Inspiration and Interpretation Part 13

[90] In what part of the Bible, (one begs respectfully to inquire,) is one called upon to "accept the story of an arresting of the Earth's motion, or of a reversal of its motion?" ... Would it not be as well to be truthful in one's references to the Bible?

[91] See below, p. 68.

[92] See Butler's _a.n.a.logy_, P. II. c. iii.

[93] _Quarterly Review_, Jan. 1861, p. 275.

[94] Take a few as a specimen:--"A great restraint is supposed to be imposed upon the Clergy by reason of their subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. Yet it is more difficult than might be expected, to define what is the extent of the legal obligation of those who sign them; and in this case, the strictly legal obligation is the measure of the moral one. Subscription may be thought even to be _inoperative upon the conscience_ by reason of its vagueness. For the act of subscription is enjoined, but its effect or meaning nowhere plainly laid down; and it does not seem to amount to more than an acceptance of the Articles of the Church as the formal law to which the subscriber is _in some sense_ subject. What that subjection amounts to, must be gathered elsewhere; for it does not appear on the face of the subscription itself."--(p.

181. See down to page 185.) Can equivocation such as this be read without a sense of humiliation and shame, as well as of disgust and abhorrence?

[95] p. 180 to p. 190.

[96] Heading of the x.x.xIX Articles.

[97] The reader is referred to some remarks on Ideology towards the close of Sermon VII., p. 243 to p. 251.

[98] "Unhappily, together with his _inauguration of Mult.i.tudinism_, Constantine also inaugurated a principle essentially at variance with it, the principle of _doctrinal limitation_." (p. 166.) ... "The opportunity of reverting to the freedom of the Apostolic, and immediately succeeding periods, was finally lost for many ages by the sanction given by Constantine to the decisions of Nicaea." (_Ibid._) "At all events, a principle at variance with a true Mult.i.tudinism was then recognised." (_Ibid._)

How does it happen, by the way, that one writing B.D. after his name, however bitter his animosity against the Nicene Creed may be, is not aware that Creeds are co-eval with Christianity? Thus we find the Creed of Carthage in the works of Cyprian, (A.D. 225,) and Tertullian, (A.D. 210, 203): that of Lyons in the works of Irenaeus, (A.D. 180.) [see Heurtley's _Harmonia Symbolica_, pp. 7-20.] We recognize fragments of the Creed in Ignatius, (A.D. 90.) We hear St. Paul himself saying--?p?t?p?s?? ??e ???a????t?? ?????, ?? (i.e. _the words_ themselves!) pa?' ??? ????sa? ... t?? ?a??? pa?a?ata????? f??a???--2 Tim. i. 13, 14. A few more words on this subject will be found in the notice of Mr. Jowett's Essay.

[99] It is really impossible to argue with a man who informs us that "_previous to the time of the divided Kingdom_, the Jewish History presents little which is thoroughly reliable:" (p. 170:)--that "the greater probability seems on the side of the supposition, that the Priesthood, with its distinct offices and charge, was const.i.tuted by Royalty, and that _the higher pretensions of the priests were not advanced till the reign of Josiah_:" (_Ibid._:)--that, "The negative Theologian" demands "some positive elements in Christianity, on grounds more sure to him than _the a.s.sumption of an objective 'faith once delivered to the saints_,' which he cannot identify with the Creed of any Church as yet known to him:" (pp. 174-5:)--a man who can remark concerning the Bible, that,--"Those who are able to do so, ought to lead the less educated to distinguish between the different kinds of words which it contains, between _the dark patches of human pa.s.sion and error which form a partial crust upon it_, and the bright centre of spiritual truth within." (p. 177.)

[100] _Quarterly Review_, (Jan. 1851,) No. 217, p. 259.

[101] A writer in the _Sat.u.r.day Review_, (April 6, 1861,) in an admirable Article on the importance of retaining the office of 'Dean' in its integrity, (instead of suicidally merging it in the office of 'Bishop,') speaks of there being "no English Commentary on the New Testament brought up to the level of modern Theological Science." [As if "the level" had been rising of late!] "Butler and Paley are still our text-books on the Evidences; and we are defending _old beliefs_ behind wooden walls _against the rifled cannon and iron broadsides of modern Philosophy_."--p. 337. What a strange misapprehension of the entire question,--of the relation of Theological to Physical Science,--does such a sentence betray!

[102] See below, p. 235.

[103] As the excellent Townson observed long since,--"The brightness of countenance and raiment which dazzled and overcame the sight of His Apostles when He was Transfigured on the Mount, was to Him but _a ray of that glory in which He dwelt before the Worlds were made_."--Sermon on "The manner of our SAVIOUR'S Teaching,"--_Works_, vol. i. p. 282.

[104] St. Matth. xvii. 2.

[105] St. Mark ix. 3.

[106] 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16.--If it be more philosophical to suppose that the Light which shone upon the earth during the first three days proceeded from the Sun, (the orb of which remained invisible,) and not from any extraneous independent source,--I have no objection whatever to such a supposition,--or indeed to any other which suffers the inspired record to remain intact. I am by no means clear however that Philosophy (begging her pardon,) does not entirely mistake her office, when she pretends to explain the first chapter of Genesis. Hence, her constrained language, and unnatural manner, when she desires to be respectful,--her inconsequential remarks and perpetual blunders when she rather prefers to be irreligious. She is simply out of her element, and is discoursing of what _she does not understand_.--Theology, dealing with a physical problem by the method of Theological Science; and Philosophy, applying to a chapter in the Bible the physical method,--are alike at fault, and alike ridiculous. This truth, however obvious, does not seem to be generally understood.

But, (to return to the first three days of Creation,)--since the Author of Revelation seems to design that I should understand that Sun, Moon, and Stars not only did not come to view until the fourth day,--but also that they were not re-invested with their immemorial function and office until then,--I find no difficulty, _remembering with whom I have to do, even with Him who sowed the vault of Heaven so thick with stars, each one of which may be not a sun but a system_[107];--when, I say, I attend to the emphatic nature of the inspired record, on the one hand, and to G.o.d'S Omnipotence on the other,--I have no difficulty in supposing that He embraced the Sun in a veil, for just so long a period as it seemed Him good, and when He willed that it should re-appear, that He withdrew the veil again. The _name_ for the operation just now alluded to belongs to the province of Philosophy. Divinity is all the while thinking about something infinitely better and higher.

[107] Herschel.

[108] Gen. i. 6.

[109] Ibid. 20.

[110] Job x.x.xvii. 18.

[111] Ps. civ. 2.

[112] Is. xl. 22.

[113] Job xxvi. 8.

[114] Prov. x.x.x. 4.

[115] See also Job ix. 8. Even in Job x.x.xvii. 18, the sky is said to be "_spread out_." So Is. xlv. 12, &c.

[116] Job xxvi. 11.

[117] 2 Sam. xxii. 8.

[118] Ps. lxxviii. 23.

[119] Gen. vii. 11.

[120] Job ix. 6. Ps. lxxv. 3. See Blomfield's Glossary to Prom. Vinct.

v. 357.

[121] Comp. Is. xxiv. 18.

[122] See Is. xxiv. 18 and Mal. iii. 10.

[123] ???e?pe?? t?? ?d?a?. (Herod.) See Copleston's _Remains_, p. 107.

[124] _Eccl. Pol._ 1. iii. -- 2.

[125] Gen. i. 26.

[126] "The difficulty," he says, (alluding to Gen. i. 1,) "lies in this, that the heaven is distinctly said to have been formed ... on the second day." (p. 226.) But this is the language of a man determined that there _shall_ be a difficulty. "The Heavens and the Earth" clearly denote, (in the simple phraseology of a primitive age,) the sum of all created things; the great transaction which Nehemiah has so strikingly expounded:--"Heaven, _the Heaven of Heavens, with all their host_,--the Earth and all things that are therein;" including "the sea, with all that is therein." (Neh. ix. 6.) Whereas "the firmament" of ver. 6, (which G.o.d called "Heaven" in ver. 8,) _can_ only indicate the blue vault immediately overhead, wherein fowls fly. (ver. 20.) If this be _not_ the meaning of Gen. i. 1, one half of the phrase is "proleptical,"--the other half not: for the creation of Earth is nowhere recorded, if not in ver. 1.... But surely it is a waste of words to discuss such "difficulties" as these.

[127] Consider especially Heb. iv. 9 and 10; and consider, (besides Exod. xx. 11,) Deut. v. 15. See also Col. ii. 17.

[128] "There have been found within the area of these islands upwards of 15,000 species of once living things, _every one differing specifically from those of the present Creation_. Aga.s.siz states that, with the exception of one small fossil fish, (discovered in the clay-stones of Greenland,) _he has not found any creature of this cla.s.s, in all the Geological strata, identical with any fish now living_." (Pattison's _The Earth and the World_, p. 27.)

[129] I allude to such pa.s.sages as the following,--all of which are to be found in Mr. Goodwin's Essay:--

"We are asked to believe that a vision of creation was presented to him (Moses) by Divine power, for the purpose of enabling him to inform the world of what he had seen; which vision inevitably led him to give a description which has misled the world for centuries, and in which the truth can now only with difficulty be recognized." (p. 247.) "The theories [of Hugh Miller and of Dr. Buckland] a.s.sume that appearances only, not facts, are described; and that, in riddles which would never have been suspected to be such, had we not arrived at the truth from other sources." (p. 249.) "For ages, this simple view of Creation satisfied the wants of man, and formed a sufficient basis of theological teaching:" but "modern research now shews it to be physically untenable." (p. 253.)

"The writer a.s.serts solemnly and unhesitatingly that for which he must have known that he had no authority." But this was only because "the early speculator was hara.s.sed by no such scruples" as "arise from our modern habits of thought, and from the modesty of a.s.sertion (!) which the spirit of true science has taught us." He therefore "a.s.serted as facts what he knew in reality only as probabilities.... He had seized one great truth.... With regard to details, observation failed him."--(pp. 252-3.)

[130] p. 329.

[131] pp. 307-309.

[132] Notice prefixed to _Essays and Reviews_.

[133] p. 255.

[134] Nos. 74, 76, 78, 81.