Inspiration and Interpretation Part 27

[434] St. Matth. xxi. 16.

[435] See above, p. 4.

SERMON V.[436]

INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.--INSPIRED INTERPRETATION.--THE BIBLE IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED LIKE ANY OTHER BOOK.--G.o.d, (NOT MAN,) THE REAL AUTHOR OF THE BIBLE.

ST. MATTHEW iv. 4.

_It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of G.o.d._

It is impossible to preserve exact method in Sermons like these, uncertain in number, and delivered at irregular intervals. It shall only be stated that, having already spoken at considerable length, of the INSPIRATION of Holy Scripture;--not, one part more, one part less, but every part equally inspired throughout; not general, (whatever the exact notion may be of a book _generally_ inspired,) but particular, by which I mean that _every word_ is none other than the utterance of the Holy Ghost[437]: having, moreover, explained the reasonableness,--(the logical necessity, as it seems,)--of giving such an account of the Bible;--I propose to-day to proceed to the subject of INTERPRETATION.

Really, it has become the fas.h.i.+on of a School of unbelief which has lately emerged into infamous notoriety, to deal with both these questions in so insolent a style of dogmatism, that the preacher is compelled to halt _in limine_; and to explain that he begs that no offence may be taken at the account which he has just given of the Bible; for that really he means no more than Bp. Pearson meant when he said that "_the Scripture phrase_" is "_the Language of the HOLY GHOST_[438]:"--that he desires to say no other thing than what _He_ said, by whose Spirit, (as St. Peter declares[439],) the prophets prophesied;--the preacher, I say, wishes to explain that he desires to mean no other thing than our LORD JESUS CHRIST Himself meant, when He spoke of "_every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of G.o.d_."

I. INTERPRETATION, then, in the largest sense of the term, I take to denote the discovery of the method and meaning of Holy Scripture.--I exclude those critical labours which merely aim at establis.h.i.+ng a correct text.--I exclude also the learning which merely investigates the grammatical force of single words. True, that even to translate is often to interpret; but this results only from the imperfection of language,--which can seldom represent the words of one idiom by the words of another, without at the same time parting with the a.s.sociations which belong to the old words, and importing those which are inseparable from the new.--Moreover, except occasionally, it is presumed that the lore of the Antiquary, Geographer, and so forth, does not aspire to the dignity of Interpretation.--To be brief,--whatever simply puts us on a level with ordinary hearers of ancient days; does no more than inform us what custom, locality, or date is intended by the sacred writer; (things which once were obvious, and which _ought not_ to be any difficulty now;)--all this, I say, seems external to the province of Interpretation; the purpose of which is to discover _the method_ and _the meaning_ of Holy Writ. And I find that every extant specimen of this sacred Science is either (1) what G.o.d hath Himself revealed; or (2) what the Church hath with authority delivered; or (3) what individuals have thought themselves competent to declare.

Of these three authorities concerning the sense of Scripture, it is evident that the last-named is ent.i.tled to least notice. So unimportant indeed is it, as scarcely to be of any weight at all. What one individual a.s.serts, on his own unsupported authority, another individual may, with as much or as little authority, deny; and _who_ is to decide?

But the authority indicated in the second place, clearly challenges very different attention. When, for example, our own Hooker declares, concerning the 5th verse of the iiird chapter of St. John, that "of all the ancients _there is not one to be named_ that ever did otherwise expound or allege this place than as implying external Baptism[440]," we perceive at once that such consent, on the part of men in whose ears the echoes of the Apostolic Age had not yet quite ceased to vibrate; and who were themselves professors of that Divine Science which takes cognizance of the subject-matter in hand:--such general consent of Antiquity, I say, on a point of Interpretation, must evidently be held to be decisive.

"Religio mihi est, eritque, contra torrentem omnium Patrum, Sanctas Scripturas interpretari; nisi quando me argumenta cogunt evidentissima,--quod nunquam eventurum credo[441]." So spake one who had read the Fathers with no common care, and who turned his reading to no common account. "I persuade myself," he says, "that you will learn the modesty of submitting your judgment to that of the Catholic Doctors, where they are found generally to concur in the interpretation of a text of Scripture, how absurd soever that interpretation may, at first appearance, seem to be. For upon a diligent search you will find, that _aliquid latet quod non patet_,--'there is a mystery in the bottom:' and that which at first view seemed even ridiculous, will afterwards appear to be a most certain truth[442]." "No man can oppose Catholic consent, but he will at last be found to oppose both the Divine Oracles and Sound Reason[443]."

The distinction thus drawn between individual opinion and the collective voice of the Church, was far better understood anciently than at present. The interpretation of a Council, especially if oec.u.menical, was accounted decisive. Even the generally consentient voice of Doctors and Fathers, as far as it could be ascertained, was held to be of the same authoritative kind. An interesting ill.u.s.tration occurs. Than Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, few Fathers of the fourth century were more learned in Holy Scripture. He, commenting upon "the Captain of the LORD'S Host," mentioned in the vth chapter of the Book of Joshua, delivers it as his opinion that it was the same Personage who spoke to Moses 'in the Bush;' viz. the Eternal SON[444]. On which opinion, a learned man of the same age, in a scholion of singular beauty which has come down to us, remarks as follows:--"Aye, but the Church, O most holy Eusebius, holds a view on this subject altogether at variance with thine[445]." He goes on to allege reasons why the ????st??t???? of Joshua must be held to have been not an _uncreated_, but a _created_ Angel; the Archangel Michael, in fact. We will not now go into that matter. You are but requested to observe, how profoundly unimportant the opinion of a very learned individual was held to be, by one in whose ears the Patristic "torrent" was yet sounding; although Justin Martyr is known to have been of the same mind with Eusebius.--And thus much for individual views as to the meaning of Holy Scripture; as contrasted with the decisions of Councils and Fathers. To judge from the signs of the Age, we have exactly reversed the ancient estimate; and expect that more respect will be shewn to our own private fancies, than to a general consensus of Divines, ancient and modern. It seems to have been discovered that the supreme guide of Life is the individual conscience,--"without appeal--except to himself[446]!"

II. Before descending, however, to the _business_ of Interpretation, there is clearly one preliminary question to be settled: namely, _the principle_ on which Interpretation is to be conducted. And this is all that can be discussed to-day. To seek for that principle in the contradictory pages of solitary theorists, would of course be hopeless, as well as absurd. To elicit it from Patristic Commentaries, would obviously leave a door open for cavil. The ancient Fathers, (allowing that they often speak with consentient voice,) singly, were but fallible men,--however famous, as professors of Theological Science, they may have been. _This_, however, I venture to a.s.sume without any hesitation whatever,--that if, instead of either of these two ways of ascertaining how Holy Scripture ought to be handled, we can be so fortunate as to discover from the Inspired Writers themselves what _their_ method was with respect to the Word of G.o.d,--in such case, I say, we shall be in a position of entire certainty[447]. We shall then have full warrant for disregarding the dicta of modern sciolists on this great subject;--however arrogant their dogmatism, however confident their unsupported a.s.severations.

I desire to be very clearly understood. My position is this. All Christian men allow that the Apostles and Evangelists of our LORD were inspired. Before such an audience as the present, I will not condescend even to _allude_ to the absolute claim of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, who, as the Son of Man, enjoyed the gift of the Spirit without measure; who, as very G.o.d, "in the beginning created the Heaven and the Earth,"--(for, "In the beginning was THE WORD; and THE WORD was with G.o.d; and THE WORD was G.o.d.... All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made[448]:")--I will not, I say, for every utterance of our _SAVIOUR CHRIST_ pause even, to claim the entire reverence of our hearts,--the prostrate homage of our understandings....

Well then. If we _can_ but discover what the mind and method of these several speakers and writers was, with regard to the Interpretation of Holy Scripture; on what principle, and with what sentiments, _they_ bandied the Book of G.o.d'S Law; we shall have discovered the thing of which we are in search. For the _Author_ of a book must perforce be allowed to be the best judge of the method and intention of that book:--the HOLY SPIRIT _must_ be allowed to be the best authority as to His own meaning!

Now this method,--(of which, as I will presently remind you, we possess a great many specimens,)--proves to be very extraordinary. It altogether establishes the fact that the Bible _is not to be interpreted "like any other book."_ That it _could_ not be so interpreted, might have been confidently antic.i.p.ated beforehand, from the very fact of its Divine origin[449]. What I mean,--Since, "by the mouth of David," the HOLY GHOST is expressly declared by CHRIST and by St. Peter to have "spoken;"

and since the Psalms collectively are described by St. Paul as the utterance of the HOLY GHOST; since Jeremiah's witness is said to be the witness of the HOLY GHOST; and the HOLY GHOST is actually said to have spoken by Isaiah; while the Spirit of CHRIST Himself, (St. Peter says,) dwelt in the Prophets:--in a word, since "holy men of G.o.d spake _as they were moved by_ the HOLY GHOST," and the provisions of the Mosaic Law are to the same HOLY GHOST by St. Paul emphatically ascribed[450];--stubborn _facts_, you are requested to observe, which Essayists may prudently suppress but which no Sophistry on earth can either evade or deny:--seeing, I say, that Holy Scripture is declared by inspired men to be the utterance of the Eternal G.o.d, it was to have been expected beforehand that its texture would bear witness to its Divine origin; and that, to interpret it "like any other book," would be to forget its extraordinary character. Interpret Sophocles and Plato, if you will, like any other book, for a very plain reason; but beware how you apply your purely human notions to the utterance of the Ancient of Days; for that utterance, enshrined in one particular volume, clearly makes that one volume essentially unlike any other volume in the world.

You are particularly requested to observe, further,--that singular pains have been taken to mystify this entire subject. It has been a favourite device to multiply difficulties,--real or imaginary,--and so, to create a miserable sense of the dangers which fairly hem the subject in,--in order to render more palatable a desperate escape from them all. Thus, we are told of the risks to which Grammatical nicety, and Rhetorical accommodation expose us; and again, the snares into which the Logical method may betray. Metaphysical aid, we are a.s.sured, mystifies; and even Learning, (would to Heaven we had a little more of it!) obscures the sense[451]. Might we just take the liberty of suggesting that the study of the exploded works of German unbelievers, (of which Germany herself, thank G.o.d! is beginning to be ashamed,) on the part of men of very moderate intellectual powers, however wise in their own conceit; and with no previous Theological knowledge to guide them,--is another yet more fruitful avenue to error?... Next, we are threatened with the manifold inconveniences which would ensue from the discovery that there is more than one sense in Holy Scripture,--(_that_ one sense being a.s.sumed to be, _not_ the sense intended by its Divine Author, but the sense which the first hearers may be supposed to have put upon it[452].) "If words may have more than one meaning," (it is not very logically argued,) "they may have _any_ meaning[453]." We are told a great deal about "the growth of ideas;" and of human prejudices; and of "the disturbing influence of Theological terms."--But all this kind of thing, it will be perceived at once, is altogether foreign to the matter in hand. _Ought Scripture to be interpreted like any other book,--or not_?

_That_ is the real question! _Has Scripture only one meaning_, or _more_?

_That_ is the point in dispute! Above all, _What is the true principle of Scripture Interpretation_? _That_ is the only thing we have to discover!

Now, as for _how_ the principles of Divine Interpretation are to be discovered, it is undeniable that there can be no surer way than by discovering _what is the method of the HOLY GHOST_; by inquiring, what is the method of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, and of His Evangelists, and of His Apostles?

1. Surely it is needless to remind an audience like the present, _what_ that method is! Turn the first page of St. Matthew's Gospel, and weigh well the three famous cases of Interpretation which there encounter you[454]:--namely, the a.s.surance that Hosea's words, "Out of Egypt have I called my son[455];"--that Jeremiah's declaration concerning the tears of Rachel[456];--and that the many prophetic utterances concerning "the Branch[457];"--found fulfilment, each, in CHRIST. The first,--when, at Jehovah's bidding, He was carried up out of Egypt into Palestine; the second,--when the bereaved mothers of Bethlehem wept for their murdered offspring; the third,--when CHRIST, being bred up in Nazareth, was called a "Nazarene,"--the root of which, etymologically, denotes "a branch."--But look further, and your surprise will increase at discovering how extraordinary the Divine method is. When our Saviour cast out evil spirits and healed the sick, St. Matthew declares that He fulfilled that prophecy of Isaiah, "Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses[458];" the language of the prophet in fact being, "Surely He hath borne our _griefs_ and carried our _sorrows_[459];"

which, as far as the words go, is rather a different thing.

2. But it is St. Paul who affords us the largest induction of instances.

When he would establish the right of the Clergy to have due provision made for them, he finds his warrant in a most unexpected place of Scripture. "Say I these things as a man? or saith not the Law the same also? For it is written in the Law of Moses, 'Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.' Doth G.o.d care for the oxen here alluded to[460]? (? t?? ??? ??e? t? Te?;) or saith He it altogether for our sakes? _For our sakes_, no doubt, this is written[461]." I remind you of the entire pa.s.sage, because it is so very express.--Elsewhere, St. Paul adduces a few verses from the viiith Psalm, the primary and more obvious meaning of which appears to a.s.sert nothing more than the supremacy of Man's present nature over the inferior races of animals; ("all sheep and oxen, yea and all the beasts of the field[462].") The application of it, in a prophetic sense, to the supreme dominion of our Redeemer over all created beings in Heaven and Earth, is certainly not one which would naturally suggest itself to us; yet is it for this purpose, and this only, that St. Paul adduces it; and as confirmatory of the universal sovereignty of CHRIST, the place in question is three times quoted by the same Apostle[463].--Elsewhere, when he would warn persons who have been partakers of both Sacraments, of the danger of final rejection, he cites the example of the Fathers of Israel in the Wilderness. "The waters of the Red Sea were a wall unto them, on their right hand and on their left[464]," and the watery Cloud covered them above; whereby it came to pa.s.s that "all our Fathers were under the Cloud, and all pa.s.sed through the Sea; and were all therefore _baptized_ unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea." Moreover, he declares that they "did all eat the same spiritual meat;" (alluding to the Manna;) "and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and _that Rock was CHRIST_[465]." ... Our SAVIOUR'S emphatic application to Himself (in the vith of St. John) of the Manna, "the bread which came down from Heaven,"--none can forget[466].

3. But St. Paul further largely interprets the ordinances of the Mosaic Law. Thus, the provision that the High-priest alone should enter, once a year, into the Holy of Holies, not without blood, he interprets as follows;--"the HOLY GHOST this signifying,"--("the _HOLY GHOST this signifying!_)--that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing[467]." He explains further that "CHRIST being come an High-Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle, ... by His own Blood entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal Redemption for us[468]."--The Veil of the Temple, (he says,) typified CHRIST'S flesh[469]; and St. Paul intimates that he could further have spoken particularly of the Golden Censer, and the Ark of the Covenant, and the Pot of Manna, and Aaron's rod, and the Tables of the Covenant, and the Cherubims of Glory[470].--Again, he says, that "the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary by the High Priest for Sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own Blood, _suffered without the gate_[471]."--_Who_ is not familiar with the same Apostle's declaration that the words of our father Adam relative to Marriage, are expressive of a great mystery, and set forth symbolically the union of CHRIST and His Church; "For we are members of His Body,--of His Flesh and of His Bones[472]?"--St. Peter is at least as remarkable in his Interpretations as St. Paul; for he says of the Ark "wherein eight souls were saved by water,"--"The like figure whereunto, even Baptism, doth also now save us[473]."

Now these samples of _Inspired Interpretation_ would be abundantly sufficient for our present purpose. But before I proceed to make any use of them, it is right to draw attention to a phenomenon, even more extraordinary.

4. It is found then, that besides vindicating for the Scriptures of the Old Testament this unsuspected depth and fulness of prophetic and typical meaning, the very Narrative itself teems to overflowing with mysterious purpose. You have but to weigh well what the HOLY SPIRIT hath delivered concerning Abraham and Melchizedek, Hagar and Sarah,--to perceive that the texture of the Historical Narrative itself is of supernatural fabric. All are familiar with what I allude to; but I _must_ remind you of it, in detail. The Apostle is bent on shewing the superiority of our SAVIOUR'S Priesthood to that of Aaron. How does he proceed? He lays his finger, unhesitatingly, on a verse in the cxth Psalm, ("Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek;")--declares with authority that it is CHRIST whom the prophet there alludes to,--or rather, whom G.o.d apostrophizes,--(for _that_ is what St. Paul actually _says_; p??sa???e??e?? ?p? t??

Te??[474]: although David undeniably wrote the Psalm;)--and proceeds, without more ado, to draw out minutely the characteristics of our SAVIOUR'S Priesthood, from the very brief narrative contained in the xivth Chapter of Genesis. Do but hear him!

The compound name "Melchi-zedek," being interpreted, denotes "King of Righteousness:" while "King of Salem" denotes "King of Peace." These t.i.tles, (it is implied,) are emphatically appropriate to CHRIST our King; to Him who "is our Righteousness," and the very "Prince of Peace."

It happens that nothing is said in Genesis about the parentage of Melchizedek, nor about the family from which he sprang: not a word as to when he was born, or when he died. From this _silence_ of Scripture, St.

Paul collects the typical adumbration of One who, as very G.o.d, was _without_ human parentage,--had _no_ earthly lineage;--"was before all things," G.o.d from all eternity,--having _indeed_ "neither beginning of days nor end of life."--Did not Abraham give to Melchizedek a t.i.the of the spoils? Consider then, (St. Paul says,) how great an one Melchizedek must have been! Nay, consider that the descendants of Levi are commanded to take t.i.the of their brethren, although all are sprung from Abraham alike; but here is one, altogether of a different family, taking t.i.thes of _Abraham_,--aye and _blessing_ Abraham too;--(dede??t??e, e??????e, "_hath_ t.i.thed," "_hath_ blessed,"--the effect of the act _remaining_ for ever in CHRIST typified by Melchizedek.)--This mysterious King of Salem and Priest of the Most High G.o.d not only t.i.thes but blesses Abraham, who had received from ALMIGHTY G.o.d the promises, which included all blessedness, earthly and heavenly. Now, this implies Melchizedek's superiority,--for, of course, the less is blessed of the greater.--Men who receive t.i.the here below are mortal; but the very silence of Scripture respecting Melchizedek's death, symbolically teaches that HE whom Melchizedek typified, yet liveth.--And indeed, (so to speak,) the tribe of Levi who take t.i.thes, _paid_ t.i.thes to Melchizedek in the person of their great progenitor; because Levi was as yet in the loins of his father Abraham when Melchizedek met him[475]....

I do not ask your pardon for thus leading you in detail over one unusually minute specimen of Divine Interpretation. I know well that there are many persons to whom the Divine method is highly distasteful; and who think their own method of Interpretation infinitely better. But, unfortunately for those persons, the question in hand is not a question of taste, but a dry _matter of fact_. We have to discover what is _the Divine method_ of Interpretation, and no other thing. Its improbability and its inconvenience,--its difficulty, and its strangeness,--its seeming inconclusiveness, (apart from the authority on which it rests,) and its certain uniqueness, (notwithstanding the many injunctions we have met with that we must interpret the Bible like any other book[476],)--all these considerations are all together irrelevant, and beside the question. St. Paul himself admits that the Discourse now before us is p???? ?a? d?se???e?t??,--long and of difficult interpretation[477].--Some will perhaps be found to inquire how it happens that while so many remote points of a.n.a.logy are adduced, so obviously typical a circ.u.mstance as Melchizedek's _bringing forth_ "_bread and wine_[478]" obtains no notice from the Apostle? I answer,--For the same reason that Isaac is nowhere spoken of, nowhere so much as hinted at, in the Bible, as being a type of CHRIST. A blind man may see it. It requires no Revelation from Heaven to teach such things as _that!_ But the typical foreshadowing of the superiority of our SAVIOUR'S Priesthood over that of Aaron, in the story of Melchizedek, would infallibly have escaped mankind altogether, unless it had been thus specially revealed.

Some there may be so utterly wanting in Theological instinct, or so depraved of taste; so utterly unused to the study of G.o.d'S Word, or so un.o.bservant of the characteristic method of it,--as to imagine that there is something trifling in the specimens of Interpretation before us. I am only concerned to maintain that they are Divine. You may think what you please about them. They are the teaching of the HOLY GHOST.

Nay, if unfortunately any persons here present should think themselves wiser than G.o.d, I would request them to observe that, singularly enough, G.o.d has connected with this very exposition a short address _to themselves_. It runs as follows:--"Concerning Melchizedek, we have to deliver a long and difficult interpretation; difficult, however, _only because ye have become dull of hearing_[479]." (The fault, you observe, is _yours_. Whereas G.o.d made your spiritual senses sharp and quick, you have blunted their edge, and are become stupid and obtuse. It follows:)--"For when, by reason of the length of time that ye have professed Christianity, ye ought to be Teachers," (pray mark _that!_)--"ye have need that some one should teach _you_ the first Principles of the Oracles of G.o.d; and ye have become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that useth milk, is without experience in the Word of Righteousness; for he is an infant.

But solid food (ste?e? t??f?) is for them that are of full age[480]."

Where you are requested to observe that a specimen of Interpretation _you_ think trifling, the HOLY GHOST calls "_solid food_;" and yourselves, who in your own conceit represent the World's Manhood[481], He calls ??p????,--"_babes_." ... This discrepancy of opinion strikes me as rather curious.

5. The time would fail, were we to enter as particularly into the Divine Interpretation elsewhere given of another story, apparently as little fraught with mystery as any in the Bible. _Who_ would ever have imagined that the brief narrative of Hagar's dismissal from the house of Abraham at Sarah's instance, was the ????????a of so Divine a thing as St.

Paul declares;--the two Mothers setting forth the two Covenants, (one, bearing children unto bondage,--the other, the free Mother of us all: Sinai symbolized by _that_, the heavenly Jerusalem by _this_:) and even Ishmael's mockery not being without mysterious meaning?--Such however is the Divine Interpretation.--Elsewhere, when St. Paul desires to contrast the method of the Gospel with the method of the Law,--(_this_, glorious; _that_, with the same glorious features concealed;)--and also to ill.u.s.trate the present unbelief of the Jewish nation;--the Apostle finds a prophetic emblem of their blindness in the veiled countenance of their great Lawgiver, as described in the x.x.xivth chapter of Exodus. The mystical intention of that veil, (he says,) was to symbolize the nation's inability to look steadfastly to the end of the dispensation, and to recognize MESSIAH. Nay, to this hour, while they read their Scriptures, that veil (he says) is upon their hearts. And yet, even as Moses, when he returned to G.o.d, is related to have taken off the veil from his face, so (St. Paul says) will it fare with the Jews, when _they_ convert and turn themselves to CHRIST. The veil will be withdrawn[482].--Now, I gather from all this, and many a hint of the like kind,--that the whole of Scripture is of the same marvellous texture, the Old Testament and the New, alike,--whether we have the eyes to see it or not.

6. But I cannot dismiss the typical character of the Scripture narrative, until I have reminded you of one striking intimation of it which you might easily overlook. "O fools and slow of heart," was our LORD'S reproof to Cleophas and his companion on the evening of the first Easter: "Ought not CHRIST to have suffered these things, and to enter into His Glory? And _beginning at Moses_ and all the Prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself[483]." In like manner, St. Paul at Rome expounded to the unbelieving Jews, "persuading them concerning JESUS both _out of the Law of Moses_ and out of the Prophets, from morning till evening[484]." The same thing is repeated elsewhere[485]: but the most express declaration is that of our LORD Himself to the Jews:--"Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me; _for he wrote of Me_[486]," Moses therefore _wrote concerning_ CHRIST. CHRIST Himself says so. But _where?_ Shew me the places in the Pentateuch which prove that CHRIST was "to suffer these things" and then to "enter into glory?" You cannot do it; unless indeed in Isaac's Sacrifice you are content to find the adumbration of the scene on Calvary. You cannot do it; unless in Joseph's betrayal for twenty pieces of silver, (the deed of another Judas!) and his letting down into the pit without water, you recognize the image of the death of One by the blood of whose Covenant the prisoners of hope were set free[487]. You cannot do it; unless in the same Joseph's exaltation to the supreme power of Egypt, (when they "cried before him, Bow the knee!") you behold MESSIAH'S session at the Right Hand of G.o.d. You cannot do it; unless you notice how "Joseph, who was ordained to save his Brethren from death, who would have slain _him_, did represent the SON of G.o.d, who was slain by us and yet dying saved us[488]." You cannot do it; unless in the Paschal Lamb, and the wave-sheaf, you discern things Heavenly, and of eternal moment. You cannot do it; unless you remember "that as, in order to consecrate the Harvest by offering to G.o.d the first-fruits of it, a sheaf was lifted up and waved; as well as a Lamb offered on that day by the priest to G.o.d; so MESSIAH, that immaculate Lamb which was to die, that Priest which dying was to offer up Himself to G.o.d, was upon the same day lifted up and raised from the dead; or rather shook and lifted up, and presented Himself to G.o.d, and so was accepted for us all; that so our dust might be sanctified, our corruption hallowed, our mortality consecrated to eternity." Many who hear me will perceive that I have been quoting from Bp. Pearson; and will be constrained to admit that Isaac and Joseph,--the wave-sheaf and the Paschal Lamb,--may well be types of CHRIST; and that, thus lightly touched, there can be little objection to tracing in such histories and provisions of the Law, the main outlines of the Life and Death and Resurrection of our REDEEMER. But remember, we have handled wondrous little of the patriarchal History and of the Law; and that little, wondrous cursorily; more, as it seems to me, in the manner of children in a Sunday-school, than as Divines in the first University of Europe!... Now, _St. Paul_ entertained _his_ audience "from morning until evening." Had he nothing to say about Paradise, think you, and the mysterious parallel between the first and second Adam? nothing to say about the Ark of Noah, and the waters of the Flood? What of the history of the patriarch Jacob, and of Joseph "at the second time made known to his brethren?" What of Moses, and the miracles of the Exode? What of the many minute provisions, (all of them, no doubt, significant!) of the Mosaic Law? What of Esau's posterity and Balaam's prophecies,--the Cloud and the Flame,--the Manna and the Quails,--the riven Rock and Jordan driven back?...

I have already said enough to feel at liberty to gather out of it all, the two chief propositions concerning Holy Scripture, which it is my business this morning to establish. And first, I a.s.sert that it may be regarded as a fundamental rule, that the Bible _is not to be interpreted like any other book_. This I gather infallibly from the plain fact, that _the inspired Writers themselves_ habitually interpret it _as no other book either is, or can be interpreted_.

Next, I a.s.sert without fear of contradiction that inspired Interpretation, whatever varieties of method it may exhibit, is yet uniform and unequivocal in this one result; namely, that it proves Holy Scripture to be of far deeper significancy than at first sight appears[489]. By no imaginable artifice of Rhetoric or sophistry of evasion,--by no possible vehemence of denial or plausibility of counter a.s.sertion,--can it be rendered probable that Scripture has invariably one only meaning; and _that_ meaning, the most obvious and easy to those who first heard or read it.

I would not be misunderstood by this audience, nor do I fear that I shall be. I am not denying (G.o.d forbid!) the literal sense of Scripture.

Rather am I, above all, contending for it. We may _never_ play tricks with the letter. Those Six Days of Creation, depend upon it, were _six days_: and the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge, and the Serpent, were the very things they are called,--and no other things. So of every other part of the Bible. The Temptation of our LORD was as matter of fact a transaction as one of His walks by the sea of Galilee. _In what form_ the Tempter came to Him, hath not been revealed. _After what fas.h.i.+on_ the Prince of the power of the air contrived the dazzling panorama "in a moment of time[490]," I do not pretend to understand. The literal sense of what has been revealed, is, for all that, to be depended on. All is sincere History: _nothing_ is ever allegory,--_nothing_ may ever be evacuated or explained away! We have our LORD'S own word for it. The speech in Paradise, and what happened at the time of the Flood; the fate of Lot's wife, and what befel the cities of the plain; the conduct of David (when he ate the shew-bread), and the visit to Solomon of the Queen of Sheba; the history of the widow of Sarepta, and of Naaman the Syrian:--all these stories of the Old Testament are by our LORD Himself appealed to as veritable History[491].

But I am proving that Scripture itself, literally understood, compels us to believe that _under_ the letter of Scripture, (which _of course_ is to be _interpreted_ literally,) there lies a deeper and sometimes a far less obvious meaning; occasionally a meaning so improbable, (as men account improbability,) that, but for the finger of G.o.d pointing it out, we could never by possibility have discerned it; so extraordinary, that when it is shewn us, it needs an effort of the heart and of the mind to embrace it fully.

Cases of literal Interpretation are indeed of constant occurrence in Scripture; but the principle on which they depend is obvious, and common to all writings alike. I do not doubt, for a moment, that the history of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, (which we heard read this morning,) is a _bona fide_ narrative,--_truer_ and _more_ authentic in details, than is to be found in any other book of History.--Neither do I doubt that the obvious teaching, (the _moral_ Interpretation as it may be called,) of that incident, is the proper one: viz. that even for the most fiery of fleshly trials, G.o.d'S grace is sufficient:--that Joseph's safety lay in refusing even to _be_ with her, joined to his holy fear of sinning _against G.o.d_:--that l.u.s.t is ever cruel, and will hunt for the precious life[492]:--finally, that the way of purity, though it may lead at first to sorrow, will infallibly conduct to blessedness at the last.

Considerations like these, which are obvious and easy, are also unquestionably _true_; and especially precious, (_who_ ever doubted it?) as helps to personal holiness.--But still, there may underlie this narrative, for aught I see to the contrary, a mystical signification.

Potiphar's wife may, (as the best and wisest of ancient and modern Divines have thought,) symbolize the Power of Darkness; and Joseph, our Divine LORD. The garment Joseph left in the woman's hand, may represent that fleshly garment of which the true Joseph divested Himself,--(?pe?d?s?e??? as St. Paul speaks in a very remarkable place,)--the mortal body which Satan apprehended (his sole triumph!) and by which he was ensnared, when a greater than Joseph gat Him out from an adulterous world[493]. Joseph in the prison, and CHRIST in the grave: Joseph exalted, and CHRIST Ascended: Joseph at last feeding the families of the World, and CHRIST becoming the Bread of Life to all:--let it not occasion offence, Brethren, if I confess that, for aught I see to the contrary, some such hidden teaching as this, may underlie the plain historical narrative; and in no way interfere with a literal interpretation.

III. From the two foregoing negative positions, however, (which almost need an apology, such obvious truisms are they,) I eagerly pa.s.s on to something better and higher.

1. And first, I boldly declare that the clue to all that has been advanced concerning the marvellous method of Holy Writ is supplied by the single consideration that the Bible is _the Word of G.o.d_,--that Holy Scripture, from the Alpha to the Omega of it, is the language of the HOLY GHOST. Incomprehensible and unmanageable on any other hypothesis,--all the disclosures of inspired Interpretation, by the hearty reception of this one revealed truth, are rendered perfectly intelligible and clear. The HOLY SPIRIT may surely be a.s.sumed competent to interpret what the HOLY SPIRIT has already delivered! His disclosures therefore are beyond the reach of censure; however marvellous they may happen to be. But they are all a hopeless riddle to those who have blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts.

Thus, to advert for a moment to the prophetic character (as it may be called) of the historical parts of Scripture,--What is it which moves secret unbelief, and prompts a reference to the human devices of Allegory and Accommodation[494]? It is the profound conviction that no merely human narrative could be handled as St. Paul handles Genesis, except by indulging in rhetorical license, and giving to Fancy a very free rein. But disabuse your mind of this lurking suspicion, so derogatory to the honour of Him by whose Spirit the Bible is inspired,--cease to suspect that the narrative of Scripture is a merely human narrative,--and how different becomes the problem! Why should the HOLY GHOST have spoken less by the mouth of Moses, than by the mouth of David and Isaiah, Jeremiah and the rest of the prophets? But if _He_ speaks in Genesis, then are the words of Genesis _His_;--and every word of the narrative "_proceedeth_" (as our LORD phrases it,) "_out of the mouth of G.o.d_."

I am constrained to be thus express and emphatic, because it has been lately "_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,--to the hearers or readers who first received it[495]." The original sense of Scripture, (says this writer,) is "the meaning of the words as they first struck on the ears, or flashed before the eyes, of those who heard and read them[496]." Now, I will not pause to remark on the complicated fallacy involved in this. For (1), Why should a hearer's first impression of a speaker's meaning be a.s.sumed _to be_ that speaker's meaning[497]? And (2), Why may not Prophets and Evangelists have _intended_ secondary meanings[498]? But I do not dwell on this, for it does not touch the point. Let us hear the voice of one who adorned this place many years before the present controversy arose, and who has exactly antic.i.p.ated the question now at issue. "Observe how this matter really is," says Bp. Butler. "If one knew a person to be _the sole Author_ of a book; and were certainly a.s.sured, or satisfied to any degree, that one knew the whole of what he intended in it; one should be a.s.sured or satisfied to such degree, that one knew the whole meaning of that book: for _the meaning of a book is nothing but the meaning of the Author_. But if one knew a person to have compiled a Book out of memoirs _which he received from Another, of vastly superior knowledge in the subject of it_; especially if it were a Book full of great intricacies and difficulties; it would in no wise follow that one knew the whole meaning of the Book, from knowing the whole meaning of the compilers: for the original memoirs, (i.e. the Author of them,) might have, (and there would be no degree of presumption, in many cases, against supposing Him to have,) some farther meaning than the compiler saw. To say then, 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: which is absurd, whilst the authority of these books is under examination; i.e. till you have determined they are of no divine authority at all. Till this be determined, it must in all reason be supposed,--not indeed that they _have_, (for this is taking for granted that they are inspired;) but,--that they _may_ have, some farther meaning than what the compilers saw or understood[499]."--So far Bp. Butler.

2. Now, if G.o.d be in effect the Speaker, why need we hesitate to believe that He has so framed the stories, that they shall be throughout adumbrations of the things which concern our peace[500]? Let some garment be shewn me of merely human manufacture, and however costly it may prove, I look for nothing in it beyond the known properties of any other earthly fabric. But give me the a.s.surance that, on the contrary, it was woven by Divine hands, and fas.h.i.+oned in a Heavenly loom, and do I not straightway expect to find it a mystery and a marvel of Art? It is even so with the language of Holy Writ. It is all framed and fas.h.i.+oned after a Diviner model than men are able to imagine. It is instinct with sublimest meanings. It is penetrated, through and through, with the Spirit of the Most High G.o.d. It is of so celestial a texture, that, to the eye of the soundest Reason, informed by the purest Faith, it reveals, (when the Spirit of its Divine Author s.h.i.+nes upon it,) the glorious outlines of an imperishable Life!

3. The strong root of bitterness out of which springs unbelief in this supernatural character of the historical parts of the Bible, is an unworthy notion of G.o.d'S Power. Because _human_ histories are perforce barren and lifeless, it is a.s.sumed that the Book of G.o.d'S Law must be a dead thing also. And then, the conceit of self-relying Reason glides in, (like a serpent,) and remonstrates as follows:--"Yea, can G.o.d have sanctioned a method of such subtlety and pliability as will make His own Scriptures mean _anything_[501]? Is it not rather, an exploded fas.h.i.+on, which the age has outgrown,--_that_ fas.h.i.+on of supposing that there is sometimes a double sense in Prophecy, and that the Gospel is symbolized in the Law? Were then the worthies of the Old Testament puppets in G.o.d'S Hands, acting parts?--now, typifying remote personages; now, exhibiting future transactions; now, symbolizing national events? Is it credible?

Not so! Accept one of two alternatives, and never dream of a third.