if not _the Faith_ (t??

p?st??),--what then? _The Moral Sense?_ Hardly! for where was the Moral Sense when she _let go_ the Faith?--It was the fact, (if I read the record rightly,) eighteen centuries ago: for children had then forgotten their duty to their Parents; and the sanct.i.ty of Marriage was unknown; and (O prime note of a darkened conscience!) men not only _did_ things worthy of Death, but "_had pleasure in them that did them_." Read the first chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and say what was _then_ the condition of the Moral Sense in man. Tell me, while your cheek is yet burning, whether you think Moral Science was _then_ competent to sit in judgment on a Revelation sent from the G.o.d of Purity, until G.o.d's own SON had republished the sanctions of the Moral Law, and informed Man's conscience afresh!... No Sirs. We are told expressly, that "as they did not like to retain G.o.d in their knowledge, G.o.d gave them over to a reprobate mind,"--"gave them up unto vile affections." And why? Hear the Apostle! It was because "when they knew G.o.d, they glorified Him not as G.o.d; neither were thankful:"--hence, they were suffered to become vain in their imaginations, and, "_their foolish heart was darkened!_"--In other words, the candle of the LORD, the light of conscience within them, was well nigh _put out_.

This will explain the reason why, when "THE WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us," He so frequently delivered precepts,--yea, preached whole Sermons,--on what would now-a-days be called mere "Morality." He was _republishing the Moral Law_. He was graving afresh those letters which had been wellnigh worn out through tract of Time, and the wear and tear of Man's ungoverned l.u.s.ts.--Hence, to this hour, when question is raised of Right and Wrong,--the appeal is made, by the common consent of Christian men, _not_ to the inner consciousness of the creature, but to the Creator's external Revelation of His mind and will. Let abler men explain to us what we mean when we talk about Immutable Morality. I am by no means sure that I understand myself. Sure only am I that it will carry us a very little way. Aristotle would never have made the average moral sense of mankind his standard, had _he_ known of a ?????

?e?p?e?st??. The principles of Morality do indeed seem to be fixed and eternal;--?e? p?te ?? ta?ta:--but it is no longer true, ??de?? ??de?

?? ?t?? 'f???. Ever since the Gospel came into the world, _general opinion_ has ceased to be the standard of Truth: for the Bible has simply superseded it; and put forth a standard to which "general opinion" itself must bow. "_I_ am the Way, _the Truth_, and the Life."

So spake the Eternal SON while yet on Earth. And He foresaw that there would come a day when the world would still ask, with Pilate, "What is Truth?" Accordingly, we heard his solemn reply in this Morning's Second Lesson--"THY WORD,"--"THY WORD is Truth." ... "G.o.d made two great lights," I grant you: but what I maintain is, that He made "_the greater Light_ to rule _the Day_."

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

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

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

Physical Science therefore, (for the last time!)--_all_ the other Sciences,--Moral Science not excepted,--are the handmaids of Theological Science: and Morality, to which we omitted before to a.s.sign an office, we have stationed somewhere beneath the footstool, which is before the Throne, of the Most High.--But this day's Sermon,--(and with these words I conclude, sorry to have felt obliged to detain you so long!)--_this_ Day's Sermon has had for its object to remind you, that THE BIBLE is none other than _the voice of Him that sitteth upon the Throne_! Every Book of it,--every Chapter of it,--every Verse of it,--every word of it,--every syllable of it,--(_where_ are we to _stop_?)--every letter of it--is the direct utterance of the Most High!--??sa ??af? ?e?p?e?st??.

"Well spake the HOLY GHOST, by the mouth of" the many blessed Men who wrote it.--The Bible is none other than _the Word of G.o.d_: not some part of it, more, some part of it, less; but all alike, the utterance of Him who sitteth upon the Throne;--absolute,--faultless,--unerring,--supreme!

??? ?? ??? ??ta ?? ? ?a? ?e?a?a? ?? p?ste?? ?e??? e??a? ?e???

a???t??.

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

?a?t? ?? e???ta? ... p??? s?stas?? t?? ?d?? ???? s???a?? ????? t?

e??a? t?? ?e?p?e?st?? ???t??.

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

Scripturae quidem perfectae sunt, quippe a VERBO DEI, et SPIRITU ejus dictae.

IRENaeUS, Contr. Haer. lib. ii. c. xxviii. 2.

??de?a ?pe?a?t??s?? ? ?t?p?a ?? t??? ?e???? ??????.

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

?st? ??? ?? t??? t?? G?af?? ??as?? ? ??????.

ATHANASIUS, ad Marcellinum.

?sa ? ?e?a ??af? ???e?, t?? ??e?at?? e?s? t?? ????? f??a?.

GREGORIUS NYSSEN, Contr. Eunom. Orat. vi.

Cedamus igitur et consentiamus auctoritati Sanctae Scripturae, quae nescit falli nec fallere.

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

FOOTNOTES:

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

[331] ??sa? a? ?e?p?e?st?? ??afa?,--as it is worded in the Epistle sent by the Council of Antioch in the case of Paul of Samosata, A.D.

269. (Routh _Reliqq._ iii. 292.) See Middleton _on the Greek Article_, (Rose's ed.) _in loc._ And so, in effect, Wordsworth and Ellicott.--It is right to add that it has been contended that p?sa ??af? = "the whole of Scripture." See Lee _on Inspiration_, p. 263, (note.) So Athanasius seems to have taken it: ??sa ? ?a?' ??? ??af?, pa?a?? te ?a? ?a???, ?e?p?e?st?? ?st?. (_Ep. ad Marcell._ i. 982.)

[332] That ?e?p?e?st?? is the predicate, seems sufficiently obvious.

So Athanasius, in the pa.s.sage above quoted. So Gregory of Nyssa: d??

t??t? p?sa ??af? ?e?p?e?st?? ???eta?, d?? t? t?? ?e?a? ?p?e?se??

e??a? d?das?a??a?. (_Contr. Eunom._ Orat. VI. ii. 605.) Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, quotes the place in the same way.--Basil also, saying--??sa ??af? ?e?p?e?st?? ?a? ?f?????, d?? t??t? s????afe?sa pa??

t?? ??e?at??, (_Hom. in Psalm._ I. i. 90,)--clearly adopts the construction a.s.sumed in the text.--Ambrose (_De Spir. Sancto_, lib. II.

c. 16. ii. 688,) says,--"In Scriptura Divina, ?e?p?e?st?? omnis ex hoc dicitur, quod Deus inspiret quae locutus est Spiritus." (The above are from Lee _on Inspiration_, which see, pp. 260, 493, 599.)--Tertullian (quoted by Tisch.) says, "Legimus omnem Scripturam aedificationi habilem, divinitus inspirari."--A few modern scholars have suggested that ???p?. may be an epithet, not a predicate. The _doctrine_ will remain the same either way; for the meaning of the place can only be, "Every Scripture, _being_ inspired, is also _profitable_," &c. This is Origen's view: but his criticism is not in point, inasmuch as he read the text differently, (omitting the ?a?.) Lee aptly compares the construction of p?? ?t?sa Te?? ?a???, ?a? ??d?? ?p???t??. (1 Tim. iv. 4.)

[333] Thess. ii. 13.

[334] 1 Cor. ii. 13.

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

[336] 1 Cor. vii. 40.

[337] 1 Cor. vii. 10.

[338] 1 Cor. vii. 6. (???t? d? ???? ?at? s???????, ?? ?at' ?p?ta???.)

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

18.