Inspiration and Interpretation Part 21

SERMON III.[330]

INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE.--GOSPEL DIFFICULTIES.--THE WORD OF G.o.d INFALLIBLE.--OTHER SCIENCES SUBORDINATE TO THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.

2 Tim. iii. 16.

_All Scripture is given by inspiration of G.o.d._

But _that_ is not exactly what St. Paul says. The Greek for _that_, would be p?sa ? ??af?--not p?sa ??af?--?e?p?e?st??. St. Paul does not say that _the whole_ of Scripture, collectively, is inspired. More than _that_: what he says is, that _every writing_,--every _several book_ of those ?e?? ???ata, or Holy Scriptures, in which Timothy had been instructed from his childhood,--is inspired by G.o.d[331]. It _comes_ to very nearly the same thing; but it is _not_ quite the same thing. St.

Paul is careful to remind us that every Book in the Bible is an inspired Book[332]. And this statement is not confined to one place.--Elsewhere, he calls his message "the Word of G.o.d;" and says that it had been received by the disciples not as the Word of Men, but as it is in truth, the Word of G.o.d[333].--Elsewhere, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the HOLY GHOST teacheth[334]:"--where, if I at all understand the Apostle, (and he speaks very plainly!) he says that _his words_ were inspired by the HOLY GHOST.--Accordingly, St. Peter declares that the Epistles of his "beloved brother Paul" are part of the Holy Scriptures[335];--Divinely inspired, therefore, like all the rest.

But does not St. Paul himself in a certain place express a doubt--saying "I _think_ that I have the Spirit of G.o.d[336]?" and does he not contrast his own sayings with the Divine sayings, ("not I but the LORD[337]"), clearly implying that his own were _not_ Divine? and does he not say that he delivers certain things "by permission, and not of commandment[338]," whereby he seems to insinuate a gradation of authority in what he delivers?--No. Not one of these things does he do.

He says, indeed, of a certain hint to married persons that he offers it "by way of _advice_ to them not by way of _precept_:" but _giving advice_ to _men_ is a very different thing from _receiving permission_ from G.o.d. Again, "Unto the married," (he says,) "I command, yet not I but the LORD,"--alluding to our LORD'S words, as set down by St.

Matthew, chap. xix. verse 6[339]; which is simply an historical allusion to the Gospel.--So far from "_thinking_" he had the Spirit of G.o.d, (as if it were an open question whether he had it or not,) he says the very contrary. ?????, in all such places, implies, not _doubt_ but _certainty[340]_: (as when our LORD asks,---"Doth he thank that servant because he did the things commanded him? ?? d???,"--I fancy not indeed[341]!) On St. Paul's lips, as every scholar knows, the phrase is not one of doubt, but one of indignant, or at least emphatic a.s.severation[342].--A man had need be very sure he _understands_ the record, (let me just remark in pa.s.sing,) before he presumes to criticize it.

"_The Spirit of CHRIST_" is said by St. Peter to have been "_in the prophets_[343]:" and in another place he declares that they "_spake as they were moved by the HOLY GHOST_[344]." The HOLY GHOST accordingly is said to have spoken the xlist Psalm "by the mouth of David[345]." The xcvth Psalm is declared absolutely to be the utterance of the HOLY GHOST[346]. Once, the cxth Psalm is ascribed simply to G.o.d[347]; and once, to David speaking under the influence of _the HOLY GHOST_[348]. The iind Psalm is described as the language of G.o.d the FATHER "by the mouth of His Servant David[349]." "_Well spake the HOLY GHOST_ by Esaias the Prophet unto our Fathers[350],"--was the exclamation of the Apostle Paul, quoting the 9th and 10th verses of his vith chapter. When Jeremiah speaks, the HOLY GHOST is declared, (not Jeremiah, _but the HOLY GHOST_) to witness unto us[351]. The a.s.sertion is express that it was "G.o.d" who, "_by the mouth of all His Prophets_," foretold the Death of CHRIST[352]: "_the LORD G.o.d of Israel_" who, "_by the mouth of His holy Prophets of old_," gave promise of CHRIST'S coming[353]. "_The HOLY GHOST signified_" what the Mosaic Law enjoined[354]. "It is not ye that speak, _but the HOLY GHOST_[355]"--was our SAVIOUR'S word of promise and of consolation to the Twelve: and, on an earlier occasion,--"It is not ye that speak; but the SPIRIT of your Father, _which speaketh in you_[356]." And this promise became so famous, that St. Paul says the Corinthians challenged him to _prove_ that CHRIST was speaking in him[357].... But why multiply places? The use which our SAVIOUR makes in the New Testament of the words of the Old,--from the writings of Moses to the writings of Malachi,--would be simply nugatory unless those words were much more than human. And the record of the Apostle is express and emphatic:--"All Scripture--every Book of the Bible,--is given _by Inspiration of G.o.d_."--In the face of such testimony, by the way, we deem it not a little extraordinary to be a.s.sured (by an individual who has acquired considerable notoriety within the last few months) that "for any of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration there is no foundation in the Gospels or Epistles[358]."

Strange to say, there is a marvellous indisposition in Man to admit the notion of such a heaven-sent message. Not to dispute with those who deny Inspiration altogether, (for that would be endless,) there are many,--and, we fear, a daily increasing number of persons,--who, admitting Inspiration in terms, yet so mutilate the notion of it, that their admission becomes a practical lie. "St. Paul was inspired, no doubt. So was Shakspeare." He who says this, intending no quibble, declares that in his belief St. Paul was _not inspired at all_.

But this is a monstrous case, with which I will not waste your time. Far more numerous are they, who, admitting that the Authors of the Bible were inspired in quite a different sense from Homer and Dante, are yet for modifying and qualifying this admission after so many strange and arbitrary fas.h.i.+ons, that the residuum of their belief is really worth very little. One man has a mental reservation of exclusion in favour of the two Books of Chronicles, or the Book of Esther, or of Daniel.--Another, is content to eliminate from the Bible those pa.s.sages which seem to him to run counter to the decrees of physical Science;--the History of the Six Days of Creation,--of the Flood,--of the destruction of Sodom,--and of Joshua's address to Sun and Moon.--Another regards it as self-evident that nothing is trustworthy which savours supremely of the marvellous;--as the Temptation of our first Parents,--the Manna in the Wilderness,--Balaam reproved by the dumb a.s.s,--and the history of Jonah.--There are others who cannot tolerate the Miracles of the Old and the New Testament. The more timid, explain away as much of them as they dare. What remains, troubles them.

The more logical sweep them away altogether. A miracle (they say) cannot be true because it implies a violation of the fixed and immutable laws of Nature.

And then,--(so strangely const.i.tuted are some men's minds,)--there are not a few persons who, without exactly denying the inspiration of the Bible in any of its more marvellous portions,--(for _that_ would be an inconvenient proceeding,)--are yet content to regard much of it as a kind of inspired myth. This is a cla.s.s of ally (?) with whom one really knows not how to deal. The man does not reason. He a.s.sumes his right to disbelieve, and yet will not allow that he is an unbeliever. The world is singularly indulgent toward persons of this unphilosophical, illogical, presumptuous cla.s.s.

Now, I shall have something to say to all these different kinds of objectors, on some subsequent occasion. But I shall be rendering the younger men a far more important service if to-day I address my remarks to a different cla.s.s of objectors altogether: _that_ far larger body, I mean, who without at all desiring to impugn the Inspiration of G.o.d'S Oracles, yet make no secret of their belief that the Bible is full of inaccuracies and misstatements. These men ascribe a truly liberal amount of human infirmity to the Authors of the several Books of the Bible;--slips of memory, misconceptions, imperfect intelligence, partial illumination, and so forth;--and, under one or other of those heads, include whatever they are themselves disposed to reject. The writers who come in for the largest share of this indulgence, are the Evangelists; because the Historians of our LORD'S life, having happily left us four versions of the same story, and often three versions of the same transaction, the evidence whereby _they_ may be convicted of error is in the hands of all. Truly, mankind has not been slow to avail itself of the opportunity. You will seldom hear a Gospel difficulty discussed, without a quiet a.s.sumption on the part of the Reverend gentleman that _he_ knows all about the matter in question, but that the Evangelist did _not_. His usual method is, calmly to inform us that it is useless to look for strict consistency in matters of minute detail; that _general agreement_ between the four Evangelists there does exist, and _that_ ought to be enough. The inevitable inference from his manner of handling the Gospels, is, that if his actual thoughts could find candid expression, we should hear him address their blessed authors somewhat as follows:--"You are four highly respectable characters, no doubt; and you _mean_ well. But it cannot be expected that persons of your condition in life should have described so many intricate transactions so minutely without making blunders. I do not say it unkindly. I often make blunders myself,--_I_, who have a "clearness of understanding," "a power of discrimination between different kinds of Truth[359]" unknown to the Apostolic Age!" ... Of course the preacher does not _say_ all this. He has too keen a sense of "the dignity of the pulpit." And so he puts it somewhat thus:--"While we are disposed to recognize substantial agreement, and general conformity in respect of details, among the synoptical witnesses, in their leading external outlines, we are yet constrained to withhold our unqualified acceptance of any theory of Inspiration which should claim for these compilers exemption from the oscitancy, and generally from the infirmities of humanity." ... This sounds fine, you know; and is thought an ingenious way of wrapping up the charge which the Reverend preacher brings against the Evangelists;--of having, in plain terms,--_made blunders_.

It will be convenient that we should narrow the ground to this single issue: for the time is short. And in the remarks I am about to offer, I shall not imitate the example of those preachers who dress out an easy thought in a superfluity of inflated language, only in order that its deformity may escape detection. Be not surprised if I speak to you this morning in uncommonly plain English; for I am determined that the simplest person present shall understand at least what _I_ mean. The dignity of the Blessed Evangelists, who walked with JESUS, and whom JESUS loved,--the dignity of that Gospel which I believe to be penetrated through and through with the Holy Spirit of G.o.d,--for _that_, I confess to a most unbounded jealousy. As for the "dignity of the pulpit,"--I hate the very phrase! It has been made too often the s.h.i.+eld of impiety and the cloak of dulness.

To begin, then,--Is it, I would ask you, a reasonable antic.i.p.ation that the narrative of one inspired by G.o.d would prove full of inconsistencies, misstatements, slips of memory:--or indeed, that it should contain _any_ misstatements, _any_ inaccuracies at all? What then is the difference between an inspired and an uninspired writing,--the Word of G.o.d and the Word of Man?

The answer which I shall receive, is obvious. As a matter of fact (it is replied) there _are_ these inaccuracies: that is, the same transaction is described by two or more writers, and their accounts prove inconsistent. Thus, St. Matthew begins his account of the healing of the blind at Jericho, with the words,--"And as they were _going out_ of Jericho:" but St. Luke, "While He was _drawing nigh_ to Jericho."--There _are_ these slips of memory; as when St. Matthew ascribes to "Jeremy the prophet" words which are found in the prophet Zechariah.--There _are_ these misstatements, as where the Census of the Nativity is said to have taken place under the presidents.h.i.+p of Cyrenius.--And these are but samples of a mighty cla.s.s of difficulties, (it is urged:)--the two Genealogies; the Call of the four Disciples; the healing of the Centurion's servant; the t.i.tle on the Cross; the history of the Resurrection:--and again, "the sixteenth of Tiberius;" "the days of Abiathar;" with many others.--Let me then briefly discuss the three examples first cited,--which really came spontaneously. Each is the type of a cla.s.s; and the answer to one is, in reality, applicable to all the rest. I humbly ask for your patience and attention; promising that I will abuse neither, though I must tax both.

The great fundamental truth to be first laid down, is _this_--that the Gospels are not _four_--but _one_. The Ancients knew this very well.

??a??e??sta? ?? t?ssa?e?,--??a??????? d? ??--says Origen[360]: "the Gospel-_writers_ are four,--but the _Gospel_ is one." And the ancients recorded this mighty verity four times over on the first page of the Gospel, lest it should ever be forgotten; and there it stands to this day:--the Gospel,--the _one_ Gospel ?at?,--_according to_--St.

Matthew,--_according to_ St. Mark,--_according to_ St. Luke,--_according to_ St. John. Like that river which went out of Eden to water the Garden,--it was by the HOLY GHOST "parted, and became into four heads."--The Gospels therefore, (to call them by their common name,) are not to be regarded as four witnesses, or rather as four culprits, brought up on a charge of fraud. Rather are they Angelic voices singing in sweetest harmony, but after a method of Heavenly counterpoint which must be studied before it can be understood of Men.

And next,--There is one great principle, and one only, which needs to be borne in mind for the effectual reconciliation of _every discrepancy_ which the four narratives present: namely, that you should approach them in exactly the same spirit in which you approach the statement of any man of honour of your acquaintance. Whether the Apostles of the LAMB,--men whom we believe to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit of the Everlasting G.o.d,--are not ent.i.tled to far higher respect, far higher consideration, at our hands,--I leave _you_ to decide. As one whose joy and crown it has been to weigh every word in the Gospel in hair-scales, I am prepared to risk the issue. Be only as fair to the four Evangelists as you are to one another; and I am quite confident about the result.

I appeal to the experience of every thoughtful man among you who has at all given his mind to the subject of evidence, whether it be not the fact,--(1st) That when two or more persons are giving true versions of the same incident, their accounts will sometimes differ so considerably, that it will seem at first sight as if they could not possibly be reconciled: and yet (2ndly), That a single word of explanation, the discovery of one minute circ.u.mstance,--perfectly natural when we hear it stated, yet most unlikely and unlooked-for,--will often suffice to remove the difficulty which before seemed unsurmountable; and further, that when this has been done, the entire consistency of the several accounts becomes apparent; while the harmony which is established is often of the most beautiful nature. (3rdly) That when (for whatever reason) two or more versions of the same incident are _not_ correct, no ingenuity can ever possibly reconcile them, _as they stand_. They lean apart in hopeless divergence. In other words, they _contradict_ one another.

Now, these principles are fully admitted in daily life. If your friend comes to you with ever so improbable a tale, the last thing which enters into your mind is to disbelieve him. Is he in earnest? Yes, on his honour. Is he sure he is not mistaken? _That_ very doubt of yours requires an apology: but your friend says,--"I am as sure as I am of my existence." "Give it me under your hand and seal then." Your friend begins to suspect your sanity; but the matter being of some importance, he complies. "It must be so then," you exclaim, "though I _cannot_ understand it.".... I only wish that men would be as fair to the Evangelists as they are to their friends!

You are requested to observe,--for really you _must_ admit,--that _any_ possible solution of a difficulty, however _improbable_ it may seem, any _possible_ explanation of the story of a competent witness, is enough logically and morally to exempt that man from the imputation of an incorrect statement. The ill.u.s.tration which first presents itself may require an apology; but the dignity of the pulpit shall not outweigh the dignity of _His_ Gospel after whose blessed Name this House is called[361]: and I can think of nothing as apposite as what follows.

It is a conceivable case, that, hereafter, three persons of known truthfulness should meet, in a Court of Justice at the Antipodes; where the entire difficulty should turn on a question of time. The case is conceivable, that the first should be heard to declare that at Oxford, on such a day, of such a year, he had seen such an one standing before Carfax Church while the clock _was striking one_:--that the second should declare that he also, on the same day of the same year, had seen the same person pa.s.sing by St. Mary's, when the clock of _that_ Church was also striking one:--that the third should stand up and a.s.sert,--"I also saw the same person on that same day, but it was on the steps _of the Cathedral_ I met him; and I also remember hearing the clock at that moment strike one."--Now I can conceive that the result of such evidence would be adverted upon in some such way as the following:--"While we are disposed to recognize the substantial agreement, and general conformity in respect of details, among the synoptical witnesses, in their leading external outlines, we are yet constrained,"--and the rest of the impertinence we had before. Whereas you and I know perfectly that the three clocks in question were, till lately, _kept five minutes apart_: a sufficient interval, (I beg you to observe in pa.s.sing,) for the individual in question to have been seen _by you_ walking in an easterly direction; and _by me_ due west; and by a third person, due east again.

Highly improbable circ.u.mstances, I freely grant, every one of them; and yet, by the hypothesis, all perfectly _true_! Meantime, it is conceivable that Judge and jury would have the indecency openly to tax the three men I spoke of with inexact.i.tude in their statements: and it is conceivable that those three honest men--(the _only_ true men, it might be, in the Colony, after all,)--would carry to their grave the imputation of untruth. Here and there, a generous heart would be found to say to them,--_I_ share not in the vulgar cry against you! _I_ nothing doubt that it all fell out precisely as you a.s.sert. Either, the clocks in Oxford went wrong that day;--or there had been some trick played with the clocks;--any how, _I_ believe _you_, for I have evidence that you are marvellously exact in all your little statements; and you cannot have been mistaken in a plain matter like this. I have heard too that you are not the ordinary men you seem.... The men make no answer.

_They_ care nothing for _your opinion_, and _my opinion_. The rashness of mankind may astonish the Angels perhaps; but the Apostles and Evangelists of CHRIST are already safe within the veil!

The difficulty supposed is not an imaginary one. St. John says that when Pilate sat in judgment on the LORD of Glory, "it was about the sixth hour[362]." But since St. Mark says that at the third hour they crucified Him[363],--the two statements seem inconsistent. The ancients,--(giants at interpretation, babes in criticism,)--_altered the text_. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 300, says that he had seen it in the very autograph of St. John[364]. A learned man of our own, however, a hundred years ago, ascertained that, in the Patriarchate of Ephesus, the hours were not computed after the Jewish method: but, (strange to say,) exactly _after our own English method_[365]. And yet, not so strange either; for the Gospel first came to us from there.--You see at a glance that all the four mentions of time of day in St.

John[366], which used to occasion so much difficulty, become beautifully intelligible at once.

To come then to the three samples of difficulty propounded a moment ago.

And first, for the blind men of Jericho.

I. The difficulty lies all on the surface. Listen to a plain tale.

Our SAVIOUR, attended by His Disciples and followed by a vast concourse of persons, had reached the outskirts of Jericho. A certain blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. He heard the noise of a pa.s.sing crowd, and inquired what it meant? He was told that Jesus of Nazareth was pa.s.sing by. He rose at once,--hastened down the main street through which, in due time, CHRIST perforce must come; joined another blind man, (named Bartimaeus,--a well-known character, who, like himself, was accustomed to sit and beg by the road side;) and the two companions in suffering, having stationed themselves at the exit of Jericho, waited till the Great Physician should appear.

The crowd begins to approach; and the two blind men implore the Son of David to have pity on them. So importunate is their suit, that the foremost of the pa.s.sers-by rebuke them. The men grow more urgent. Our SAVIOUR pauses, and orders that they shall be called. At this gracious summons, both draw near; the more remarkable applicant flinging his outer garment from him as he rises from his seat; but both, when they appear in our SAVIOUR'S presence, making the same request. The Holy One, touched with compa.s.sion, laid His Hands upon their eyes, and grants their prayer: whereupon they both follow Him in the way.

Well, (you will ask,)--what then?--"What then?" I answer. _Then_ there is no difficulty in the three accounts about which you spoke so unbecomingly a moment ago. a.s.sume this plain, and not at all improbable version of the incident, to be true, and you will find that no difficulty remains whatever. Every recorded circ.u.mstance is accounted for, and fits in exactly with it. I wish there were time to enlarge on some of the details, and to make some remarks on the manner of the Evangelists in relating events: but there _is_ no time.

Besides,--without a huge copy of the Gospel open before us all, I could not hope to make my meaning understood.

For of course you are to believe that he who would understand the Gospel must first _study_ it. You must ascertain, by some crucial test, confirmed by a large and careful induction, what the character of a narrative purporting to be inspired, _is_. You have no right first to a.s.sume exactly _what_ Inspiration shall result in, and then to deny that there is Inspiration because you fail to discover your a.s.sumed result[367]. That were foolish.

I shall perhaps be thought to lay myself open to the rejoinder,--"Neither have _you_ any right to a.s.sume that Inspiration will result in Infallibility." But the retort is without real point. I do but a.s.sert that, just as every man of honour claims to be believed until he has been convicted of a falsehood,--inspired Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles have a right to our entire confidence in the scrupulous accuracy of every word they deliver, until it can be _shewn_ that they have once made a mistake.

If you will take the trouble to compare any of the cases,--in Genesis for example,--where a conversation is first set down, and then reported by one of the speakers,--you will find that it is deemed allowable to omit or to add clauses, even when the discourse is related in the first person[368]. Something before inserted, is withheld: or something before withheld, is inserted. No discourse was probably ever set down, word for word, as it was delivered. In sacred, as in profane writings, the exact _substance_, or rather, the real _purport_, of what was spoken, very reasonably stands for what was _actually_ spoken. The difference is this;--that a narrative, by man abridged, _may_ convey a wrong impression: whereas an inspired abridgement of any history soever _cannot_ mislead.

Other characteristics of an inspired narrative,--the lesser Laws of the Divine Harmony, as they may be called,--will be discovered by the attentive reader. For example, that intervening circ.u.mstances are often pa.s.sed over, without any notice taken of them whatever: while yet it is singular how often the Evangelist shews himself conscious of what he omits by some very minute allusion to it[369]. This must suffice however. It would require a whole sermon, a whole volume rather, to enumerate all the features of the Evangelical method.

II. The next sample of difficulty will not occupy us long. St. Matthew is charged with a bad memory, because he ascribes to "Jeremy the prophet[370]" words which are said to be found in Zechariah.--Strange that men should be heard to differ about a plain matter of fact! _I_ have never been able to find these words in Zechariah yet!... There are words _something like them_,--but not those very words, by any means,--in Zech. xi. 12. Why then is St. Matthew to be taxed with a bad memory? Are there not other prophecies quoted in the New Testament not to be found in the Old? Yes[371]. Is not the self-same prophecy sometimes found in two different prophets,--as in Isaiah and Nahum?

Yes[372]. Are not some prophetic pa.s.sages _common to Jeremiah and Zechariah?_ Yes[373]. The Jews even had a saying that the Spirit of the one was in the other. _Where_ then remains a pretence for supposing that St. Matthew was troubled with a bad memory?

III. So, it is generally a.s.sumed that St. Luke made a mistake when he said that the census of the Nativity was made when Cyrenius was President of Syria,--because not Cyrenius but _Varus_ is known to have been President about that time.--Now, there are three fair conjectures,--each of which is sufficient to meet this difficulty: but instead of developing them, I will simply remind you of a minute circ.u.mstance in Jewish story which shews how dangerous it is to press a general fact against a particular statement.--In the year 4 B.C., Matthias was undeniably the Jewish High-priest. Now, if St. Luke, describing the events of a certain day in September, B.C. 4, had recorded that the High-priest's name was _Joseph_, you would have thought him guilty of a misstatement: but the error would have been all your own,--for it has been discovered that a person bearing that name held the office of High-priest for _one single day_,--namely, the 10th of Tisri.... "A very unlikely circ.u.mstance!" you will exclaim. O yes,--_a very unlikely circ.u.mstance indeed_: but, you will have the kindness to observe that _that_ is not exactly the point in question.

Why then are difficulties of this, or of any kind, permitted in the Gospel at all? it may be asked.--I answer,--that they may prove instruments of probation to you and to me. The sensualist has _his_ trials; and the ambitious man, _his_. The difficulties in Holy Scripture,--which are numerous, and diverse, and considerable,--are admirable tests of the moral, the spiritual, the intellectual temper of Man[374]. Experience shews moreover that some of the minutest discrepancies of all, if they be but of a character almost hopeless, are more potent to create perplexity in minds of a certain const.i.tution, than the gravest doubts which ever burthened the soul of Speculation.

I have confined myself to one cla.s.s of objections, for an obvious reason. Difficulties which arise out of the _matter_ of Scripture, as it is emphatically embodied in quotations from the Old Testament made in the New, must be separately considered in one or more Sermons on _Interpretation_. I must be content to-day with repudiating, in the most unqualified way, the notion that a mistake of _any kind whatever_ is consistent with the texture of a narrative inspired by the Holy Spirit of G.o.d. The allusion in St. Stephen's speech to "the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the son" (not _the father_, but _the son_) "of Sychem," is a good example of confusion apparently existing in an inspired speaker; but, in reality, only in the writings of those who have sat in judgment upon his words[375].

To keep to the case of the Evangelists,--I appeal to your sense of fairness, whether it be not reasonable to a.s.sume, that until those blessed writers have been convicted of _one_ single inaccuracy of statement, their narratives ought to be accounted faultless, like Him whose Life they record;--like Him by whose Spirit they are inspired. I would to Heaven that men would have the decency to suspect themselves, and one another, rather than the Evangelists,--of mistake; or at least, before they venture publicly to impugn the Authors of the Everlasting Gospel, that they would be at the pains to weigh the evidence with the care _that_ evidence deserves, but which I am _sure_ that sermon-writers and essayists do not bestow. Let them spend the long summer days of many a Long Vacation--from early morning until twilight,--dissecting every syllable of the blessed pages; and then they will learn to adore instead of to cavil. They will deem them absolutely faultless, instead of daring to charge all their own pitiful misconceptions, and weak misapprehensions, and miserable blunders, upon _them_.--They will be inclined, rather, to challenge the world to establish one blot in what they love so well; and would gladly stake all upon the issue of a conflict before a fair tribunal,--if submission might follow upon defeat.

As for mistakes of the paltry kind last noticed--(the days of Abiathar, the sixteenth of Tiberius, and so forth,)--I wonder the glaring absurdity of charging them against Evangelists, does not strike any modest man of sane mind. To suppose that St. Matthew quoted the wrong prophet, or that St. Luke did not know the regnal years of the reigning Emperor; that St. Stephen confused Abraham with Jacob, and Sychem with Hebron;--all this is really so _grossly_ absurd, that I can hardly condescend to discuss the question. It is like maintaining that Sir Isaac Newton, after discovering the Law of Gravitation, and calculating the pathway of a planet, persisted in saying that two and two make five: or that Columbus, after discovering America, despaired of finding the way to his own door. It is simply ridiculous!--Admirable as a subject for men to exercise their wits upon,--as instruments of _cavil_, objections like these are about as formidable as a child's sword of lathe in the day of battle.

I hear some one say,--It seems to trouble _you_ very much that inspired writers should be thought capable of making mistakes; but it does not trouble _me_,--Very likely not. It does not trouble _you_, perhaps, to see stone after stone, b.u.t.tress after b.u.t.tress, foundation after foundation, removed from the walls of Zion, until the whole structure trembles and totters, and is p.r.o.nounced insecure. Your boasted unconcern is very little to the purpose, unless we may also know how dear to you the safety of Zion is. But if you make indignant answer,--(as would to Heaven you may!)--that your care for G.o.d'S honour, your jealousy for G.o.d's oracles, is every whit as great as our own,--_then_ we tell you that, on _your_ wretched premises, men more logical than yourself will make s.h.i.+pwreck of their peace, and endanger their very souls. There is no stopping,--no knowing where to stop,--in this downward course. Once admit the principle of fallibility into the inspired Word, and the whole becomes a bruised and rotten reed. If St. Paul a little, why not St.

Paul much? If Moses in some places, why not in many? You will doubt our LORD'S infallibility next!... It might not trouble _you_, to find your own familiar friend telling you a lie, every now and then: but I trust this whole congregation will share the preacher's infirmity, while he confesses that it would trouble _him_ so exceedingly that after one established falsehood, he would feel unable ever to trust that friend implicitly again.

Do you mean to say then, (I shall be asked,) that you maintain the theory of Verbal Inspiration?--I answer, I refuse to accept any _theory_ whatsoever[376]. But I believe that the Bible is the Word of G.o.d--and I believe that G.o.d'S Word must be absolutely infallible. I shall therefore believe the Bible to be absolutely infallible,--until I am convinced of the contrary. "_Theories of Inspiration_," (as they are called,) are the growth of an unbelieving age: and it is enough to disgust any one with the term, to find how it has been understood in some quarters. A well-known living editor of the Gospel[377], says,--"According to the Verbal-Inspiration Theory, each Evangelist has recorded the exact words of the Inscription on the Cross;--not _the general sense_, but _the Inscription itself_;--not a letter less nor more. This is absolutely necessary to the theory." The advocates of the theory (he proceeds) "may here find an _undoubted_ example of the absurdity of their view.... Let us bear this in mind when the narrative of words spoken, or of events, differs in a similar manner."--It is certainly very kind of the learned writer thus to apprize us of the danger of accepting a theory, which, so explained, we certainly never heard of before,--and trust we may never hear of again.

But if, instead of the "Theory of Verbal Inspiration," I am asked whether I believe _the words_ of the Bible to be inspired,--I answer, To be sure I do,--every one of them: and every syllable likewise. Do not _you?_--_Where_,--(if it be a fair question,)--Where do you, in your wisdom, stop? The _book_, you allow _is_ inspired. How about the chapters? How about the verses? Do you stop at the verses, and not go on to the words? Or perhaps you enjoy a special tradition on this subject, and hold that Inspiration is a general, vague kind of thing,--here more, there less: strong, (to speak plainly,) where you make no objection to what is stated,--weak, when it runs counter to some fancy of your own.--O Sir, but this "general vague kind of thing" will not suffice to anchor the fainting soul upon, in the day of trouble, and in the hour of death! "Here _more_, there _less_," will not satisfy a parched and weary spirit, athirst for the water of Life, and craving the shadow of the great Rock. What security can _you_ offer _me_, that the promise which has sustained me so long occurs in the "more," and not in the "less?"

How am I to know that your Bible is _my_ Bible: in other words, what proof is there that either of us possesses the Word of G.o.d,--the authentic utterance of G.o.d'S HOLY SPIRIT,--_at all_?