''^t

^i\

i^-

mf4!>^ii;:i:, :.-.

J- I

*,- J.

'^,
'"t*.'Tf
$«yfi ' *"¦-
(ft'*".' ' '
^*>«j.c^
iKjftiV-il '"¦ '-
/.Lc'ti '
V !«; 'i
¦St:
THE

BAMPTON LECTURES
FOE MDCCCLXIII.

LONDOW
PEIIfTED BT SPOTTISWOODE AlTD CO.
IfSW-STBEET SQT7ABE

THE RELATION

EBT-WEBN" THE

DIVINE AND HUMAN ELEMENTS IN
HOLY SCRIPTURE.

EIGHT LECTURES

PREACHED BEFORE
THE UNIVERSITY OE OXEORD
IN THE YEAR MDCCCLXIII.
ON THE FOUNDATION OF
THE LATE EEV. JOHN BAMPTON, M.A.
CANON OF SALISBUEY.

J. HANNAH, D.O.L.
WAEDEIf OP TEINITY COILEQE, QLENAXMONE, AND PANTONIAN PEOPESSOE OE THEOLOQT i
LATE EELLO-W OB UNCOIN COlLEaE, OXPOED.

LONDON:
JOHN MDEEAT, ALBEMAELE 8TEEET.
1863.

The rU/ht of translation is rp.ni^rned.

EXTRACT FROM
THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
OF THE LATE
REV. JOHN BAMPTON,
CANON OF SALISBUEY.

 ' I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the Chancellor,
' Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford for ever, to have
' and to hold all and singular the said Lands or Estates upon trust, and
' to the intents and purposes hereinafter mentioned ; that is to say,
' I 'will and appoint that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of
' Oxford for the time being shaU take and receive all the rents,
' issues, and profits thereof, and (after all taxes, reparations, and
' necessary deductions made) that he pay all the remainder to the
' endo'wment of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be established
' for ever in the said University, and to be performed in the
' manner follo'wing :
' I direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in Easter Term,
' a Lecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads of Colleges only, and by
' no others, in the room adjoining to the Printing-House, bet'ween the
' hours of ten in the morning and t'wo in the afternoon, to preach
' eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, the year follo'wing, at St. Mary's
' in Oxford, between the commencement of the last month in Lent
' Term, and the end of the third 'week in Act Term.
' Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity Lectui-e
' Sermons shall be preached upon either of the follo'wing Subjects —
' to confirm and establish the Christian Faith, and to confdte all

vi EXTRACT FROM CANON BAMPTON'S WILL.
' heretics and schismatics — upon the divine authority of the Holy
' Scriptures — upon the authority of the -writings of the primitive
' Fathers, as to the faith and practice of the primitive Churc?i —
' upon the Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ — upon
' the Divinity of the Holy Ghost — upon the Articles of the Christian
' Faith, as comprehended in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.
' Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Di-sdnity Lecture
' Sermons shall be al-ways printed -within t'wo months after they are
' preached, and one copy shall be given to the Chancellor of the
' University, and one copy to the Head of every College, and one
' copy to the Mayor of the City of Oxford, and one copy to be put
' into the Bodleian Library ; and the expense of printing them shall
' be paid out of the revenue of the Land or Estates given for
' establishing the Divinity Lecture Sermons ; and the Preacher shall
' not be paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before they are
' printed. ' Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified to
' preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless he hath taken the
' degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the t'wo Universities of
' Oxford or Cambridge ; and that the same person shall never preach
' the Divinity Lecture Sermons t-wice.'

CONTENTS.

LECTURE L
INSPIEATION AND EEVELATION ; THEIE EESPECTIVE DEFINITIONS
AND EANGE  pag-! 1
\I)eUvered March 8.]
Romans viii. 16.
' The Spirit itself beareth witness 'with our spirit, that we
are the children of God.'
Inteoddction. — The influence of the Holy Spirit, 'whether before or
since the Fall, not suoh as to supersede the free agency of man.
The unfettered action of our faculties -within their o-wn sphere
compatible vrith our dependence on the gi'ace of God for aU
good. The consequent combination of a divine and human
element in all our holy thoughts and -works.
Probability that in that purest form of spiritual influence to
-which -we o-we the Holy Scriptures the divine and human
elements -wiU both be complete.
Erroneous tendencies of opposite theories, -which on the one
hand cause the divine to exclude the human, and on the other
hand cause the human to blot out the divine.
In suggesting that these may be corrected by admitting the
completeness of both elements, we make no attempt to dra-w a
frontier line bet'ween those elements, or to define the mode ofthe
Divine influence ; but -we kno-w the avenue through -which the
Holy Spirit reaches us — namely, through the spirit in ourselves.
The starting-point, then, must be sought for in the doctrine
of Inspiration; to -which the doctrine of Revelation sup
plies the counterpart: the distinction bet'ween these 'words

vm CONTENTS.
corresponding, though not with perfect exactness, to that
which we draw between the writers of Scriptm-e and the
subject-matter of their record. The two terms not coexten
sive, either with each other or with Scripture.
I. Inspiration implies the existence of a spirit in man, which is
capable of holding communion with the Holy Spirit of God.
1. Uniform accuracy with which, from creation to resurrec
tion, Scripture treats the human Trvzyfia as a separate principle,
which must be carefully distinguished from the soul. St. Paul's
trichotomy not to be confounded with the Aristotelian, which
rests upon a different method. The proper place and province
of the spirit, especially in regard to the differentia of man.
2. The Presence of the Holy Spirit not to be limited to any
one particular form of Inspiration. Difference of degrees
under which the Presence of all the Persons in the Trinity is
revealed to us.
Presence of the Holy Spirit in the material universe ; in the
intellect, the will, the moral faculties of man; but in old times
more especially as inspiring the series of the Old Testament
writers. Great change traceable in the New Testament, where
the Baptism of John and all other gifts previous to the day of
Pentecost are counted as nothing in comparison with the gifts,
themselves also widely diversified, which are bestowed under
the conditions of the Christian covenant. Inspiration of the
New Testament writers analogous to what was noted in the Old.
Illustrate by the distinction between comparative and abso
lute condemnation and exclusion, as applied to other aspects of
the gifts of God.
The wide range of Inspiration no argument against our
belief in the special intensity of its peculiar influence in the
Bible. Converging proofs of the canonical authority of Scripture.
II. Revelation supplies the main feature in the differentia, by which
that special inspiration is defined. But here again we can
trace fainter kinds outside of Scripture, in manifestations of
God through the works of nature and the conscience of man.
Revelations granted in Scripture, and there distinguishable
from human materials, differ from both the above kinds of
manifestation, as being direct communications to the human

CONTENTS. IX
spirit of objective knowledge which it could not or did not
otherwise command : —
1. Looking at Scripture externally, it contains two series of
facts, which answer to each other in the Old and New Testa
ments, and which are combined into unity by a uniform and
supernatural interpretation revealed to its -writers.
2. Taking the chain of facts as one, it is all along accom
panied by the revelation of a higher series, belonging to a
supernatural order. Impossibility that this could have been
supplied from human resources.
The Presence of the Spirit, which gave that revelation, to
be again carefully distinguished from His Presence in the hearts
of all Christians, as the sole source of a holy life. Answer
remonstrances against the bondage of a historical religion, by
pointing out that
1. Scripture not only embodies the results of the highest
spiritual gifts; but
2. Records the only certified revelations from the unseen
world.
These explanations intended to form the ba.sis of an enquiry into the
completeness of both the divine and human elements, to each
of which subjects three ofthe succeeding Lectures are devoted.

LECTURE II.
THE DIVINE ELEMENT  EEALITT OF THE EEVELATION, AS ESTA
BLISHED BY A CONTRAST 'WITH HEATHEN EELISIONS . page 38
[Velivered March 15.]
Acts xvii. 30, 31.
' A'nd the times of this ignorance God winked ai ; lut now
commandeth all men everywhere to repent : Because He
hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world
in righteousness, hy that Man whom He hath ordained;
whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that
He hath raised Him from the dead J
The comparison between the divine element of Scripture and the
substance of other religions to be worked out first as to truth,
and secondly as to falsehood.

X CONTENTS.
I. The five classes under which the whole subject may be
arranged : —
1. The religious knowledge of the heathen, as ascertained
independently of Scripture. Different theories on its source,
and on its relation to the contents of the sacred record. The
two main aspects in which it has presented itself to the obser
vation of the Church. Common point of departure for both
streams of sacred knowledge to be sought for in the primeval
promise. 2. The same as traceable within the Scriptures themselves.
Relation of the Church from the beginning to the outer world
with which it came into immediate contact.
3. The divine element of Scripture properly so called.
Nature of its development; rather analytic than synthetic.
That development traceable both through theology, in the gra
dual disclosures ofthe Name of God ; and through morality, as it
is deepened and organised in the writings of the prophets.
4. The positive ordinances by which it was guarded ; their
nature and true relation to spiritual religion.
5. The human element through which it was conveyed.
The characters and other qualifications of the inspired -writers.
II. Falsehoods and shortcomings of heathen religions: —
1. The truths which can be traced in them never embraced
any entire system ; the religions were ever ready to go over to
the side of evil; they degenerated till they represented a lower
moral stage than that of their own worshippers ; when the
forms of reUgion broke away from their substance, and my
thologies became the least religious portion of the national life.
2. Their whole framework was manifestly human, not
divine ; as proved by an inspection of both theologies and
philosophies of religion.
3. The difference illustrated at length from St. Paul's Dis
course at Athens. Nature of his appeal; and the partial
support which each portion of it would secure fi-om different
sections of his hearers. His ' new doctrine :'
a. As to God ; the Creator, the Preserver, and the Governor
of men.
/3. As to mankind; all men brethren of each other and
equally sons of God.

CONTENTS. XI
y. As to the new relation between God and man through
the Redemption and Resurrection.
The contrast thus brought to its issue in the Incarnation of Christ,
and the grand results which depend upon it. Mode in which
the one fatal defect of aU false religions was remedied, when
a way was thus opened, through which man could again find
access to God.

LECTURE III.
THE DIVINE ELEMENT  EEALITT OF THE INSPIRATION, AS ILLUS
TRATED BT THE ANTINOMIES OF SCRIPTITEE . . PAGE 74
\peUvered April 19.]
1 CoE. xiii. 12.
^ Now we see through a glass, darkly; hut then face to face.'
From the reahty of Scripture Revelation, we pass to consider its
Inspiration; and first, for the Antinomies of Scripture; or the
mode in which great truths were brought within the range
of the human intellect.
General character of Scripture accommodation ; nature and Hmita-
tions of the doctrine ; the revelation as exphcit and direct as
the quahfications of its hearers would permit them to receive.
Two modes in which alleged contradictions in Scripture can be dealt
with; indirect, or apologetic; and direct, or expository. The
latter course to be now pursued; moral difficulties, however,
being reserved for Lecture VL
Distinction between contradiction in the text and contradiction in the
comment. The latter on no account to be mistaken for the
former.
The general characteristic ofthe highest prmciples, that they can only
be set forth fully in contrasted statements, of which neither is
exclusively true. Show this both in speculation and in reve
lation. Causes of this pecuHarity twofold : —
1. Relative; in cases where a counter-truth is revealed by
the same authority.
2. Absolute; in cases where the difiSculty emerges of itself.

XII CONTENTS.
if we make the effort to fathom a prmciple which baffles the
operation of our thought.
General list of illustrations fi-om Scripture ; and different degrees
in which the apparent difficulty can be removed.
These instances supply the basis for the following remarks on the
method of Scripture : —
1. That each alternative is usually stated unre.servedly,
simply, and emphatically ; with no attempt to weaken its force
by any suggestions of a reconciliation. Such concentration a
foremost sign of earnestness and truth.
2. This fearlessness of enunciation seen most conspicuously,
when the antithesis is brought out in one passage, in one chap
ter, in one book, or in one department of Scripture.
3. Illustrated by the elpwveia of the Jews; as shown, not
only by their acceptance of the Book of Job, but by the lan
guage of Abraham and Moses, of David, of Asaph, of Solomon,
of Jeremiah.
Detailed examination of two more prominent instances : —
1. The apparent corrections supphed by later 'writings to
the earlier teaching; the Second Commandment compared with
Ezekiel xviii. ; and passages examined which seem to impose
limitations on the claims of the Law, and point to its approach
ing cessation at Christ's Advent.
2. The apparent contrariety between St. Paul and St. James,
on the respective provinces of faith and works.
Marvellous unity of Scripture, as traceable beneath the external
diversity of its various ¦writers, contrasted as they are with
each other in position, character, and previous training.

CONTENTS. xiii

LECTURE IV.
THE DIVINE ELEMENT — EEALITT OF THE INSPIRATION, AS ILLUS
TRATED BT THE DUPLEX SENSUS .... page Ui7

[Delivered, April 26.]

Romans xv. 4.

' Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for
our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the
Scriptures might have hope.'
Two conditions of a revelation ; that it shall be adjusted to its
original hearers, yet capable of future expansion. The latter
the basis of the duplex sensus ; a doctrine which has been
much misunderstood and suspected.
The necessity of admitting such a doctrine, under proper limita
tions, established both from the very conception of a revela
tion, and from the facts which are presented in Scripture ;
and that, whether we look at the language of the prophets,
or at the interpretations fui'nished by Christ and His apostles.
The explanation to be found in what may be called the double
authorship of Scripture ; and in the peculiarity that the res
beneath the voces are significant as well as they.
But we have here to note especially :
1. That the rights of the human writers are invariably
respected and reserved. Each always had one primary
and sufficient meaning, connected with his special mission.
The secondary apphcation, which is often repeated more than
once before the end, is in addition to, and in no way subver
sive of, the original or primary meaning.
2. That the first sense does not lose its use and interest
when the second is disclosed. Abiding value of the Mosaic
Law.
The New Testament usage suggests three classes of interpretation : —
1. Symbolical; when objects and events, which in them
selves were real and historical, are found to embody a spiritual
lesson. 2. Typical ; when that spiritual lesson is distinctly prophetic.

xiv CONTENTS.
3. Bepresentative; when rules are translated back into
their principles.
Ihustrations at length of all these, and especially of the first, by a
detailed examination of St. Paul's mode 'of deaUng with the
history of Sarah and Hagar.
Extension of the same principle to explain the New Testament
quotations from the Old Testament.
Enquiry whether we are to confine ourselves to the recognition of
such secondary meanings as are authorised in Scripture.
Summary of the objections which the above course of argument
proposes to remove.

LECTURE V.
THE HUMAN ELEMENT — HISTORY AND SCIENCE . PAGE 139
[Delivered, May 3.]
2 CoE. iv. 7.
' We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency
of the power may be of God, and not of us.'
A well-instructed faith need not fear the complete recognition of the
human element. Evil of deductive definitions and exaggerated
language, with instances of both.
Real grotmd for uneasiness because of the attempt to argue across
from alleged historical inaccuracy to general untruthfulness,
and even moral and religious error. Restrictions under which
the enquiry must be conducted.
I. Historical Question. — Light thrown on the subject by
1. Various readings in Scripture;
2. Apparent method of its composition, and its relation to
earher materials ;
3. Traces in the older Scriptures of slight editorial glosses
or corrections.
Examination under each of these heads of the precise significancy
of the facts established ; and contrast between the little which
they really prove, and the exaggerated conclusions which have
been rested on them.

CONTENTS. XV
II. Scientific Question. — Grand distinction between the form of
Scripture and its substance ; and danger of thrusting human
interpretations into the exegesis of Scripture itself. Meaning
of the warning, that we are not to tie do-wn Scripture to
theories of science, which may have coloured the contempo
rary language of its human authors. That language optical or
phenomenal; and in other respects also adjusted to its earliest
hearers.
Examination of the record of creation ; which should be regarded
rather as a theological revelation than as history or tradition,
or as visions, parable, or psalm. The geological attack con
fined in general to the form, not the substance, of the record.
Reasons for which we may conceive that this particular form
was imposed ; and its connection 'with the Fourth Command
ment.
Evil of misunderstandings, on either side, in relation to the scien
tific question. True position of Scripture in its bearings on

LECTURE VI.
THE HUMAN ELEMENT — MORAL DIFFICULTIES . . page 171
[DeUvered, May 10.]
Matt. xiii. 33.
' The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman
took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was
leavened,'
The obstacles which retarded man's recovery of truth after the Fall.
Light thro'wn on this subject by the figure of leaven, as suggest
ing the gradual introduction of a counter-principle of good,
to thwart and exterminate the influence of evU. Illustrate by
the gradual unfolding of intellectual and moral truth, and the
establishment of purer national customs and laws.
Instances of moral difficulties raised on ancient Scriptural histories ;
as to the apparent neglect of truth, justice, and mercy.
Fragmentary character of the earliest morahty ; its want of organisa
tion and discrimination.

XVI CONTENTS.
Proof afforded by more detailed narratives in Scripture, that a
mixture of sin in the motives of actions was foUowed by a
mixture of evil with the reward.
Necessity of avoiding the error which would treat all parts of Scrip
ture as standing on the same level, and would examine its
lessons without reference to the circumstances under which
they were conveyed.
Position of the older Jews ; the worth and work of the old Jewish
zeal ; and the extent to which Scripture everywhere recognises
the need of righteous anger as a guard against sin.
Detailed examination of the Song of Deborah ; its date, its circum
stances, and the explanations under which its words must be
received.
Correction in form to which such a narrative must be subjected
before we can see the exact bearing of its lessons for ourselves.
The love for good incompatible with the tolerance of evil ; as
iUustrated from the history of Moses, of St. John the Divine,
and of our Lord.
Exact relation of lessons drawn respectively from the Old and New
Testaments.

LECTURE VII.
THE HUMAN ELEMENT^ SUPERIORITT OF SCRIPTURE TO ITS
'WRITERS  PAGE 198
[Delivered May 17.]
Acts xiv. 15.
' We also are m,en of like passions ivith you.'
The subject of the preceding Lecture to be completed by a more
minute examination of two leading instances taken fi'om
the New Testament, where fuUer materials for analysis are
given.
Human interest of Scripture largely dependent on the fact, that
its -writers were ' men of like passions ' with ourselves. Yet
the divine message never tarnished by the errors of those
through whom it was conveyed.

CONTENTS. xvii
I. ExempHfy by the records of St. Peter's life. Three great illus
trations of the uneven balance between faith and knowledge in
St. Peter's character : —
1. His declaration ofthe Divinity of Christ, foUowed by his
denial ;
2. His announcement of the approaching free admission of
the Gentiles, foUowed by the doubts which it needed a
heavenly vision to remove;
3. His speech at the council of Jerusalem in favour of
releasing the GentUes firom the Law of Moses, foUowed by his
vaciUation at Antioch.
Evidence that both by the side of these events in his speeches,
and subsequently in his Epistles, his Divine message stood
completely free from any weakness which could thus be traced
in his personal character.
II. Difference of character between St. Peter] and St. Paul. The
double aspect in which the earUer Ufe of St. Paul can be
regarded. Continuity of what was good, but sudden removal
of the earUer evU. Three questions arise after his conversion : —
1. Do we find any traces of his Christian development
after that period ?
2. Supposing it to exist, does it imply that there were im
perfections in his earUest message ?
3. Can we trace the vibrations of uncertainty in his
'writings ?
Admitting the first point, we do not find that the evidence is sufficient
to give an affirmative answer to the second and third of these
questions. Examinationof the three subjects in detaU. Proof
of the unity which marked his message, gained by comparing
his speeches with his Epistles. Characteristics of his method,
as shown by his statements on the Law, and on the position of
the Jews.
Great importance of the human element in Scripture.

XVIU CONTENTS.

LECTURE VIII.
GENERAL CONCLUSION  ^^°^ 226
[DeUvered June 7.]
2 Tim. ii. 15.
' Sightly dividing the word of truth.'
I. Purport of this closing Lecture to sum up the results which it
has been endeavoured to estabUsh.
Our question is the narrowest, though not the least important, of
three great controversies; relating to the respective differentia
of Scripture, of Christianity, and of Man.
Duty of deaUng with aU three calmly; and of recognising 'without
fear the generic resemblances, so long as the specific distinc
tions are properly guarded.
For our immediate question; dweU on the importance of according
a complete recognition to both the divine and human elements,
as the only apparent mode of reconciling the perplexities of
the great problem.
Analogy with the twofold nature of Christ; how far we may appeal
to it; what it accounts for; and wherein it stops short.
The dread of acknowledging the human element in Scripture rests
on a mistaken conception of the place and effect of sin.
ParaUel with the ' divine decorum ' which is traceable through
out Christ's hfe, though He ' was in aU points tempted like as
we are.'
The principle maintained is to be regarded as the result of an enquiry,
not the dictate of a theory. Our examination of the facts has
traversed the documentary history of Scripture, as to various
readings, editorial glosses, and enduring misconceptions; its
relation to older materials, as weU as to tradition and heathen
history and Uterature ; and the form in which it resembles
other ancient histories, though arguments from chronology
and numbers are to be used with caution. Application of the
same to scientific language. The ' divine decorum ' has been
found to exist in aU respects unsulUed; the moral difficulties
admitting of a simUar explanation.

CONTENTS. XIX
On the other hand, the reality of the divine element is manifest, as
objective in its origin, perfect in its moral and religious teach
ing, broad in its grasp of fundamental principles, and embody
ing a deeper sense beneath the letter.
Verification of the induction by the application of some reasonable
conditions : —
1. The principles found to be such as man could not have
discovered :
2. The duplex sensus being real, and capable of a sufficient
explanation ;
3. The work being in aU respects above the compass of
the human writers.
II. Lessons to be drawn on the subject of Scripture interpretation : —
1. That interpretation must be spiritual ; and must differ
from that of any other book, so far as Scripture itself is dis
tinguished from any other book by its posses.sion of a divine
as well as human authorship.
2. It must also be comprehensive ; not rested on isolated
texts. 3. It must be widened to embrace both sides of teaching,
on any subject where a narrower view would be the mistake
of half-truths for truths. Practical iUustration, in the bUnd-
ness ofthe Jews on the Divinity of Christ.
4. It must cover all parts of Scripture, even those of which
the present appUcation is obscure. Fatal tendency ofthe opposite
method.
Conclusion. — -The deep practical importance of passing on from
enquiries into the inspiration of Scripture, to seek the living
inspiration of a holy life.

NOTES.

On Lecture I. .
On Lecture II. .
On Lecture III. .
On Lecture IV. .

PAGE 255 278300318

On Lecture V. .
On Lecture VI. .
On Lecture VIL
On Lecture VIII.

PAGE 330346352360

LECTURE I.

Romans viii. 16.
' The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we
are the chUdren of God.'
THROUGHOUT the argument completed in the
context of this passage, St. Paul unfolds the secret
operation of the Holy Spirit, which rescues our spirits
' from the law of sin and death,' ^ to give them a living
interest in the incarnation of Christ. But our depen
dence on that gracious presence is not to be confounded
with the dumb expectation of inferior creatures ; nor
need we limit our exposition to that contrast with the
legal system which gave shape to the immediate rea
soning of the Apostle. In a broader sense we may
accept his teaching, that the Divine Spirit addresses
us as sons, not as servants ; that it uses the language of
adoption, not of bondage ; that it bears its -mtness -with
a spirit in ourselves ; that it never supersedes our own
responsibility, nor subjugates our natural faculties.
The ground of our salvation is wrought out for us by
our Lord; the work of our renewal is -wrought out
with us by His Spirit. That deathless principle, which
* Rom. viii. 2.
B

Z LECTURE I.
was once so degraded, which now hears His voice and
follows His guidance, and yields to the gentle influence
of restoring grace — that principle was planted when
man was created ; and, however carnalised it may be
by transgression, has never been completely silenced
or destroyed (i). We stUl at our very worst estate
retain it, like the lingering element of health, which
the Good Physician uses as the groundwork for His
healing process : it listens when the Spirit whispers
of the love which moved the Father to send His Son,
and moved the Son to die for man ; it speaks in the
feeble tones of prayer, while ' the Spirit itself maketh
intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be
uttered.' ^
In this doctrine we trace a twofold truth, which
admits of universal application through religious
history and thought. The character of God's moral
government would lead us to believe that when He
made man in His own image, *" He gave him aU the
faculties he needed for working out the end of his
creation. But a just conception of the source of hoh
ness would connect this belief with the corresponding
conviction, that the grace of God was always indis
pensable, before any excellence in the creature could be
achieved — that it was requisite before, and with, and
after every movement, to prevent, cooperate -with, and
crown the work (2). It cannot be supposed that there
was any exception in Paradise to that supremacy
of the Divine sanctity, which claims every form and
" Rom. viii. 26. b Gen. i. 26 27.

LECTURE J. 3
phase of good as the direct operation of the Spirit of
the Lord. It cannot be doubted that the Holy Spirit
bore witness with man's spirit in its original state of
purity ; inspired it -with filial love for its Heavenly
Father ; and taught it the lessons of obedience which it
required for the guidance of a holy life. When man's
moral trial had issued in his sin, and when sin had
grieved his Divine visitant, and had brought discord
and weakness into his forsaken nature, we have no
reason to think that his punishment involved the loss
of any organic endo-wment which he had previously
possessed. Through the gradual training of our
restoration, we still trace everywhere the continued
working of this double law, whether in Gentile ex
perience, or in Je-wish revelation, or in Christian light.
That law combines a di-vdne and human element in
every holy deed or thought of man. Our recovery is
the work of the Spirit of God; yet man, though so
fallen, retains a moral right of -will, which resists com
pulsion even in the act of salvation, and can be
renewed and restored upon no other principle than by
the leading and guiding persuasion of grace. On the
one of these laws rests all morality, which assumes the
free responsibility of man ; on the other of these laws
rests all theology, which teaches us the necessary
dependence of the creature on the energy and help of
God. If we deny that man was created as in some
sort a law unto himself, '' we break the very main
spring of the moral system. If we admit that man
* Rom. U. 14.
B 2

4 LECTURE I.
possesses any independent virtue, by which he can
perform good actions without assistance from the
grace of God, we sanction the disposition to rebel
against God's supremacy which tempted our first
parents to their fall. The two principles, we doubt
not, would have worked together in perfect harmony,
had not the balance been disturbed by the intrusion of
sin. The restoration of that balance does but readjust
the relation which it was not the will of God to cancel.
It is still through the witness of the Holy Spirit that
we learn to know ourselves to be His children ; but we
could not understand that witness if we did not retain
a spirit in ourselves, which can recognise and answer
to the voice of God.
It 'wiU be my object, through the course of
Lectures on which we are now entering, to call
your attention to the completeness of the di'vone and
human elements in the Holy Scriptures, which we
receive as the result of the highest operation of God's
Spirit on the spirit of man (3). In carrying out
this design, it is my -wish to base the suggestions
which I shall venture to ofi'er on the -wider principle
which I have endeavoured to explain. If God's
dealings -with us seem to rest in all cases on the
assumption that the organisation of man is complete
-within its own province, and is only elevated and
enlightened, but never superseded, by the help of
God, then we may expect to find that in that purest
form of spiritual influence to which we owe the
Holy Scriptures, we shall be able to trace the

LECTURE I. 5
presence of both elements; existing, indeed, in their
highest known perfection, but not departing from
the general relation which prevails throughout all
lower spheres.
The doctrine which we are now concerned to
establish must be guarded on both sides against two
opposite, but not equally imperfect, theories; in the
one of which the divine is made to exclude the
human, while in the other, by a far worse error,
the human is allowed to blot out the divine.
It is possible, on the one hand, to become so
absorbed in the thought of the Divine Giver, that
the -writer ceases to be recognised as anything more
than the mere lifeless instrument through which
the Spirit makes itself heard, and is reduced to an
agency so purely mechanical, that the human factor
is really destroyed.
It is possible, on the other hand, to dwell so
strongly and unduly on the proofs of human agency,
that the work of the Inspiring Spirit is reduced to
the vague influence, which might be said to preside
over any great work of human genius. On this
-\dew, which can be subdivided into several separate
opinions, the guarantee of a distinctly divine element
is equally cancelled and withdrawn.
But it must not be supposed that, in maintaining,
against tliese extremes, the completeness of both the
di-vine and human elements in Scripture, we are
bound to attempt the determination of a frontier
line between them ; any more than we are bound, by
the Catholic faith, to draw a similar fi-ontier through

b LECTURE I.
that union of the divine and human natures in the
person of Christ, which there is a growing dis
position to accept, as the model for our belief upon
His written Word (4). Nor, again, can any attempt
be made to explain the inode in which the mind
of man has, in this or any other case, been moved
and influenced by the Spirit of God. But, though
the mode of operation must remain undefined, the
avenue through which the Holy Spirit reaches us
is explained beyond all doubt in Scripture. The
witness of God's Spirit is addressed to the spirit in
ourselves. All practical religion must assume the
principle, that man is endowed with spiritual faculties,
which enable him to enter into communion with God.
The starting-point of our enquiry, then, must be
sought for in the doctrine of Inspiration; to which
we shall find that the doctrine of Revelation supplies
the proper counterpart and completion (5). These
two terms correspond, though not with exact pre
cision, to the distinction which we should draw
between the sacred -writers and the subject-matter
of their record. The doctrine of Inspiration belongs
mainly, though not exclusively, to the one head;
the doctrine of Revelation belongs mainly, if not
exclusively, to the other. The sacred writers were
inspired to record what was revealed; and their
works preserve the substance of the revelation, under
the guarantee which their inspiration furnished.
The revelation, then, implied a corresponding in-
spu-ation, to enable men to receive and transmit the
Divine message; and it was necessary that this

LECTURE I. 7
inspiration should first exist in the spirit of the
-writer, though we can detect its presence in the
message also, because that message is often freighted
-with a deeper store of spiritual meaning, and exerts
a living influence of greater spiritual power, than its
original recipient could foresee.
But some confusion has arisen from overlooking
that these two words are not co-extensive, either
¦with each other or with the sacred record. Both
may be applied, -with more or less propriety, to
phenomena which lie outside of Scripture: and
while it is maintained that every part of Canonical
Scripture is inspired, it is needless to claim Revela
tion for those portions of the narrative which could
be derived from ordinary human sources. On these
points, therefore, we may ofifer, in the outset, a more
detailed explanation.
I. The doctrine of Inspiration, on its human side (6),
implies that recognition of man's spiritual na
ture, which distinguishes the mental analysis of
Scripture from di-visions with which a hasty obser
vation might confound it. On the other hand, the
doctrine of the pro-sonce and operations of the Spirit
rests in turn upon certain positions on the source
and nature of that higher element, which philosophy
might reject as theological limitations,'' but which
Scripture assumes as the basis of its teaching, on
the relation between man and his Maker. ' The
Spirit itself beareth -witness with our spirit.' This
* Sir W. HamUton's Lectures on Metaphysics, i. 134.

8 LECTURE I.
is the simplest statement of the point of contact
between our inspu-ation and its source in God.
When the usage of Scripture goes on to distinguish
between the spirit and the soul, it indicates the
exact difference between the lines that can be traced
by human science and the proper sphere of the
religious element. This distinction is maintained,
with an accuracy- which bears -witness to its im
portance, through the long series of Scripture writers
— from the history of the Creation to the latest
forecast of the future exaltation of the resurrection
body. We learn, in the beginning, that from dust
came the materials of which our body was composed ;
that from God came the inspiration, which breathed
into our frame the spirit of a higher life; and that
these were united in the ' li-ving soul,' ^ to which
mental analysis is more commonly confined. Pass
to the other end of Scripture, and we find that
the same distinction gives its deep significance to
St. Paul's account of the glories which shall elevate the
risen body, when the frame, which is now adjusted
to the needs of the soul, shall be fitted for the higher
functions of the emancipated, spirit.'' We trace it
through the Old Testament, in the many passages
which tell us of the glory of the spirit and its gifts.
We trace it in such language as that of Isaiah, 'With
my soul have I desired ; ' ' with my spirit within
me -will I seek Thee early:'" in such passages as
that great prophecy in the 16th Psalm, ' Wherefore
a Gen. n. 7. * 1 Cor. xv. 44.
"= Isa. xxvi. 9. Cf Gen. xlix. 6 ; Ps. vii. 5 ; Prov. xx. 27.

LECTURE I. 9
my heart was glad, and my glory rejoiced ; my
flesh also shall rest in hope:'" in such words as
those which meet us at the beginning of the
Magnificat, ' My soul doth magnify ; ' ' my spirit hath
rejoiced.' " And the special teaching of the Gospel
is everywhere coloured by the same* discrimination,
which causes the distinction between flesh and spirit
to difl'er so widely in significance from the common
distinction between soul and body; and which finds
its highest expression in such contrasts as the words
of Christ, ' That which is born of the flesh is flesh ;
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit ; '" or
in the words of His Apostle, ' to be carnally minded
is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and
peace.' ^
The Scripture trichotomy, then, of spirit, soul, and
body ° (7), is distinguished by its combination of the
physical and theological aspects, which science deals
with under dififerent methods. We are familiar with
the process by which the heathen philosopher advances'
from one series of vital phenomena to another, ar
ranging them as though it were in stages, like the
concentric steps of some great pyramid : first, the signs
of mere organised growth, like that of plants ; then
the signs of sensibility, like that of animals ; then the
moral feelings ; then the intellectual faculties ; in each
of which progressions we trace the gradual perfecting
of attributes which are faintly shadowed forth in
a Ps. xvi. 10 ; Acts U. 26. ^ Luke i. 46, 47.
¦= John iu. 6. * Rom. vui. 6.
e 1 Thess. V. 23 ; Heb. iv. 12. ' Ar., Eth. N. I. xUi., &c.

10 LECTURE I.
creatures of a lower order. He thus constructs, I say,
a pyramid of being, which reaches its culminating point
in man. All this is perfectly clear and intelligible.
But when aU this has been set forth, in its neatest and
most finished form, we have seen no more than ra. t%
^M-/r\s fJLsp-n' the description of man stiL. lacks its
noblest element — the spirit which descends upon him
from a higher sphere, to meet the ascending principle
of -vitality and fill it with celestial light (8). The
labours of physiologists have suggested a scale by
which we can measure, more or less exactly, each
step in the series, and can span by an interval of fixed
degrees the gulf which intervenes between the highest
capacity of the most perfect brain in brutes, and the
meanest capacity of the least perfect brain in man (9).
But they can no more measure the difiference which
the presence of the spirit introduces, than they could
complete the description of a material pyramid by
gauging the sunlight which crowns its apex -with a
brightness streaming straight from heaven.
When ancient poets wished to point the contrast
between the shame and glory of our compound nature,
they borrowed from religion the ennobhng thought,
that our spirit is a portion of the breath of God.*
Let us only be careful to exclude the Pantheistic
conception — that God's gift was a part of His own
essence; that man's spirit is itself di-\dne — and we
trace in such Avords the vi-sdd recognition of that
religious faculty, which flushes through the naked
» Hor., Sat. II. ii. 79, &c.

LECTURE L 11
framework of our earthly organisation, and transfigures
it with heavenly radiance. Our text alone would
guard us from the error of confounding the created
spirit of man -with the uncreated and eternal Spirit
ofthe Lord.
In the universality of this endowment we find the
natural explanation for the prevalence of certain fixed
religious ideas among mankind (lo). But this capacity
to receive an inspiring energy from higher sources
exerts an influence which reaches far beyond the
range of the religious emotions, and embraces -within
its quickening impulse far more than those who call
themselves religious men.
The gifts of God are always found to overflow the
narroAV limits which are recognised by the faint gra
titude of man. And it is scarcely too much to say,
that the spiritual principle is the true cro-wn of
dominion which secures our superiority over the
beasts that perish. At all events we cannot doubt that
it exerts the chief influence in producing that general
elevation of all rudimentary capacities which seems
to constitute the true differentia of our race. We
should touch -with dif&dence on scientific controversies
which have absorbed the deep attention of so many
highly qualified enquirers (ii) ; but amidst views so
diversified as those which have been urged, we may
reasonably ask whether it is not possible that the true
solution may be found in a sphere which lies beyond
the range of science ; namely, in the endo-wment of
man with a spiritual element, which is identical with
no one faculty, but which enters into each of our

12 LECTURE I.
higher faculties, and raises them all to a loftier power.
What else but some special gift of a diviner character
could enable us to rise above the faint traces in ani
mals of love for their offspring, and homage for their
master, up to the wide range of the moral emotions, and
the ennobling influences of the religious life? And
may it not be the collateral operation of the same high
principle which lifts our mental processes from obser
vation to abstraction, which empowers us to express
our thoughts in articulate language, and to pass up
wards from fixed instincts to governable habits, from
the stationary sensibility of brutes to the ' progressive
and improvable ' intelligence of man ? It can scarcely
be doubted, I repeat, that this capacity supplies the
source and strength of man's loftiest endowments:
the kindling eye, -with its ' splendid purpose ; ' the
tameless resolution of the steadfast will ; the force of
character which binds even worldly aims into a sem
blance of the unity which lies beyond this earthly
sphere. Surely nothing less than such an element
could exalt fancy into imagination, and understanding
into reason, and conscience into faith. Nothing less
could transform man from the noblest of animals into
the image and lilieness of God.
Such may we conceive to be the nature of that
higher principle, which enables us to hold intercourse
¦with Heaven. It would necessarily be the spiritual
element, in which man would suffer the deepest injury
from the Fall, when sin closed its direct communion
with the Holy Spirit, and dropped a veil of ignorance
and blindness over the abandoned heart. But though

LECTURE I. 13
clouded and weakened, it was never obliterated.
That darkness never wholly quenched its light, is
proved by all the holier aspirations which heathen
records bring to our knowledge ; by every word and
act of virtue which the heathen ever uttered or per
formed. Its loss would have reduced us to the level of
mere animals, with a somewhat nobler organisation.
Its complete perversion would have had the still more
fatal eff'ect of transforming us into the likeness of
the fallen angels.
And now let u^ turn from man to God, and con
template the various forms of influence which the
Holy Spirit exerts throughout the universe, and to
some of which the term ' inspiration ' is -with varying
propriety applied. That these forms must, from the
nature of the case, be manifold, a very short consi
deration -will establish.
What is true of the Divine Presence must be true
in particular of that peculiar presence of the Holy
Spirit which we understand by the term ' inspiration.'
But the Divine Presence is at once universal and
special (12). It is universal; for God is omnipresent.
It is special ; for the omnipresent God must everywhere
be distinguished fi-om His creatures ; the denial of
which is formal Pantheism. There have always been
places, again, where He has been specially pleased
to ,fix His name. There have always been persons
in whose hearts He has been preeminently present.
There have been repeated theophanies, wherein
His peculiar presence has been revealed to mankind.

14 LECTURE I.
And though it follows, from the trspixi^pr^trig of the
Blessed Trinity, that where one Person is present,
all in a sense are present — even as Christ said, ' He
that hath seen Me hath seen the Father ' ^ — yet it is
undoubted that the economy of revelation distinguishes
in each case between the modes of their presence and
the ways or degrees in which it is granted.
(1.) The Father is God, and therefore He is omni
present ; yet He dwells especially ' in the light which
no man can approach unto ; whom no man hath seen
nor can see."" By another figure He is called a God
that hideth Himself ; dwelling ' in the thick darkness ; '
whose ' greatness is unsearchable ; ' whose ' footsteps
are not known.' °
(2.) The Son is God, and therefore He is omni
present ; yet He told His disciples that unless He went
away, the Comforter would not come to them ; * and
since His departure from earth at His ascension. His
presence in His human nature has been confined to
His session at the right hand of the Father. But still
He continues to be present amongst us, in many spe
cial ways, in, and through, and with His Holy Spirit.
He is present with His Church, according to His
promise, ' alway, even unto the end of the world.' "
He is present in prayer; present in sacraments; pre
sent wherever ' two or three are gathered together in '
His 'name."
(3. ) Now the same principle must be applied in the
" John xiv. 9. b 1 Tim. vi. 16.
<= Isa. xlv. 15; 1 Kmgsviii. 12 ; Ps. cxlv. 3 (Bible v.) ; Ps.lxxvii. 19.
^ John xvi. 7. " Matt, xxviii. 20. f Matt, xviii. 20.

LECTURE I. 15
case of the Holy Spirit ; and it would be as unreason
able in this as in the former cases to insist upon con
founding one form ofthe Di-vine Presence with another.
Thus the Holy Ghost is God, and therefore He is
omnipresent ; and yet there are countless different
manifestations under which His special presence is
made kno-wn. He is present in the works of nature,
as when He 'moved upon the face ofthe waters,' and
when He reneweth 'the face of the earth.'* He is
present in the higher forms of the human intellect
and -will, giving skill to ' Bezaleel and Aholiab, and
every wise-hearted man,' *" teaching the poet to sing,
and the ruler to govern, and the warrior in the cause
of truth to conquer ; putting the ' spirit of the holy
gods' in such as Daniel, 'light and understanding and
-wisdom, Hke the wisdom of the gods.' ° He is present
in man's moral nature, originating everywhere all
pure and holy thoughts that man can cherish ; — for
what can be pure and good and holy without Him ?
He fills, indeed, through all its functions, the entire
range of that created spirit, in which we have been
tracing the true honour of our race. And yet there
is a more peculiar sense in which He is present in the
spirits of all Christians, whose bodies are His temple,'*
abiding there under the conditions of so distinct a
covenant, that we are taught to discriminate between
the feeblest Christian and the purest heathen by the
presence or absence of this grace alone.
Through all parts of the sacred history, we can
a Gen. i. 2 ; Ps. civ. 30. •> Ex. xxxvi. 1.
" Dan. V. 11. ^ 1 Cor. in. 16, &c.

16 LECTURE I.
read the unquestioned signs of His presence in
degrees of intensity which plainly vary from the
highest to the lowest. He dwelt in the hearts of the
ancient patriarchs ; or how could they have walked
and talked with God ? " He nerved the strength of
that great army of confessors and martyrs, who died
in the faith which the promise of a ' better country' "
had inspired ; whose eyes had never seen ' the King
in His beauty,' yet who lived in the confident hope
that they should become citizens of ' the land that is
very far off.' ° The Spirit of the Lord was ever near
the people of the Jews, to guide, to warn, to elevate,
to strengthen ; impartmg courage to their heroes, and
wisdom to their rulers, and glory to their national
life. Such are the signs of living inspiration which
preceded the gifts of the Christian covenant. And by
their side, and as their record, we find the productions
of a lofty line of writers, who were qualified, by the
highest and most specific inspiration, to transmit the
Word of God to man. Lawgivers and psahnists,
prophets and historians, alike found voice in words of
most exalted import, springing from lips that had
been touched as if -with coals from God's altar.* Pass
to the times of John the Baptist, and who can doubt
that some gifts of the Holy Spirit must have waited
on his summons to repentance — gifts higher than any
which the heathen shared, and higher than any
which had heretofore been granted to the Jew ? But
though greater than the greatest of all earlier sons of
a Gen. V. 24 ; vi. 9, &c. •> Heb. xi. 14, 16.
" Isa. xxxiii. 17. ^ Isa. vi. 6.

LECTURE I. 17
men, the Baptist himself was less than the least who
has participated in the outpouring of Pentecost. His
baptism was only the baptism of water, in contrast
with the gifts of Him who baptised ' -with the Holy
Ghost and with fire.'"' And at this crisis comes a
change so mighty, that all earlier gifts are swept into
the shade by the surpassing brightness of the gifts
which Christ had won for man. So great in them
selves, so priceless to their recipients, yet, when con
trasted with that better gift which was reserved for
us, they are as nothing: they can be set aside in
absolutely negative and exclusive language ; as when
we are told that ' the Holy Ghost was not yet (given),
because that Jesus was not yet glorified ; ' '' or that
even John's disciples knew as good as nothing of the
character and working of the Holy Spirit" (13).
But further. The Holy Spirit is present with a
difference, even among Christians. Even yet ' there
are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.' "* For all
alike there is the gift of Baptism, the gift of Confirma
tion, the gift of Holy Communion — each -with its
special presence of the Holy Spirit. And for some,
again, there are such distinct and partial gifts as those
conferred in holy orders, with their several degrees.
And in the early Church, too, there were other gifts
of a still loftier and rarer character;^ gifts which
enabled men to work miracles, and to speak with
tongues, and to exercise many other wonderful
a Matt. iU. 11. '' John vU. 39.
e Acts xvui. 25 ; xix. 2. "^ 1 Cor. xu. 4.
e Rom. xu. 6-8 ; 1 Cor. xn. 8-10, &c.
C

18 LECTURE I.
powers, which it was needless for their Giver to
perpetuate, when His Church had been established in
the world.
Now through all the classes which have been men
tioned the word ' inspiration ' might be used, and in
some instances often is used, of each separate and dis
tinct form of communication between the Holy Spirit
and the spirit of man. Yet it is clear that no such
special usage could limit any of the other meanings ;
still less could any such general use of the word be
employed as an argument against the special character
of that greatest and rarest gift of the Spirit, which
we believe that He vouchsafed to all the writers of
the Holy Scriptures. It is surely futile, then, to tell
us, what no one could have doubted, that the early
Christian fathers often claimed the presence of this
Spirit in themselves. It is futile to remind us that
our own Church, in its late and scanty use of the
word, is chiefly set on teaching us to pray that God's
holy inspiration may guide our own thoughts, and
govern our o-wn actions ; that He wiU ' inspire con
tinually the universal Church with the spirit of truth,
unity, and concord ; ' that He will ' cleanse the
thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of His
' Holy Spirit ' (14). Nor is there any cause to fear
that the claim of special inspiration for the writers of
those Scriptures, which guarantee the permanence of
such a blessing for ourselves, can ' teach us to quench
the Spirit in true hearts for ever.' When we are
dealing with the relations between man and God, it
is perpetually necessary to distinguish between com-

• LECTURE I. 19
parative and absolute condemnation and exclusion (15).
' Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not ; yea,
the stars are not pure in His sight. How much less
man, that is a worm, and the son of man, which is a
worm ! ' " Thus words which seem to assert un
qualified absence may be meant to describe only a
lower and less perfect form of presence. If the
language of Eliphaz or of Bildad seems to supply an
insufficient instance, we may recollect that Christ
taught us to call no man good, while Barnabas is
called ' a good man' in the Acts of the Apostles; the
reason, however, being immediately added, because he
was 'full of the Holy Ghost and of faith.' '' In like
manner, the theological use ofthe word 'uncovenanted'
can be best defended on the ground that it describes
the position of those who live under a lower or less
specific covenant. St. Paul's expression, ' ha-vdng not
the law,'" refers to those who were left to the
guidance of a fainter law. -within themselves. The
Evangelist's assertion that the Holy Ghost was not
yet given, can only moan, under any possible rendering
of the passage, that His most abundant gifts were
still unkno-wn. In the same way, the word 'uninspired'
can be applied, with perfect propriety, not only to
those, if there be any such, who are excluded from
aU share whatever in the Spirit's gifts, but also to
those whose participation in its various blessings bears
no resemblance to that supreme illuminating presence
to which the Scripture writers can alone lay claim.
a Job XXV. 5, 6 ; cf. iv. 18 ; xv. 15. ^ Matt. xix. 17; Acts xi. 24.
" Rom. ii. 14.
f' 9,

20 LECTURE I.
The wide extent, then, of the influences through
which the Holy Spirit operates, is no hindrance to
our con-viction that there is an innermost centre of
inspiration, found only in the Word of God. There
may be circle -within circle of Di-vine communion; just
as Christ Himself, the friend of aU men, drew apart
the disciples from among the multitude, and the
twelve from among the disciples, and the three from
among the twelve, and out of the three chose one to
be preeminently distinguished as ' the disciple whom
Jesus loved.'" Even in ordinary characters, it is
depth which foi-ms the only safeguard for expansive-
ness. Much more may we believe, that in a fallen
world, where sin had to be arrested, and the leaven
of a higher life diffused, the special and extraordinary
inspiration ofthe few would form the natural centre and
security for visitations extending to mankind at large.
Assuming, then, the possibility and probability of
high special inspiration, we proceed to affirm that no
other books can put in any kind of plea, which brings
them even nearly towards the level of the books of the
Canonical Scriptures. It is not well to ground the
canon on any separate branch of the proofs, by the
combination of which it is established (16). No nar
row -view of canonical authority can stand : not mere
authorship, for the authors of some books are still
uncertain, nor is it agreed that every work of every
inspired writer is comprised within the canon: not
internal evidence alone, for it would be a paradox to
» John xxi. 20, &c.

LECTURE I. 21
say that every list of names in Chronicles or Nehe
miah ' shines by its o-wn light,' and contains a higher
spiritual -witness than the loftiest composition which
is rightly accounted in the strict sense uninspired:
not mere testimony, lest, in days of gainsaying, we
should be unable to give, as Hooker says we ought,
an account of ' what reason there is, whereby the
testimony of the Church concernmg Scripture, and
our own persuasion which Scripture itself hath con
firmed, may be proved a truth infallible.' "¦ We are
not to rest on any of these singly, but on all in com
bination, each in its due proportion. The light of God
in which we see God ; *" the eye that seeks us out ; the
Spirit which finds our inmost spirit : this is one class
of evidence which no one who has felt its depth and
strength can undervalue. But before this, and by its
side, we need the e-vidence of testimony, to guard us
from accidental errors, and ascertain the Di-vine ori
ginal of many things which might be -wrongly cast
aside by a hasty superficial judgment : testimony to
prove prophetic or apostolic authority, in cases where
such authorship is known ; to prove the -witness of the
Church herself, in cases where such authorship is un
kno-wn : and all these lines of evidence conspire together
and corroborate each other, converging to form an
arch of proof, which bears the Scriptures on its steady
basis ; and defining the sphere of what we mean when
we maintain the special inspiration of the writers of
the Books of Scripture.
a E. P. III. vui. § 14. " Ps. xxxvi. 9.

22 LECTURE I.
It is of the canon of Scripture thus established that
we claim to uphold a peculiar inspiration, which differs
fundamentally ft-om every other mode of the Divine
Presence to which the same name can be given. Nor
do we admit that we have placed any limitation on
the general influence of the Spfrit, by mamtaining
that the capacity of recei-ving and again imparting
special spiritual knowledge, which Scripture itself
enumerates amongst the highest spiritual gifts,* bore
immediate fruit, through both dispensations, in the
pi-oduction of -vrritings which were properly and pre
eminently inspired, and which were to form the
foundation of all exact theology in every age.
II. But whither shall we turn for the differentia of
Scripture, and for the characteristics of this special
inspiration ?
The chief element in that differentia -will be found
in the subject-matter which it deals '-with; that is to
say, in the nature and character of Scripture Revela
tion (17). But here again we are dealing with a term
which has received, though -with less propriety, a
¦wider application. There have been other manifesta
tions of God to man besides those which are recorded
in the volume of Scripture; and to these also the
term 'revelation' has been sometimes less properly
applied. It has often been remarked, that the difference
between adequate and inadequate conceptions of
" John xvi. 13 ; Rom. xu. 6 ; 1 Cor. xii. 8-10.

LECTURE I. 23
Scripture might be thus expressed: that the former
accepts it, as containing revelations from God to man ;
while the latter regards it as the mere record of man's
higher speculations about God. The former view is
that which is maintained by every Christian. Yet,
that we may not uphold it in an exclusive spirit.
Scripture itself directs us to acknowledge that real,
though vague, manifestations of the Deity have been
granted beyond the pale of the guardianship to which
His written oracles have been confined. A fuller
examination of the passages will come before us at a
future time. It is sufficient for my present purpose
to remind you of such sources of what has been
called God's unwritten revelation, as the voice of the
heavens declaring His glory, and the seasons of the
earth proclaiming His goodness; the heart of man,
on which the rudiments of truth are traced, and the
history of man, which tells of God's deahngs -with our
fathers in the days of old."" To these may be added
Christ's own appeal to the teaching of Nature, as it sets
forth fundamental truths of religion: the sun rismg
equally on the e-vil and on the good ; the lilies sho-wing
forth their Maker's care ; the preservation ofthe feeblest
creatures, as a -witness to His watchful goodness ; and
the love which we claim from earthly parents, as a
shadow of His deeper love."
Scripture teaches us to recognise three different
^ (1.) Ps. xix. 1 ; Isa. xl. 21 ; Rom. i. 19, 20. (2.) Ps. lxv.
8-13 ; Acts xiv. 17. (3.) Rom. ii. 14, 15 ; Acts xvU. 27. (4.) 1 Cor.
X. 11, &c. ; cf Ps. xUv. 1, and IxxvUi.
b Matt. V. 45 ; vi. 30 ; Luke xi. 13.

24 LECTURE I.
media for the Divine manifestations: the works of
Nature, the conscience of man (is), and that special
intercourse between the divine and human spirit,
which reaches its height in the sacred 'writings them
selves. St. Paul appeals to each of these three
sources of Divine knowledge, according to the dif
ferent characters of those whom he addressed. To
the unlettered Lycaonians he speaks of the rain from
heaven and fruitful seasons, which, even in the
darkest days, bore witness to the bounty of God.""
To the cultivated Athenians he speaks, not only of
the Creator, the Governor, the Guardian of mankind
— though such truths as these had the value of new
revelations, when contrasted 'with their intellectual
'visions of impassive God — but still more closely of
the nearer conception of a Heavenly Father, whose
offspring were made by their birth in His image; a
Father in whom we live and move and have our being ;
who had once 'winked at times of ignorance, but
had now sent His Son to save men from their sins.*"
Such were the two branches of the Apostle's argu
ment with Gentiles : they are developed from the
two great sources of truth among the Gentiles — the
world, as the workmanship of God without ; and
man's conscience, as the representative of God 'witlun.
Towards Jews he holds a different lansruage. His
appeal then lies to the law and to the testimony : the
lively oracles, which it had been their privilege to
guard ; those older Scriptures, which, through times
" Acts xiv. 17. b Acts XVU. 24-31.

LECTURE L 25
of unbelief and darkness, had kept alive the knowledge
of God's love.^ To the Romans, again, he addresses
all three kinds of argument. They were Gentiles;
therefore he appeals to both the manifestations which
God had granted to the Gentiles: the law in their
heart, which is conscience ; the teaching of things
¦visible, which is the voice of Nature." But again,
they were Gentiles who had already accepted the Old
Testament, and would therefore answer to the words
of Moses and the prophets. For this reason he
appeals to the numberless passages in the Old Testa
ment by which his conclusions were foresho-wn.
It is to the third of these classes that we have now
to confine ourselves ; and we have to deal with it only
in the restricted sense to which it is Hmited by the
subject-matter of Scripture, which we shall presently
endeavour to describe. But this strictest kind of
revelation, again, is not co-extensive with the whole
sphere of Scripture, which embraces a wide range of
earthly knowledge, in addition to direct disclosures
fi'om above. We must further distinguish, therefore,
between the divine and human sources of the jnate-
rials out of which the sacred record was constructed.
When it is alleged that the holy writers were through
out inspired, there is no necessity to add that the
materials of their record were the subjects of an
equally pervading revelation. We see from St.
Luke's preface, to go no farther, that the fullest use
was eveiywhere made of historical materials and
" Acts xiu. 16, &c. *¦ Rom. i. 20; u. 14.

26 LECTURE I.
human testimony. We shall therefore find it neces
sary to discriminate in Scripture between what was
revealed to inspired men for the purpose of being
recorded, and what was simply recorded by them
from their own knowledge, or fi-om accessible human
sources, under the safeguard and guidance of per
petual inspiration.
Scripture, as viewed externally, presents us -with
two series of facts, which answer to each other, and
which are combined into unity by the continued
presence of a uniform interpretation (19). The first
series begins -with the creation, and stops short four
centuries before the incarnation of Christ. The key
note of this earlier portion is the voice of preparation.
A church is set apart from the rest of the world;
special commissions and special promises are given to
individual members of it; complex arrangements are
instituted, under Divine authority, to guard the rich
treasure of the national expectation, which looked
forward to the advent of One, who was to be at once
the King of Israel and the means of extending
Abraham's faith to all the world. Through capti-vity
and restoration, through foreign wars and civil dis
sensions, amidst cowardice and heroism, amidst failure
and success, the stream of fact flows broadening
onward towards the fulfilment of that glorious hope.
The curtain does not fall till all has been made ready.
Every type is furnished; every symbol is assigned;
a deeper moral element has been wrought in by the
prophetic teaching; and certain conspicuous land
marks have been fixed, by which the proximate date

LECTURE I. 27
of the great event might be foreknown. The second
series of facts takes up the answer, and supplies the
counterpart for which those distant centuries were
waiting. Point by point, and detail by detail, it
meets the expectation, fulfils the promise, and com
pletes the work. ' The Word was made flesh, and
dwelt among us.'* Old things were swept away;
but the form only perished, while the spirit was
preserved and quickened. The Christian Church was
established, and Christ was preached through all the
countries of the then kno-wn world. The historical
record closes before the holy city of Jerusalem, which
had been the stronghold of the earlier life, was over
thrown. In that event the warnings of the prophets
were fulfilled ; and the most sacred ties were snapped
asunder, to complete the removal of local restrictions
which Christ had announced when He said, ' Believe
me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this
mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.' "
But now, so far as these are simple facts, bearing
a plain historical character, and holding definite
external relations to dates, to geography, to the
histories of surrounding nations, it is clear that no
special revelation was required for their record. We
can imagine that even uninspired historians might
have narrated the whole contemporary portion of the
facts of Scripture, in histories of the common type
and order. But such records would have differed
-widely from the existing Scriptures, because they
" John i. 14. ^ John iv. 21.

28 LECTURE I.
could not have presented the facts under the aspect
which a knowledge of their purpose and significance
supplied. Revelation, properly so called, is the
supernatural counterpart to this double series of
facts, uniting them together under one religious ex
planation. Scripture consists, then, not of facts only,
but of facts arranged -with a -view to one overruhng
purpose, and lighted up by a peculiar interpretation,
which the unassisted mind of man could never have
projected or supplied.
The case might be stated in another manner. The
chain of events which forms the external history of
both dispensations, is all along accompanied by the
revelation of a higher series, belonging to a super
natural order. The various utterances of the words of
God, His commands. His promises. His warnings. His
expostulations, these are all facts of a superhuman
character, and pass beyond the historical sphere.
Such facts as these are connected -with doctrines, and
with the disclosures of mysterious truth, on the nature
of God and the spiritual history of man. Everything
of this kind is pure and simple revelation. Yet it is
the very key-stone which holds together the whole
fabric of Scripture ; so that, if we allow ourselves to
doubt its truth, our belief in the special character of
Scripture falls. As all this is, in the ordinary sense
of the word, miraculous, we make no further demand
on faith, when we add that it was coupled -vrith many
other manifestations of miracle ; prophecies which none
but God could pronounce ; direct interpositions of His
sovereign will to alter or suspend His ordinary laws.

LECTURE I. 29
The preparation of the Old Testament extended to
many points which passed beyond the knowledge of
the Jews. The fulfilment of the anticipations which
were expressed in its records, could not, in the nature
of things, be furnished till long after the canon was
closed. This whole mass of knowledge, then, was
due to simple revelation; to disclosures so directly
superhuman and divine, that even the inspired -writers
must, in many cases, have had but a dim conception
of the ultimate bearing of the truths which they set
do-wn. The Divinity of Christ, for instance, is a
doctrine rather than a fact of history. It is a Divine
revelation, which gives new force and meaning to the
history and destiny of the creatures whom He made
and ransomed. But the Je-wish nation, -with few
honoured exceptions, had gained so feeble a mastery
over the true teaching of their o-wn Scriptures, that
they found an insuperable stumbling-block in the
cardinal truth of what is most strictly termed
theology — the truth that He whom they looked for
as the Son of Da-vid was really Da-vid's King and
God. The presence of this series of Divine revelations is
the chief element in the differentia of Scripture — the
chief mark which distinguishes the inspiration of the
Bible from the inspiration of a holy life. When
David prayed, with a deep sense of sinfulness, ' 0 give
me the comfort of Thy help again, and stabKsh me
with Thy free Spirit,'* he sought, as each of us should
» Ps. U. 12.

30 LECTURE I.
daily seek, for the cleansing inspiration of the Holy
Spirit's purifying presence ; that ' ministration of the
Spirit,'* to which we are admitted more freely than
the ancient Psalmist, which first regenerates and
then renews us; which first implants a better -will,
and then enlightens it with clearer knowledge ; which
assures us of forgiveness, and advances us in grace;
and enables us to bring forth good works in. this life,
and to look forward with confidence to the life ever
lasting. It was a very different kind of influence to
which he reverted in his dying declaration : ' The
Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word was
in my tongue.'" The word that God gave him was
the thing that he must speak ; the revelation which
he was commissioned to disclose; the word which
unfolded heavenly truths, and raised common facts to
a higher significance, by disclosing their eternal
import. But as before of Inspiration, so now of Revelation :
we find that it often reaches beyond its proper pro-
"vince to enrich mankind ¦with wider blessings than
those which belong strictly to the sphere of rehgion.
Being a disclosure of the highest and most universal
laws of God, its influence overflows into all parts of
moral knowledge, supplying motives and explanations
of the loftiest import. It cannot be doubted that
Revelation has combined ¦vrith Inspiration to impart
that quickening power to Scripture which has. made
it the prolific source of kindHng life, in the spiritual
" 2 Cor. Ui. 8. ^2 Sam. xxiU. 2.

LECTURE I. 31
histories of the nations of mankind. But we may
account these gifts to be a portion of God's additional
and superabundant bounty, and we need not embrace
them within the rigour of the deflnition which secures
the higher aspect of Scripture Revelation.
And here, again, let us pause to repeat, that
when we thus claim for Scripture a peculiar and un-
approached inspiration, and point to the revelations
which it embodies, as explaining both the need and
nature of that higher influence, we do not trench upon
the fundamental principle, that no religion anywhere
is worthy of the name, unless it looks to the abiding
presence of God's Holy Spirit as its only source of
sanctity and life. The duration of the Church itself
rests on the promise that Christ should continue with
it, through the presence of the Comforter, even unto
the end of the world. The religious life of each
separate spirit depends on the operation of that holy
inmate who can alone give efficacy to sacraments and
strength to faith ; who can alone maintain 'within us
holiness of conduct, purity of thought, and elevation
of knowledge ; who can alone assist the fallen to
secure that glorious restoration which Christ's sacri
fice has brought ¦within our reach. A rehgion that
is not spiritual stands condemned by the confes
sion. We might as well speak of a rehgion that is
earthly, but not heavenly; that is human, not divine:
ofa religion which finds its centre in ourselves, instead
of leading us to fix the centre of all our motives and
thoughts in God.
But surely this admission — I would rather say this

32 LECTURE I.
earnest declaration of our deepest convictions — surely
this can form no reason for such questions as the
following : — Why should you seek, then, to interpose
the barriers ofa book religion; to fetter man's spirit
with the forms and obligations of an ancient creed ; to
intercept the free communion between God's Spirit
and his own? Why should you erect, for instance,
on the teaching of Scripture, a complex system of
doctrine, and proclaim that ' this is the Cathohc Faith ;
which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be
saved'? Why load man's conscience -with the burthen
of what is called an historical religion ; instead of
lea-ving him free to tell his griefs to the Great Spirit
of the universe, ¦vrith no bar from Bible or church,
from priest or creed, from ritual or form ?
We might answer, in the first place, that Holy
Scripture surely has a priceless value, if it were no
more than the record of God's spiritual disclosures to
those human spirits whom He has vouchsafed, in long-
past times, to visit with His personal grace. To doubt
this would be to set aside the principle on which all
human progress in all branches must depend — the
principle that later days are heirs of all the prerious
ages, and may attain a higher eminence in every
province, by their command of the accumulated
treasures of the past. But what I have said would
uidicate the grounds on which this reply, though true
as far as it goes, may be set aside as comparatively
unimportant, when we bear in mind the real reasons
for the unapproachable eminence which Scripture gains
fi-om its subject-matter, and its positive disclosures

LECTURE I. 33
from a higher world. We believe that it records the
acts and words of God incarnate ; that its earher pages
are the. preparation for that august advent, when the
Son of God became the Son of Man ; that it interprets
the facts which lie beneath its doctrines, and which
give them a firm standing-ground in the midst of
human history. We believe that Scripture embodies
countless disclosures from a higher world, which
differ in kind, as well as in degree, of revelation, from
any communication, however lofty, which His Spirit
vouchsafes to ourselves. It records by inspiration ;
it explains by revelation. It contains the only distinct
and certified messages from God to man ; and it places
in our hands the only clue of infallible guidance, by
which man, in his exUe, may feel the way home to his
Heavenly Father.
And now I trust that these explanations ¦will
enable us to restate the doctrine of the inspiration
claimed for Holy Scripture, in such a manner as to
ward off some current misapprehensions, and to lay a
safe foundation for further enquiry into the relation
of the di-rine and human elements. The possibility
of inspiration rests upon the fact, that God has en
dowed man with a capacity for Divine communion,
which serves, more than even the broadest marks of
physical or intellectual superiority, to stamp him as a
citizen belonging to a higher world than this. ' The
sp)irit of man is the candle of the Lord.'* It is the
ground of aU religion, the proof of our Divine
» Prov. XX. 27. Cf Job xxxu. 8.

34 LECTURE I.
sonship, the faculty whereby we know the Father, the
germ of that eternal life which ¦vrill assume its full
proportion in the spiritual body, and in the unveiled
presence of the Lord. The voice of God's Spirit
may be heard ¦vrithin that spfrit, wherever the true
and listening worshipper is found. But our belief
that the Divine gift is shed forth so abundantly is not
at variance ¦vrith our behef in the special intensity
of its peculiar presence, as manifested in the Books of
Scripture, and confined -within the limits of the
Sacred Canon.
And next; when we study the characteristics of
that special inspiration, we find that it lays a firm
grasp on objective support, in the supernatural reve
lations which were entrusted to its keeping, and which
anchor it on the eternal shore. Through these God
makes Himself known to man, under such conditions
as the spiritual capacities of finite creatures would
allow. It is by a series of objective facts and super
natural disclosures that He reveals Himself to us as
the Father of an infinite majesty; His honourable,
true, and only Son; also the Holy Ghost, the Com
forter. When we have thus noted the manner in which the
Holy Ghost has filled to overflo^wing selected repre
sentatives of the most religious human spirits, and
has supphed them with supernatural material for
their messages to men, we should go on to observe
that it has performed that work ¦without obhterating
a single human peculiarity, or destroying the free
rights of the human 'will, which yielded glad obe-

LECTURE I. 35
dience to the heavenly impulse. We thankfully
accept the inspired announcement, that God spake
unto the fathers ' in divers manners,' as well as at
'sundry times.' We know that the same law is
traceable even in the last days, after He had ' spoken
by His Son.' * We are perfectly aware that the voice
of James is not the voice of Paul; that we can dis
tinguish in a moment between the utterance of Peter
and the utterance of John. And with this reserva
tion we accept and explain the various images which
have been used to set forth the different phases of the
truth of inspiration. The inspired ¦writers are not
pens only, but trusted penmen; not organs alone,
but living instruments ; not mere ' ministers ' and
' stewards,' like slaves employed upon a ser^vile duty,
but 'ambassadors for Christ,' beseeching men, 'in
Christ's stead,' to be 'reconciled to God.'" (-20). The
most mechanical illustrations, when intelligently used,
need no more contradict the higher truth which they
fail to express, than St. Paul's figure of clay in the
hands of the potter is meant to negative the respon
sibility of the free ¦will of man."
When we enter more at large upon the details of
the subject, I shall propose to consider first the nature
and relations of the Divine element in Scripture;
together with some of those difficulties which appear
to rise from its presentation under the forms of the
human intellect. To the different branches of that
topic, our next three Lectures will, ¦with God's
a Heb. i. 1, 2. "1 Cor. iv. 1 ; 2 Cor. v. 20.
<= Rom. ix. 21.
D 2

36 LECTURE 1.
permission, be directed. In the later part of our course
we shall consider in its turn the human element, and
devote our best attention to such questions as the
following : — What has been the effect of the Divine
message on the vehicle through which it has been
given ? How far has Divine truth suffered, if at aU,
from the human form through which it was received?
Has that form imposed any drawback of imperfection
on the matter? Or is it possible that any grains of
error may He embedded in the form, without injury
or disparagement to the spiritual revelations which it
enshrines? It would be idle to attempt to conceal the con
sciousness that much of this subject brings us within
the range of painful controversy, and deals with
questions causing deep disquietude to many hearts.
Under such circumstances, it may not be thought
unbecoming to tender the assurance that I shall not
venture to approach these topics, before such an
audience, in any controversial spirit. It is precisely
the fact that so much controversial heat has been
evolved, which has caused, perhaps on both sides, so
much general alarm. It is clear, at least, that on
one side what men have dreaded has been the sus
pected animosity of a ' remorseless criticism.' There
is no peril to be apprehended from the honest recog
nition of the human element. The vast majority
would readily grant it. But they draw back in
alarm when they imagine that books which they hold
dear as Hfe itself, and with which their hohest
thoughts are blended, are assailed with a hostihty

LECTURE L 37
fi'om which Herodotus would be protected; and are
rent in pieces with a ruthlessness which scholars now
refuse to tolerate towards Homer. We need not ask
whether these suspicions have ever been too vehe
ment, or whether they have not been sometimes
exasperated by the spirit in which they have been
met. It is better to make the question practically
useful, by drawing for ourselves the lesson, that we
must be careful to shun, on either hand, the errors
and exaggerations of unyielding tempers. With
patience and courage, ¦with candour and forbearance,
let us endeavour to place ourselves so far aloof from
the contest, that we may contemplate with perfect
calmness the materials which it has served to bring
into one focus ; and may wait ¦vrith humility to catch
the lineaments of truth, as they rise above the mists
of strife. Above all things, let us recoUect that
purity of thought is the only avenue to sacred know
ledge ; and that if we 'vrish to enter on the mind of
Christ, we must seek the constant help of that Divine
Spirit, who wHl lead us to the pastures of heavenly
wisdom through the portals of meekness and love.

38

LECTURE II.

Acts xvii. 30, 31.
' And the times of this ignorance God winked at ; but now
commandeth aU men everywhere to repent: Because
He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge
the world in righteousness, by that Man whom He hath
ordained ; whereof He hath given assurance unto all
men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead.'
MY former Lecture was mainly devoted to the task
of examining the two terms, ' Inspii-ation ' and
'Revelation,' with the view of sho'wing that though not
co-extensive, either with each other or ¦vrith the Bible,
they are both distinguished in Scripture by such ex
alted characteristics, that the difference in degree is
superseded by a difference in kind (i). Thus of
Inspiration, we believe that the Holy Spfrit speaks to
man's spirit in many forms of diversified blessing, yet
nowhere else in accents so distinct and certified as He
uses through the medium of the sacred writers ; and
of Revelation, we believe that God has unveiled Him
self in other ways to man, through the voice of
conscience and through the works of Nature, yet
nowhere else with the same kind of certainty and
fulness as He did in the person of the Divine Saviour,

LECTURE n. 39
and as He did to the prophets who foretold His
advent, or to the apostles and evangelists by whom it
was proclaimed.
I now propose to enter on an examination of the
Di-rine element in Scripture, as contrasted ¦vrith those
external systems of religion with which it seems
natural to compare it. Believing as we do that
Scripture alone conveys a revelation of unmingled
truth, and that in all those other systems truth is
grievously weighed down by falsehood, we may let
this leading distinction suggest the di^rision of our
immediate subject. Let us take up the comparison
of Christianity with Heathenism, first as to truth, and
next as to falsehood ; asking, in the first place, how the
truth of Scripture stands related to the partial truths
of independent systems; and dwelling afterwards on
the light which Scripture throws, by the mere force of
contrast, on the falsehoods by which aU heathen
systems are debased.
I. For the first head, it will be convenient to begin
by classifying the whole subject of rehgious know
ledge, so as to mark the exact sphere which the
Divine element in Scripture occupies.
Five such classes wUl suffice, I think, to span the
subject, and form, as we might speak, five zones of
knowledge. In the first, we may arrange those
glimpses of truth which were granted to the heathen,
as we can ascertain them independently of the sacred
records. In the second, we may place the Scripture
proofs that similar but somewhat clearer know-

40 LECTURE II.
ledge was possessed by the heathen who came under
the observation of the inspired historians. The
third class would contain the Divine element of special
revelation, as received and recorded by special inspi
ration, and holding a position .incomparably higher
and more distinct than either of the former classes.
Fourtlily, we may rank those positive ordinances by
which the special revelation was accompanied ; ordi
nances which sprang from a Divine origin, but
received their particular mould or frame fi-om con
formity 'with the actual needs of man. Lastly, we
place the purely human element which is contributed
by the writers of Scripture themselves.
1. To begin with the subject ofthe religious know
ledge of the heathen. It needs but a short survey
of the higher classes of heathen writers to conrince
us that from the first there has existed a large body of
moral and religious truth on the outside of the sphere
to which God's special revelation is confined. This
is a fact which cannot be overlooked, and which it is
only reasonable to expect us to account for ; but it is a
fact which we cannot account for on the narrow riew
of making God's gift of sacred knowledge the exclu
sive possession of His chosen race. Are we to say,
then, that these truths are relics of Paradise, which
lingered in the memories of men ; the dying embers
of a primeval illumination, which had not yet been lost
in the prevailing darkness (2) ; or shall we say that they
were all borrowed from the fire which was kept alive
upon the Jewish altar, though the means of such a
general transfer are as inconceivable as they are

LECTURE II. 41
unknown (3) ? Both of these views have received a
certain support from research and argument. The
facts disclosed by comparative mythology, and the
similarity of traditions which are traceable through
remote and scattered nations, have been believed to
give some countenance to the favourite thought, that
all men have retained, though unconsciously, a direct
inheritance from that primeval period, when 'the
whole earth was of one language and of one speech,' *
and the families of man still owned a common centre.
Men have loved to look upon these scattered treasures
as the ' wreck of Paradise,' which still,
' Through many a dreary age.
Upbore whate'er of good and wise
Yet lived in bard or sage.' *
But the other opinion also has exercised considerable
influence, especially among the earlier apologists, who
pointed out the modes in which the light of revelation
might have glanced aside mto the darkness which it
was not meant to dissipate, and actual glimpses of the
laws, the miracles, the prophecies of Scripture, might
haye flashed upon the vision of the Gentile world.
These two hypotheses are of very different value ;
but it is needless to lay further stress on either for
our present purpose, since we shaU find a surer basis
for our o'wn enquiries in the authoritative declaration
of St. Paul. The Apostle teaches, as we have already
seen, that the heathen owed that knowledge partly
* Gen. xi. 1. •> Christian Year, Fourth Sunday after Trinity.

42 LECTURE II.
to the law of God, which was written on their hearts,
and which speaks there through the voice of con
science ; partly to the dim manifestation of Him who
is invisible, as it reached them in their darkest days,
through the veil of His visible creation.
A firm belief, then, in the special character of the
Divine revelation in Scripture is quite compatible
¦with the conviction, that God has always granted to
mankind a universal, though vague, manifestation of
Himself, by learing in man's nature the traces of His
own Divine image, and by enabling man to read the
¦witness of His presence through the signs of the
material universe. It has been a task of deep interest,
in all the more enlightened ages of the Church, to
gather and register these scattered truths ; to verify
them by comparison \p.th God's special revelation ; to
group them round their earthly centre in man's con
science ; to estimate precisely what their disclosures
amount to ; and to point out exactly where they fail.
It is with this design that men have compiled histories
of the Dispensation of Paganism, the Unconscious
Prophecies of Heathendom, the ReHgions before
Christ (4). And these enquiries have run the same
course in earlier as in later days. A frank recognition
of the Divine truths contained in heathen creeds has
been pushed on to the untenable jDosition, of claiming
for them equality with Scripture revelation ; and the
heathen creeds, in turn, have been depressed below
their proper level by the orthodox recoil (5).
The Church, mdeed, has always held two different
relations to heathen religions : on the one hand,

LECTURE II. 43
sympathy with their partial truth ; on the other hand,
abhorrence for theu- pervading errors. The weight of
her judgment would preponderate on this side or on
that, according as the balance of truth or error varied
in the separate cases. We may suppose that so long
as it was their single mission to convert the heathen.
Christian teachers would seek to attract the sympathy
of their hearers by a recognition of the truth which
they already held ; as St. Paul did when he was
' made all things to all men,' that he ' might by all
means save some.' * But when the influx of heathen
converts made it needful to repel the aggressions of
heresies, under cover of which the vanquished sought
to lead their victors captive (6), they were compelled
to denounce the evU of the pernicious leaven, by
which false religions were degraded below the level of
the purer characters among their worshippers. And
when the evil became universally more conspicuous
than the good, and the contagion of error began to
exert a more baneful influence, then the opposing
current of Christian condemnation set in with a steady
and resistless tide, which tended to deprive the heathen
of their just proportion in the common spiritual
heritage of man. The researches of later times may
perhaps have diminished the immediate pressure of
the danger, but they certainly have not lessened our
conviction of the e'ril which was infused into such
systems by the corruption of the heart of man. They
have ¦vridened our acquaintance with the details of the
'>' 1 Cor. ix. 22.

44 LECTURE IL
creeds, and deepened our insight into their fundamental
affinities ; but they have not removed the ancient
landmarks which were fixed by the Apostle. The Hnes
of demarcation still remain as he drew them, to dis
tinguish between the true revelation and the vague
manifestation ; though we can confirm the distinction
by a cloud of ¦\ritnesses, who lay beyond the range of
knowledge which the observation of that period could
command. The position of these exiled truths, which wandered
homeless, yet not unwelcome, through the darkest
ages of the heathen world, might be described by an
application of the Platonic image ; * they were hke
shadows thro'wn before the eyes of prisoners, who had
no power to tum and riew the substance, as contrasted
with the reahties presented to the Church of God,
which flow from the revelation of the Deity in Christ.
Throughout both the Old and New Testaments, we
see, in the revealed object of our common adoration, a
true and Dirine Person, who gives coherency and
reality to the blessed truths by which we live. To
change the figure, we may say, that light reached the
heathen through so thick a cloud, that the face of the
sun was entirely hidden, and its very form remained
unknown. In the revelation of the Old Testament,
the clouds were broken, and the rays burst forth ; but
the sun himself remained concealed. The advent of
Christ gave all the light that man could bear, when
' life and immortality ' were brought ' to light through
* Plat. Rep. vii. init.

LECTURE II. 45
the Gospel'* — light which resembled that of noon, in
contrast with the clouded daybreak ; yet Hght which,
in its turn, will seem pale hereafter, when contrasted
¦vrith the brightness of heaven.
Now the point of departure between these two
collateral but unequal manifestations of Di-rine know
ledge must be sought in the earliest incident recorded
of our fallen race — the promise which was given in
Paradise, before the forfeited blessings of our first
abode had been withdra-wn. It follows, that to claim
a Divine source for the religious knowledge of the
heathen, is so far fi-om being a denial that salvation
comes only through the name of Christ, that it simply
asserts our Lord's rightful position, as the sole Head
of renewed humanity — of the race which would
have perished in that hour of disobedience, but for
the hope of salvation through the promise of Christ's
advent. 2. But within the range of the authenticated Scrip
tures, we find many traces of a revelation of religious
knowledge, which was granted through unusual chan
nels to others besides those who were entrusted with
the oracles of God (7). So far as the worship of
primeval nations is referred to in Genesis, it seems
not unlike the worship which was offered by the
patriarchs; and the stranger was often favoured by
Di-rine visitations, resembling those which were
granted to the chosen nation. Thus ' God came to '
the Philistine ' Abimelech in a dream by night,' and
a 2 Tim. i. 10.

46 LECTURE II.
admitted his appeal to the 'integrity of his 'heart
and innocency of his 'hands,' while He -withheld hun
from an unintended sin.* Another Abimelech was
enlightened to see in Isaac ' the blessed of Jehovah,'
and on that ground made a covenant with him."
Abraham and Ephron, or Joseph and Pharaoh, con
verse in precisely the same tone, and apparently under
the influence of similar principles of behef and
conduct." God sent His messengers to -risit Sodom,
and hearkened to the pleadings which Abraham
offered for that guilty city.** The same fact is trace
able through the history of the idolatrous Laban, and
the Midianite Jethro, and the Egyptian women who
' feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt com
manded them.'" At a later date, God's blessings or
warnings are sent through Elijah to the Sidonian
widow, through Elisha to the Syrian Naaman, through
Jonah to the Ninerites, through Daniel to Nebuchad
nezzar, through other prophets to adjacent nations;^
yet -vrith no intimation, in any such cases, that the
recipient of God's message incurred the obligation to
accept the forms of the Jewish ritual. But there are
many other instances more remarkable than these.
Of four women whom St. Matthew mentions in the
lineage of Christ, the purest was a daughter of the
" Gen. XX. 3-6. b Gen. xxvi. 28, 29.
" Gen. xxiu. 8-17; xU. 38, 39. * Gen. xviU. ; xix. 1.
e Gen. xxiv. 31 ; xxx. 27, 30 ; xxxi. 24, 49 ; Ex. xviu. 1, 9,
10, 11, &c. ; i. 17, 20, 21.
f 1 Kings xvU. ; 2 Kings v. (Luke iv. 25-27) ; Jonah iii. 5
Dan. ii., &c.

LECTURE II. 47
Moabite.* Another was the Canaanitish Rahab, who
is commemorated by two different apostles as an emi
nent example both of faith and works." God caused
Melchizedek, whose race and ancestry we know not,
to be a special and exalted type of Christ." He over
ruled the spirit of Balaam the Aramaean, who ' loved
the wages of unrighteousness,'* to be His instrument
for blessing those whom He had blessed ; for uttering
precepts of as lofty import as any embodied in the
older Scriptures ;" for announcing from afar the ' Star
out of Jacob,' and the ' Sceptre ' that should ' rise out
of Israel." He vouchsafed to reason with Job, 'a
perfect and an upright man,' who, though no Israelite,
is called His ' servant,'^ and who steadfastly persisted,
under all his temptations, in speaking the thing that
was right of God. All along the frontiers of God's
Church, we see the light of revelation resting on the
faces of those who were attracted to approach its
borders, even do-wn to the time when a star brought
the Magians to the cradle of Christ, and the woman
of Samaria was looking for the decisions of the
expected Messiah, and the Roman Cornelius was
constantly offering up acceptable prayers unto
God." But these, again, are only partially con
nected with that special revelation, which mainly
constitutes the Dirine element in Scripture, and
which can be distinguished from the transient
a Matt. i. 5. ^ Matt. i. 5 ; Heb. xi. 31 ; James U. 25.
c Ps. ex. 4; Heb. vu. 3, &c. * 2 Pet. U. 15.
« Num. xxiu. 10 ; Mie. vi. 8. ^ Num. xxiv. 17.
s Job ii. 3 ; xUi. 7. ^ Matt. ii. ; John iv. 20 ; Acts x. 2.

48 LECTURE n.
gleams of light which occasionally flashed forth by
its side.
3. From these, as well as from the outside heathen
knowledge, the main stream of revelation is dis
criminated, by its depth, by its purity, by its far-
reaching coherency, but, above all, by its close
connection -with the Person of our Lord. As I have
before pointed out. Scripture presents us with a long
chain of facts, bound together by a uniform Di-rine
interpretation — facts which might have been narrated
by an uninspired historian; with an interpretation
which could never have existed amongst men, except
by an explicit disclosure from God (8). And it is
important to observe, that from the beginning its
course was rather analytic than synthetic. Revelation
advances, not so much by addition as by development.
There is but little in the later portions which is not
dimly foreshadowed in the earliest record. The
promise of a future Redeemer dates from the vei-y
gates of Paradise; and from the first it gave the
forecast of His double character — the tribulation
through which He was to enter upon glory. ' I -will
put enmity between thee and the woman, and between
thy seed and her seed : it shall bruise thy head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel.'* The Unity unfolds into
the Trinity ; yet the thought of the Dirine conference
and counsel is suggested in the earliest page of Scrip
ture, as we read, 'Let Us make man in Our image,
after Our likeness:'" and Christian theologians can
» Gen. iii. 15. »> Gen. i. 26.

LECTURE IL 49
find no fitter starting-point for the exposition of the
doctrine, than the Mosaic declaration of the Divine
Unity, expressed in the terms of a mysterious triune
formula, ' Hear, 0 Israel ; the Lord our God is one
Lord.'^" But though the boundaries of the current might
be fixed from the beginning, the constant onward
fiow of revelation was ever deepening its channel, and
giring men profounder conceptions both of the nature
of God and the moral obligations of mankind. This
principle supplies an explanation of the statement in
Exodus, on the introduction of the knowledge of the
name Jehovah, which has recently given rise to some
renewed discussion " (9). It is the usage of Scripture
to ascribe a high and special significance to the know
ledge of the name of God; just as in the New Testa
ment the power of faith and miracles is so often
connected with the name of Christ. The name of
God stands for God as revealed to us. The funda
mental principle of the Third Commandment enjoins
proper reverence, not for God in the abstract, but for
that revelation of the Deity which is contained in
Scripture. And this doctrine pervades the whole
narrative in Exodus. ' By my name Jehovah was I
not known to them : ' that is to say, they were never
taught to fathom the full depth of significance which
lay hidden beneath a well-known term. The question
which Moses expected the Israelites to ask him was,
What is the name of the God of our fathers, who sent
» Deut. vi. 4; Hooker, E. P. v. li. 1. '' Ex. vi. 3.
E

50 LECTURE n.
thee? The answer which he was told to give them
was, ' I am that I am.' ' Thus shalt thou say unto
the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you.'*
And the proclamation of the meaning of this name
Jehovah is a later act of preeminent significance and
solemnity. ' The Lord descended in the cloud, and
stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the
Lord. And the Lord passed by before him, and pro
claimed. The Lord, the Lord God (Jehovah, Jehovah-
El) : merciful and gi-acious, longsuffering and abundant
in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands,
forgiring iniquity and transgression and sin.'"
It is perfectly consistent with these declarations, that
the mere letters of the name Jehovah, which can be
traced, as it is correctly urged, through so many parts
of Genesis, conveyed before this period none of the
deep meaning which was thus brought out by special
revelation, as the promises began to receive then- first
fulfilment; precisely as we cannot suppose that the
patriarchal name of God, ' the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,' conveyed to
those who used it that profound teaching on the
Resurrection which Christ disclosed beneath its out
ward form."
While the theological side of revelation, then, was
thus deepened in the providential course of sacred his
tory, we can trace the same kind of progression through
its moral aspect also (lo). The righteousness of God
was always manifested in His jealousy for holiness,
" Ex. iu. 13, 14. t Ex. xxxiv. 5-7.
>= Matt. xxu. 32.

LECTURE II. 51
in His anger against sin ; yet Christ Himself seeks
words no clearer or more forcible than those of Moses,
when He tells us how God claims" the utmost strength
of human love : ' Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with
all thy might.'* And so onward, through Deuteronomy,
and stiU more plainly through the long series of the
Prophets, the moral element, which had been thus
broadly sketched from the beginning, and -vrith which
from the first had been blended the love of our neigh
bour, as the second law of man," was ever receiAong
its more full development, as the counterpart to the
theological ; tiU the time when the last of the old pro
phets handed on his message to the evangelist —
' First filial duty, then divine.
That sons to parents, all to Thee may turn.' "
But before we pass on to a further exposition of this
revelation, in contrast -vrith the religions of heathenism,
there remain two points for brief explanation; and
first, the position of those ceremonial ordinances,
which formed the casket for the preservation of that
precious trust, the prophetic announcement of the
SaAdour of mankind.
4. It is probable that, from the outset, the service
of religion was fenced in by positive ordinances, such
as many have traced in the alleged primeval obligation
of the seventh day's rest. But without entering on
the obscure topic of the forms of worship in the
^ Deut. vi. 5 ; Matt. xxii. 37. *> Lev. xix. 18 ; Matt. xxu. 39.
"= Mal. iv. 6 ; Liike i. 17 ; Christian Tear, St. John Baptist's Day.
E 2

52 LECTURE II.
patriarchal Church, we naturaUy turn for the most
conspicuous instance of this kind of revelation to the
subsequent introduction of the Law of Sinai, -with its
special adaptations to the transgressions of men. The
Mosaic precepts differed widely from the promise,
which is the more exact anticipation of the Gospel.
It is true that they embodied a lofty code of moral
obHgation ; but thek chief characteristic is, that they
were positive and protective(ii). We shall have
occasion to return in the sequel to their typical cha
racter. For our present purpose, we need regard
them only in that stern, external, and repressive
aspect in which they were so framed as to fence in
and isolate the Je-vrish nation, for the double purpose
of impressing them with deep conrictions of the
character of sin, and compelling them to guard the
treasure, of which they were the stewards in the
universal interests of mankind. Now it is the ten
dency of all who have to administer a code of positive
precepts to overrate their value on the ground of
their obHgation — a defect which is condemned in
ordinaiy cases as legal pedantry, and which finds
a ready correction in the common sense of society.
In the case of the Jews, this error was more dangerous,
because the ordinances which they obeyed claimed a
superhuman authority ; and it stiQ misleads the histo
rian who cannot reduce the Law to its proper level,
and who urges us to cut ourselves adrift from the
entire Old Testament system, for the sake of hbe
rating Christianity from its aUeged Jewish element.
We must draw, then, a clear line of demarcation

i u u

LECTURE II. 53
between the pure revelation of eternal truth, and the
ordinances which were merely framed to guard it
for an appointed season. We must bear in mind that
faith was always taught as the sole principle of accept
able obedience; and that God's true servants always
Uved in a more spiritual atmosphere than that of the
narrow Pharisaic Jew.
5. The Mosaic ordinances, however, and aU others
which resemble them in Scripture, were matters of
God's o-wn appointment : they were ' the example and
shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished
of God when he was about to make the tabernacle ;
for. See, saith He, that thou make aU things according
to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.' * They
are only the positive side of an entire dispensation,
which was in the strictest sense thi-oughout divine.
They must be distinguished, therefore, in the fifth
place, from the personal style and characteristics of
the inspired writers, and fi-om the whole class of pecu-
Harities which belong as distinctly to their separate
pro-rinces in the economy of Scripture, as the language
or the imagery which they severally used belonged to
the nations in which they had been brought up. It
is this consideration which introduces us to the purely
human element of Scripture; in the outer fringe of
which, again, God has left room for varied contribu
tions of ordinary knowledge : the ' -wisdom ' of Egyp
tians, the ' tongue ' of Chaldseans," the science of
Greece and the laws of Rome ; the stores of moral and
" Heb. viii. 5. *> Acts vii. 22 ; Dan. i. 4 ; v. 11,

54 LECTURE II.
poHtical experience, which had been gathered through
the histories of the tribes with which the chosen
people came in contact ; and even acknowledged
quotations fi-om heathen -writers, such as we meet
with in the teaching of St. Paul* (12). To this head,
again, we must refer erroneous arguments, which are
often reported in Scripture, sometimes at great length,
as in the speeches of Job's friends ; sometimes more
briefly, as in the message of Amaziah, the priest of
Bethel : " and much more that appears to be recorded
on the principle that knowledge must cover both
contraries, and that Scripture must not only tell us
what is right for our guidance, but must also record
what is not right for our warning.
IL Thus far we have sketched the five classes of
religious knowledge which I named in the beginning;
and sufficiently, I trust, to guide us in our further
task of dra-vring, in the second place, a broad contrast
between false and true religions — between the systems
of Paganism and the revelation of the Scriptures. We
see that, before we enter on its relation to error. Scrip
ture revelation must be distinguished on the one side
from the indistinct manifestations of truth, which God
vouchsafed in different measures to the Gentile world,
and which are traceable -vrithin the record of Scriptm-e
itself; and that it must be distinguished as carefully,
on the other side, from the temporary ordinances which
were framed for its protection, and from the human
a Acts XVU. 28 ; 1 Cor. xv. 33 ; Tit. i. 12. »> Amos vii. 10-13.

\ h

LECTURE IL 55
characteristics which were never obliterated by the
inspiration of the sacred writers. Let us now confine
ourselves to the intrinsic nature of that special reve
lation, as it is brought out by contrast with the
various organisations of heathen religion.
1. While we admit and teach that those religions
present occasional traces of undoubted truth, which
should be recognised and welcomed as the gift of God,
we must observe that these truths never embraced any
entire system -vrith which they were connected. This
is the foremost difference between Paganism and
revealed rehgion ; that while the lessons of Scripture
form portions of one perfectly true and holy system,
the truths which we find in heathen rehgions are like
grains of gold embedded in a base material: the
religion, as a whole, is constantly liable to pass over
altogether to the side of evil; the sins of men are
rivalled and surpassed by sins ascribed to beings who
are accounted as divine (13). Such systems were the
final issue of that false worship, the do-wnward course
of which is indicated by St. Paul : when both the two
lights of nature had been darkened ; when conscience
had lost the keenness of its insight, and the visible
world had become the medium for changing ' the
truth of God into a lie.' * Then worship degenerated
into systematic idolatry, and idolatry was the prolific
parent of immorality, and gods were made the patrons
of human vices, and temples became the centres for
the foulest sins. ' They did not like to retain God in
» Rom. i. 25.

56 LECTURE n.
their knowledge ;' therefore ' God gave them over to a
reprobate mind.'* Their 'understanding' was 'dark
ened, being aUenated fi-om the life of God, through the
ignorance that ' was ' in them, because of the blindness
of their heart.'" Though it were true that man never
lost the con-riction of the existence of God, yet dark
times came when he ceased to glorify Him as God, or
be thankful. Though it were true that he never lost
the fainter feeling of the real position of our o-wn
nature, in the Divine sonship but estrangement of
man, yet corruption led him to judicial bhndness,
when God gave him up to rile affections, because he
had 'worshipped and served the creature more than
the Creator.' "
As soon as systems of this kind had been fully
formed and estabhshed, the better thoughts of men
were left to work in the presence of a veil of darkness
which sin had dra-wn anew across the vision of then-
spirits; and they were overpowered by the strong
rebeUion of their sensual impulses, which made them
the bondslaves of a corrupted worship. And when
ever purer aspnations intervened, to save some among
the worshippers from utmost degradation, the result
was, that the forms of religion broke away fi-om their
substance, and mythologies became the least religious
portion of the national life (14). We are aU faimliar
with the lofty language in which the old Greek poets
proclaim the eternal laws of purity and truth, or show
how crime is ever tracked by the sure step of the
» Rom. i. 28. " Eph. iv. 18. ¦= Rom. i. 21, 25.

LECTURE IL 57
avenger, and how the guUty father cannot shield off
retribution ft-om his race. But by the side of these
very passages we trace the continued recognition of a
mythology, in which truth and purity are overborne
together, and the very throne among the gods is given
to triumphant sin. Now this fact, that the worship
pers of heathenism were often better than their gods —
that on the side of man there had grown up a reasonable
and orderly society, while the mythology in which
they stUl acquiesced presents a mere tissue of repulsive
vices — this fact seems to admit of no other expla
nation than that which we have traced in the words
of Scripture ; namely, that such mythologies had ger
minated at an earlier date in the corruption which
had foUowed on the -vrilful loss of Divine knowledge,
and had simply Hved on unchaUenged through the
force of habit, till a time when the plastic power, to
which they owed their birth, had passed away.
2. It is obvious that such systems contained no
lingering element of religious life to keep them on a
level with any national improvement, which God's
Spirit might vouchsafe to quicken. But even if con
templated at a higher stage than that of ultimate
corruption, they were exposed to a second objection,
in addition to this mixture of gross error with their
truth — in the fact, that the whole framework by which
their particles of truth are rounded out into a system
betrays the handiwork of man rather than the inspi
ration of God. We are here brought back to the
great distinction, which I have before referred to,
between God's words to man and man's thoughts of

58 LECTURE n.
God (15). Review in memory the various outlines
which we trace amongst the religions of mankind;
take the coarse conceptions of old Nature-worship ;
include the higher moral elements which find occa
sional admission to the complex mythologies of Egypt,
Greece, or Rome ; pass onward to a -vrider sphere, and
scrutinise the mystic systems which the East has
furnished ; extend the examination from religions
properly so called, to the speculative efforts of the
phUosophic faculty ; and in aU cases ahke the con-
'riction ever deepens more and more, that they present
the very opposite character to that by which the
whole course of revelation is distinguished; that in
every detail below the few grand principles which
God had rcaUy implanted in their hearts, these theo
logies or phUosophies are man's thoughts of God,
and not the words of God to man. We can trace the
very tide-marks as the waves of speculation rise and
fall ; whUe the revelation of even the earliest Scrip
tures stands out clear before us like a rock. It was
the enslaved imagination which led men through the
mazes of mere Nature-worship ; it was the self-absorbed
intellect which entangled him in riddles on the infinite
and finite ; it was the debased fancy which enabled
him to project his own vices on the mists which sur
rounded him, and to worship those vices as gods.
His own thoughts thus bore their unconscious witness
to the fatal loss of that Divine communion which had
formed the true life of the spirit. Men felt after the
lost clue in the midst of their darkness. They in
vented foi-mulas of varying value, by which they hoped

LECTURE IL 59
that they might reconnect the broken links of union,
and join agam the sundered human and divine. At
one time Deity is figured under a spurious incarna
tion ; the infinite masking in the visage of the finite.
At another time man himself is deified ; the finite is
invested -with imaginary attributes, which are borrowed
from vague conceptions of the infinite God. At other
times, again, dim intermediate phantoms are imagined,
to fill, if they could but really fill, the vast and dreary
void which interposes between earth and heaven.
Such are three main classes of religious speculation.
But mark well their essential characters, and you will
find that the first destroys the human; the second
destroys the divine; the third obscures both by its
dim series of shadowy beings, who have no true sem
blance of either human or divine. Compare the best
of them with the religion which the ancient Israelites
were taught ; and they seem like trembling mosses,
which afford no footing, in contrast with a sohd cause
way, stretching strong and firm through the morass.
Or we might change the figure, and say that they are
but ghostlike apparitions of the heated brain ; while
Scripture revelation represents the living figure which
reaches out its powerful arm to save us from the dim
caverns of unaided thought.
3. But to bring this contrast to a more definite
issue, let us turn to St. Paul's discourse at Athens,
where the ' chief speaker ' * among the apostles ad
dressed himself to the most cultivated population in
=¦ Acts xiv. 12.

60 LECTURE n.
the Gentile world. The Apostle's argument is strictly
fi-amed on his own principle, that it is weU to become
all things to all men, in the sense of appealing to
each, if possible, upon the basis of some general and
conceded truths* (i6). To the Athenians he offers
no reasonings fi-om Moses or the Prophets. The
common law of conscience, the words of their own
poets, the creed of their o-wn phUosophers, the inscrip
tions on their own altars — these furnish the text of
the argument by which he introduces the revelation
of our Lord. Commencing -with a recognition of their
zeal for religion, he avails himself of the inscription,
' To an unknown God,' which seems to have been the
natural expression of a desire to propitiate a local
deity, whom man would not be always able to identify
and name. By this reference he would command
some attention from the more religious of the people,
who had filled their city with its groves of shrines.
Other parts of his discourse would secure agreement
from a different class. His philosophic hearers would
accept his repetition of St. Stephen's declaration, that
' the most High dwelleth not in temples made -with
hands.' " All schools and parties would agree to the
position, that the divine nature is nihil indiga nostri'
exalted far above the need of such unworthy homage
as the hearts and hands of man could furnish; and
many would respond to the words of their o-wn poets,
who proclaimed that man is the offspring of God.
For each of these principles St. Paul could claim a
» 1 Cor. ix. 20-22 ; 2 Cor. iv. 2.
" Acts vii. 48. ¦= Lucret. u. 649.

LECTURE II. -61
separate assent from some around him : that, in some
dim sense, man is the son of God ; that the obligation
of worship extends even beyond our knowledge as
a fundamental duty of the human spirit; that the
speculative mind, however, must regard the Deity as
residing far back in the recesses of unseen mfinity,
beyond the reach of human perturbations, and, as
some of his hearers might have wished to add, beyond
the sound of human prayers. On these he constructs
an argument, which corrects each one of the three
partial errors, and raises the whole from contradictory
guesswork to consistent truth. The creed of philoso
phers would fix the true value of that cluster of
temples which crowned the summit of the Athenian
rock. The poet's claim- of man's Divine paternity
might suggest nobler thoughts of Deity than the poor
expedients of idolatry could furnish. And to these,
if only these could have borne the addition, the com
mon creed would have added the obligation of worship,
and would have denied the necessary existence of the
barrier which philosophy had estabUshed between
man and God.
' Hitherto,' as Bentley remarks, ' the Apostle had
never contradicted all his audience at once; ....
every point was agreeable to the notions of the greater
party,' ^ tiU he came to the doctrine of the resurrec
tion of the dead. But in each case there would be
less agreement amongst his several hearers than they
found respectively with him. The vulgar was blind
* Bentley's Works, iii. 31 ; ed. Dyce.

62 LECTURE II.
to the spirituahty of God. The philosopher either
doubted the possibility, or denied the use, of human
worship. The dreams of sages had not closed one
temple, nor banished one idol from the altars of the
city. The phrases of poets had taught no Athenian
to acknowledge that his slave or his captive had the
claim of brotherhood, because moulded like himself in
the image of God (17). All this did but conceal a
hollow unreality under disjointed fragments of super
ficial truth; and Athenian poets and phUosophers
themselves would teach us that high aspirations, and
acuteness in theory, and even the outward semblance
of zeal for religion, were not incompatible with the
toleration of even the most degrading sin.
And now, what was the Divine revelation by
which the Apostle breathed fresh Ufe and reality into
these old and outworn semblances of truth? His
' new doctrine,' though compressed into these few
verses, covers all three topics which fill the Divine
element in Scripture ; namely, God and man, and the
relation which exists between them.
( 1 . ) Of God he declared that He is at once the
Creator of the universe, and the Preserver and the
constant Governor of men. As Creator, He ' made
the world and aU things therein.' This is at once an
advance on the whole tenor of ancient behef, which
found in the alleged eternity of matter its futile
explanation of the origin of evil (is). As Preserver,
' He giveth to aU life and breath and all things.'
These words disclose -vrith the full weight of revela
tion the active presence of a personal and all-loving

LECTURE IL 63
God. As Governor, He fixes by His o-wn decrees the
epochs of aU history. He decides by His own supreme
authority the bounds, the dates, the destinies of
nations. ' He ruleth,' as He taught a heathen
monarch, ' in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to
whomsoever He will, and -setteth up over it the basest
of men.' * In these few clauses we have a firm, clear,
and consistent account of a creating, preserring,
governing Deity, such as the scattered lights of
heathen antiquity could never be combined to supply.
And the same remark holds good if we turn to trace
the truths which St. Paul interweaves -vrith this teach
ing, on the true position of our human nature.
(2.) Two main principles are laid do-wn on this
subject ; the one, that God ' hath made of one blood
all nations of man ; ' the other, that He has endowed
them with so indelible a consciousness of His exist
ence, that in some dim way or other they never cease
to ' feel after Him,' in hopes that they may ' find
Him.' The one of these principles supplies a basis
for the brotherhood of man, because all are children
of one common Father; the other supplies a basis
for practical religion, because aU are thus endowed
with something of a religious sentiment, the testimony
to God which is written in their hearts, and which
marks them as His human offspring. This doctrine,
with its clear view of the proper dignity of human
nature, puts an end to all distinctions between Greek
and barbarian, between bond and free. And this
» Dan. iv. 17, 25, 32.

64 LECTURE n.
new creed of universal brotherhood must have come
-vrith the more impressive force when uttered by a
Jew, as the outgrowth of the most jealous religion
which the world had ever witnessed; the creed that
God is no respecter of persons, announced by one
whom Tacitus would have branded as the enemy of
all humanity,* and who would but recently have
despised the claims of any GentUe to share the bless
ings of the sons of Abraham. Thus the old view of
human nature is as much enlarged as the old con
ception of the Deity was corrected and exalted. The
Apostle had preached God, not as a vague abstrac
tion, stiU less as the mythical ruler of a crowd of
deities, imagined in the forms of men ; but as man's
Creator, Guardian, ever-bounteous Lord. He now sets
man before us, by a corresponding revelation, not as
the mere masterpiece of Nature, the mere summit of
the series of the animated world ; but as the sole
earthly representative, through aU his scattered tribes
and famiUes, of the image and likeness of God.
(3.) But it was the union between these two con
ceptions which formed the most distinctive message
which St. Paul had been commissioned to convey.
What is the true relation between man and God ?
That was a question which heathen knowledge failed
to answer (19). How could man reach the true
thought of the mystery of redemption, when so thick
a darkness was resting over the history of his creation
and his fall? This is the point on which St. Paul
^ Tac. Ann. xv. 44 ('odio humani generis'); Hist. v. 5 ('ad
versus omnes alios hostUe odium ').

LECTURE II. 65
speaks with an emphatic force, befitting the central
revelation to which his other arguments converge.
There had been ' times of ignorance ' with which God
in His wisdom had borne for a season : such is his
brief allusion to that night of darkness which Christ's
advent had brought to its close. Now had arrived
the true Redeemer of mankind. Now came the caU
to repentance, as the foremost duty of aU Avho would
share in the redemption He had brought. Now
came the Gospel of the risen Sariour, whose second
advent was appointed for the judgment of the world.
In this great truth the apostolic message finds its
height and termination. God as our Redeemer is
more than Creator, more than Guardian, more than
King. All are authorised and urged to claim that
redemption, on the sole condition that they fulfil the
requisite of repentance, and render faithful obedience
to the commandments of Christ. How far is he
thus raised above the dark enquirer, who was feeling
doubtfuUy, and often erroneously, after God ! God
is now found to be indeed ' not far from every one of
us ; ' ready to make these bodies His temple. Where
is the power of heathen worship, where is the worth
of heathen speculation, beside the preaching of the
glad and certain tidings of the resurrection of Christ
Jesus, as the firstfruits and assurance of our own?
This is the Divine creed, then, which St. Paul
announced to the Athenians, instead of their popular
superstitions or their philosophic theology : — faith in
a God who was not satisfied to rest in grand seclusion
in the highest heavens ; but who issued forth, in the
F

66 LECTURE II.
depth of untold ages, to create a universe Avhich it
was His pleasure thenceforward to protect and rule.
Not only so, but He peopled this world -with intelh
gent beings, on whom His o-wn image was impressed.
Nor only so, again, but when that image had been
defaced by the sin of His creature, He came from
heaven to earth, and ' was ddivered for our offences,
and was raised again for our justification,' * and re
opened the avenue of intercourse through which man
might receive the grace of God. This is He in whom
we too live and move and have our being ; to whom -we
owe not only the fuU perfection of our human exist
ence, but the lower blessings of vital organisation,
and even the pri-rilege of life itself, which rests as its
sole basis upon Him. This is He to whom we further
owe the certainty of future resurrection, which raises
our anticipations above the diversified guesswork of a
wider circle than was represented in the Athenian
audience of St. Paul — above the annUiUation which
was expected by Samaritan and Sadducee, as weU as
Epicurean — above the absorption which was looked
for by Oriental and Arabian Pantheists, in common
with at least some teachers of the Stoics — above the
purely intellectual indiriduality of the resurrection
which the Gnostic believed to be past already" —
above that highest faith in immortality, without a
resurrection, which Hmited the loftiest term of hope
to which man had ever reached independently of
Christ (20). Truths like these we should not repeat,
" Rom. iv. 25. b 2 Tim. ii. 18.

LECTURE II. 67
even in this hasty general outline, without offering, as
we pass, the earnest prayer that we may not make a
hoUow formalism of Christian doctrines which the
Apostle preaches as an earnest life.
Trace back that line of light to the beginning, and
the farthest point you reach stUl leaves you in the
presence of the same truths; on the one hand, the
high capacities and aspirations, yet the mean achieve
ments of mankind; on the other hand, the unity, the
immutabUity, the power, the righteousness, yet -with
aU of these the love of God. Re-examine through
out history the systems of Paganism, and they offer
precisely the same contrast to the truths of revela
tion which we have traced in the Athenian sermon
of St. Paul. The highest heathen creeds of God
were partial ; representing Him now as a power, now
as a law, now as a distant abstraction, and now as the
capricious likeness of a human despot. But revela
tion combines the partial truths which each of these
several creeds had covered, and excludes the false
hoods by which those truths had been neutralised.
This it does by declaring that, though almighty,
though unchangeable, though veiled in the Hght
which no man can approach unto, God is described
most faithfully and most completely when we ad
dress Him as the Father of mankind. God is our
Father; Christ is our Brother; the bond of bro
therhood is the indwelling Spirit. All men every
where are sons of God, and all men everywhere
are therefore brethren of each other. All are of one
blood. All spring from the same first parents. AU

68 LECTURE IL
are bound together by the universal ties of common
kindred. AU may hope to find perfection in a
common heaven. That image of God, through which
we hold our Divine sonship, is stamped as certainly,
if not as brightly, upon the rudest savage of the
Eastern seas as upon the noblest representative of
European culture. And the practical expression of
this common sonship is the obligation of universal
charity ; ' for he that loveth not his brother whom he
hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not
seen ? And this commandment have we fi-om Him,
that he who loveth God love his brother also.' *
Such is the general character of the Divine element
in Scripture, and such the contrast it presents to the
false religions of the heathen world, even when the
scanty grains of truth which they embody have been
most carefully numbered and recognised. I have not
wished to dwell at any length on the darker features
of ancient superstition — its sensuality, its cruelty,
the degradation of its more debasing rituals, the foul
enormities of Nature-worship. We need not follow out
our argument to those remoter consequences, when
it can be sufficiently established by the contrast of
revelation -vrith the fairest forms of behef which the
purest of man's o-wn thoughts can unfold. If -we
confine our attention to our Sariour's incarnation, the
contrast -wUl assume its loftiest and most striking
aspect. That incarnation re-established under new
" 1 John iv. 20, 21.

LECTURE ir. 69
conditions the relations held by man to God. In
seeking for its parallel, let us exclude the mere
guesses of a so-called natural reUgion ; let us exclude
the few remnants of old tradition which were constantly
escaping fi^om men's feeble grasp ; let us confine our
selves to the purest theology which the speculative
thinker could maintain as credible and could attempt
to support by argument; and we shall find that the
Deity which we are told to accept is no more than an
inteUectual reflection of man's highest mind, the pos
tulated perfection of all indications of goodness which
are confessedly imperfect in man ; and the chief proof
of His existence is only the apparent convergence of
our highest thoughts towards some centre of supreme
inteUigence far from the sphere of human action (21).
To the general range of the more thoughtful minds
among the heathen, no ray of the Divine brightness
seemed to rest upon the business of our common life.
To be finally absorbed and lost m His glory might be
the ambitious vision of the sage ; but there was no hope
nor reward in such a Deity for the man condemned
to active labours; as the whole field of action, like
some dark and confused battlefield, where fallen good
was -wrestling with eril, was excluded from, because
unworthy of, its light. If such a creed had any
common ground at aU with ours, it lay simply in this,
that both alike beheve that God ' only hath immor
tality, dwelhng in the light which no man can
approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see.' *
^ 1 Tim. vi. 16.

70 LECTURE II.
But this, which is the remotest point in our vision,
was the nearest point in theirs. They had no know
ledge of the glorious range of truths which lie between
us and that distant heaven. They knew nothing of
Him who once spoke ' unto the fathers by the
prophets,' and who, ' in these last days,' hath ' spoken
unto us by His Son;'* nothing of God as a distinct
and personal Being, who is invested -vrith certain
declared attributes, who watches -vrith the tenderest
mercy over every creature of His hand, who hears
and answers every fervent prayer, and who will
receive His faithful servants when their work is done,
to restore them completely to His Dirine image, and
to employ them in endless adoration round His throne.
The fatal defect, then, of false religions is the im
passable chasm which, in spite of every effort to the
contrary, seems to separate their worshippers fi-om
any God who is worthy of their adoration. The more
thoughtful heathen have acknowledged this, and
acquiesced in it, sUent, if not satisfied. They have
translated the feeling into philosophic language.
They have hardened it do-wn into the formal creed
which pronounced that the Deity was inconceivably
above all knowledge, and which scarcely needed to
pronounce the implied yet far more bitter sentence,
that He was therefore inconceivably above all love.
In this temper they have striven to describe the deep
serenity of that untroubled intelligence, that un
fathomable sea of central light, on which no shadow
» Heb. i. 1, 2.

LECTURE U. 71
should be reflected from the tainted atmosphere of
worlds which are overclouded by misery and sin ('22).
The recoil from this feeling doubtless had some in
fluence in perpetuating the gods many and lords many
of Polytheism. Idolatry, however strange and de
basing in its forms, is but the unconscious testimony
which is borne by ignorance and fi-ailty to that
cra'ring of the human spirit for some nearer and
more accessible representative of Deity than they
could find in the remote abstractions of an intel
lectual God. It was an effort in each»case to bridge
over the abyss which reduced man to a hopeless
exile from heaven. It has ever faUed, and must ever
fail, to yield the slightest breath of consolation,
because the phantoms which it raises are no reflec
tions of the Deity, but are mere shadows which men
project on the dark clouds that surround them — ¦
shadows which exaggerate mere human attributes,
the worship of which is pure self-worship, veiled
beneath a thin disguise.
That gulf, which man had found impassable, was
destroyed for ever at our Saviour's incarnation, when
the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father vouchsafed to
clothe Himself with the garments of Time. That
doctrine lays hold at once of earth and heaven, and
brings them into union through the Person of- our
Lord. Christ was Man ; and He has left us the noblest
example of all loving and tender sympathy for man :
but He was also God; and it is the duty of His
followers to lift their thoughts from earth to heaven,
and seek to fit themselves for entrance there. The

72 LECTURE n.
heathen might fear God ; might marvel at each
witness of His majesty and power; might catch their
echoes in the spheres of heaven, and trace their re
flections in the rushing river or the ancient mountain.
But it was the incarnation alone, in promise or in
fulfilment, which made it possible for man to enter
tain the thought of loving God. Christ is God's
image, and He is love : therefore we know that God
is love. In seeing Christ we see the Father : there
fore we know that in lo-ving Christ we love the Father.
And thus the ^ulf is bridged over; the dark clouds
are rent asunder; the prayers of earth are heard
in heaven. We can pass on from that cheerless
image of the far-off unfathomable sea of light;
we can pass on to the touching Gospel picture of
the father who fell on the neck of the returning
prodigal. And thus, through the portals of the
holiest manhood, we rise to the conception of the
absolute Dirine.
Let no shadow steal across the rision of our spirits,
to separate our souls again from God. There have
been many such to shed a baleful deadness over the
darkening eye of man. There is the dreamy mistiness
of a remote abstraction ; there is the -vulgar heathenism
of a debased idolatry ; there is the miserable formahsm
of a lifeless and uninfluential creed; there is the
chilling falsehood of an unloving intellectual faith.
What are these things when contrasted with the
warm devotion of a Christian heart, which searches
the Holy Scriptures daUy for the firing -witness which
they bear to Christ ? We know whom we have

LECTURE n. 73
believed.* We are redeemed; but it is by a personal
Redeemer, whose words of love are left to guide us.
We are caUed to be sanctified ; but it is by the personal
Spirit, whom that glorified Redeemer sends to testify
of Him." The voice of our prayer and praise can
reach the loftiest throne of Deity ; but it is because
Christ has enabled us to approach God as our Heavenly
Father. ' The word was made flesh and dwelt among
us;'" and we, who never saw His glory, may now
attain a stUl higher blessing, if we reach Him in faith
through the Holy Scriptures, and realise throughout
that sacred Presence which fiUs their earthly frame
work -with the Spirit of the Lord.
» 2 Tim. i. 12. »> John xv. 26. « John i. 14.

74

LECTURE III.

1 CoR. xiii. 12,
' No-w -we see through a glass, darkly ; but then face to
face.'

THE reality of Scripture revelation has been thus
far dealt with as a question of simple fact, which
could be established by the ordinary branches of
evidence, and confirmed by the contrast -with heathen
religions. But when we advance fi-om revelation to
inspiration, and state the grounds for. our belief, that
Scripture not only contains a true Dirine message,
but is throughout the work of inspired writers, whose
inspiration still addresses our own spirits through the
language which they used, we must proceed from the
proof of that external fact to trace the general cha
racter of the conditions under which the revelation
was recorded. There are two of these especially
which seem to caU for consideration at the present
time ; namely, the Scriptural use of antinomies and of
double senses : — the one subject determining the mode
in which great truths were brought within the range
of the human intellect; the other subject supplying
a leading proof of the Divine authorship, in the

LECTURE HI. 75
existence of a depth of significance which the human
authors could not have commanded. To these two
topics I propose to invite attention in the present and
the next succeeding Lecture.
We need not enter here upon the general question
of the limitations which the laws of thought impose
upon the forms in which we receive this revelation
from God (i). It cannot be doubted, as the Church
has always held, that Scripture employs a kind of
economy, accommodation, or condescension, to adapt
the eternal truths which it reveals for admission within
the range of finite thought. But for my present
purpose I may venture to assume, that though these
restrictions cause such disclosures to be constantly
expressed under the form of double and contrasted
statements, yet the revelation which results is as
absolutely true as the love of God could make it for
the children of His hand ; that the adaptation of
truth to inferior capacities involves no loss of any
fraction of its Hving power; and that the seen may
be accepted as an index to that mysterious unseen,
which it is confessed that its symbols cannot ade
quately measure. If proof were needed, we should
find in it such declarations as these : — that man was
created in the image of the unseen God, and that
he retains a true though broken impress of that image
even since his fall * (2) ; that God's perfection is the
standard at which our feeble efforts are encouraged to
aim ; that God's mercy is the pattern which man
"¦ Gen. ix, 6 ; Ps. viu. 5, 6 ; Acts xvU. 29 ; 1 Cor. xi. 7 ; James ui. 9.

76 LECTURE m.
ought to imitate, as He shows it by making His sun to
rise on the eril and on the good, and by sending rain
on the just and on the unjust.* It is plainly indispen
sable that man should knoAV clearly what God is, before
he can hope to restore to its original brightness the
likeness of God, wliich was tarnished by sin. Or again,
we find it in such truths as these : — that even through
the veil of nature, ' the invisible things' of God ' are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made ; ' " that even ' Gentiles which have not the law '
' shew the work of the law written in their hearts ; ' "
and above all, that ' God, who commanded the light
to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts,
to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God
in the face of Jesus Christ.' ''
We have already seen that no doubt is left on
the medium of communication, through which these
eterijal truths are granted to mankind. On our side,
' there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the
Almighty giveth them understanding.' " On the side
of God there is the gracious influence which ' the
Father of spirits' ' sends into our hearts, through
the personal agency of His quickening and enlighten
ing Spirit. The Divine intercourse, which sin had
interrupted, was reopened on the advent of our
Sariour, in whom ' dweUeth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily.' ^ The conditions under which we
a Matt. V. 45, 48. " Rom. i. 20.
<= Rom. ii. 14, 15. a 2 Cor. iv. 6.
e Job xxxii. 8. f Heb. xii. 9.
8 Col. u. 9.

LECTURE IIL 77
enjoy that communion are prescribed by a specific
revelation, which protects us from the uncertainty of
human fancies ; and they are mamtained by the con
tinuance of an organised society, which exists through
the promise and presence of the Spirit. Within these
bounds it is, that what we apprehend by faith becomes
the subject of our knowledge; and though that
knowledge is still partial and imperfect, its portions
are all absolutely true. We see, as St. Paul says,
S«' sa-ovrrpov, sv ahiy^aTi ' as though the rays were
received on an imperfectly reflecting mirror, which
gives an incomplete representation of the figure which
is thro'wn upon it (3). Yet though the form of the
revelation may be adjusted to the laws of human
thought, we cannot hesitate to believe that in its
substance and realit}'' it is the most direct reflection of
the truth of Heaven which could be cast upon the
spirits of a fallen but regenerated race. The Giver of
revelation was the Maker of man's nature; and we
cannot doubt either His wiU or His power to adjust
the conditions of the one to the other. Whatever
impediments, then, may have existed, either through
the general imperfections of our faUen race, or through
special obstructions in particular cases, it may be
safely assumed that Scripture never fails to reveal as
much spiritual truth, in as explicit and direct a shape,
as the qualifications of its hearers would permit them
to receive. I proceed to apply this doctrine to the
antinomies of Scripture, or those apparent contradic
tions which, from the earliest days of ancient heretics,
the gainsayer has gathered from the sacred page (4).

78 LECTURE III.
The subject has indeed an apologetic value ; though
that point is secondary to my present purpose. What
ever fi-eedom of interpretation may be claimed under
the formularies of the English Church, it is allowed
that one restriction at least is expressed in terms which
cannot be mistaken. She has explicitly disclaimed
the power of so expounding ' one place of Scripture
that it be repugnant to another;' and she has been
careful to guard against any rerival of the Marcionite
heresy, by ass'erting that ' the Old Testament is not
contrary to the New.' * This rule is obriously of
vital importance. Whatever may be the relation
between Scripture and science, it is clear that on all
such subjects as fall -vrithin its proper province, the
voice of Scripture must be consistent and uniform;
for a trumpet which gave ' an uncertain sound ' "
could never be the instrument of God. If Scripture,
then, could be conricted of contradictory teaching on
any moral or religious question, it would follow that
some erroneous tendencies in the human element had
been strong enough to modify the influence of inspi
ration. If it can be shown, on the other hand, that
the alleged cases of contradiction are reaUy conform
able to the limitations of the human inteUect, and
consistent -vrith our reasonable expectations on the
character of a Divine revelation, we shall not only
remove a difficulty, but establish an evidence, which
-wiU be all the stronger for the fact that it did not lie
upon the surface, and was not unfolded -vrithout
» Art. XX. vii. i> 1 Cor. xiv. 8.

LECTURE III. 79
enquu-y and thought. To this subject, therefore, let
us now address ourselves, reser-ving for a future time
one portion of it, namely, the moral difficulties con
nected -vrith some events in the older Scriptures
which might be treated as contradictions to the spfrit
of the Gospel. It wiU be more convenient to treat of
these moral difficulties at a later stage .of our argu
ment, and to approach them rather from the human
side.* We must, in the first place, be careful to distinguish
between contradiction in the text and contradiction
in the comment. The mere fact that opposite theorists
are equally ready to claim support from Scripture, is
not always sufficient to raise even the presumption of
contradiction in Scripture itself. Th^re is no diffi
culty in understanding how truth in the text is
consistent -with error in the comment, even when the in
ference has been honestly dra-wn. For it is the common
characteristic of mistaken views, that they rest more
frequently upon an exclusive or exaggerated statement
of a truth than upon the positive assertion of a false
hood (5). Persons who have strongly realised the
importance of some principle which they believe to be
the only key for unlocking the mysteries of either
religious or philosophical difficulty, are un-wUling to
concede the rights of any complementary statements
which may claim to take rank by its side. Limita
tions, abatements, compromises, and qualifications,
seem to curtaU the fair proportions of a cherished
a See Lecture VI.

80 LECTURE III.
doctrine. They reduce it to the lower dignity of only
half a truth ; and they are proportionably distasteful
to those eager tempers which resent the suggestion
that their cardinal dogmas may require a counterpoise,
as an insult to the authority, whether of theory or
revelation, on which those dogmas are believed to rest.
Yet it is the characteristic feature of the highest
principles, that they cannot be reduced to the sim
plicity of one expression, but can only be set forth
fully in contrasted statements, of Avhich neither is
exclusively true. It is one main duty of religious
philosophy to guard the equipoise on such subjects as
evil or freewill against theorists who would push
either into the fancied solution of a single extreme.
You cannot treat evil as a lower form of good, without
destroying the reality of man's hatred for sin. You
cannot merge in one conception the contrasted ideas
of personality and law, without obliterating either
the distinction between mind and matter, or the dis
tinction between man and God. Absorb will in
law, and you contradict man's universal witness to
the nature of the -vrill as the causal source of all free
action. Resolve all laws into the present operation of
the will of God, and you destroy the belief in man's
responsibility, while you cannot avoid the moral
anomaly of regarding sin itself as an issue of His
holy will. A large portion of the predestinarian
controversy has arisen out of a similar attempt to
exclude, on speculative grounds, either one or other
of the two fundamental conceptions — the freedom of
man and the supremacy of God.

LECTURE IIL 81
If we turn from theoi-y to Scripture (6), we trace
the same law in those revelations of the Deity which
constitute the central topic of the sacred record. It
is thus that we are taught to believe in three Persons,
yet one God : a unity of substance, which must not
be di-rided ; a trinity of Persons, who must not be
confounded. It is thus that we maintain the perfect
manhood, yet the perfect Godhead, of the one Saviour,
Christ our Lord; the union of two natures, which
cannot be intermingled, in one Person, who cannot
be divided. And when we pass from God's own
natui-e to mark the relations which He bears to His
creatures, we find that Scripture is equally explicit
in bidding us recognise at once the foreknowledge of
God and the fi-eewiU of man ; the omnipotence and
love of God, yet the misei-y in which rebeUion has
plunged His creatures; the grace of God, and the
perfect freedom of our own responsibiUty ; and the
double position held by man himself, as at once
'a creature, yet a cause.'* But it is not pretended
that Scripture always pauses to adjust the balance
amongst the truths which it reveals or declares.
Hence it foUows that errors resting on detached parts
of most of the statements which I have mentioned,
might be defended by isolated extracts from Scrip
ture : and it is the same system of partial quotation
which has in every age been employed by one-sided
I'easoners, who have tried to ' set the word itself
against the word ; ' Deuteronomy against Leriticus,
" Lyr. Ap. xiii.
G

82 LECTURE HI.
and Ezekiel against Deuteronomy ; Prophets against
Moses ; the New Testament against the Old ; one
Evangelist against another; the Epistles against the
Gospels ; St. James against St. Paul.
But if inferences and interpretations need abate
ment, it does not follow that we may extend that
process to the truths on which they rest. There is
very Httle promise in any attempt to effect a union
between two such principles by paring them down
tiU they can be adjusted together, and thus robbing
each of some portion of its strength and meaning.
Such compromises seldom fail to weaken both the
truths which are thus forced into unnatural combina
tion. It is better to acknowledge at once that passages
of this kind bring us into the presence of one of those
antinomies which can be traced as clearly in Scrip
ture as in reason, and in which the appearance of
contradiction is produced by the fact that two con
trasted propositions contain an incommensm-ahle
element, which creates in our mind the impression of
two opposite aUegations (7).
The causes of this phenomenon are twofold. In
some cases we should readily accept the one truth
but for the presence of another which is equaUy
authoritative. At other times we realise the difficulty
for ourselves whenever we make the effort to fathom
a principle which baffles the operation of our thought.
Disclosures of pure revelation commonly belong to
the former class. We should rest satisfied with
the one half-truth, if the other were not given to
counterbalance it. But whenever we approach those

LECTURE m. 83
mysteries which are more closely analogous to the
antinomies of reason, we could work out the obscurity
on either side by simply unfolding the impossibility
of resting satisfied -vrith either extreme. It is just as
with the famiUar commonplaces ; that we can conceive
neither greatness which admits of nothing greater,
nor Httleness which admits of nothing less ; that the
mind fails equally when we try to understand either
the beginning of time, or the eternal succession of
past ages -vrithout a beginning. A simUar difficulty
emerges if we attempt to grasp such a thought as
that of infinity. The notion that we comprehend it
is a mere deception. We thmk of it as though it were
some vast mountain confronting us, which stretches
on all sides into limitless space ; or some ocean
reaching away before us, whose waves are bounded
by no farther shore. But let us note the fallacy : as
confronting ourselves, those conceptions are finite ;
the mountain has its limit toward us ; the sea has its
verge on which we stand. In claiming for ourselves
an independent position, we do ourselves place a limit
or condition on the infinite ; and it seems as though
we could not escape the difficulty without merging
our own indi-ridual being in some self-destructive
creed of Pantheism. We cannot wonder that this
cause also should have given rise to many seeming
contradictions in Scripture. We could expect nothing
else on the assumption we began -with, that Scripture
conveys a revelation on points to us so incompre
hensible as the relation between the infinite and the
finite, or the relation between eternity and time (s).
Q 2

84 LECTURE III.
We might easily draw up from Scripture a long
list of such contrasts, presenting in each case the
semblance but not the reaUty of contradiction.
Besides the instances which have been mentioned, 'we
might cite such illustrations as the following : — the
changelessness of God's pui-pose, yet its adjustment to
the ever- varying wiU of man ; the universahty of His
laws, yet the mniute watchfulness of His special
proridence ; His perfect holiness, yet His longsuffering
patience with a sinful race ; the object of Christ's
coming as compared with its results ; and the con
nection between God's superintending care and the
seduHty which is demanded from ourselves. The
texts referred to would be such as these : — ' God is
not a man, that He should lie, neither the son of man,
that He should repent ;' yet ' it repented the Lord
that He had made man on the earth.' ^ He dwelleth
' in the light which no man can approach unto ;' yet
He is about our path, and about our bed, and spieth
out all our ways." With Him 'is no variableness,
neither shadow of turning ;' yet He is emphatically a
God that hears and answers prayer.*" He ' tempteth'
not 'any man;' yet 'God did tempt Abraham.'^
'The pure in heart' ' shaU see God;' 'whom no
man hath seen nor can see.' ° ' Thou art of purer
eyes than to behold evU, and canst not look on
iniquity ; ' yet ' Thou hast set our misdeeds before
Thee, and our secret sins in the Hght of Thy counte-
" Num. xxiii. 19; Gen. vi. 6.
•> 1 Tun. vi. 16 ; Ps. cxxxix. 2. "= James i. 17 ; Ps. kv. 2, &c.
fl James i. 13 ; Gen. xxU. 1. « Matt. v. 8 ; 1 Tim. vi. 16.

LECTURE m. 85
nance.'* 'On earth peace,' was the angelic message;
'not' ' peace, but a sword,' was our Lord's interpreta
tion." ' Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly up
ward ;' yet ' the Lord is loring unto every man, and
His mercy is over aU His works.' " ' Tum ye unto me,
saith the Lord of Hosts, and I -vriU turn unto you ;'
yet 'Turn Thou us unto Thee, 0 Lord."' 'What I
say unto you I say unto aU, Watch ;' yet ' except the
Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in
vain' ° (9).
In some of these instances reconcUiation is easy.
There are others in which the apparent contrariety
may be diminished by devout meditation, -vrith the
assistance of the Holy Spirit. There are others,
again, which carry us up into the presence of the
highest mysteries — the relation between the finite and
the infinite ; and the possibUity of eril in a world
which is governed by perfect power, -wisdom, and
love. In dealing with doctrines so vast and obscure,
we can do no more than fix the limits of our igno
rance, and take care that it shaU not be mistaken
for knowledge. Yet it is clear that on considering
the analogies of reason, and the perplexities which
confront us in aU speculations on the same topics, a
true interpretation would not admit that in any one
of these examples either side has been overstated by
the inspired writer, or needs the modification which
a diluting exposition would supply. And from this
a Hab. i. 13 ; Ps. xc. 8. " Luke u. 14 ; Matt. x. 34.
¦= Job V. 7; Ps. cxlv. 9. ^ Zech. i. 3 ; Lam. v. 21.
" Mark xiii. 37 ; Ps. cxxvii. 2.

86 LECTURE III.
negative conviction we may advance to the positive
assurance, that nothing short of inspiration could have
given so clear and full an utterance to both the great
truths embraced m each of these and similar questions,
without in any instance flinching from the needful
breadth of statement, and -without in any instance
leaving either half of the truth unguarded, by the
prorision of a counterpart in some other passage.
Many other texts of the same kind crowd upon the
memory, in connection with both the revelation of
God and the discipline of man. God condescends to
reveal Himself under the form of labour, yet His
eternal life must be existence of unstirred repose.
He ' fainteth not, neither is weary ; ' yet ' He rested
and was refi-eshed.' * Quamvis ea quietus feceris,
requievisti.^ ' He rested on the seventh day,' though
His rest was never broken. And whUe thus resting,
yet He rests not, as our Lord declares : ' My Father
worketh hitherto, and I work.' " With regard to
man, again, the regenerate are called holy, yet are
liable to faU, and still burdened by ' the body of this
death.' ^ The Church is to be spotless ; yet wheat and
tares must grow together in its borders tiU the harvest.^
The conception of moral probation might be unfolded
in a series of contrasted assertions, combining the
spheres of man's accountability and God's control.
No e-ril temptation can originate in God; yet He
" Isa. xl. 28 ; Ex. xxxi. 17.
•> S. August., Conf. xiii. 51. {Opp. i. 244.)
c Gen. ii. 2 ; John v. 17.
'1 Rom. i. 7, &c. ; vu. 24. « Eph. v. 27 ; Matt. xui. 30.

LECTURE IIL 87
permits what He does not originate. The forbidden
tree of knowledge stood within man's reach. Satan
was not debarred from entering Paradise to tempt
him. The Holy Spirit led our Lord to His temp
tation." Balaam was aUowed to go, yet condemned
for going." The king whom Israel -vrished for was
granted as a token of God's anger."^ It is God's law
of discipline to grant men their desire, and, through
that very concession of an Ul-judged prayer, to send
' leanness withal into their soul.' * This is the solu
tion of the paradox, that while it is His -wiU that
all men should be saved, yet 'whom He will He
hardeneth.'*' The key is found in the universal prin
ciple, that self-induced bUndness is penal blindness,
according to that message of God through Isaiah,
which is quoted at each crisis in the Gospel history :
apphed by Christ in three evangelists to the teaching
by parables ; ' applied by the fourth evangelist to
Christ's ministry, as it drew near its close ; ^ and
applied by St. Paul to the position of his feUow-
countrymen, both when he was -writing to the Romans
and when he was arguing -vrith the Jews at Rome : ^
' Hear ye indeed, but understand not ; and see ye
indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this
people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their
eyes ; lest they see mth their eyes, and hear -with their
"¦ Matt. iv. 1, &c. •> Num. xxu. 20, 22.
<= Hosea xiii. 11. ^ Ps. evi. 15.
« 1 Tim. U. 4 ; Rom. is. 18.
f Matt. xiu. 14 ; Mark iv. 12 ; Luke vui. 10.
g John xu. 40. ^ Rom. xi. 8 ; Acts xxviii. 25.

88 LECTURE IIL
ears, and understand with their heart, and convert,
and be healed.'" He who framed the moral law, hy
contravening which the heart is hardened, may be
said to have hardened the heart of Pharaoh, though
it was Pharaoh's selfwill that really hardened it." He
who warns us against the bad influence of Satan, yet
will not -vrin for us that victory which the conditions
of our moral nature bind us to achieve for ourselves,
may be described as having ' moved David ' to num
ber the people, though Satan is elsewhere said to have
' provoked ' the work." The sin, in fact, was Darid's
o-wn ; for all sin finds its real commencement in the
offender's own responsibility of wUl. But the phrases
of Scripture become clear when we remember that
Satan was the tempter, and was thus accountable for
the temptation ; while God had created the nature
and the laws which were perverted in that act of
distrust and rebellion (lo).
1. It will be clear, from the proofs already cited,
that the method of Scripture rests upon the principle
that the most direct way of grappling with such diffi
culties is to state each alternative, in its own proper
place and connection, unreservedly, simply, and em
phatically ; leaving the task of reconciliation, which
surpasses the powers of human inteUect, to be either
attempted by the higher faculties of the enlightened
spirit, or postponed in all the confidence of faith, till
the time when we shall cease to know in part. Con-

» Isa. vi. 10, 11. b Ex. iv. 21, &c. ; viu. 15, &c.
" 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 ; 1 Chron. xxi. 1.

LECTURE ni. 89
centration is a foremost sign of earnestness; just as
we say of the concentrated love of God,
' Thou art as much His care, as if beside
Nor man nor angel lived in heaven or earth.'"
It is the same with God's truths when proclaimed by
His servants. Each fills the eye, and exhausts the
attention, and strains the expressive power of hu
man language. But why should we speak of God's
servants only ? Christ Himself did not pause to
ward off misconstruction when He told us of the
'joy ' that ' shall be in heaven over one sinner that re-
penteth, more than over ninety and nme just persons,
which need no repentance.' " The elder brother in
the parable asked a not unnatural question, when he
remonstrated against the welcome granted to the
prodigal, which seemed to make it more acceptable to
sin and repent again, than simply to abstain from sin.
Yet even then Christ would not qualify the revelation
of the gladness of God's pardoning love. His answer
does not remove the difficulty, though it is framed to
calm down the jealous temper which the language of
the elder brother had displayed : ' Son, thou art ever
with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet
that we should make merry and be glad ; for this thy
brother was dead, and is alive again, and was lost,
and is found.' °
2. This fearless recognition of the seeming contra
diction which hangs over the expression ofthe highest
» Christian Year, Monday before Easter.
t Luke XV. 7. <= Luke xv. 31, 32.

90 LECTURE in.
truths, is still more forcibly illustrated when the two
sides of the antithesis are brought close together in
Scripture, without the slightest attempt to weaken
either, by explanation or abatement. To this cause
we might trace the common Scripture use of paradox ;
as in our Lord's OAvn words, ' He that findeth his hfe
shall lose it;' 'Let the dead bury their dead;'
' Whosoever hath, to him shall be given.'* St. Paul
employs the same figure in such passages as these: —
' What I would, that do I not ; but what I hate, that
do I ; ' ' The foolishness of God is -wiser than men, and
the weakness of God is stronger than men ; ' ' She that
liveth in pleasure is dead whUe she liveth ; ' and even in
such single phrases as Bua-iau ^Sxtolv, Aoyix^v Aarpe/ai/."
We trace it at an earlier date in such texts as that in
Proverbs, which bids us answer, yet not answer, ' a
fool according to his foUy ; ' '^ and in the close reflec
tion of the style of Scripture which we observe in
some parts of the Apocrypha; for instance,- in that
striking passage : ' Weep for the dead, for he hath
lost the light ; and weep for the fool, for he wanteth
understanding : make little weeping for the dead, for
he is at rest ; but the life of the fool is worse than
death."' From passages of this kind we may proceed
to texts which compress the deepest problems in a
single sentence. St. Paul condenses in one phrase
the whole controversy on the limitation of the mind
of man, when he prays that we may ' know the love
"¦ Matt. X. 39 ; viu. 22 ; xui. 12.
•> Rom. vii. 15 ; 1 Cor. i. 25 ; 1 Tim. v. 6 ; Rom. xu. 1.
" Prov. xxvi. 4, 5. * Ecclus. xxii. 11,

LECTURE in. 91
of Christ, which passeth knowledge.' * Tie brings
within two words, xplvavrsg sTrXripwa-av, the entire
debate upon predestination and fi^ee-vriU ; which is
summed up again -vrith almost equal brevity in that
earliest of the apostolic Church's hymns : ' for to do
— whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined
before to be done.' " St. John presents in one -riew
the double aspect of the Mosaic dispensation, when he
says that the law of love is at once a new, yet not a
new, commandment.'^ And the broadest antinomies
are often found -vrithin the compass of a single para
graph ; just as the same chapter in Samuel contains one
assertion that God cannot repent, and two assertions
that ' the Lord repented that He had made Saul king
over Israel.''* Thus, again, in one chapter of Exodus
we read, ' The Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as
a man speaketh unto his friend; ' and ' Thou canst
not see My face, for there shaU no man see Me and
live.'° In two adjacent verses of St. John, Christ
teaches that ' God sent not His Son into the world to
condemn the world ; ' yet that ' he that believeth not
is condemned already." In the same chapter of
Romans, faith is described as both intellectual and
moral ; for ' faith cometh by hearing ; ' yet ' -vrith the
heart man believeth unto righteousness. ' ^ One chapter
of Galatians brings before us the contrasted spheres
a Eph. Ui. 19. b Acts xiii. 27 ; iv. 28.
0 1 John U. 7, 8. <! 1 Sam. xv. 11, 29, 35.
« Ex. xxxiU. 11, 20.
^ John iii. 17, 18. Cf ix. 39 ; elg Kpi/xa . . . liXdov' and xvi. 11.
g Rom. X. 17, 10.

92 LECTURE m.
of social sympathy and indiridual responsibility;
' Bear ye one another's burthens ' (^aprj") • yet ' every
man shaU bear his o-wn burthen' ((^oprlov).^ Or to
pass on to books fi-om single chapters. In the 5th of
St. John, Christ says, ' If I bear -vritness of myself,
my -witness is not true ; ' in the 8th He teUs us,
' Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is
true.' " In the 12th of St. Luke, He describes how
the lord, on his return, makes his servants ' sit down
to meat,' and serves them; in the 17th He asks. Who
would say to his servant, when returning from the
field, ' Go and sit down to meat ' ? " In the 9th of
St. Luke He says, ' He that is not against us is for
us; ' in the Ilth, ' He that is not with me is against
me.'"" In one place of the Gospels we are told to call
ourselves ' unprofitable servants ; ' in another the same
word forms part of the sentence of eternal death.'
On this instance it has been remarked : ' Miser est
quem Dominus servum inutilem appeUat; beatus, qui
se ipse ' ^ — a solution which is capable of -wider ap
plication, in so far as it suggests the mighty differ
ence between the claim of merit and the bounteousness
of grace (ii).
3. The firmness of the faith which could record
these sayings without an attempt to weaken their
force by reconcUiations, is further exemphfied by the
perfect fi-eedom -vrith which the sacred -writers treat
the apparent contradictions of our present Hfe. A
» Gal. vi. 2, 5. >> John v. 31 ; viii. 14. <= Luke xii. 37 ; xvii. 7.
d Luke ix. 50 ; xi. 23. ^ LukexvU. 10; Matt. xxv. 30.
^ Bengelius on Luke xvii. 10.

LECTURE in. 93
weak faith would tempt us to avoid the subject, or
would try to gloze over its obrious difficulties. It
would fi-ame vain speculations, in which it would
either shut its eyes on the reality of human misery,
or would faU into the pantheistic error of treating
evU as only a lower form of good. A strong faith
acknowledges the pressure of the difficulty, and pro
claims it in the frank and fearless confidence, that the
obstacle mil be hereafter found to lie in us, not in our
Maker ; in the weakness and uncertainty of our present
vision, not in any limitation of either the power or
love of God. We may observe a sort of sacred slpoii/e/a
in the way in which the Jews used to deal with the
darker problems of our present existence (12). They
believed so firmly in God's immutabUity, that, as we
have seen, they were not afraid to speak of His repent
ance, even in the very chapter in which it is recorded
that He cannot repent like a man. They reposed
such implicit trust in His righteousness, that they did
not hesitate to complain of their afflictions in the lan
guage of strong expostulation. They reUed with such
confidence on His unfaUing goodness, that they did
not fear to deprecate actions which would rather have
sprung from a hard taskmaster, in the very tone which
a child might use towards a most loving parent at
the moment when most completely assured of his love.
Some have thought that, in this respect, the book
of Job was a protest against Judaism. But what
is there in the words of Job which is not urged
by Jews themselves in other parts of Scripture?
How can we distinguish the remonstrances of Job

94 LECTURE in.
from those of Abraham and Moses, or the reproaches
of Job from those of David, of Asaph, of Solomon,
of Jeremiah?" And could anything show more
clearly the real position of the double element in
Scripture than the perfect submission -vrith which, in
the issue, these dark thoughts are put aside, yet the
perfectly natural character of the human emotions,
which are thus associated -with the reception of the
knowledge of God?
But it may be well to test these positions by a more
detailed examination of two prominent instances,
which have formed the favourite fields of controversy ;
namely, the apparent corrections supplied by later
writings to the earlier teaching, and the seeming
diversity on faith and works between the writmgs of
St. James and St. Paul.
1. The commonest argument advanced by those
who regard Scripture antinomies as real contradic
tions, is based on an attempt to prove that the later
parts of Scripture are rather corrections than develop
ments. The success of this attempt would justify the
inference, that the Di-vine element must have been
penetrated by an admixture of purely human imper
fection, which it was afterwards found needful to
withdraw. The second commandment, it is urged, declares
that the Lord God is 'a jealous God, risiting the
» Gen. xviu. 23-33; Ex. xxxu. 32; Num. xvi. 22; 2 Sam.
xxiv. 17; Ps. IxxiU. ; xciv. 3; Eccles. i. 3, 13, &c. ; Jer. xii. 1 ;
Lam. U. 1, &c. ; Hab. i. 2-4 ; Mal. Ui. 15.

LECTURE in. 95
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third
and fourth generation of them that hate ' Him, ' and
showing mercy unto thousands of them that love '
Him, ' and keep ' His ' commandments.' * In explicit
contrast, it is said, with both the warning and the
promise, Ezekiel proclaims, with earnest reiteration,
the distinct responsibUity of each separate soul, alike
for its good works and its sins : ' Behold, all souls
are mine : as the soul of the father, so also the soul
of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall
die.' The just man ' shall surely live, saith the Lord
God.' If the just man's son is evU, 'he shaU surely
die : his blood shaU be upon him.' And if he, in turn,
begets a son who abandons the e-vU courses of his
father, the father shall perish, but the son shaU be
saved: ' he shall not die for the iniquity of his
father; he shall surely live.'" The same principle
is further applied to changes of character, so as to
establish in every detaU the rigid justice of the
Lord (13).
Now in truth there is no real opposition between
these contrasted statements. To caU them contra
dictions is mere ignoratio elenchi; they cannot con
travene each other, because their movement lies in
different planes. The commandment is part of the
law of the theocracy which fixed the external dispa
ragement of sin among God's people; whUe the pro
phets were commissioned rather to enforce those deep
truths of personal religion which a formal system,
" Ex. XX. 5, 6 ; Deut. v. 9, 10. Cf 2 Kmgs v. 27, &c.
b Ezek. xvui. 4, 9, 13, 17.

96 LECTURE in.
even of Divine appointment, has always some tendency
to obscure." But the answer can be rested on a still
-wider basis. It is the universal law of God's prori-
dential government, that, in many external respects,
the innocent must suffer for the guUty ; and especially
the innocent descendants for the crimes of a father.
All experience abounds in proofs that those who
indulge in vicious courses possess the fatal power of
involving their descendants also in the outward
penalties which vice entaUs : such penalties, I mean,
as weakened constitutions and enfeebled bodies, in
addition to the hea-vy heritage of a dishonoured name.
This is the necessary consequence of our common
membership one of another, and especially of that
social unity which the theocracy exhibited in its
most striliing form. But social unity is not more
certainly a law of God than that individual responsi
bility for which each -vriU have to answer in the
presence of his Judge. Not in any detail are these
two at variance. They may act and react, like many
other conditions in our state as men. Parental in
fluence has a mighty force for good or e-vU,' and the
honour of the old is in their sons." But in the crisis
of our doom, all these things pass away like other
adjuncts of our spiritual Hfe. Each stands alone in
the last appeal. Each heart knows its o-wn bitter
ness." Each conscience has to bear its own burthen.
The words of the prophet might have stood side by
side on the tables of the lawgiver -vrith the words
" See above, p. 52. *> Prov. x. 1, &c. <= Prov. xiv. 10.

LECTURE ni. 97
which were written by. the finger of God." It is
equally true that God visits the iniquity of the
wicked on their children, and that the soul that
sinneth, it alone shall die.
But it is urged that there are many other passages
in the Prophets which impose limitations on the claims
of the Law, or point with increasing clearness to a
time when those claims shall cease to be binding.
That the Law itself asserted a paramount and durable
obligation, seems to stand clear upon the surface of
the record : ' Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the
words of this law to do them.' " Thus Moses taught
the people to regard it as permanent. He hedged it
round with the most solemn exhortations. He pro
nounced a wide range of earthly blessings on obedience ;
and he strove to deter the disobedient by a fearful
picture of national disaster, which far surpasses, in its
anxious vehemence, the thought of any merely tem
porary warning, and which could not have been ful
filled by any calamity of Ughter import than that which
was inflicted at the fall of Jerusalem" (14). Yet the
inspired guardians of the Law have themselves deep
ened its teaching within the limits of the older Scrip
tures ; and, as they gradually learnt to look forward to
a brighter era in the future, have implied that the Law
would cease to be obligatory when its types were
fulfilled at the coming of the Christ. ^ But how is it,

1 Cf Ex. xxxii. 32 ; Deut. xxiv. 16 ; 2 Kings xiv. 6.
b Deut. XXVU. 26; Gal. Ui. 10. <= Deut. xxviu. 15-68.
* Ps. ex. 4 ; Isa. lxvi. 21 ; Jer. xxxi. 31 ; Dan. ix. 26 ; Zech. vi.
H

98 LECTURE ni.
we are asked, that they could thus be taught to lessen
the pressure of a public obligation, which had been
imposed under such solemn sanctions ? Or what other
sense can be put on such compositions as the 51st
Psalm, or the 1st of Isaiah, or the 7th of Jeremiah,
than that they really abate the force of the older state
ments on the value of atonements under the Law?
To the first point we should answer, that even human
lawgivers are accustomed to speak with simUar, if not
equal, emphasis of laws which may nevertheless be re
pealed, should it be needful, by the power which im
posed them; and it is right and natural that a stUl
stronger impression should be given, in the case of laws
which had a deeper significance than any human legisla
tion could command, and when the power which had
imposed them was Divine. It was enough that the
same God who had spoken by Moses was known to
speak as surely and as clearly by the prophets, whom
He commissioned to explain His earlier ordinances. It
was enough, too, that Moses had himself prepared the
way for the change, by warning the people to expect
a Prophet, who was to teach them with authority at
least equal to his o'wn.* Rights which are inherent in
all earthly governments must be conceded to the Dirine
source of every government, by whose -vrisdom alone
' kings reign, and princes decree justice.' " But again,
it is erroneous to suppose that the interpretations which
were thus afforded brought any premature abrogation
13 ; Mal. i. U., &c. Cf Luke xxiv. 27; John i. 15 ; v. 16; Acts
xxvi. 22.
a Deut. xviu. 15-22. ^ Prov. vui. 15.

LECTURE m. 99
of the Law. They only recalled men from the vain
practice of a formal obedience to the spirit which
gives its sole value to obedience; in the temper of
the lesson which Saul had long ago received from
Samuel : ' Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt
offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the
Lord ? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to
hearken than the fat of rams.' * Again, the precise
position of the Mosaic dispensation is taught in the
New Testament with a clearness which leaves nothing
to be desired, and which is in perfect harmony -vrith the
deeper interpretation of the original record. When
the life and death of Christ brought out in strong
relief the fact that the Mosaic ordinances had been
deeply marked by a typical character, it foUowed that,
in the same extent and proportion, the temporary
nature of their obligation would be recognised. At the
same time it became clearer that the oldest Scriptures
had established limitations of their force, and expla
nations of their meaning, which the later Jews had
simply overlooked or forgotten. Thus Christ Him
self reminded them that God had vouchsafed an earlier
stream of revelation, which overruled the stipulations
of tbe Law of Moses; and that a degree of knowledge
had been granted to the patriarchal Church which
the special objects of the Law had caused it in some
measure to obscure. Of the Jewish marriage-law, for
instance. He said that ' from the beginning it was not
^ 1 Sam. XV. 22. Cf Ps. xl. 6 ; 1. 8, 14 ; U. 17 ; Prov. xxi. 3 ;
Isa. i. 13 ; Jer. vii. 22 ; Hos. vi. 6 ; Mie. vi. 5, &c., and see Matt. ix.
13 ; xii. 7, &c.
u 2

100 LECTURE III.
so ; ' but that its Mosaic form must be attributed to
the hardness of their hearts.* Circumcision, He also
said, was not ' of Moses, but of the fathers ;' " therefore
it took precedence of the Mosaic Sabbath ; and much
more did mercy, as the obligation of a stUl earher
law (15). We have here the very outline of the argu
ment, which St. Paul afterwards enlarged when he
showed, by appealing to the revelation made to Abra
ham, that the Law possessed only a secondary and
temporary character ; " and that its narrow scope bore
no proportion to the worldwide promise of a Sariour,
who was to spring from among the sons of Abraham,
and in whom aU nations of the earth were to be blessed.
Comparing the Law with the earlier and later revela
tions between which it stands, we see that, like both,
it balances the gift of grace by the duty of obedience ;
the election of the Israelites to special privileges by
their obligation to love the Lord their God -vrith all
their heart and soul and might.* But in all revelations
alike, the greater stress is laid on that side of these
twofold principles which most needed enforcing in
each succeeding age. It is not true, however, that any
age was ever left so completely to the undivided opera
tion of the orie principle, as to be pardonable for for
getting the other. The Jews had no defence for the
spiritual blindness which had learnt to look for
salvation to the thing that they saw, rather than to
Him who is ' the Sariour of all.' ° They had no excuse
" Matt. xix. 8. Cf Matt. xU. 8; Mark U. 27, 28, &o.
b John vu. 22. 0 Gal. iu. 17.
d Deut. vi. 5. c -yvisd. xvi. 7.

LECTURE III. 101
for the confusion which had substituted the works
of the Law for faith in the Promise ; and which relied
on that scrupulous legal obedience, which is at best
the mere fruit and eridence of faith, as the meritorious
ground for the acceptance which they owed solely to
the favour of God. And the fact that Scripture,
from time to time, counteracts similar errors by re
iterating similar language, is a -vritness to its unity,
the absence of which would cause a greater difficulty.
2. Let us pass now fi-om the consideration of
historical development to the leading example of
alleged contradiction between contemporary -writers ;
namely, the doctrine of faith and works, as respec
tively taught by St. Paul and St. James (16). But
this familiar controversy reaUy carries us back to
the same antithesis which we have just been
examining. It is traced by both inspired -writers
alike to the history of Abraham. It can be foUowed
up to the earliest period in which we possess the
terms of any covenant between man and God. Both
elements were found in Paradise itself, where grace
was given to make obedience possible; and then
obedience was exacted, as the sole condition of
continued grace. When that covenant was cancelled
by the sin of man, the foundation of a new covenant
was immediately laid, through which all mankind
became sharers in certain promised blessings.* In
the days of Abraham this covenant passed from
general terms into the form of a definite assurance,
'^ Gen. in. 15.

102 LECTURE III.
which constituted the election of a peculiar race.
The conditions of that promise were, first, faith;
and secondly, obedience. Abraham ' believed in the
Lord, and He counted it to hun for righteousness.' *
Faith, then, which resigned all vain hopes of self-
recovery from the low estate of fallen man — faith,
which rested on a promised blessing, and which
restored the heart of man to the Divine communion
which sin had interrupted — faith came first, before
the rite of circumcision was ordained. But after
faith came obedience, of which circumcision was the
sign, and of which that wonderful act of faith, the
offered sacrifice of Isaac, was the most remarkable
proof. There is no real difference in this point be
tween the fundamental conceptions of St. Stephen,
St. Paul, and St. James. AU alike would place faith
first, as the groundwork which made obedience pos
sible. All alike would have allowed, though they
might have expressed their meaning under different
forms, that -' faith ' afterwards ' wrought with '
Abraham's ' works, and by works was faith made
perfect.' " All alike would have agreed, that these
works would have been worse than useless if they
had been done in opposition to the spirit of faith;
because that would have amounted to an assertion
of independent abUity, and would therefore have been
equivalent to a declaration of rebellion.
If, then, it is certain that each branch of teaching
is unquestionably true, and that each can be traced
" Gen. XV. 6 ; Rom. iv. 3. b James ii. 22.

LECTURE UL 103
-vrith equal clearness in the inspired records to which
both make their appeal, it is surely unreasonable
to allege that the apostolic upholders of these tAvo
positions could reaUy contradict each other. What
St. Paul urges is true : that the best works of man
are worthless, if they are done without reliance on
the help of God. But what St. James urges is
equally true : that professed trust in God is spurious
if it does not lead to active effort on the part of
man. Works -vrithout faith would be the watchword
of a self-asserting reliance on man's strength, and a
denial of his need of grace. Faith -without works
is the symbol of that antinomian self-deceit, which
substitutes a dreamy reliance on religious senti
ments for a practical attention to religious duties.
The contrast is the same which always emerges,
when we compare the respective provinces of the
labour of man and the grace of God: and the
emphatic language used by each apostle is ex
plained on the principle which I have endeavoured
to lay do-wn. Each states, strongly and forcibly, the
truth which he was commissioned to deliver in oppo
sition to prevailing error. St. Paul was confronting
a system of formalism, which pleaded privileged
position and ceremonial obedience as sufficient
grounds for acceptance in the sight of God. St.
James saw room to fear, that a belief in spiritual
acceptance, independently of obedience, might sap
the foundations of practical holiness. Each, there
fore, supplies the half-truth which he saw to be
deficient, yet without any real contradiction of the

104 LECTURE ni.
other; and the Holy Spirit has provided that, as
both alike stand together in the canon, so the whole
truth shall emerge from the union between them.
And now, -vrithout dwelling longer on diversities
which are thus found to rest on a most intelligible
principle, let me close this Lecture by calhng attention
to the opposite phenomenon, which is surely worthy
of deep consideration. Much has been said of
contrariety: what shall be said of that marvellous
unity which reaches from end to end of Scripture,
though veiled under a not less wonderful diversity
in source, and character, and outward foi-m?(i7)
The grand truths of Christian theology are revealed
or confirmed by the voices of a long range of utterly
dissimilar writers, speaking without the slightest
possibility of concert; doing each his o-wn duty,
seeking each his appointed end; busied consciously
with objects of comparatively smaU importance,
whUe unconsciously furthering the far mightier pur
pose of delineating, stroke by stroke, and feature
by feature, the great image of the revelation of God.
No other book contains such unity of resulf; no
other book has ever sprung from such diversified
variety of source. It is the work of many men, in
many lands, through many ages : the work of law
givers and heroes, side by side with shepherds and
herdsmen; the work of accomplished inteUects and
untrained peasants; embodying history and poetry,
records of the past and predictions of the future,
all degrees of legislation, all forms of enquiry,

LECTURE IIL 105
together with confessions of sin, and prayers for
mercy, and hymns of triumph; leading up to the
life of Christ set forth in the New Testament, and
the letters by which the early Church was governed,
guided, rebuked, and cheered. God, who called
EHjah from the desert and Elisha from the plough,
summoned others of His -witnesses from flocks and
cattle, as well as from the race of priests or lineage
of kings. Moses spent the best forty years of his
life as a keeper of sheep amongst the mountains of
Arabia, nerving his spirit to high purpose in the
solitude of the lonely desert. Da-rid was taken from
the sheep-folds * to become an active warrior, a
prudent ruler, a governor beset by the lifelong
perplexities of compHcated trials. Solomon was his
' father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight
of ' his ' mother,' " and became the wise king of a
prosperous and settled kingdom, tUl he fell in old
age under the temptations of luxurious opportunity.
Isaiah and Daniel came ft-om royal courts ; Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, Ezra, fi-om the priesthood; while Amos was
' no prophet ' nor ' a prophet's son,' but ' an herdman
and a gatherer of sycomore fruit,' whom God chose
to be a teacher as he was following his flock." But
why pursue a list which would simply repeat the
name and circumstances of every known -writer of
Scripture, and complete the contrast between their
vocation and their work? If we pass to the
writings of Christ's first disciples, we find that they
a Ps. IxxviU. 70. •> Prov. iv. 3.
° Amos vii. 14, 15.

106 LECTURE IIL
too differed nearly as -vridely from each other and
from aU. The teachers of Christ's Church were
chosen from the boat of the fisherman and from
the seat of custom, as weU as, Hke Paul, from the
schools of learning, or, like Luke, as it seems, from
the practice of science. Problems of disputed
authorship only serve to increase the marvel. If
the -writers had less authority than the Church has
ascribed to them, the unity which pervades their
common message is a still more unanswerable
testimony to the Divinity of its source. The
alleged contrariety is the strongest proof of the
unity. The argument fi-om design receives in this
case its most direct and conclusive application; and
the sheer impossibUity that such a result should
have sprung from any human agency supplies us
with the surest ground for our behef that it was
throughout inspired and overruled by God.
This position forms the proper basis for the next
enquiry on which I shall propose to enter; viz.,
the precise conditions of the duplex sensus — the
real position of the literal meaning of Scripture in
relation to the secondary senses which it is beheved
to have subserved.

107

LECTURE IV.

Romans xv. 4.
* "Whatsoever things -were -written aforetime -were 'written
for our learning, that 'we through patience and comfort
of the Scriptures might have hope.'
IF we believe that Holy Scripture contains a revela
tion, which was made by God, ' at sundry times
and in divers manners,'* through a varied series of
human agents, we must expect to find that its lan
guage would be adjusted, in the first instance, to the
level ofthe original hearers, and would yet be endowed
•with a power of rising far above that level, in propor
tion to the needs of more advanced humanity. The
first of these conditions is obvious in itself, though it
seems to be forgotten when men find stumblingblocks
in such necessary results of it as the adaptation
of Scripture language to the early state of scientific
knowledge. The second is the basis for the doctrine
of secondary senses — a doctrine which can be repre
sented in so inridious an aspect as to make its defence
a task of considerable difficulty(i). Let a writer be
only suspected of maintaining that Scripture meant
" Heb. i. 1.

108 LECTURE IV.
something different from what it seems to say ; that
its expositors are free from the laws by which aU
other classes of interpreters are bound ; and that, in
defiance of the canons of criticism, they may claim
the right of relying solely on their private conceptions
of ' that which is good to the use of edifying;'* and
the reader is disposed to protest, -vrithout further hear
ing, against so insecure a method, and to maintain
that it throws doubts upon the literal value of the
written word.
Yet this doctrine seems inseparable from the con
ception of a revelation, which implies that the sugges
tions of a Dirine Author lie behind the expressions
of the human writer. If revelation be a condescension
from the higher to the lower, if it be the transfusion
of knowledge from a -vrider to a narrower sphere, the
truths thus entrusted to the expressive power of an
inferior language must embody a life and expansive-
ness which only need the fit occasion to burst forth.
The spirit is tenanting an earthly framework, and can
issue, when need is^ from its narrow mansion, to shine
in broader and distincter light. And so, in point of
fact, through every portion of the inner mind of Scrip
ture, we trace a clear capacity for future elevation,
above the level of the writer through whom it was
made kno-wn. This, I repeat, is precisely what we
ought to have expected. Granting that the in
spired writers were employed, not as mere mechanical
instruments, but as God's chosen and enlightened
" Eph. iv. 29.

LECTURE IV. 109
servants, speaking only under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit ; granting that the revelation would be
moulded by the human element, and would bear broad
traces of the indiridual characters of those through
whom it was conveyed ; we should stUl expect to find
that the Di-vine meaning would rise far above the level
of the human writer, and that his message would
show signs of deeper truth and more comprehensive
purpose than his words could compass or his mind
could understand. I am not now dealing -vrith that
larger proof of inspiration, which is furnished by the
intrinsic dignity of its teaching and its essential supe
riority to any truth which unaided reason seems to
grasp. I am speaking solely of this formal charac
teristic, the capacity of spuitual development, as one
of the chief internal credentials which we might expect
to find, and which in fact we do find, in the book of
i-evelation. It is scarcely possible, for instance, to read the
writings of the prophets, and compare them -vrith their
contemporary history, -vrithout the perpetual conviction
that more was meant — not perhaps by the human
speaker, but by the inspiring Spirit — than met the
earliest listener's ear. Just as in complex harmonies
of music we may detect the undercurrent of some
simple and famUiar strain, so we hear tones through
the prophetic volumes which sound Hke parts of a
wider and more commanding system — notes in a more
extended chorus, responding across broad intervals of
varied measures, and arresting attention by a depth
of unity which no superficial diversity can hide.

110 LECTURE IV.
Thoughts rise, as we read, which haunt us Hke the
hidden signs of the Platonic dva(/.v7}(rig. We pass
beyond the sacred writer with his obrious meaning,
and see him to be the willing instrument of One
whose pui-poses and mysteries he has not fathomed.
He is a servant, not a master, of the truths which he
declares, though his service is a glad and ready ser
vice. He is no more than a private in a mighty
army, and knows little of the great designs which his
obedient movements are directed to subserve. His
tongue is controlled to utter words of larger import
than is exhausted by the object on which the earnest
attention of his present purpose is expended. Free
fi-om the sin of Balaam, he yet reminds us of the over
ruling influence which forced Balaam to pour forth
blessings beyond his -vrish and projDhecies beyond his
thought. Free also fi-om the blinded worldliness of
Caiaphas, yet, like him, he speaks words which plamly
come 'not of himself,'* but from the immediate sug
gestion of the Spirit (2). The peculiarity extends to
the symbolical as well as the typical. The strain
may begin with personal anger against an individual
offender ; but pursue it a moment, and you -wUl find
it purged from all the bitterness of earthly passion,
and rising into righteous condemnation of sin. Or it
commences with the glory of God's earthly temple,
and then sweUs, as if the seer could not control his
language, to describe the far-off vision of the eternal
temple in its everlasting grandeur in the heavens.
* John xi. 51.

LECTURE IV. Ill
It is this capacity which St. Paul recognises in the
words of our text : ' Whatsoever things were -written
aforetime were -written for our learning;'' or, as he
elsewhere expresses it, '•for our admonition ; ' or again,
in other passages, '¦for our sakes^'- as weU as for the
sake of the original hearers. Taken in connection
with the context, and Ulustrated by the method of his
own quotations, the Apostle's meaning must amount
to this, that the earlier Scriptures were intended to
serve a wider purpose than the immediate occasion of
their utterance furnished, or than the immediate
agents of their disclosure comprehended. This is
precisely what was meant by the double condition
which I named at the outset. If the necessity that a
revelation should first of all things be intelligible
caused God's earUer disclosures to be modified in form
by temporary considerations, the loftier use to which
they were destined in the future prevented their full
meaning from being exhausted by the applications to
which they were confined for a season. A spiritual
sense, then, must always have lain hid beneath the
letter, and must have been graduaUy unfolded, in
proportion to the elevation of the human faculties, in
th*eir deepest relation to God. We must admit the
existence of that spiritual sense before we can trace
the successive disclosures of the ever-brightening light
which penetrates the letter of God's earlier word.
Throughout the entire range of the Old Testament
Scriptures, there exists a deeper signification than
a 1 Cor. X. 11 ; ix. 10 ; Rom. iv. 24.

112 LECTURE IV.
the Hteral — a signification which is veiled alike
under command and precept, type and symbol, history
and prophecy, stern denunciation and triumphal psalm.
On this basis rests the process of development which
Christ and His apostles have unfolded. Throughout
the New Testament, facts, prophecies, and simple
precepts — disclosures of God's own nature, and re
cords of the wanderings of men — the prayer of the
penitent, the thanksgiving ofthe humble— the lamen
tations of the captive, and the triumphs of the con
queror — are all treated alike, as richly fraught with
that double sense which Christ's advent brought to
open light. Sometimes the proof of this is direct and
simple. Such is the interpretation of the broader
types and prophecies, which bore their distant -vritness
to the person or the work of Christ. Such is that
remarkable instance in which Christ Himself gave the
explanation of God's patriarchal title — the God of
Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob ; the God of the
living, not the dead." Such is St. Paul's mode of
dealing -\rith both primitive and Jewish history, in the
facts of which he descries deep allegories, containing
the germs of Christian doctrine. A complete account
of this characteristic of Scripture would trace the
gradual growth of proj)hecy, from its first faint lines
to its most detailed disclosures ; from the victory
promised to the woman's seed up to the minute indi
cation of so many particulars in Christ's personal
history. It would teach us to recognise His image in
" Matt. xxii. 32.

LECTURE IV. 113
the heroes, who were raised as successive saviours for
His people ; in the Prophet, who was to be like unto
Moses; the Priest, who was to hold an imperishable
priesthood; the King, who was to claim the title of
the royal David's Lord. * It would teach us to read
Him alone in such types as the Star of Jacob, the
Sceptre of Israel, the Root of Jesse, the Sun of
Righteousness who was to ' arise -vrith healing in His
-wings;'" to find Him alone in such historical shadows
as the bread fi-om heaven, and the uplifted serpent,
and the water springing fi-om the smitten rock ;" to see
in the sacrificial lamb the figure of ' the Lamb slain
from the foundation of the world ; ' and to trace the
minutest details of His passion in the -rictim who was
led ' as a lamb to the slaughter ; ' in Him whose hands
and feet were pierced ; whose garments they parted ;
who was buried ' -with the rich in His death '^ (3).
The doctrine of the spiritual sense, then, rests
on the beUef that, in the composition of Scripture,
it was God Himself who furnished or suggested
the materials which His chosen servants, under His
continued guidance, clothed in such language as
their own inteUigence and position prompted. The
reahty of the Dirine element in Scripture is the
truth on which the possibility of such senses must
depend; for it implies that the res beneath the voces
a Deut. xviu. 15 ; Ps. ex. 1, 4. Cf Acts iu. 22 ; Matt. xxU. 45 ;
Heb. V. 6.
t" Num. xxiv. 17 ; Isa. xi. 1, 10 ; Mal. iv. 2 ; Rev. v. 5, &c.
"= Ex. xvi. 15 ; Num. xxi. 9 ; John vi. 31 ; iii. 14 ; 1 Cor. x. 4.
d Rev. xiu. 8; Isa. UU. 7; Acts viu, 32; Ps. xxu. 16, 18;
Isa. liii. 9. I

114 LECTURE IV. •
shall be significant as weU as they" (4). But before
we proceed to further proofs and instances of that
significance, we must premise one important principle,
which has been too often overlooked in these discus
sions, namely, that such rights as might fairly be
claimed for the human authors of the Scriptures, are
in every case respected and reserved.
It cannot reasonably be doubted, that every inspired
wi-iter, even when unable to fathom the full import of
his message, would still affix to every word he uttered
some one primary and sufficient meaning, which
would be directly connected with his special mission.
In cases of prophecy, this is often plain and unques
tioned. Amos must have thoroughly understood that
God would transport His people beyond Damascus,
even though he did not know, what the Hght of the
fulfilment told St. Stephen, that they would be carried
beyond Babylon also." Isaiah must have perfectly
comprehended the sense in which he described the ruin
of the King of Babylon as the fall of ' Lucifer, son of the
morning,' though he might not be able to regard it as
the type of that overthrow of the power of iniquity to
which Christ referred when He said, ' I beheld Satan
as Hghtnmg fall from heaven."^ God's wrath against
old guilty nations is expressed -with as much clearness
and precision, as if it had no further bearing on more
spiritual forms of eril. The chastisements of Israel,
and God's forgiveness on their repentance, are all as
closely adjusted to the original circumstances as if
" S. Thom. Aquin., S. Th., I™" Qu. i. Art. x. 3.
* Amos V. 27 ; Acts vU. 43. " Isa. xiv. 12 ; Luke x. 18.

LECTURE IV. 115
they had never been meant to be extended to the
whole Church of God. Precisely in the same way, to
take an earlier instance, Abraham must have attached
a definite significance to the Dirine title when he
caUed a place Jehovah-jireh, though we are told that
God was not revealed to him by the full signification
of His name Jehovah.* And to take a later instance,
the words of Christ Himself, which were uttered by
direct omniscience, bear as sharply and precisely on
the fall of Jerusalem as if they were not coupled with
other expressions of a broader range and deeper
meaning, which can receive no earlier fulfilment than
in the solemn events of His second advent. Or to
turn to cases where prophets look back to the facts of
history ; we may rest assured that Hosea was thinking
of the Exodus as he wrote, ' When Israel was a chUd,
then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt;'
and it is a mere misapprehension of the question to
suppose that the believers in his inspiration are bound
to maintain that he used these words with any
primary reference to Christ" (5). The same remark
applies to Jeremiah's allusion to the mourning of
Rachel, which St. Matthew quotes in the same con
nection." The prophets referred to well-known facts,
and God had caused those facts to be typical. But
the record of a typical fact becomes a prophecy, though
it might not in all cases be kno-wn to be such at the
time when it was -wi-itten down. Dum narrat gestum,
a Gen. xxii. 14 ; Ex. vi. 3 (above, p. 50).
^ Hos. xi. 1 ; Matt. U. 15. <= Jer. xxxi. 15 ; Matt. U. 18.
i2

116 LECTURE IV.
prodit mysterium." Events in the Old Testament
reappear as truths in the New Testament; but the
prophets who cite them in their earlier character
must on no account be put on the same level -with the
evangelist who was inspired to see their prophetic
import, and to record the circumstances in which they
were fulfilled. To recur to my former iUustrations.
The private understands the step that he is taking,
though he knows but little of its ulterior objects;
and the subordinate member of a numerous chorus
sees clearly the note which he himself is striking,
though he might be unable to tell you its exact
position in the complex harmony of the great master.
And this firm belief, that each -writer thoroughly
understood the primary meaning of his own language,
is quite compatible with the conviction, that the true
fulfilment, when it came, drew out a meaning far
closer, deeper, and worthier, than the contemporary
or intermediate application could supply.
There might, indeed, be repetitions of such prori-
sional applications, as once and again the law took
effect, the principle found expression in an historical
event, and the prediction was strengthened by the
addition of a type, which each such fact of history
yielded (6). It was as though the reflection of the
coming future rested brightly and yet more brightly on
the crest of each advancing wave. But while each of
these applications might be real in its own place, and
might form a solid element in the onward movement
" S. Greg. Magn. ap. S. Thom. Aquin., S. Th., L i. Art. x. {Opp.,
i. 635 : ' Dum narrat textum,' &c.).

LECTURE IV. 117
of events, stiU the sign of imperfection would be found
to linger over aU such partial shadows of the end. We
could not mistake them for that exhaustive fulfilment
which came at last to light up every line and feature
in the mysterious forecast, when the advent of the
grand reality brought the series of types and antici
pations to its close.
Here, then, is the first caution which we must
observe when applying the doctruie of secondary and
spu-itual interpretations of Scripture. We are by no
means to suppose that any inspired writer was so mere
a mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit, that he used words
to which he did not himself attach a definite meaning ;
and that, too, a higher meaning than his own thoughts
could have furnished. We are on no account to ima
gine that any sower of the seed of the Spirit could
have been ignorant of the spiritual nature of his work.
What we allege is, that over and above that one clear
meaning in which the original -writer used the words
of Scripture, they are often found tp cover a secon
dary and deeper sense, sometimes more than one
such sense, which it was a function of the later
revelation to disclose.
On the other hand, it is just as little to be thought
that, after this second sense had been extracted, the
first wholly lost its use and interest. The Mosaic
laws, for instance, still retain their distinct value as
the forms impressed by God Himself, for a most
important purpose, on universal principles of right
and wrong — a value which is entirely independent
of such well-meant but questionable explanations as

118 LECTURE IV.
have been offered by Kabbalistic, Hutchinsonian, or
Swedenborgian schools. Increased study only enables
us to extend the remark with greater confidence to
every portion of the older Scriptures ; and to suspect
that the Church was meant by her Master to apply,
with careful sobriety of judgment, a similar interpre
tation for large portions of the New Testament. The
earlier moral lessons, for instance, wUl no longer be
thought to be the mere vehicles of an unrelenting
sternness, fitted for the world's childhood, but un
worthy of its maturity. We shaU no longer look on
that old Jevrish zeal, which bore fi-uit in hatred for
evil as well as love for good, as though it could yield
no precedent for Christian conduct, no pattern meet
for Christian men. The same is true of every portion
of that ancient record. To the devout and enhghtened
Christian inteUigence, the words of those elder Scrip
tures can never become like the narrow cottage which
is abandoned to decay and desolation when its inmates
have left it for an ampler home. Still less are they
like the dead husk which may be cast away when the
fruit has been secured, or like the dead body which
may be buried when the spu-it has departed. Rather
they are stUl and for ever alive with the abiding pre
sence of the indweUing Spirit ; they rise in themselves
to a nobler elevation, in proportion as their loftier
meaning is unfolded : just as the image of the Sariour
glorifies that long line of ancient worthies in which
it was foreshown ; just as what man might have mis
taken for the petty laws and narrow policies of one
small tribe in a secluded district swell out into the

LECTURE IV. 119
reflection of the everlasting country, when the Gospel
discloses their eternal model, abiding in its glory in
the heavens.
But our safest guidance on this subject must be
sought from the recorded examples of the mode in
which Christ and His apostles were accustomed to
deal -frith the Old Testament Scriptures. Two main
principles appear to be suggested by that enquiry :
the one, which is again divisible into two parts, that
facts in the history of God's ancient Church are
regarded as sometimes symbolical, and sometimes
typical — in other words, as indicative at one time of
truths and at other times of events, which meet us
in the history of the Christian dispensation ; the
other, that the enactments of the Mosaic system were
frequently invested with so representative a character,
that we can still derive the greatest advantage from
translating them back into the more universal laws
on which they rest.
We have here three different modes of explanation,
under one or other of which most secondary meanings
can be arranged (7). In the first place, objects and
events which were in themselves perfectly real and
historical, are found to possess a symbolical force
when they are seen to embody a deep spiritual or
moral principle, which clothes itself in different ages
under varying outward forms. The case of types is
rather more complex, as they add to the symbol the
element of prophecy. And under this division may
be included two heads of interpretation which were
anciently marked by different names, the allegorical

120 LECTURE IV.
and anagogic ; the one containing those types in the
Law which anticipate the Gospel ; the other comprising
those characteristics of the Church militant which pre
figure the eternal glory of the Church triumphant.
To the symbolical and typical I have proposed to add
a third class, containing cases where the secondary
sense merely resolves a rule into the deeper law, which
gives it an abiding interest.
1. Ofthe symbolical kind of secondary senses, the
leading instance is furnished by St. Paul's interpreta
tion of the history of Sarah and Hagar " (s). The word
dx7\.rjyopo6[j.sva which he employs plainly means, as
St. Chrysostom interprets it, that the history referred
to ou [Jiovov 7rapa^rjXo7 otvsp (palvsToii ' (mark the care
with which the Uteral meaning is secured ;) ctAXa xa)
aTO^anvadvayopiusr'^ it gives a symbolical representa
tion of principles, whUe it retains the character of a
plain historical record. The Apostle tells us, then,
that what is written about the members of Abraham's
household may be viewed in the more general hght
of an aUegory; for that 'these are the two covenants;
the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to
bondage,' the other from that heavenly Jerusalem,
which ' is free,' and ' is the mother of us aU.' This is
plainly a very remarkable claim to find a double
sense in a simple narrative, and to read the spiritual
relations of Jew and Christian in the representa
tive records of the house of Abraham. As such it
calls for a closer examination when we are enquiring
" Gal. iv. 21-31. " Cramer, Caten. G. P., vi. 69.

LECTURE IV. 121
into the Scriptural usage as to secondary senses.
My reason for assuming that in this case the
purely symbolical element is more conspicuous than
the typical 'wUl be made clear in the course of
exposition. The analogy, let us observe, is dra-wn fi-om the
entire history, as well as from the persons. Viewed
in themselves, Hagar and Sarah are both mixed
characters. There was plainly much that was excel
lent in Hagar, who t-vrice received angelic visits, in
each case with the promise of a special blessing, and
who had realised a deeper truth than others of her
age and condition, when she said, ' Thou, God, seest
me.' " There had been passing traces of unbelief in
Sarah, though her doubts had been conquered by the
noble influence of Abraham's faith." But even in
their merely personal aspect, the parallel would thus
far hold good, though it forms no part of the Apostle's
argument. For on the one hand, the law is ' good, if a
man use it lawfuUy,' and the ' commandment holy
and just and good;'" and on the other hand there
have always been multitudes of unworthy Christians
who have been gathered within the outer fold of the
Gospel. When both these women were aUke members
of Abraham's household, each had her own position
and duty. Sarah was the mistress, and Hagar was
the handmaid. It was the place of Sarah to rule, and
it was the place of Hagar to obey. Precisely analo
gous, -vrithin God's household of the Je-vrish Church,
" Gen. xvi. 7; xxi. 17; xvi. 13.
•> Gen. .win. 12-15. <= 1 Tim. i. 8 ; Rom. vu. 12.

122 LECTURE IV.
was the relation between the Promise which was the
basis of the Gospel, and the Law, which was the ruling
instance of ceremonial precepts and forms. The
Promise represented the free gift of God's Spirit. The
Law represented the more fleshly and servile element
of ritual obligation, which was ' added because of
transgressions.'* When Hagar despised Sarah, and
when the son of Hagar turned against the son of
Sarah and mocked him, " the true domestic order was
subverted. The mistress was taunted by her hand
maid; the heir of the freewoman became the sport
cf the son of the slave. The same thing happened
when the Law received the faith and reverence which
properly belonged to the Promise only; when men
looked for salvation to the works of the Law, rather
than the faith which had led to the justification of
their fathers; when the hard details of their legal
duties, which were the mere bond-slaves of their
nobler privUeges, were allowed to absorb their entire
devotion, and the flame of spiritual worship died out
within theu- hearts.
And now observe the manner in which this inter
pretation is applied by the Apostle. The Galatians
had fallen back from the spirit to the letter. To
counteract this evil tendency, he appeals to that very
reverence for the letter which they had selected as
their field of vantage. The history of Abraham stood
in the very forefi-ont of those Scriptures which would
be especially described as the Law. What are the
" GaL Ui. 19. ^ Gen. xvi. 4; xxi. 9.

LECTURE IV. 123
lessons of the life of Abraham ? Do they exalt Law
against Promise, flesh against Spirit, forms against
grace, works against faith ? The very contrary is
true. You may see it, he elsewhere argues, from
the history of the justification and circumcision of
Abraham." You may learn it here, he says, fi-om the
records of his household history. You may learn it
if you -wiU duly study what you are told about Sarah
and Hagar, and -vriU draw forth the lessons which
that history should convey.
The son of Sarah was by special covenant to be the
ancestor of Christ; for 'in Isaac shall thy seed be
caUed.' " But though no such glory rested on the
son of Hagar, God had listened with favour when
Abraham had prayed that his son Ishmael also should
be blessed." His very name was a pledge that God
should hear.'' He was ordained to be a great nation.
He did not die tUl this blessing had been abundantly
fulfiUed ; tUl the twelve promised princes of his race
could be gathered together from their to-wns and
castles, that he might die 'in the presence of all his
brethren.' " But the promise which proved God's
goodness towards Ishmael was darkened fi-om the out
set by the prophetic shadow of his -wild and lawless
career.'' His proper province was to yield to Isaac
loyal service. This was the highest household dignity
that belonged to him. So far as his domestic rights
went, he was not even so much as Esau was to Jacob,
a Rom. iv. 10. ^ Gen. xxi. 12.
" Gen. XVU. 20. <» Gen. xvi. 11.
<= Gen. xxv. 16, 18. ' Gen. xvi. 12.

124 LECTURE IV.
or as Eliab was to David (9). When he mocked the
son of Sarah, he feU into domestic rebelHon,and was
cast out into the desert, as the complaint of Sarah
was ratified by the sentence of God." After this he
held his greatness as an alien and a stranger. He
had for ever forfeited his highest blessing. Hence
forward he was, as God presignified, ' a -vrild man ;
his hand against every man, and every man's hand
against him.' " Henceforth he represented the resist
ance of the flesh against the Spirit; the developed
rebellion of our faUen nature when it rises up against
the grace of God. Now it is this secondary, cor
rupted, and unnatural relation which furnishes the
Apostle -with his paraUel for the not less forced, cor
rupted, and unnatural position which the Galatians
were claiming for the Law of Moses. Ishmael might
have kept God's blessing if he had rendered due
respect to Isaac. And in the same manner, the Law
of Moses never gendered to bondage, except when
approached in a spirit at once serrile and rebeUious.
We may be sure that it was no bondage to Moses
and Joshua, to Gideon and Barak, to Samson and
Jephthah, to Darid, and to Samuel, and to the pro
phets." But to the Scribes and Pharisees it had
become the sternest, though unconscious, bondage;
that of the fleshly, formal, and self-righteous heart.
Against these, and such as these, the Apostle, like his
Master, urges, that other heirs had now been born to
Abraham.'' Agam the barren had been blessed -with
^ Gen. xxi. 12. '' Gen. xvi. 12. <= Heb. xi. 23, 30,32.
'^ John viii. 39. Cf St. John Baptist in Matt. iii. 9,

LECTURE IV. 125
offspring, and a new seed had been gathered from the
deadness of the Gentile world. Again had the an
cient prophecies received a further and more noble
fulfilment: for many were now the children of the
desolate, in comparison with her who had the hus
band; in comparison, that is, with the debased and
do-wncast earthly Jerusalem, which was ' in bondage
-vrith her children ' of the older covenant."
Now the whole of this exposition plainly rests upon
the principle that events of this kind happened under
God's special control, and may be regarded as sym
bolical expressions of fundamental truths, which appear
and reappear, though less conspicuously, in the leading
incidents of every age. But we cannot admit that
there is the slightest disposition to interfere with the
literal sense of the original record. That sense stands
out as firm and unshaken as in the record of any
other history. Nor does the Apostle mean to teach
us that the facts to which he appeals had happened or
been narrated for no other purpose than to furnish
the lessons which he shows that they subserve. Those
chapters in Genesis are the Hteral account of real
occurrences which happened under the guidance of
the pro-ridence of God. They are recorded -with per
fect simplicity and singlemuidedness, the writer being
guided, but not trammelled, by the superrision ofthe
Holy Spirit. But they occurred in a household, by
which God's Church was then represented, at a time
when there was a peculiar energy in the operation of
" Isa. liv. 1 ; Gal. iv. 27.

126 LECTURE IV.
God's spiritual laws. The events, then, are conspi
cuously symbolical of fundamental truths, which per
petually rise to the surface in the course of history,
though it is seldom that they can receive so rivid an
illustration as we find in that antagonism between
Judaism and Christianity, which lay open to the
observation of St. Paul.
2. It wUl not be necessary, in the second place,
to dwell at any length on the types of Scripture, many
of which I have already enumerated, while their main
characteristics must be familiar to our thoughts. The
whole history of the Je-vrish nation may be described
as one long type of Christianity ; of its privileges, its
obligations, the rewards which it offers to obedient
faith, the calamities which disobedience and distrust
involve. The chastisements which God inflicted on
the Jews for their lust, idolatry, and other sins, are
expressly called 'types,' which happened for our
guidance, and were recorded for our admonition."
The whole Mosaic ritual, as we may learn fi-om the
Epistle to the Hebrews, was thickly sown with typical
references, which were fulfiUed in the office and the
sacrifice of Christ. Of other Scriptural expositions
which belong to this head, the leading examples are
the foUo-vring: — Christ Himself teaches us that the
serpent which was lifted up by Moses in the wilder
ness was a sign of the Son of Man, who must be
lifted up ; " that the history of the prophet Jonas was
" 1 Cor. X. 6 {riiroi ijjiwv eyevyidriirav), 11 {tvwoi, al. TvitiKHc,
avvi^aivov ttcdvoic).
b John iii. 14.

LECTURE IV. 127
a type of His resurrection ;^* and that the bread from
heaven which was given through Moses prefigured
Himself as the true bread from heaven." St. Paul,
in like manner, unfolds the hidden meaning of the
cloud and sea, the spiritual meat and the spiritual
drink, the spiritual rock which was Christ." He
draws out the position of the first Adam in his typical
contrast to the second.'* He treats the primeval law
of marriage as a mystery which foreshadowed the
relation between Christ and His Church.^ He dwells
on the veil which covered the face of Moses, and finds
in that history a series of typical images, to iUustrate
the greater fulness, freedom, and perpetuity of Chris
tian light.'' All teaching of this kind must be care-
fuUy distinguished from such modes of instruction as
the use of parables, or the employment, throughout
the Apocalypse, of earthly representations to shadow
forth the kingdom of heaven. It is the fundamental
character of what may be strictly called a typical
system, that it rests on the basis of real objects, or
events of history. And confining ourselves to this
signification, we shaU trace the unvarying presence of
the same principle which I have pointed out in the
former cases. Histories may, indeed, be typical, but
that circumstance never causes them to be any the
less real ; and that reality was quite sufficient to fill
the thoughts of the original actors, and occupy the
attention of the original narrators, even if they enter-
" Matt. xii. 40. * John vi. 32. « 1 Cor. x. 1-4.
^ Rom. V. 14 {tvttoq tov jueWovros) ; 1 Cor. xv. 45.
» Eph. V. 32. f 2 Cor. iu. 13-18.

128 LECTURE IV.
tained in any case the dim suspicion that their works
or words bore dirine traces of the reflection of some
distant future. Taking the fullest and most complex
portion of that system, the types embodied in the Law
of Moses, Christians are now enabled to perceive their
manifold significance, because they read them by the
light of theu- fulfilment in Christ. But the Jew
could only see them by the eye of faith, which would
teU him that God's temporal ordinances must embody
a spu-itual import beyond the depth to which his
present insight reached. And if he was ever roused
to profounder meditation, by the flash of an unearthly
splendour which was seen for a moment to gild with
strange glory some detaUs of his ritual forms, his dim
forecast could but resemble the rision of that stranger
seer, whose tongue was overruled to proclaim the
God of Israel among the fires of Balak : seen, but not
now ; beheld, but not nigh ; the distant promise of the
star of Jacob, as descried from the mountains of
Moab.* 3. Of the third class of secondary meanings which
I mentioned, namely, the cases where specific enact
ments are translated back into the universal principles
on which they rest, we have a marked instance in
St. Paul's repeated application ofthe Mosaic rule, ' Thou
shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth
out the corn.' " ' Doth God take care for oxen?' he
asks us ; 'or saith He it altogether for our sakes ? For
" Num. xxiv. 17. Cf Gen. xlix. 18 ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 5 ; Luke x.
23-4; John viii. 56; Heb. xi.
b Deut. xxv. 4 ; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10 ; 1 Tim. v. 18.

LECTURE IV. 129
our sakes, no doubt, this is -written.' The expression
is here so strong and conclusive, that some have
represented the Apostle as entirely depreciating the
literal meaning, however worthy the precept, in its
original connectipn, of the mercy of God. The words
of the Apostle show, they urge, that ' the mystical
meaning was intended by the Holy Ghost, and
the literal meaning was not.'' " Without pushing the
argument to that extreme, we must admit that in
this instance St. Paul resolved a rule of labour, which
was laid do-wn for oxen, into the broader principle
which covers the case of the Christian ministry;
namely, that aU earthly service has the right to receive
its adequate reward. But perhaps a stiU more im
portant illustration can be dra-wn from the manner in
which our Lord Himself subjects the Jewish Sabbath
to a loftier explanation, and thus unfolds a deeper
sense beneath its Hteral precept." I need not now
revert to the discussion on the exact relation existing
between the Sabbath of the Jew and the Lord's Day
of the Christian (10). But members of our Church
must bear in mind the fact, that each Sunday and
holida;y she teaches us to pray that God in His mercy
¦wiU incline our hearts to keep that Law. And further
reflection may dispose us to believe, that the Fourth
Commandment gives the foremost instance of a posi
tive ordinance, which had been meant at the outset
for all humanity, which was reduced to stricter rules
under the Je'vrish system, and which has resumed its
" Dr. Neale, Commentary on the Psalms, i. 383.
b Matt. xii. 8 ; Mark U. 27.K

130 LECTURE IV.
ancient and more noble authority now that the Jewish
ceremonial has been fulfilled and superseded. In its
fundamental import, it embodies the broadest law of
religious dedication. In its commemorative aspect,
it has ever been associated 'vrith such acts of God's
mercy as the completion of creation, the deliverance
from Egypt, the dealings of God -vrith His chosen
people, and, finally, that great and crowning act of
blessing, the resurrection of our Lord. In its pro
phetic character, it reminds men of the rest that
remaineth: a partial rest -vrithin God's Church on
earth ; a rest of untroubled happiness hereafter, in the
Sabbath of eternal life. This great representative
ordinance, then, may be explained on the same pm-
ciple with other laws of wider obligation which were
embodied in the Jewish code ; and if it is not so usual
to quote it under our present subject of secondary
meanings, it may now be seen that the language in
which our Lord describes it really furnishes a pre
rogative instance of the principle on which many
obriously secondary meanings rest — that of resolring
special rules into universal laws, and thus faUing back
from the temporal to the eternal.
And now let us ask, whether this doctrine of the
relation between the divine and human element,
which is found to explain all classes of secondary
meanings, -will not go far to solve the apparent
difficulty of the seeming discrepancy between the
quotations found in the New Testament and their
original context? (ii) We are frequently reminded

LECTURE IV. 131
that such quotations do not always correspond to the
exact words or connection of the original writer; and
that you cannot carry back into the Old Testament
the meaning which they receive in the later Scrip
tures. Sometimes, it is urged, there is only a verbal
resemblance. Sometimes the new meaning sounds
only like a play on words. Sometimes passages are
combined from the most distant quarters, sentences
that were uttered at intervals of centuries being com
pounded in a single text. In one instance, at least,
an argument is rested on the use of a singular instead
of a plural word." But in answer we may fairly
plead the operation of that Divine intention (12) which
overruled a seemingly independent writer to provide
for the possibUity of the future interpretation, by
employing one word rather than another. And in
spired authors may reasonably claim the pri-vUege of
interpreting the books to which they appeal, under
the guidance of the same Holy Spirit who presided
over their earUer utterance ; the right of developing the
more spiritual relations which lay beneath the ancient
forms. When facts are referred to, we may of course
expect that they shall be repeated correctly ; though
the adoption of traditions not elsewhere recorded in
Scripture may sometimes cause a passing difficulty.
But as to words, there was no reason for such rigorous
exactness as we are bound to use in our o-wn quo
tations. The inspired writers of the New Testament
were not jurists, deaHng -with the exact shade of
» Gal. iU. 16.
K 2

132 LECTURE IV.
meaning embodied in a written code ; nor were they
phUologists, whose observations would have rested on
the precise and literal reproduction of the language.
They were God's interpreters, commissioned to reveal
the predetermined counsels of His -wiU. As such
they were charged with the duty, not so much of
simply repeating, as of unfolding and applying His
earher commands. It follows that, in aU cases, and
at aU times, they were Hkely to fix on the relative
rather than on the absolute meaning of a passage,
and to read it by the light of their o-wn immediate
pm-pose, rather than by that of the purpose of the
original writer. Being themselves also inspired, their
function was not so much to quote as to interpret ; to
snatch from their dark places the scattered Hghts of
earlier teaching, and rearrange them to disclose the
convergent -vritness which they bear to the central
revelation of our Lord.
In all that has now been said, I have confined my
self to such exhibitions of secondary senses as rest on
the exphcit authority of Scripture. But we shall
here be met by the obrious question, whether the
principle is to be rigidly limited to those instances
which the later portions of Scripture furnish. So
some have thought ; believing that in such a limita
tion they found their only possible protection against
the baseless dreams of mystic unreality. Yet I
cannot but think that this limitation is unreasonable,
and not borne out by the indications of Scripture.
If it were put in this form, that we must never go

LECTURE IV. 133
beyond the authority or analogy of the sacred writings,
the rule would probably include all that is requisite.
But it includes much less than is requisite when the
appeal to that analogy is excluded (i3). Consider
that in such a case we should be debarred from any
extension of that sjmabolical interpretation which
enabled St. John to describe the powers of evil under
the names of Sodom, of Egypt, or of Babylon."
For typical instances, we have no du-ect Scriptural
authority for regarding Isaac, or Joseph, or Samson,
or Darid, or Elijah, as each in his turn contributing
such special and conspicuous types of Christ as the
offered sacrifice ; the release from the Egyptian.
dungeon ; the rictory won, by the very act of dying,
over those PhUistine enemies, whom we must no
longer regard as sjmibolical of evil; the overthi-ow of
GoHath, to whom the same restriction wiU apply ; and
the forty days' fast and translation of the prophet:
to which we might add many similar uistances,
in which the Church has ever loved to read con
spicuous iUustrations of the office and work of her
Lord (14). And under our third class we should be
forbidden to extend to any other portion of the Mosaic
system the same interpretation which St. Paul affixed
to the rule about oxen; or which enables us to
recognise the fundamental law of the Je-wish Sabbath
in the loftier uses to which the Christian's Lord's Day
is devoted. To the example of Scripture, then, let us
add its analogy; according to St. Paul's own rule for
" Rev. xi. 8 ; xvi. 19, &c.

134 LECTURE IV.
prophecy or preaching, that it shaU be xara t^v
dva'Koytav rr^g Tria-Tswg-" that is to say, shall conform
to the ripened judgment of those who can look most
deeply into the mind of Christ, and can trace most
clearly the relations existing between one truth and
another, and the respective proportions of the dif
ferent principles of faith. There is one important
rule, however, which may not have bound the inspired
¦writers, but which should always be obeyed imphcitly
by uninspired interpreters — ^the rule that ex literali
solo potest trahi argumentum: the spiritual sense
supplies us -with no secure ground for argument,
unless we find that what is spiritual in one place is
literal in another (15). We must not, then, be over-
hasty to draw a spiritual interpretation, for which we
cannot elsewhere find a Hteral basis. The secondary
senses furnish no new and independent teaching, but
only deepen, iUustrate, and confirm the teaching
which the Uteral sense of other texts affords. To
this restriction we may add, if we please, such further
rules as formal expositors of the doctrine have en
deavoured to estabhsh (i6). But after aU, I think
that we shall find that, as contrasted with times when
the search for spu-itual senses drew men away from
a sober and critical study of the text of Scripture,
what we now need is, not so much more perfect rules,
as a sounder tact in using them. We could scarcely
expect or -vrish to recaU men to the temper which
saw Jesus and the Cross in the number of Abraham's
* Rom. xu. 6.

LECTURE IV. 135
servants" (17); but we never faU to find a -vride and
sympathising answer to every sober endeavour to
deepen our spiritual insight into less prominent
portions of the Word of God.
That the Church was to retain the enjoyment of
such a pri-vUege is indicated by the fulness with
which the method is pursued up to the very close
of the canon, in teaching which was to serve as our
abiding model, and on materials which were furnished
by the New Testament itself (is). Our Lord set
the example when He spoke in dark sayings of the
temple of His body;" when He dwelt in one con
tinuous passage on our spiritual awakening from the
death of sin, and the future resurrection of all men
for the final judgment;" and when, in His repeated
warning, ' He that findeth his life shall lose it,' He
drew the analogy between temporal and eternal
death."* St. Paul employs the same method when
dealing with events so recent in occurrence, and so
eminently important in their literal signification, as
the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord.
In the literal sense, it was a heresy to say that ' the
resurrection is past already; ' " in the spiritual sense,
it is a fundamental truth to declare, that each
Chi-istian rose again in baptism from the death of
sin. Throughout aU Christ's Hfe He traces out
these double meanmgs. We are ' buried -vrith Him
by baptism into death,' yet we are ' risen with Him
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath
a Gen. xiv. 14. * John U. 19. "= John v. 24-9,
a Matt .s. 39, &c. e 2 Tim. U. 18.

136 LECTURE IV.
raised Him from the dead.' 'Our old man is
crucified with Him.' We must therefore reckon
ourselves to be ' dead unto sin,' and must prove
that we belong to Christ by crucifying 'the flesh,
-vrith the affections and lusts.' * Now we must bear
in mind that these applications impose a spiritual
sense on the letter of the most important truths in
Scripture. It cannot be said that they are an
attempt to discover depth of spiritual significance,
in cases where we do not find it in the literal
meaning. The simple facts of Christ's crucifixion,
death, burial, and resurrection, do themselves sup
ply the vital power which gives aU energy and
reality to our o-wn recovery from the deadness of
a faUen nature. Yet, beneath that letter, the over
whelming importance of which no thoughts of man
could overestimate, the Apostle habituaUy draws out
these secondary senses, as types of that great
spiritual conversion, to which their literal meaning
gives the power. What inference can we draw,
but that the Church has always been justified in
seeing parables of heavenly truth in every word
and act of Christ ? The history of the good Sa
maritan affords us one out of a thousand instances.
Who can doubt that Christ Himself is the true
example, who Hes concealed under that model of
neighbourly love? In that narrative He gave a
hidden picture of His own great work of mercy,
when the guUty wanderer, who had left the heavenly
* Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12 ; Rom. vi. 6, 11 ; GaL v. 24.

LECTURE IV. 137
for the accursed city, lay dying of the wounds which
Law and prophet could not cure.
And now let it be considered whether the current
objections to this doctrine of secondary meanings
do not rest, to a great extent, on misapprehensions,
which a little calm and patient explanation would
remove. Is it aUeged that the supporters of that
doctrine shake the credit of the Uteral narrative?
On the contrary, we uphold it in the very strongest
language, and we accept every inference which that
acknowledgement involves. Is it asserted that we
claim for the inspired writers a direct participation
in the Divine omniscience? On the contrary, we
claim for them no more than this, that besides their
high endowments in the way of human faculties,
they were made the vehicles for communicating to
mankind dirine messages, which often reached far
beyond their present thought. In a much stricter
sense than it was true of Christ, they only spoke
what they knew, and testified what they had seen,
of the truths which were disclosed fi-om above.*
Is it averred that we propose to sanction a lax
system of interpretation, by which almost any doctrine
could be made to emerge from almost every text?
On the contrary, we recognise and uphold the
principle, that, to us at least, the literal meaning
only can supply a sufficient foundation for argument.
Is it asserted that the method employed claims a
Hcentious fi-eedom fi-om the critical laws of exegesis?
* John iii. 11.

138 LECTURE IV.
We answer, that a rule of sufficient stringency is
obeyed by those who decline to pass beyond the
precedent or the analogy of Scripture. Such are
the rejoinders by which these objections could be
met. But let us not forget that they form the
mere outworks for defending that great positive
principle, the belief in the real Divine authorship
of Scripture, on which the theory of secondary senses
rests. There is no other faith but this which can
enable us to'grasp the fuU conception of that spiritual
presence which interpenetrates the whole of Scrip
ture ; arranging the facts, and suggesting the record,
and controlling at times the very form in which
the inspired writers shaped then- language; planting
the early seed-plots of primeval and patriarchal
history with the germs that should burst forth into
a glorious harvest at the coming of the Son of Man;
and resting the entire mass of the sacred writings
on a firm substratum of Dirine significance, which
proves them to be, through aU their portions, not
more the genuine words of men than the real and
undoubted Word of God.

139

LECTURE V.

2 Coe. iv. 7.
' "We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excel
lency of the power may be of God, and not of us.'
IF we have formed a just conception of that special
revelation which supplies a supernatural counter
part to every portion of the facts of Scripture, and if
we have realised the influence of that special inspira
tion which distinguishes the sacred writers from every
other class of human agents, the strength of our o'wn
faith should be enough to save us from sharing in the
fears which have been aroused, by the assertion that
the human element, through which those dirine gifts
were communicated, was not only moulded by the
individual characteristics of the writers, but was ad
justed to the scientific' opinions and Uterary habits
of the times in which they severally Hved. And this
is the subject to which our attention must be now
directed. We have dwelt on some few of the leading
features which prove the reaUty and influence of that
Di-rine presence which shines through every part of
Scripture; reconciling the seeming contrarieties of
human formulas, and spreading out a broad range of

140 LECTURE V.
di-rine significance, as the basis on which the human
language rests. We know that the record begins in
mystery, and ends in mu-acle; the mystery of the
Dirine nature, the cro-wning mu-acle of Christ's
resurrection from the dead. We discover that the
narrative is raised at every step above the level of
man's unaided inteUect, by affording further glimpses
which deepen our sense of the mysterious, and by
recording continuous agencies, -with which the mira
culous is intimately blended. When we are now asked
to gaze, with reverence but vrith firmness, on the
nature of the earthly apparel in which these shapes
of heavenly truth are robed, we may surely enter on
the task in a spirit of fi-ank confidence, and -vrith
entire freedom from any unworthy alarm. We risk
but a smaU venture on the separate value of the
' earthen vessels,' when the possession of the heavenly
' treasure ' is secured. It is not that we may treat
such questions with indifference. If Scripture be
only the hem of Christ's garment, it is weU to imitate
the faith of her who said, ' If I may but touch His
garment, I shall be whole.'* But it has been weU
observed, that ' it makes a wonderful difference in the
apparent magnitude and importance of a difficulty,
whether it be regarded as the possible entrance to
an entfre unbelief, or an acknowledged perplexity on
the fringe or edge of a strong and impregnable faith.'"
Setting forth fi-om the firm foundation of such faith,
a Matt. ix. 21.
" Dr. Moberly, Preface to Sermons on the Beatitudes, p. xxiii.
(=p. xx'vii. 2nd. ed.).

LECTURE V. 141
we shaU find that disputes on details have a gro-wing
tendency to settle themselves and disappear. It is a
dangerous and mistaken policy to raise these disputes
to adventitious importance, by treating them as
though they necessarily involved the issue of our
highest interests. We can understand a writer
saying that he holds ' the sixty-six books of the Old
and New Testaments to be verbaUy the Word of
God, as absolutely as were the ten commandments
-written by the finger of God on the two tables of
stone ' (i). Whether we adopt the phrase or not, we
can certainly comprehend the creed which it ex
presses, and we cannot deny that it is a legitimate
form of Christian conviction. But should a person
think to move us by teUing us. If you deny that
every jot and tittle was thus given, you wiU make
me an infidel, we can only answer, that such is not
the language of a healthy faith. In a case of this
kind, the real strength of the faith is in an inverse
ratio to the violence of its language ; and the suspi
cion cannot be repressed, that the bare mechanical
theory has been adopted, like the theory of an infal
lible Church at other times, for its ease, its simpHcity,
and the rehef it gives from further trouble (2).
On the other hand, a real reason for uneasiness
may be found in the pertinacity with which the argu
ment has been urged on, in opposite quarters, fi-om
exaggerated scruples on subjects of science or history,
to moral and religious doubts, of deeper and more
certain danger. We might be -vriUing to attend to
Paley, when he warns us against making ' Christianity

142 LECTURE V.
answerable with its life'* for difficult questions con
nected -vrith the Old Testament (3). We might see
the risk of arguments which urge that if one asser
tion is doubted, aU is in peril; if one link is allowed
to be unsound, the chain is broken ; if one stone is
removed, the whole structure ' coUapses into a shape
less and unmeaning ruin' (4). We might readily
admit that these illustrations rest on wrong pre
sumptions as to the kind and degree of scientific
accuracy which we are authorised to expect in Scrip
ture language ; and that no fair reasoner has a right
to stake the credibility of Christianity itself on the
obscure adjustment of an isolated text, or the doubt
ful interpretation of a subordinate passage. But it is
a different matter when such points as these are
made the stepping-stones for inroads on the substance
of the Christian faith. We cannot Hsten to the ex
hortation to refi-ain from bringing ' the Sacred Ark
itself into the battle-field,' if we have reason to fear
that the adrice is meant to induce us to resign
a solid bulwark, by wluch the citadel of faith is
guarded. We have learnt from experience that it is
only a narrow frontier which dirides the aUeged
proof of scientific or historical mistakes fi-om the
imputation of moral or religious unsoundness. We
know that the assault is soon extended from the
supposed discovery of unimportant discrepancies to
charges of fabrication and general untruthfulness ;
and that we may very soon be caUed upon to hear,
" Evidences of Christianity, HI. § 3.

LECTURE V. 143
not of ' error ' alone, but of ' infirmity, passion, and
ignorance;' of 'the dark patches of human passion
and error, which form a partial crust upon ' the
surface, in contrast -vrith ' the bright centre of spi
ritual truth within ' (5). It is surely not unreason
able to ask that these two subjects may be kept
entirely distinct, and that no attempt may be made to
construct an illegitimate inference extending from
the one to the other. The topic of aUeged moral
defects in the earlier teaching will come before us in
the succeeding Lecture. Let us now confine our
selves to the allegations of inaccuracies in history
and science, and content ourselves for the present
by protesting against the confusion which hurries us
on from such subjects to those deeper questions
which cannot be stirred -vrithout exciting reasonable
alarm. I. We must acknowledge, in the outset, that there
are some definitions of inspiration which make it a
very serious matter to detect the sUghtest variation
between collateral accounts of the same transaction,
and which subject their supporter to a constant rest
lessness of doubt, so long as he finds it difficult to
adjust each link in every pedigree, or to harmonise
each detaU in contemporary records (6). But it is
open to question whether these definitions are sup
ported by the facts; whether they leave sufficient
room for the free play of those laws of narrative by
which aU human histories are governed ; and whether
they make sufficient allowance for habits of compo-

144 LECTURE V.
sition which were necessarily very different from our
own. 1. There was a time when men feared a similar
danger to the faith from the discovery of the countless
various readings in the MSS. of Scripture, and from
the attempt to use that discovery as the basis for
an attack on deeper interests (7). That danger has
passed away and is forgotten. But we may draw a
useful lesson fi-om the well-worn topic, through the
proof which it affords that God has not been pleased
to exercise any miraculous superintendence over the
text of the Scriptures, to protect them from the inci
dents of other ancient writings. This is a definite
and undoubted fact, which throws more light upon the
question than we could expect to derive fi-om our
own precarious anticipations of the probable condi
tions of a Di-rine revelation, a subject on which we
are not competent to judge. That God has allowed the
usual dust of age to gather over these sacred re
cords is a simple historical fact which Hes beyond
the reach of controversy. The common text of the
Bible does demonstrably contain letters and words,
and even sentences, which were certainly never
-written by the finger of God. And this simple fact,
that -vrithout obscuring a single truth, the critical
study of MSS. has considerably modified the older
text, is pregnant -vrith significant instruction, when
we are enquiring into the real nature of that human
element which is traceable throughout the Word of
God. 2. And if this remark is suggested by the docu-

LECTURE V. 145
mentary history of the text of Scripture, a simUar
lesson may be dra-wn from the apparent method of
its composition, and its relation to the older materials
which its writers may have used. For that the
inspired writers did make free use of existing ma
terials, is a fact which rests on the explicit witness
of the Scriptures themselves. Revelation, as I have
before pointed out,* is not conterminous with inspira
tion. Granting that throughout every part of Scrip
ture, as weU as ' in old time,' ' holy men of God spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,' " we have
every reason, from their own expressions, to beheve
that they did not rely on any supernatural revelation
for that vast mass of general knowledge which was
collected into the canon of the Floly Scriptures, under
the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord.
The very Gospels rest on testimony (s). St. Luke
puts his authorities in the forefront of his work. St.
John, alike in Gospel and in Epistle, pleads his special
nearness to Christ as his title for claiming our atten
tion to his teaching. ' This is the disciple which
testifieth of these things, and wrote these things ; and
we know that his testimony is true.' ' That which
was from the beginning, which we have heard, which
we have seen -vrith our eyes, which we have looked
upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life,
that which we have seen and heard declare we unto
you.' " A new apostle was elected in the room of
Judas, from among the limited number of those who
" Above, p. 25. * 2 Pet. i. 21. « John xxi. 24 ; 1 John i. 1, 3.
L

146 LECTURE V.
had companied with the rest fi-om the begmning, for
the express purpose that he might be a -vritness with
them of Christ's resurrection.* The name of witness
soon became the noblest title by which the martyrum
candidatus exercitus, the suffering saints of God, were
known. Human powers, then, both of observation
and testimony, were used, not superseded, by the
Holy Spirit. In the same way, we may rest satisfied
that the genealogies of Christ were copied from
authentic Jewish tables, and that this circumstance
explains some peculiarities in their form (9). Turn to
the Old Testament, and the language of quotation is
varied and fi-equent: — ' Is not this written in the
Book of Jasher?' ' Behold, it is wi-itten in the Book
of Jasher.' ' It is said in the Book ofthe Wars of the
Lord.' " In this and several simUar instances, the refer
ence may point to coUections of hymns or songs by
which the histories were preceded (lo). But the histo
rical books, again, rely in aU fit cases on such pubhc
and authentic documents as the census of the people,
the registers of lands and tribes, the genealogies of
families, or the records of the gratitude and deeds of
kings. Pass to the oldest history of the Pentateuch,
and we cannot doubt that its ins^nred author was
abundantly supplied with all avaUable tradition, and
with every kind of existing record (ii). Many institu
tions are referred to, which must have been handed
do-wn by use from earlier ages ; and the dim mytho
logies of other lands establish the existence of a
a Acts i. 22. •> Josh. x. 13; 2 Sam. i. 18; Num. xxi. 14.

LECTURE V. 147
primitive stock of historical and sacred information,
some streamlets of which had overflowed into the less
pure channels of Gentile recollection, from points
which lie farther up the current than the date when
they were brought together by the agency of the
Spirit, through a human writer, into the Word of God.
These facts supply definite answers to two import
ant questions : — Is it true that the text of Scripture
has been so highly honoured, above that of every
other ancient history, that it has been preserved intact
in every detail, so that -vrithout raising any needless
scruples about translation, we may place implicit
reliance on the copy of the originals which we hold in
our hands, as a literal reproduction of the sacred
autograph? And is it true that the contents of
Scripture stand out in self-sustained independence,
so as to own no obHgations to any anterior records of
literature? BolJh these questions must be answered
in the negative : and in these two positions we find a
basis of fact for fiirther argument, which bears directly
on a large class of Scripture difficulties, and indirectly
on the whole subject with which we are concerned.
Both facts, I repeat, are pregnant with significant
instruction. But we must be careful not to over
estimate the amount of that significance. With regard
to various readings, in the first place : though criti
cism has frequently turned on texts of great doctrinal
importance," it is allowed that the removal of some
of these texts has not exerted the smallest influence
a Acts XX. 28 ; 1 Tim. iu. 16 ; 1 John v. 7.
L 2

148 LECTURE V.
over the certainty ofthe doctrines which they teach (12).
The only effect has been, to throw back the proof
from the precarious support of saUent passages, upon
the surer foundation of continuous arguments. In
the case of the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses,*
we need not doubt the venerable antiquity of at
least its Latin form ; and it seems not impossible to
conjecture its origin (13). The several clauses of the
Creed were the most authoritative attempts to put
the coping-stone on converging Hnes of doctrine,
which were less systematically revealed in Scripture;
and the text in question might be an early symptom
of that formulating tendency to which the creeds
themselves are due. If, however, it cannot be proved
to have been generally known in the fourth century,
' then Arianism, in its height,' as Bentley said, ' was
beaten do-wn -without the help of that verse ; and let
ihe, fact prove as it wUl, the doctrine is unshaken.'"
We may resign it, then, without the slightest fear
that its loss will weaken the fundamental proofs of
faith. The same remark might be extended to the
declaration of the eunuch, ' I believe that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God.'" Such texts as these have,
under any circumstances, a distinct value, because
they bruig to the surface, like the creeds themselves,
great truths which form the basis of the circumjacent
arguments. But if it can be proved that they are no
portion of the Scripture record, they He beyond that
special reverence which we owe to the inspired Word
of God.
a 1 John V. 7. ^ Works, ed. Dyce, iii. 485. <= Acts viii. 37.

LECTURE V. 149
While it is not pretended, however, that any Chris
tian doctrine has been really modified by the results
of criticism, it must be thankfully acknowledged, on
the other hand, that there are many cases in which
the truth has been a gainer by them ; and it may be
expected that the amount of this good service may be
considerably enlarged hereafter. We might instance
the transposition of three words in St. Paul's speech
at the Pisidian Antioch, which destroys a supposed
contradiction to a date in the Old Testament.* The
omission of a few words in the last chapter of St.
Matthew removes an obstacle to the arrangement of
our Lord's appearances after the resurrection." The
excision of two words in St. Matthew's record of
our Lord's rebuke to Jerusalem would cancel another
historical difficulty; but seems still to rest on some
what sHghter authority." And though conjecture, as
a general rule, has been rightly excluded from any
interference -with the sacred text, it is possible that
room may yet be found for the cautious use of this
highest instrument of criticism, in adjusting such
purely formal matters as numerals, or lists of obscvire
names, which are scantily corroborated by coUateral
narratives, and have therefore been especiaUy exposed
to error (14).
And next, to turn to the lessons suggested by the

" 1 Kings vi. 1 ; Acts xiii. 20 {transp. A, B, C, &c., Lachmann,
Wordsworth). •> Matt, xxviii. 9 {om. B, D, ^, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tre-
gelles). " Matt. xxUi. 35 {vlov Bapax^ou, om. f^, prima manu).

150 LECTURE V.
use of earlier materials in Scripture. The chief of
these is the conviction, that so far as Scripture is
simply historical, it was meant to obey the laws of
other histories ; and even to accept occasional modifi
cations of familiar facts, like the omission of genera
tions for the sake of symmetry, which were found in
the records it employed. In like manner when it is
objected, that while St. Matthew and St. Luke draw
the lineage of Joseph through a different father, it is
impossible that both should be historically true, we
answer that it is sufficient if we can establish, that
while the one is historically true, the other is legally
correct and formal; and that legal correctness was
precisely the aspect in which the object of one of the
two Evangehsts would have led him to regard it. It
is needless to detail the service which this principle
would render, in defining the real character of large
portions of the earlier Scriptures. But I may add,
that in the Gospels themselves, the frank recognition
of that common mass of materials which St. Luke's
opening language would suggest, reheves us fi-om the
difficulties which have been raised on the similarity
of large portions of the three earlier Gospels; and
supplies a fair answer to cavUs based on smaU discre
pancies, by reminding us of the universal law of hu
man testimony, that two or more separate reporters
of any scene which they have -vritnessed can seldom
succeed, without coUusion, in laying hold so exactly
on the same circumstances, or adopting so precisely
the same point of view, as to produce a narrative from
which such variations are absolutely excluded (15).

LECTURE V. 151
This explicit recognition of earlier materials supplies
an answer to another class of historical difficulties,
which is due to the partial nature of our knowledge.
It is well kno-wn that the later -wi'iters of Scripture fre
quently bear -witness to the existence of a considerable
amount of external tradition, by filling up the outlines
of their references to facts with details not recorded
in the earlier narrative (16). The acknowledgement
of such traditions enables us to remove the chief
stumblingblock in the speech of St. Stephen, who has
been hastily accused of contradicting the history,
whUe it is found that he was simply adding to our
knowledge " (i7). Again, the census of Cyrenius" sup
plies a very striking instance, and by no means the
only one which we owe to recent enquiries, where an
accusation of ignorance seems likely to recoil on those
who made it, by a recovery of the genuine facts of the
history (is).
But it is important to point out, that the principle
which has been thus asserted stands in the strongest
possible contrast to the theories which would disin
tegrate the books of Scripture, and distribute them
among the earlier documents of which they are aUeged
to be compounded. That riew is destructive of all
real authorship, as claimed for the several -wi-itings in
their existing form; an authorship which in many
instances is sufficiently ascertained ; though in others,
where it has not been decided by testimony, it forms
a legitimate subject for critical enquiry. That author-
=¦ Acts vu. 16. ^ Luke u. 2.

152 LECTURE V.
ship, be it kno-wn or unkno-wn, rests in each case with
the inspired writer, who produced the book acknow
ledged in the canon ; and the belief that he availed
himself of earlier materials would no more entitle
us to rend his work in pieces, and reassign its frag
ments to imaginary claimants, than the same argu
ment would destroy the rights of an uninspired
historian to the work which he had moulded into
unity, and impressed -with the fuU stamp of his o'wn
intellectual character, from such materials as he was
able to command. No community of matter, for in
stance, could ever obliterate the clear features hy
which each of the four Evangelists is distinguished,
and which the Church has recognised by corre
sponding symbols, through the sacred literature of
every age.
3. There is. yet another question which recent con
troversy has brought into more prominent notice— the
question whether the books of the Old Testament
have not passed through a process of ancient editorial
revision, which places a limit on the powers of criticism
to deal confidently vrith the eridence of its separate
portions (i9). An affirmative answer to this question
may be counted to the credit of two opposite theories,
according to the degree of alteration recognised. If
the revision was so complete as to affect the genuine
ness of the entire document^ the argument would add
some weight to the opinion, that the inner unity which
can be traced in Scripture is due in a great measure
to the influence of changes and suj)plements, which
may have been introduced by the studious labours of

LECTURE V. 153
successive generations in the Schools of the Prophets.
If, on the other hand, the rerision amounted to
nothing more than the occasional insertion of ex
planatory glosses, the rights of the original author are
secured ; and we are simply furnished with a solution
of the difficulties which have been caused by phrases
of a later age. Now it is surely most consistent -with
the facts, to accept this latter answer rather than the
former. No revision has in any sense obliterated
those original diversities between one book and
another, which have formed, since the very da-wn of
recent criticism, a leading topic in the arguments of the
opposing theorist (20). No rerision has cancelled the
bare simplicity of those early representations, which
have supplied another class of objections, resting
on the hypothesis that later writers were compelled to
modify their form, and deepen their meaning, in
supplemental compositions of their o-wn. Above all,
no rerision could have supplied those secret signs,
those veiled or hidden symbols, by which the unity
of Scripture is wonderfully estabUshed, and the
meaning of which was not revealed till long after
the last of the great prophetic schools was closed (21).
But to admit that such notices as the later names
of Laish or Kirjath-arba, and the references to the
disappearance of the Canaanite, and the reign of kings
in Israel,* may have been introduced at a later date
by the inspired expounders of the sacred text, is only
a natural consequence of the belief, that the Holy
" Gen. xiv. 14 (cf. Josh. xis. 47; Judges xviii. 29) ; Gen. xxiu.
2 ; xxxv. 27 ; xu. 6 ; xiu. 7 ; xxxvi. 31.

154 LECTURE V.
Spirit continued present through the entire series of
the sacred writers, up to the completion of the older
canon (22). If Ezra was inspired as well as Moses,
there was no reason why Ezra should not change the
mere form of the words of Moses, so as to make
them more inteUigible to those whose instruction was
his primary personal object.* With this riew he
might insert glosses, comments, and various minor
memoranda, which have supplied the basis of argu
ments for bringing do-wn the whole composition to a
later age. It cannot be necessary to maintain that
Moses wrote out the entire Pentateuch, vrithout
erasure or correction, by a single impulse, on a single
occasion ; and that the sacred autograph was thence
forward protected from the slightest alteration, at the
hand of either the author himself, or those who suc
ceeded to his position in Israel. It is surely more
reasonable to suppose, that Moses, whose youth was
rich in all Egyptian learning," began at an early age
to collect, under God's guidance, all the knowledge
which still lingered in the memories of the sons of
Abraham ; that he added to his stores as time went
on, interweaving -vrith these materials the direct
revelations which were vouchsafed to him by God ;
that the great events which he subsequently -vritnessed
and recorded, and the diversified occupations of his
advancing years, might reflect a varying colour on
the mere outward form of the expressions which he
used ; and that, just as the account of his own death
" Ezra vu. 10, 25. •> Acts vu. 22.

LECTURE V. 155
must have been appended by a later hand,* so other
notices of a subsequent date might be inserted from
time to time by those inspired authorities on whose
charge the sacred -wi-itings afterward devolved. Such
a view throws no suspicion on the Mosaic authorship,
nor yet imputes imperfection to the earlier record,
which it was the work of the revisers to remove.
An archaic term is not an imperfection. The ex
planation of such a term by a competent authority
conveys no sUght on the original author. Just as in
the paraUel case of the quotations, in which the New
Testament writers depart from the mere letter of the
texts which they interpret," so in this case too we
must not confound the freedom with which the later
agents of the Spirit might modify the human aspects
of its earlier work, -with any breach of the rigid accu
racy and scrupulous respect which one human author
justly claims from another.
It is the general result of these various consi
derations, that we have no right to begin by imposing
on revelation a deductive theory, independent of the
actual facts, and then to feel overwhelmed with
faithless fear when we discover that a rigorous exami
nation of the facts does not confirm the theory. We
are also led to expect, that the text of Scripture, com
posed as it was under such different circumstances, and
at so remote an antiquity, may possibly continue to
present some few historical difficulties, which the most
» Deut. xxxiv. 5. *" Above, p. 130.

156 LECTURE V.
careful enquiry must relinquish as insoluble. It is
the duty of a firm and steadfast faith to throw off aU
such embarrassments to the distant outskirts of its
horizon, and to feel no hesitation in confessing that
there are stiU many topics in Scripture, on which
we must rest content to know in part. But we
have met -with no consideration which could justify
men in exaggerating either the difficulties them
selves, or their bearing on the inspiration of the
Bible. It is not a worthy occupation to build up
scattered fragments of difficulty into a coherent edifice
of doubt. Such a work is unfortunately -vrithin the
reach of any one who wUl devote time and powers to
the undertaking, without the restraint of misgivings
on the use of a method, which is so full of uncertainty
and danger. By restricting to one sense a word which
may be taken equally weU in another ; by excluding
every suggestion, however reasonable, through which
the pressure of a cHfficulty might be lightened ; by
ignoring the possibility of those practical arrange
ments which would naturally suggest themselves to an
orderly and administrative people ; by confounding
generations viewed at their longest, as a measure of
duration, with generations viewed at their shortest, as
an instrument of increase ; by insisting that a pedigree
which is arranged on one principle shall be tested on
another ; and above all, by reducing all the details
of a time of miraculous guidance to the standard of
God's ordinary proridential rule ; it is possible to con
struct a network of improbabUity, which shaU prove
perplexing and distressing to readers of imperfect

LECTURE V. 157
information and of timid faith (23). The cure for this
e-ril must be twofold, like its cause. The information
must be completed, and the faith must be strengthened ;
and we may rest satisfied -vrith the assurance, that
whatever obstacles may be aUowed to linger, as a
further test of our reliance on God's goodness, yet
a resolute grasp on those central principles, which
were wrought out so marvellously through the Exodus
of Israel, -wiU lead to a still further diminution of the
perplexities by which the record of that ' wondrous
march' has been surrounded.
II. And now, fi-om the laws of literature and his
tory, let us pass to those of scientific language, and
trace their bearing on the human element of Holy
Scripture. »
Few of what are commonly called scientific questions,
which are connected with the literal words of Scrip
ture, are inseparably combined with the essentials of
the faith. Rejecting all that would corrode the sub
stance, we can avoid all over-anxiety as to anything
which merely touches the form. Yet it is precisely
the mere form of Scripture which has been constantly
pressed into the service of human theories, and has then
been unwarrantably risked in defending them. Hence
the -wisest teachers in all ages have warned us not to
confound our own interpretations with God's word,
and then pay homage to our own self-complacency
by insisting that they must stand or fall together (24).
There cannot be a greater error than to thrust our
o-wn expositions under the sacred shelter of the

158 LECTURE V.
reverence which is due to the message of God. And
this is what is meant when we are told that any old
interpretation must be abandoned if scientific investi
gation shows it to be wrong (25). It is not that the
laws of Scripture criticism may vary with the varying
theories of science ; nor has anything of that kind
been meant by the warning. But whenever investi
gation has led us to believe that a phrase of Scripture
was accommodated to a scientific creed which has
now been abandoned, we simply translate that phrase
into the deeper meaning, which no scientific theory
can reach or alter. We refuse to lend the weight of
Scripture authority to decisions on topics with which
it was not dealing, and which did not lie within its
proper sphere. We obey no laws, in interpreting the
Scripture, except those which sound criticism and
God's Spirit would prescribe ; but we may find it a
duty to divest ourselves of errors which have been
forced into the exegesis by imperfect knowledge.
The principle that scientific language used in
Scripture would necessarily be optical or pheno
menal (26), has long been recognised, and is now sel
dom challenged. Few would now raise a difficulty
on such expressions as the rising and setting of the
sun, the pillars, doors, and windows of heaven, the
foundations and four corners of the earth.* It is felt
at once that these terms were either simply figurative,
or adjusted to mere outward appearances ; that they
do no more than express the facts in current lan-
* Job xxvi. 11; Ps. Ixxviii. 24; Gen. vii. 11; Ps. civ. 5; Isa.
xi. 12 ; Rev. vii. 1, &c.

LECTURE V. 159
guage, and commit the -wi-iter to no theory on natural
antecedents or sequences -vrith which he was not
called upon to deal. On this point it cannot now be
necessary to dweU. But it is alleged, afresh, that
scientific error has eaten, in some cases, into the very
substance of the narrative ; and that we cannot accept
the conclusions of modern science without acknow
ledging that the inspired writers have fallen into such
mistakes as must modify the older creed of inspira
tion. Let us meet this difficulty on the ground
which is most frequently chosen by objectors — the
crucial instance of the Mosaic record of creation.
In examining that record, we must be careful to
distinguish between the facts and their fi-amework : I
mean, between the material assertions, which convey
the theological doctrines of God's agency and purpose
in creation, and the mere form or arrangement into
which they have been cast. Setting aside, for the
present, the reference to the Fourth Commandment,
which wiU claim our further consideration in the
sequel, we can find no reason, either in the passage
itself, or in the numerous allusions to it which are
scattered over the rest of Scripture, for laying equal
stress in this case on the matter and on the form. But
I think it wUl be found that the substantial facts em
bodied in this passage have been almost universaUy
accepted as unassailable. No reasonable geology has
ever claimed to contradict such positions as these:
that God was the Creator of aU things in the beginning ;
that the ordering of primeval chaos was the work of
His Most Holy Spirit; that He framed earth and

160 LECTURE V.
heaven and all their hosts with a distinct personal
energy and unceasing care, of which the terms of
human labour yield but a very imperfect symbol;
that the crown of His creation was man himself,
who was made in the image of God (27). Before
controversy assails these fundamental principles, it
must have reached a stage at which the disputants,
on one side, have lost all interest in the literal worth
of any Scripture statement. The geological attack, I
think, has mainly been directed, not against these
truths, with their details or consequences, but against
the mere order of succession, under which creation is
described, and against the terms ' evening,' ' morning,'
and ' day,' by which its successive epochs are distin
guished. Now in a case which lies so far outside
of anything which can properly be called history, it is
not easy to see any reason for placing the mere frame
work of the narrative on a level -vrith the facts which it
conveys. We are accustomed to draw this distinction
in cases where there was less antecedent reason to ex
pect it ; and even in the Gospels themselves, which are
surely the most vitally important narratives in Scrip
ture. No diatessaron is possible, unless occasional tra-
jections are admitted; i.e., unless it is aUowed that
the facts may have been arranged in accordance vrith
some other law than that of simple succession in time.
The order of our Lord's temptations, for instance, is
different in the two statements which record them in
detail.* It is weU known that all these matters can
a Matt. iv. 1-11 ; Luke iv. 1-13.

LECTURE V. 161
be adjusted and reduced to rule without throvring
doubts on such successions as are obviously historical,
Hke the reigns and order of a line of kings. But
there is a special reason why we should apply this
principle to set free the present chapter from the
restrictions of time like our own. So far as it unfolds
God's purpose in creation, it belongs to the eternal
rather than the temporal ; and it is only by the help
of economy or condescension that the eternal can be
brought within our grasp. We are justified, there
fore, in regarding the word ' days,' when applied to
creation, as an expression of the same class with those
which no one now would be likely to misinterpret,
the eye, or hand, or finger of God. It is the nearest
expression of the eternal truth which could be con
veyed through human language for the purpose of its
original revelation ; but to take it in the strictest and
most literal sense, is simply to bind the eternal by
the forms of time. It may fairly be compared with
the numbers in the Apocalypse, the figures which fix
the square proportions of the city of the heavenly
Jerusalem "(28).
The distinction which I have now suggested rests
upon the twofold ground, that the revelation of causes
which we gain from Scripture was not meant to inter
fere -with the proper function of the human intellect
in the discovery of scientific laws ; and that the secrets
of God's counsels could only be revealed to man under
the veil of language which faUs to fathom their full
a Rev. xxi. 16, 17.
M

162 LECTURE V.
depth of meaning. It is completely borne out, how
ever, by examining the internal structure of the
passage ; in which, as it has been repeatedly pointed
out, we trace as close a resemblance to the Hebrew
paraUels as could be expected in a narrative which
presents no other signs of poetry. If we read the
passage carefully, we can scarcely fail to see that there
is a break at the end of the third day, and that the
work of the fourth lies parallel to that of the first (29).
The order is, that God created light, and firmament,
and land : these three great acts are detaUed as the
work of the first three days. Then again, as if by a
fresh beginning, we are told that He created orbs in
heaven to hold that light ; birds and fishes, to people
the divisions which the firmament had sundered ; beasts
and man to occupy the land, which had been clothed
-vrith vegetation for their use and support. Such are
the six days, each answering in pau-s to each, and
crowned on the seventh day by that rest of God, that
great Sabbath rest, which is the fittest type for divine
meditation, ' the haven and Sabbath ' * of man's loftiest
thought. This explanation seems to meet the double require
ments of reasonable expectation and the exegesis of
the passage. We may further observe that it stands
fi-ee from two objections which might be raised against
many attempts at a more direct reconcUiation ; namely,
that in some cases, they throw doubts on the substan
tial truth of the revelation, whUe trying to remove
a Bacon, Works, ed. EUis and Spedding, iu. 351, 477.

LECTURE V. 163
objections which teU only against the form under
which it is presented; and that in other cases,
they are open to the retort, that if God had meant
them. He would certainly have expressed them : they
are as easy to understand as that which they are
proposed to supersede. If it had been meant that
these were visions, it would have been said that they
were visions (30). It was no harder to write do-wn
' the vision of Moses,' than to -write do-wn ' the vision
of Isaiah, the son of Amoz.' If it had been meant
that this was only an exposition of God's plan, it
could surely have been made plain to us that the
plan had been altered in the course of execution (31).
The only tenable doctrine of accommodation rests
upon this principle, that the words which are used
are the closest and clearest that man could understand.
Explanations which treat the narrative as parable or
poem are more exposed to the first objection (32).
They throw doubts, as I have said, on the reality and
substantial truth of the revelation, to avoid scruples
which rest solely on too literal an intei-pretation of
the form in which that revelation is conveyed.
It is by no means admitted, however, that the form
was indifferent, or -vrithout a meaning, though it is
urged that the attempt to impose an historical meaning
is in this case misapplied. On the contrary, it seems
possible to see very clear and sufficient reasons for
it. It pleased God to throw the record of His o-wn
workings into such a form, as would most clearly
exhibit then- archetypal character, in relation to the
work of man. Just as man bears God's image, though
M 2

164 LECTURE V.
unspeakably inferior, so man's work, with ah its
poverty and imperfection, may be modelled after the
glorious image of the work of God. Are we com
manded to labour for six days, and rest on the
seventh? The creation of the world can be presented
under a precisely similar formula. Our Creator also
-wrought for six days, and rested on the seventh,
though His days are as much higher than our days
as His image than our image, or His thoughts than
our thoughts. The Fourth Commandment thus be
comes the key to the record of creation. Accepting
that record as what it manifestly is — rather a revela
tion than a tradition — it carries on our thoughts to the
contemporary marvel, when God's finger wrote the
Ten Commandments on the rock. And they answer
on this point, each to each; and the work of God's
creatures is ennobled and dignified when it is repre
sented as a shadow of the great creating work of God.
If we are asked, then, whether we resign the histo
rical reality of the beginning of Genesis, we answer,
that we resign nothing but a deeply seated misappre
hension, which has confounded records of a different
order, and obliterated the distinction between theo
logy and history, by transferring the conditions of
the one to the other. The first step in what may be
technically caUed the narrative of history, is taken
at the beginning of the fifth chapter of the book of
Genesis, in the words, ' This is the book of the gene
rations of Adam;' words which are followed by the
briefest possible summary of the previous account of
creation, and then by the order of a lineage, and the

LECTURE V. 165
regular chronicle of dates and ages. To this historical
commencement, part of the fourth chapter has been
guiding our thoughts : " but, with that and some other
minor exceptions, the first four chapters are rather
theological than historical ; they belong to the head of
pure revelation, rather than to that of ordinary narra
tive. They embody matter which no conjecture could
have reached, which no tradition could have furnished.
They unfold, in such order as God judged to be the
fittest, the fundamental truths about God's purpose
and God's workings in creation; and about the inno
cence, the sin, and fall of man. This, then, after all,
is the sole residuum of that 'confident rhetoric' to
which the Mosaic record has been exposed : the assaU-
ant has only succeeded in carrying a position, which
a deeper interpretation makes it needless to defend.
But it cannot be denied that an examination of the
literature which has gathered round this subject pro
duces a discouraging impression of the effects of these
misapprehensions on the minds of both theological
and scientific disputants. Keep each enquirer to his
own prorince, and he advances with a firm step and
cheerful spirit in the track which God lays open to
his knowledge : the one to read the marvellous
lessons of the book of Nature ; the other to draw
water from the inexhaustible wells of salvation for
the refi-eshment of the souls of men. Give geology
free course, and it prepares to render signal service by
removing mistakes which used to obscure our earlier
» Gen. iv. 17-22, 25, 26.

166 LECTURE V.
conceptions of God's working. It has ah-eady cor
roborated our belief in special acts of creative energy,
by disclosing the indisputable records of creation, ni
countless remains which prove beyond a question
that God has again and again been pleased to in
troduce the beginnings of new races on the earth.
It appears now to supply a safeguard against theories
which substitute creation by the law of development
for creation by the word of God. This end it answers
by its -vritness, that though species may die, they are
not found to be transmuted ; that each spans indepen
dently its arc of life; some longer and some shorter;
some to run a course which has long ago been ended,
and which we know only from the uncovering of the
graveyards of the past ; others stretching forth into
the living world around us, and connecting the relics
of immemorial antiquity with forms which meet us in
our daUy path. If I do not venture to enumerate
other serrices which have been soinetimes claimed at
the hand of the geologist, it is simply because ' he that
believeth shall not make haste ; ' * and it does not
become us to grasp at seeming gains from those who
may yet alter their decisions and reclaim them (33).
But for the gifts which science has already bestowed
on us — gifts which we owe to God alone, though it
has pleased Him to enhance their value by making
them the prizes of the human intellect — for these, I
say, let us be heartily grateful, and let us frankly
acknowledge their importance. Let us above all
"¦ Isa. xxviu. 16.

LECTURE V. 167
things shun that faithless and suspicious temper
which watches askance the work of science, as if
conrinced that it is merely looking out for an oppor
tunity to rob us of some treasure in the heritage of
faith. But we may be aUowed, in turn, to remind the
scientific enquirer, that it is quite as great a fault of
reasoning to overstrain a fact in science that it may
be made to contradict a text of Scripture, as to stand
stubbornly upon some old interpretation of a doubtful
text, and insist that it condemns some new discovery
in science. As a moral fault it is of course far worse,
because the interests involved are incomparably more
important on the one side than on the other.
A dread of enquiry, then, must be cahned by the re
flection, that the same God who made the earth and
all its marvels created and bestowed the intellect of
man, by whose well-guided actirity those ancient
wonders have been gathered and revealed. On the
other hand, a jealousy of inspiration must be checked
by the assurance, that as certainly as God built the
rocks, and peopled sea and land through untold ages
-with countless forms of Hfe, so surely did He give to
man the higher blessing of those Holy Scriptures,
which disclose' the birth, the fall, the restoration of
our race. Why this strife among the servants of a
common Master, the chUdren of a common Father,
who owe then- varied gifts to Him ? And why, again,
this contest among the different members of the
body which He made ?* Each one of these members
a 1 Cor. xu. 12.

168 LECTURE V.
hath He planted as it pleased Him in the body of
mankind. Let not the ear of faith declare its inde
pendence of the eye of science, which reads God's
writing on the hidden tablets of the everlasting hiUs.
And let not the eye of science declare its indepen
dence of the ear of faith, which has caught and
understood the heavenly message of the reconcihation
of man through the Son to the Father. The contest
has not long to live when it is brought to the issue of
a strong but reasonable faith. God's works, we
know, cannot contradict God's Word. This is not
even an open question. To think it so betrays the
secret doubt that either the one or the other came
from God. We are as certain that we hold God's
Word, as you can be certain that you are dealing
-vrith God's work. If they seem for a moment to
present a passing shade of contradiction, there is
abundant room for explanation in the mingled igno
rance and impatience of man : his impatience, which
guesses before he knows ; his ignorance, which makes
his guesses -^vrong — an ignorance which assumes
too hastily that we have already mastered all the
mind of Scripture, and an impatience which snatches
weapons for the contest which God intended for a
very different purpose.
To sum up briefly, then, the riew which has been
urged. The records of Scripture range through a
long series of ages, and were committed to writing by
men of very different characters, who possessed very
different attainments, and who spoke, in short, a
very different language : under which head of lan-

LECTURE V. 169
guage I include the forms of speech by which the
phenomena of heaven and earth would be described.
When the voice of God was heard in thunder from
the rocks of Sinai, by that band of fugitives which
was now being moulded, through stern discipline,
amidst the sands of the desert into national life, what
could they have comprehended of a revelation which
anticipated the far-off conclusions of science, the
results of the observations of laborious ages ? It is
surely mere misapprehension to suppose, that the
revelation -vrith which Moses was really entrusted
could traverse the path of the modern geologist, or
contain anything that would either confirm or con
tradict his readings of those buried rocks. From
whichever side the error comes, we are bound to
shake ourselves fi-ee from it; not by saying, with some,
that God cared not though His instruments should
make mistakes on scientific subjects, but by pointing
out that there can be no error where there is no asser
tion ; and that a purely theological revelation contains
no assertion which falls -vrithin the proper sphere of
science. It is thus that we may find room for researches of
the reason, -vrithout treachery to truths whose pro
vince they do not really invade. It is thus that we
may give fair play to the enquiries of science, -with
out surrendering to desecration a -single corner of the
heritage of faith.
Let us welcome all fi-ee enquiries so long as they are
pursued -with reverence and candour. The believer
is not justified in trying to intimidate fi-ee thought by

170 LECTURE V.
the accusation of atheism: stiU less is the free
thinker justified in striking at faith under the shield
of science. Each commits the same fault; that of
coupling truth -vrith his own private opinions, and
insisting that thesy must stand or fall together. Each
must be met by the same answer ; that what God
never joined, man is bound to put asunder — the
speculations of man and the revelations of God.

171

LECTURE VI.

Matt. xiu. 33.

' The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, 'which a
¦woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the
¦whole 'was leavened.'
IN passing from the historical and scientific lan
guage of Scripture, to consider the moral diffi
culties presented by some parts of its earliest record,
we must begin by endeavouring to form a clear
conception of the obstacles which retarded man's
recovery of truth after the FaU. To whatever quarter
we turn for the early history of our race, we shaU
find its moral character all but unintelligible, unless
we recognise the fuU influence of that mass of
energetic eril which obstructed aU its aspirations
after good. The existence of this great hindrance,
which man had thrown in his own path by abusing
the gift of free-will, is a primary fact, which no human
theory can account for, but which every theory must
accept as its ineritable starting-point. It is one of
those elementary considerations which stand above
the sphere of discussion, and fix the conditions on
which all discussion must depend. When we study

172 LECTURE VI.
the history of God's first revelation, we find that we
are not dealing -vrith the unembarrassed development
of heavenly truth, unfolded for the guidance of a
pure, obedient, sympathising race. We are dealing
-with the introduction of truth into the hearts of fallen
creatures, whose conduct and tendencies it thwarted
and condemned ; with its promulgation in the face of
unruly animosity, of resolute rebellion, of that ' carnal
mind' which 'is enmity against God,' of a 'whole
world' lying ' in -vrickedness.'* To judge of the reve
lation without taking account of the resistance which
it had to overcome, is as unreasonable as to apply the
principles of peace to a scene of warfare, and to
complain of the cruel sternness which the soldier has
to practise in the presence of a turbulent and active
foe. We may gain much aid towards forming this con
ception fi-om the short parable contained in the words
of our text (i). The image of leaven sets before us
the secret history of God's kmgdom as a counterpart
to the picture of its outward growth, which the
parable of the mustard-seed had furnished. Some
qualities of leaven are so antagonistic and corrupting,
that the usage of Scripture applies it more frequently
to evil than to good." But it is not the less fitted to
illustrate that anti-leaven of righteousness by which
the influence of evil is to be counteracted and sub
dued. It is a cause of change, which is external in
its origin, but internal in its operation ; which produces
'<¦ Rom. vui. 7 ; 1 John v. 19. ^ Luke xu. 1 ; 1 Cor. v. 7, &c.

LECTURE VI. 173
its effects by slow degrees, as it penetrates the sub
stance in which it is hidden — attracting one part
after another to itself — communicating its o'wn rirtue
to every particle with which it comes in contact, and
fitting it to leaven what it touches in its turn ; a
hidden power, as though it were working from the
centre outwards ; mixing with aU parts, while scarcely
traceable in any ; but gradually and surely accomplish
ing its office, by transmuting the entire mass mto
that state of assimilation, when we can say that the
whole is leavened.
Under this figure we trace the law of God's elec
tion, by which rehgion was brought back into a fallen
and corrupted world. The sacred history establishes
that it is the law of God's government to bring in good
by slow degrees for the expulsion of evU. A few of
God's chosen servants are planted in the midst of
multitudes who have forgotten God. Blessed them
selves, they enjoy the high prerogative of dealing out
blessings to others in their turn. The beginning is
small, and seems but feeble when compared with the
resisting mass which it has to penetrate and influence.
But the principle itself, like the existence of evil, is
one which must be received as primary. We cannot
tell why it is that God chooses to bless some only, for
the future benefit of all; why He left the world to lie
so long in darkness ; on what grounds He gave such
advantage to the Jew ; for what reason He now bestows
so many undeserved pririleges on ourselves. The
fact is aU that we have to deal with ; and that fact is
clearly brought before us by this image of the leaven.

174 LECTURE -VTI.
to which Christ gives a place in the series of His
earliest parables. It was not God's plan to convert
the world by a sudden manifestation of His supreme
power and glory. It was God's plan to bring back
into the world that good which it had forfeited, by a
providential arrangement which may be fitly com
pared to the natural process of hiding leaven in the
midst of meal.
The principle applies with equal clearness to what
is intellectual in theology, as well as what is moral;
and Ulustrates with the same distinctness the rein-
troduction of religious knowledge, to enlighten the
darkened spirit of mankind. It is the current objec
tion to the earliest revelation, that it is less perfect
than the fuUer Hght of later times ; so much less per
fect that some have tried to prove it to be unworthy
of God, and therefore no more than a purely human
composition, embodying no true message from above.
All are ready to confess that God's disclosures of His
own name and nature were progressive." The first
signs of the Holy Trinity are veiled and obscure. The
Pentateuch supplies us with but a faint shadow of
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as compared vrith the
broad light afforded on such occasions as the baptism
of Christ, or in such forms of Christian language as
the institution of baptism or the apostohc benediction.
The doctrine of a future lUe, again, was taught so
obscurely, that Christ is said to have ' brought life
and immortality to light through the gospel.' " Pass
" Above, p. 49. t 2 Tim. i. 10.

LECTURE VL 175
fi-om the doctrines of theology to the laws of civil
organisation, and Christ teaches that these were modi
fied in the Mosaic code for temporary reasons. The
obHgation of the original marriage law was lightened,
because of the hardness of the hearts of the people."
The slave law, we may add, was permitted to be
harsher than it might have been under a different
social system, or in different relations toward sur
rounding races." Parental authority, though cautiously
qualified, was entrusted with larger power than it can
claun m days which pay more scrupulous regard to
aU classes of social and indi-ridual rights" (2).
But supposing it granted that an explanation can
be given for the gradual development of di-rine know
ledge and the temporary defects of positive enactments,
yet what answer can be made when we are pressed with
such moral difficulties as meet us in the first seven
books of Scripture ? Did the God of truth approve
and bless the falsehoods of the ' Hebrew midwives,'
or the falsehood of Rahab at Jericho ? Did the God of
righteousness tell His people to spoU the Egjrptians ?
Did the God of mercy inspire the blessing which is
uttered by the fierj^-souled prophetess over the treach
erous murder of a trusting foe?'^ These, as you know,
are only specimens of the questions by which this
difficulty is brought under our notice : questions which
are sometimes urged -with a superfluity of rhetoric;
yet certainly not -vrithout the clearest right to a fair
consideration and a candid answer (3).
a Matt. xix. 8. ^ Ex. xxi. 4, 20, 21. ' Deut. xxi. 18-21.
3 Ex. i. 20; Josh. ii. 4; vi. 25 ; Ex. xi. 2 ; xu. 36; Judges v. 24.

176 LECTURE VL
I need scarcely remark, that whatever answer we do
give, it must be one which shaU approve itself to the
enlightened Christian conscience, and not endanger
the first principles of right and -wrong, by suggesting
that the Dirine command' could be employed for the
purpose of turning evil into good. Whenever apolo
gists attempt to force back the difficulty into the very
sanctuary of the Godhead, we can only rejoin that they
are seeking for soundings in very dangerous waters,
where it is wisest to decline to foUow them (4). It is
a more hopeful course to ask, whether the conditions
under which the recovery of mankind was brought
round would not lead us to expect that the trainmg
of God's people in those early days would exhibit a
mixture between good and eril, which our clearer
light will enable us to analyse, by a discrimination in
which we can apportion the good, as is most due, to
God, while we ascribe to man himself the eril inter
mixture which debases it. Let us examine some of
the aUeged difficulties by the Hght of this suggestion ;
and let us enquire whether the leaven of truth may
not have been sometimes intermingled for a time with
the mass of error which it was ultimately designed to
purify. The answer is often expressed by sayhig, that
the earhest morality, even in Scripture, was imper
fect (5). Perhaps it would convey a clearer meaning
if we affirmed that, to a certain extent, it is — not so
much imperfect as — fragmentary. In other words, its
several portions were for a time detached and unor
ganised. God's earlier people grasped moral truths

LECTURE VI. 177
strongly; but the pressure of surrounding eril some
times prevented them fi-om giring sufficient weight to
those needful counter-truths, which claim an equal
recognition at their side. Sin was to be crushed ;
therefore they slew the sinner, -without weighing in
aU cases whether the blow could be struck justly by
unauthorised hands. God's work was to be done at
all costs ; therefore they were not careful to observe
whether their hasty obedience might not sometimes
trample on other laws which were equally divine — the
laws of truth, of brotherhood, of scrupulous tenderness
for common rights and duties. Their conduct thus
presents a blended texture of good and evil. On the
side of good we rank the strong faith in God, the
strong resolve that righteousness should conquer, the
steady determination to root out wickedness. The
e-ril was, that righteousness was not always tempered
by mercy, nor faith by truth, nor retaliation by justice.
But so far as any of these acts received the expression
of God's approbation, we may rest satisfied that His
blessmg lighted simply on the rirtue, whUe His
patient forbearance with His creatures' ignorance
forgave them the accompanying sin.
Is this, then, a fair paraUel to the other difficulties
which I mentioned, and which seemed to admit of
an easier solution; namely, that theology was un
folded only by degrees, and that the Law obscured
the sanctity of marriage, and the manhood which is
the inaUenable right of the slave? It might be
objected, that the analogy cannot be stretched to
defend an inferior moraUty ; that there can be neither
N

178 LECTURE VI.
more nor less in right and wrong. The one of these
illustrations, it might be said, is mainly inteUectual;
the other deals with arrangements, which national
customs regard as in some degree conventional.
How can they be used to palliate what will after
all be represented by many as the Dirine toleration
of a lower moral standard, in those who were
honoured by God's special approbation? We reply,
that even if the moral truths were severaUy perfect,
the separate excellence of detached precepts is no
guarantee for the presence of a complete and co
herent moraUty; that there can be no difficulty in
comprehending how the gift of discrimination might
be wanting in those darker days; and that men
need not be supposed to have put faith in falsehood,
because they could only command disjointed truths.
A solitary truth may indeed become most injurious,
if it is used as the instrument of a selfish purpose;
but when coupled -with the one great central virtue
of faithful obedience, it may be the germ of the
most hopeful promise, and may raise an entire nation,
as such tiuths raised the nation of the Jews, far
above the standard of less favoured peoples, who
possess no such talisman of spiritual power. Yet
all the while, such principles, though severally
cogent, might lack the completeness which can only
be attained by their combination in an ordered
system. If we further consider the brerity -vrith which
some of these complex actions are recorded, we
cannot aUege that, m cases where ignorance did

LECTURE VI. 179
amount to actual sin, the sinful element failed to
bring that certain train of punishment and grief
which is annexed to it by the just judgment of
God. If the narrative extends to further detail,
and enables us to see remoter consequences, the
application of the law, that sin works sorrow, is
emphatically proved. There are several of the more
mixed characters in Scripture, in whose cases a
general uprightness of purpose and strength of faith
was occasionaUy crossed and discoloured by sin or
weakness, where the course of the history seems
to have been governed by the very intention of
introducing the discrimination which was needed,
and sho-vring with how sure a step the sin found
out the sinner in the shape of fitting retribution.
It has thus been often pointed out," that the early
deceit of Jacob was avenged through all his later
years by the withering influence of the fear of man ;
and that the one great crime of Darid caused the
evening of his glorious day to be darkened by the
clouds of lust and blood. Such was the discipline
by which God at once chastised the ofiender, and
warned others against being polluted by the example
of his sin. Now there may have been, in other
cases also, a similar adjustment, which the bre-rity
of the narrative has concealed from us; cases in
which a mixture of sin vrith the motives was followed
by a mixture of evil with the reward.
In proceeding to examine one or two of the more.
" EspeciaUy in Blunt's Undesigned Coincidences, pp. 46, 145.
N 2

180 LECTURE VI.
perplexing instances in fuller detail, I must repeat the
warning which I have already ventul-ed to suggest,
against the error of treating all parts of Scripture
as though they stood on one and the same level,
forgetting that its composition spans the whole range
of utmost antiquity, and stretches onward, fi-om the
rudest ages, to days when the ancient culture which
succeeded was already beginning to dechne. We
cannot understand it as a whole tUl we have learnt
the relations of the several portions, and can dis
criminate between the lessons which they were
respectively commissioned to convey. The Gospels
are fiUed -with the living brightness of our Sariour's
teaching; as when He tells us how the Samaritan
forgot his deep national animosity, and proved him
self to be true neighbour to the suffering Jew. The
Mosaic history relates to days when the love which
comprehends our enemy would have been rather
despised as a weakness than fostered as a grace.
And yet, between these two strongly contrasted
periods, there Hes, we may rest satisfied, the deep
harmony of Scripture, which enriches those old
times, that looked so unloving and relentless, with a
treasure of instruction to be blended -with the lessons
ofthe Gospel.
We may learn fi-om St. Paul's argument to both
the Romans and Galatians, that man's first step back
toward the Paradise which he has forfeited must
be taken in the conviction of sin. Now this is
precisely the feeling which the earliest books of
revelation are most fitted to arouse. The Law itself,

LECTURE VI. 181
-vrith all its elaborate ceremonial and rich typical
significance, was 'added because of transgressions.'*
It was a bridle to curb that wayward race, to which
the guardianship of the promise had been given. It
moulded their religious knowledge by the element
of restraint and severity, which is a feature of law
-within the moral sphere. And that training pro
duced the Jevrish zeal, which finds so glo-vring an
expression in many a fervid hymn and psalm: in
language which may render us the deepest service,
if it strikes through the hard crust of polished
unreality, which too often supervenes on the placid
decorum of our ci-vUised Hfe ; and if it warns us
how we ought to treat the deadly principles of wrong
which lurk in our o-wn fallen hearts. The tone of
severity is not pecuhar to the Pentateuch, WhUe it is
graduaUy divested of its earlier harshness, it pervades
all Scripture in the character of zeal against e-ril.
We trace it onward fi-om Moses to David, from
David to Ezra, from Ezra to the greater authority
of the Di-rine Teacher, on whose lips it was purged
fi-om the last lingering resemblance to human in
firmity " (6). And it faUs to effect its proper puipose
vrith ourselves, if it ever leaves us exposed to the
influence of that spurious charity toward offenders,
which is equivalent to an indifference for the mischief
which they cause.
The most striking instance of the difficulty which
I have been describing is to be found in the song
" Gal. iu. 19. ''Ps. cxxxix. 21, &c. ; Ezra x. 17 ; Matt, xxiu., &c.

182 LECTURE "vr.
of Deborah, and in the blessing which she pronounced
upon an action which seems to us a piece of signal
treachery (7). Let us devote to this instance, then, a
more detaUed examination ; as it -wiU be acknowledged
that the riews which it suggests may be applied to
a number of less remarkable cases.
The common chronology places the date of
Deborah at a full century earUer than the subject
of the oldest uninspired heroic poem. We have no
secular poetry which can be proved . to go back to
so remote a period (s). And this date is especially
important. It is above all things necessai-y, as I
have said, that when we wish to form a judgment
of its character, we do not forget -with what part
of history we are deaHng. While no literature of
any age has given birth to a grander effort of lyrical
poetry, we yet know that it belongs to a period
when the fair fabric of classical civiHsation was
utterly unthought of and unknown — a period when
Greece had not yet spoken any word that time has
spared, and some centuries before the earliest ances
tors of the Latin race had built their first huts
among the hills of Rome. Now this fact, which on
mere literary grounds would be remarkable, on moral
grounds becomes particularly noteable. When we
are looking at the points of difficulty which the
history involves, it is indispensable to recollect that
those servants of God were fighting His battles in
an age when the world was stiU lying in the
profoundest darkness — in an age stUl earher than
those heroic days, in which the utter recklessness

LECTURE VI. 183
for human life, which is shown even by their noblest
characters, supphes so serious a drawback to our
admiration for their various manly rirtues.
I need scarcely say that the whole period of the
Judges contains much to perplex us (9). It is indeed
the chief arena for those moral difficulties with which
we are now dealing, and which emerge through aU
parts of that record in their strongest and most
striking forms. E-rils had risen to a height so ap
palling, that God used instruments of rudest temper
for their overthrow, such as confound the calcula
tions of the calmer judgment, which is trained in the
pure light of happier days. Such preeminently was
Samson, the fit type of times when mere strength had
its direct and special use in smiting do-wn the powers
of darkness. But indeed throughout those ages there
was a closer connection than there now is between the
internal and the external ; while principles of ever
lasting obHgation were veiled under the ruder forms
of time. It was not so much that men could not see
more than half the truth, but that they saw truths, as
I have said, in fragments, rather than as connected
portions of an ordered system. They saw them, too,
confusedly, and without discrimination — saw them, as
we might say, -with their colours blended; just as in
pure theology the doctrine of the Trinity was taught
less clearly than the doctrine of the Unity of God.
We may note this in the very framework of the Jewish
polity. The nation and the Church were one. The
foes of Israel were the foes of God. There was no dis
tinction, therefore, between public poUcy and religious

184 LECTURE VI.
duty; and the soldiers of the state were at once
ministers of justice and public guardians of the sacred
laws. We may note it, again, in the connection which
existed between obedience and prosperity. It would
be too much, perhaps, to say -vrith some, that the
rewards and penalties, by which alone the Jews were
actuated, were only such as this world could furnish.
Such a limitation would be inconsistent -with the
paramount appeal to God's approbation, as the chief
motive which was perpetually put before them. And
yet it is certainly true that prosperity and adversity
were the great badges and representatives of the
favour of God (lo). It is certainly true that the
spiritual eyesight was not yet quickened to appreciate
the rewards and penalties of an eternal life. In hke
manner the law of duty was enforced with a sternness
and simplicity which left scarcely room to discriminate
between the sinner and his sin. It was as though the
ancient Jew had to hew do-wn the rude primeval
forest, that he might lay the deep foundations for the
future temple of the Lord. Such a labour would call
for unwearied rigour, for unconquerable zeal, for
unhesitating obedience : but it would leave httle room
for the nicer and more accurate discrimination, which
we are at once pri-vUeged and bound in duty to
employ. In this, as in so many other aspects of the
older history, we are reminded of our Sariour's
words : ' Blessed are the eyes which see the things
that ye see: For I tell you, that many prophets
and kings have desired to see those things which
ye see, and have not seen them ; and to hear

LECTURE VI. 185
those things which ye hear, and have not heard
them.' *
We find the most conspicuous proof of this in the
invariable sequence which then connected the exercise
of courage -vrith external freedom, and the indulgence
of cowardice with external bondage ; and that, not
only, as it might still happen, in the regular issue of
national policy, spun out through a course of com
plicated action, but ready, instantaneous, and constant,
as though in the unquestionable relation of effort and
its reward. The Israelites had entered on the pro
mised land (11). In some instances, they carried out
at once then- mission ; and in such cases we read how
the Lord was with Judah, and how the Lord was
-vrith Joseph." But in many other instances they
made peace -vrith the enemies whom they had been
eommissioned to destroy. Benjamin did not drive
out the Jebusites ; Manasseh did not drive out the in
habitants of Bethshean or Taanach ; Ephraim did not
drive out the Canaanites of Gezer ; nor Zebulon the
people of Kitron and Nahalol; nor Asher the coast-
men of what was afterwards Phoenicia; nor Naph-
tali the inhabitants of Bethshemesh and Bethanath ;
but they ' dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants
of the land.' " Toleration soon changed into an un-
haUowed alhance, when they took the daughters of
the Canaanites to be their -vrives, and gave their own
daughters to their sons, and served their gods."^ There
fore came that stem message of the Lord at Bochim,
=¦ Luke X. 23, 24. ^ Judges i. 19, 22.
<= Judges i. 21, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33. « Judges iu. 6.

186 LECTURE VI.
that these nations should be as thorns in their sides, and
their gods a snare.* Soon followed the actual proofs
of God's anger, when His hand was against them for
eril, and they were sorely distressed. In quick suc
cession came the tyranny of various oppressors : first,
eight years of slavery to the King of Mesopotamia,
from which they were fi-eed by the bravery of Othniel,
which gave the land rest for forty years. Next,
from the south-east, sprang the tyranny of Moab,
which was ended, after eighteen years, by the ven
geance of Ehud; and the land had rest fourscore
years. Next, as it would seem, there was persecu
tion from Phihstia." And then came that despotism
from the powers on the north-east, which is unfolded
in completer detail, and which it was the boast of
Deborah and Barak to destroy. A king of Canaan,
under the old name of Jabin, still reigned fi-om the
site of that same Hazor which ' beforetime was
the head of all those kingdoms,' when it was seized
and burnt by Joshua." Jabin had nine hundred
chariots of iron; and for twenty years, through his
captain, Sisera, he mightily oppressed the children
of Israel. His fastness lay above the waters near
the sources of the Jordan, whence Sisera poured
do-wn his chariots into that great plain, which was
traversed by the torrent of the storied Kishon before
it issues into the sea beneath the heights of Carmel.
The hymn of Deborah supplies many minute details,
wliich prove the oppressive sternness of his rule.
" Judges ii. 3. •> Judges iii. 8-11, 12-30, 31. <= Josh. xi. 1, 10.

LECTURE VI. 187
The highways were forsaken, and travellers pursued
their stolen journeys through the byways. The
inhabitants of the rillages had ceased. War was in
the gates. No shield nor spear was seen among
forty thousand in Israel. The very draw-wells, as the
old interpretation seems to run (12), were disturbed
by the noise of the archers of Canaan.* Such was
the state of God's people under the oppressors, until
Deborah arose as a mother in Israel. The prophetess
and Barak gathered against Sisera the tribes which
fiUed the centre of the promised land. There were
Ephraim and Benjamin, and chiefs sprmig from the
son of Manasseh, Machir." 'The princes of Issachar
were -with Deborah.' ' Zebulun and Naphtali were a
people that jeoparded their lives unto the death in
the high places of the field.' What wonder is it
that she classifies the sons of Israel as good or evil,
according to the zeal which they showed in coming
to the help of the Lord against the mighty ? What
wonder that she records for their shame the councils
which detained the distant Reuben, the indolence
of Gilead who abode beyond Jordan, of Dan who
remained in ships, of Asher who clung to his rich
possessions by the sea ? What wonder that she calls
do-wn a special curse on Meroz, if the position of
that place caused its neutrahty and indifference to
be a peculiar disgrace to the national cause? And
what wonder, we now ask — to come to the point
which has for us the deepest interest — what wonder
" Judges V. 6, 7, 8, 11. »> Gen. 1. 23 ; Num. xxxu. 39, 40.

188 LECTURE VI.
that she gives high praise and benediction to that
daughter of the Kenite, whose act seems to us so
mercUess and treacherous, for dealing death on the
flying oppressor of the race which she had taught
to conquer ? All other questions were absorbed and
lost in this grand issue : — Who had been on the Lord's
side? Who had been against Him? For the former
she had blessings ; for the latter she had the sternest
condemnation. In the glowing exultation of her
triumph over the despot, she could no more see sin
in any action by which his ministers were extermi
nated, than she could see cruelty in the stars which
fought in their courses against Sisera; or in that
ancient river, the river Kishon, which swept in its
swoUen flood their dead bodies to the sea.*
Now can we doubt that this high spirit of heroic
zeal, of devotion to God's serrice, of relentless hatred
to His foe, was a divine element of true inspu-ation,
which God sent to strengthen the good and crush the
evU, at a time when there was great danger lest the
evil should triumph and obliterate the good ? Can
we doubt that God was leavening His people -with
that nobler temper, which was indispensable to secure
the very existence of their national life, as the wit
ness to God's truth in the midst of darkness ? We
must keep prominently before our thoughts the real
wickedness of the Canaanitish people, and the un
doubted necessity that they should be crushed before
Israel, lest the truth itself should perish in the over-
" Judges V. 14-31.

LECTURE VL 189
whelming flood of sin (i3). To represent the matter,
therefore, in such an aspect as our own position would
suggest, we must alter the terms of the compa
rison, and state them m a different form. We live
under the law, ' I say unto you. Love your enemies.'*
In its direct sense, then, we are not concerned with thc
benediction of Deborah, as she hailed the blow that
smote the tyi-ant. But let us state the matter in this
way : — Our oppressor is Satan. Those bad passions
which he seeks to rouse -within us are the iron
chariots by which he would crush out the fair work
of God -within our hearts. His evil emissaries are
l\ke archers of the Canaanites, who keep watch and
ward to slay our souls, beside the very weUs of liring
water. The war which Israel had to wage- against
Canaan must not be regarded as a mere struggle
between nation and nation, but as the resistance, in .
the cause of universal humanity, of God's law against
the rebellion of the wicked ; of God's work against the
work of Satan. It is in this sense that these things
were our ensamples, and have been written for our
admonition by the Holy Spirit." We are not to
look merely at man as against man, but at the up
holders of righteousness, who were bound subjects to
a loftier cause than they could comprehend, as
against the upholders of idolatry and rebellion from
God, whose destruction was rather an act of the
Dirine vengeance than the operation of a human
pohcy. Or, again, we might express it in this
^ Matt. V. 44. ^ 1 Cor. x. 11.

190 LECTURE VI.
manner: that the struggle is not between man and
man, but between prmciple and principle. We shaU
fail to understand its nature if our thoughts rest only
on the human agents. These were, as we might say,
mere accidents in that great battle, in which Israel
was fighting the wars of the Lord. It matters not,
then, that there were sins on the side of the earthly
armies of Jehovah, or that the infant chUdren of their
enemies did not deserve, as man would speak, the
cruel doom to which they were consigned. It is the
sad characteristic of this fallen world, that so far as
mere external sufferings are concerned, the innocent
must often be involved in common sorrow vrith the
guilty; and the march of righteousness must often be
retarded by the frailties of the instruments through
which God vouchsafes to execute His work.
Apply these considerations to the present subject,
and they wUl at least lighten the perplexity which
we might feel in accepting such a composition as the
song of Deborah under the character of inspired
Scripture. Not for one moment may we dream that
its burning words may overcloud to us the law of
mercy ; that they would palliate in us the exercise of
cruelty; that they would justify us in being fierce
ancl ruthless, even in cases where we might fancy
that we were doing the work of the Lord. Such
inferences would indeed set the letter against the
spirit, and find the savour of death in Scripture.
But there is no danger of any such misconception,
if we make the right allowance for the historical
position of the human element, through which that

LECTURE VL 191
sacred lesson was conveyed. We must adjust the pre
cedent to our altered sphere, so as to teach us the zeal
with which we are bound to fight agamst our vices ;
to exemplify the earnest and unwearied battle which
we must wage against the Canaanites of sin within
our hearts. For most of us this is a sufficient lesson.
The duty of punishing the sins of others has been
delegated to comparatively few. Yet those few may
safely infer from the history, that not by man's de
cision but by the eternal laws of God, there is a
point at which the -vricked -will be swept from the
earth: and if not by God's directer judgments, as
when He brought in ' the flood upon the world of the
ungodly,'" or when He poured forth rain of fire from
heaven, or when He charged His ancient people to
exterminate the Canaanites, then by the calm exer
cise of judicial punishment, on the part of those who
are commissioned, as His representatives, to bear ' not
the sword in vain.' "
Those who take an opposite view of such passages
in ancient Scripture make it their ground for urging
that the old has been, not merely unfolded, but can-
ceUed ; that Judaism was not so much transfused into
Christianity as utterly destroyed; that it resembled
not the seed of the tree, but the scaffold of the
building, and has therefore become aU but useless
to ourselves. We should thus be recommended to
contrast the two dispensations in the same manner in
which we should contrast seen and unseen, temporal
" 2 Pet. u. 5. i> Rom. xui. 4.

192 LECTURE VL
and eternal, letter and spirit, bondage and freedom,
fear and love. But this was never the meaning of
these antitheses as they were employed in the rea
soning of St. Paul. The fact reaUy is, that both sides
of the truth are deepened when both are discrimi
nated and explained. The tie of free and loyal ser
vice is a more stringent obligation than the fetter of
the slave. The perfect love which casts out a blind
and cowardly fear,* fosters in our hearts that deeper
reverence, in which St. Peter teUs us that the time of
our sojourning here must be passed." The day of
judgment, as disclosed in the New Testament, is an
incomparably more awful revelation than any ter
rors which were threatened to the Jew (14). And
precisely so it stands with reference to our present
subject. Eril is ever seen to be most hateful when
the aspect of goodness is most clearly unveiled ; and
the hatred for iniquity is oiUy another phase of that
love for righteousness, with which both Psahnist and
Apostle unite it in then- proclamation of the Prince
of Peace."
There is something especially dangerous, because
especially deceptive, in that cold propriety of conduct,
which feels in religion no strong consciousness of either
love or hate. But by the examples of its characters,
as weU as by its precepts. Scripture always teaches
that the love for good must be combined with an
abhorrence for eril which forbids any tolerance of sin.

"¦ 1 John iv. 18. >> 1 Pet. i. 17.
" Ps. xlv. 8 ; Heb. i. 9.

LECTURE VL 193
Such a character as that of Moses would illustrate at
once the existence of the feeling, and the limitations
by which it ought to be controlled (15). His history
shows us how enduringly the union lasted, even un
der the veil of his proverbial meekness. To speak in
round numbers, we may say, that the special instances
of his warmth of temper are recorded at his fortieth,
his eightieth, and close upon his hundred and twentieth
year. The mention of his meekness is connected -with
the central period, near the time when he cast down
and broke the tables on descending from the mountain.
It was about forty years before this that he slew
the Egyptian and hid him in the sand; but it was
nearly forty years after this that he was provoked in
his spirit, and spoke unadvisedly with his lips at the
waters of strife, and ' was wroth with the officers of the
host,' for saving alive the women of the Midianites.*
Or look at the instance of St. John the Dirine (16).
Let us caU to mind the zeal which caused that pair
of brothers to be surnamed sons of thunder by their
Master ; the hasty temper in which they -srished to call
dovwi fire from heaven on the Samaritans, when Christ
told them that they knew not what spirit they were
of; and the ambition which made them covet to sit on
His right hand and on His left in His glory." Now
St. John's latest years present a picture of the calmest
evening -with which a long and stormy day can close.
"(1.) Ex. u. 12 (Acts vii. 23). (2.) Ex. xvii. 6; xxxU. 19;
Num. xu. 3 (Acts vU. 30). (3.) Num. xx. 10, 12; xxvU. 14;
Deut. i. 37 ; Ps. evi. 32 ; Num. xxxi. 14 (Deut. xxxi. 2).
" Mark iU. 17 ; Luke ix. 54-5 ; Mark x. 37.
O

194 LECTURE VI.
The whole of his teaching was at last condensed into
that single sermon, ' Little children, love one another.'
Yet if there be any truth in the story which describes
him as fleeing in horror from the bath which was pol
luted by the presence of a heretic, we may infer that to
the very last his love was incompatible with even the
mildest concession towards acknowledged and resist
ing e-ril. Or may we not turn for Ulustration to the
double tone, which marks the language of Christ Him
self, the God of love ? He began and closed His public
ministry -with an act of strange severity, when the
zeal of God's house led Him to cleanse with His own
sacred hands the House of Prayer, which men were
changing to a den of thieves." And by the side of all
His acts of love and words of mercy, we read the
woes which He uttered on Scribes and Pharisees
and lawyers who were hypocrites ; on aU who caused
offences, and cast stumblingblocks in the way of their
brethren, and substituted outward forms for the spirit
of devotion, and passed over judgment and the love
of God." Such as these found no mercy from the
Friend of sinners, who taught us how the contrite pub
lican was justifled when the self-righteous Pharisee
found no justification."
Even the sternest of the ancient lessons, then, finds
its proper place and work in teaching us that they
who 'love the Lord' must see that they 'hate the
thing which is evU.' "^ Charity which is not guarded by
the feeUng of resentment lacks its needful protection
» John ii. 15 ; Matt. xxi. 12. ^ Matt. xxiu. ; Luke xi.
<= Luke xviii. 14. d Ps. xcvu. 10.

LECTURE VL 195
"against sin ; whUe a seeming hatred of sin may itself
be sinful, if it lacks the indispensable counterpart of
love. The one error is like the false mercy of Saul,
when he spared the king whom God had sent him to
destroy — mercy which was condemned as rebellion
and stubbornness, and which forfeited the promises of
God.* The other error may resemble the false zeal
of Jehu, when he inflicted stern and bloody vengeance
on idolaters, and then became himself an idolater,
in defiance of the law which he had professed to
execute." The Old Testament examples, then, should teach us
zeal. But the New Testament does not teach us that.
zeal may grow cold, though it shows us how to temper
it with discrimination. The Hne is there dra-wn clearly
between vengeance and compassion ; between hatred
of e-ril, and charity for man ; between the anger that
is righteous, and the personal animosity that is every
where condemned. The blessing which Deborah pro
nounced on Jael is supplanted by the blessing which
angelic lips pronounced on the highly favoured mother
of our Lord." The fierce shout of national animosity
gives way to the calm voice of the Divine Instructor,
who sent the haughty Jew to the despised Samaritan
for an example of neighbourly love. The new law
rises into greater distinctness, but the true purport
of the old remains uncancelled. New Hfe springs forth
at the bidding of Christ, but nothing that was heaven
sent in the old has departed. The lesson of old times
" 1 Sam. XV. 22-3. ^ 2 Kings x. 16, &c. <= Luke i. 28.
n 2

196 LECTURE VI.
remains to teach us that evil must be rooted out?
before there is room for good to flourish ; that the war
against sin in our own hearts must be relentless,
before they are chastened to receive the lesson of true
charity which led the Samaritan to see a neighbour
in the Jew.
Thus may we learn that God was bringing His new
leaven of truth into the world, under the cover of
those impetuous onslaughts upon e-vU of which we
have so conspicuous a record in the song of Deborah.
Let such narratives arouse us, not (which God forbid)
to be relentless toward our fellow-creatures, but to be
as ruthless in dealing with the corruption of our o-wn
hearts as she was in destroying the enemies of the
Lord. Let it incite us to take, in every contest, the
Lord's side against the side of -wickedness, and to
oppose ourselves to every kind of weakness, which
would tamper with and apologise for sin. No archer
of the Canaanites could harass with such fiery darts
as Satan. No chariots of Sisera could spread such
devastation as the inroads of sin upon the heart of
man. The battle has passed to a different sphere ; the
weapons of om* warfare are no longer carnal. But we
need the same temper of energetic zeal, in assailing
the strongholds of the e-ril spirit ; we require the same
firm unwearied resolution, to wield the weapons of
our spiritual armour, against the resistance or the
onslaughts of our inveterate foe. Cowardice in that
great strife wiU lay us prostrate before the aggressor,
and -wUl desolate the fields in which the word of God
is planted. But courage -vrill raise us to a reward as

LECTURE VL 197
noble ; to a welcome more glorious than Deborah could
offer to Zebulun or Naphtali, to Jael or to Barak ; the
welcome -vrith which our Heavenly Master will receive
His good and faithful servants, and bid them enter
into the joy of their Lord.

198

LECTURE VII.

Acts xiv. 15.
' "We also are men of like passions -with you.'
IN the last two Lectures I have endeavoured to
point out the effect of the human element in
fixing the outward shape of the Scripture record on
matters of history and science, and in accounting for
the fragmentary character under which morality was
brought back after the Fall. I now propose to approach
the subject more directly, through the medium of two
leading examples of the human writers, vrith the riew
of showing, in detail, that the acknowledged presence
of indiridual characteristics was guarded against the
influence of individual imperfections.
The examination of two such instances from the
New Testament may serve to complete the argument
which was pursued last Sunday, in explanation of a
moral difficulty which meets us in the older parts of
Scripture. If it is found that, in cases which admit
of a more exact analysis, the human error is never
aUowed to vitiate the inspired teaching, we gam a
strong confirmation of the view which I then ventured
to suggest ; namely, that the mere record of sins must

LECTURE VII. 199
on no account be regarded as their sanction ; and that
even words of commendation, when pronounced on
actions of a mixed moral chai-acter, must be inter
preted as a simple recognition of the virtue, which
was confused, but not cancelled, by the mtermixture
ofthe sin.
A large portion of the human interest of Scripture
depends upon the fact, that it brings us into close
contact with the personal history of the several
writers ; that it faithfully records their gradual pro-"
gression, their growth in grace, and, it may be, even
their frailties, which proved how completely they were
' men of like passions ' 'vrith ourselves. * But, while
recognising this great advantage, we shaU derive an
instructive lesson from the proof, that the written
documents were not tarnished by the evil influence
which might have been expected to arise from their
errors. The remark may be extended to instances
where temporary imperfection has passed on into
actual transgression of some law of God. Great
saints are recorded to have fallen for a season ; but
the teaching which they deliver is not found to falter.
We may trace out the sin and its issue in their lives ;
we may see the very blow which descends in chastise
ment ; the Scriptures, of which they count among the
human authors, may commemorate in fullest details
the agonies of their repentance, the loud cryings
of remorse for their sins. But those Scriptures
are never discoloured by the evU temper, or other
" Cf. James v. 17.

200 LECTURE VII.
infirmity, which exposed the writers to temptation;
stiU less are they perverted to the utterance of erro
neous doctrines which may have been connected with
their temporary faU. We can observe this in the Old
Testament in the cases of Moses and of David. We
can observe it in the case of Solomon, displayed under
stUl more striking circumstances. We can observe it
in the New Testament, in the -writings of both St. Peter
and St. Paul.
It is, indeed, one lesson which we gather from the
traces of discord in the earliest Chm-ch histoi-y, that
the voice of divine instruction rises calmly and clearly
above the tumults of the disputants ; so that it is only
by careful analysis and coUateral information that
we leai-n how far the most honoured names amongst
Christ's servants were entangled in the bitterness of
strife (1). Let us draw out in detail the two cases
which most naturaUy suggest themselves : the appa
rent want of steady ])ui-pose in St. Peter ; the alleged
imperfection of the earliest teaching of St. Paul.
I. It is needless to dwell long, in the outset, on the
prominent features of St. Peter's character (2) : his
impetuous, venturesome, and earnest faith ; and that
frequent intermixture of human weakness which
might seem so strange an imperfection in the leader
of the apostolic company, yet which comes home with
so strong a sense of deep reality to aU who have ever
studied the frailty of their hearts. You -will recollect
how frequently it happens, that even the smaUer
details of the narrative bear traces of the uneven

LECTURE VII. 201
balance between faith and knowledge, by which his
progress towards Christian maturity was retarded.
At one moment he cries, ' Thou shalt never wash my
feet;' at the next moment, 'Lord, not my feet only,
but also my hands and my head.'* At one hour, he is
striking wth the sword ; at the next, he is denying
and abandoning his Master. And the rapid change
is often signaUsed in words which were addressed to
him by Christ, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona:
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,
but my Father which is in heaven;' and then, -vrithin
a few verses, ' Get thee behind me, Satan : thou art an
offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things
that be of God.'"
The Gospels and Acts supply us with three great
iUustrations of this internal struggle, which diride
into as many portions the whole Christian life of the
Apostle. I refer to the three occasions on which
St. Peter was put forward, to give, as it were, a
formal and official expression to principles which
marked three distinct and special advances in Chris
tian knowledge ; on every one of which occasions the
Apostle's subsequent conduct proved that the truths
which his lips had been so eager to utter had failed,
when he pronounced them, to exert their proper
practical influence -vrithin his heart.
1 . Fu-st comes that earnest declaration of faith in
his Master, which forms the foundation of the Chris
tian creed, the first stone of that great edifice of
«¦ John xiu. 8, 9. ^ Matt. xvi. 17, 23.

202 LECTURE VIL
doctrine in which the treasures of all Christian biow-
ledge are enshrined : ' Then said Jesus unto the twelve.
Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered
Him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the
words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure
that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the lirino-
God.'* This is the first apostolic proclamation ofthe
foremost tenet of the Catholic faith; that primary
doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, which formed so
great a stumblingblock to the whole nation of the
Je-ws. 2. The second of the great principles -with which
St. Peter was entrusted, was the extension to the
Gentiles of the benefits of Abraham's promise. The
new Church had sprung from the very heart of
Judaism, to which Christ and His apostles all be
longed. The further change was foreshadowed, indeed,
but not effected, throughout the acts of the earthly
sojourn of our Lord (3). It was foreshadowed when
He healed the centurion's servant, and the daughter
of the Canaanitish woman, and the ten lepers of whom
one was a Samaritan. It was foreshadowed when
He Himself, on more than one occasion, approached
towns and villages of the Samaritans, into which He
had forbidden His apostles to enter. It was fore
shadowed when He acknowledged Gentile faith as
higher than any which He had found in Israel ; when
He announced that many should come from East and
West, to take the places of the chUdren; and that
" John vi. 67-9.

LECTURE VII. 203
thus the first should become last and the last should
become first.* It -was foreshadowed when He excited
the anger of the Jews, by reminding them that Elijah
was sent only to the widow who dwelt in the Sidonian
Sarepta, and that Elisha's healing power was exer
cised only upon the leprous Syi-ian." But it was not
yet effected. There is no positive proof, for instance,
beyond the witness of a doubtful reading," that though
He -withdrew mto the borders of Tyre and Sidon, His
own feet ever passed beyond the limits of the sacred
soil which was the special heritage of Abraham's
sons; and through the whole history of His life we
find that He acted Himself on the law which He
laid down, that He was ' not sent but unto the lost
sheep ofthe house of Israel"'
His ascension leads us to a different sphere. And
it is St. Peter who proclaims the first stage of this
great revolution when he says, ' The promise is unto
you, and to your chUdren, and to aU that are afar off,
even as many as the Lord our God shall call.' ^ But
we receive an instant illustration of the spiritual
difficulty of passmg fi-om the mere proclamation of a
principle to the acceptance and acknowledgement of
its whole practical significance. The intellect may be
enlightened long before the current of the feelings has
" Luke vii. 2-10 ; Matt. xv. 21-8 ; Luke xvii. 12-19 ; ix. 52 ;
John iv. 5 ; X. 16 ; Matt. viii. 10, &c.
^ Luke iv. 25-7.
° Mark vu. 31 {ijXdev Sid ZtSHvos de • ^f, B, D, &c., Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles).
^ Matt. X. 5, 6 ; XV. 24. " Acts n. 39.

204 LECTURE VII.
been changed. The Jevrish prerogative, '¦unto you
first,' ' represented a truth which was more riridly
apprehended in St. Peter's thoughts (4). He needed
the instruction of the heavenly vision before he had
completely mastered the wide range of the principle,
that ' God is no respecter of persons ; ' that God's min
isters must call no man ' common or unclean.' " The
proclamation of the principle might be the first step ;
but it required for its completion the second step
which was taken at the baptism of Cornelius, when
the admission of the Gentiles was placed on the same
level of privUege which was enjoyed by Jewish
Christians. And the further declaration of the
ground of this admission, through their equal parti
cipation in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, was
again entrusted to St. Peter, who brought the work to
a completion, as the readiest leader in the apostolic
band." 3. But again we find the traces of a new and un
expected difficulty. The truth had been announced
and acted on ; but its full bearings and relations had
not yet been made clear. It had been settled, indeed,
that the Gentiles should be admitted freely to the
Christian Church; and St. Peter never really forgot
the lesson which was taught him by the heavenly
vision, and on which he had acted in baptising the
household of Cornelius. But on this there arose the
further question, whether they should be admitted
without passing through the gate of circumcision —
" Acts iu. 26. ^ Acts x. 34, 28. " Acts x. 47; xi. 15.

LECTURE VII. 205
whether, in short, the new converts should be circum
cised or no. On this great question, also, a formal
decision was announced; and again it was St. Peter
who was commissioned to declare it at the council of
Jerusalem, when his words were forth-with ratified, in
the name of the Church, by the most venerated leader
of the Jewish Christians. It was the declaration of
St. Peter which was translated into the formal sen
tence pronounced by the lips of St. James.* And
thus far we can clearly see the slow steps by which
these new truths were graduaUy sinking into men's
thoughts and conduct, and above all into their hearts.
And then came the time when the agency of St. Peter
was mainly superseded, and the narrative passes on to
the acts of St. Paul. Let us pause, before we follow
it, to note the connection between these observations
on St. Peter's history and his teaching as an inspired
apostle. Look back again to mark anew the wonderful signi
ficancy of those three sayings of St. Peter, round which
our rapid summary has centered: the Dirinity of
Christ ; the free admission of the Gentiles to the Chris
tian Church, and their deliverance fi-om the conditions
of the Law of Moses. These positions cannot fail to be
regarded as steps of almost unparaUeled importance
in the gradual unfolding of the Christian faith and
system. And in every one of them it is the voice of
St. Peter by which they were uttered ; in every one
of them it is the faith of St. Peter which reminds us
^ Acts XV. 14, &c.

206 LECTURE VII.
of the Rock, on which the Church was to be builded
by the promise of her Lord.* Such is the one side ot
the picture. Let us turn to the other and more
remarkable aspect. In every one of these cases we
discover, that in the mind of the highly favoured
Apostle himself, the advance movement was succeeded
by a speedy, though temporary, ebbing of the tide.
The first of these declarations was foUowed, after an
interval, by that denial of our Saviour which stands
out m Scripture as one of the most striking examples
of the fearful possibility of faithlessness in Christians ;
the most emphatic warning, that he ' that thinketh
he standeth ' should ' take heed lest he fall.' " The
second was followed by that relapse into the old
Jewish feeling, which required the correction afforded
through the heavenly vision ; the very fact that the
lesson was thus called for, being a proof that St. Peter's
knowledge of the approaching admission of the Gentiles
had not yet completely modified his personal belief
in the prior claims and higher privUeges of the Jew.
A new question seems to have arisen, after the council
of Jerusalem had passed its decree for the remission
of Gentile circumcision. It may have been the case,
that the question had already arrived at that new
phase on which it must have shortly entered. The
Gentiles, it was ruled, were no longer to be circum
cised : but what was to be the usage for the Je-wish
Christians ? Were they bound to keep up the old rite
of circumcision, now that its ancient significance had
" Matt. xvi. 18. ^ I Cor. x. 12.

LECTURE VII. _ 207
passed away (5) ? It would appear that this question
was postponed by St. Paul, at the time when he
circumcised Timothy, in whose case the doubt might
have arisen ; while he refused to circumcise Titus,
who fell under the exemption, which had been
explicitly established at the council.* But it would
doubtless be in connection with this point, or some
other question of a similar character, on which the
controversy had assumed a new phase at Antioch,
that St. Peter feU again under an injurious influence,
which made it needful for St. Paul to withstand him
' to the face, because he was to be blamed.' " It is not
to be supposed, that after the deep solemnity of the
events which accompanied the baptism of Cornelius,
and again after the careful deliberations and weighty
conclusions of the council, St. Peter could have fallen
back, as some have thought, from either the decision on
the free admission of the Gentiles, or the resolution to
admit them vrithout compelling them to pass through
the gate of circumcision. It is more probable that the
dispute had arisen on some further complication in
this deeply important controversy, when St. Peter had
again faUed to master some additional modification,
the need of which was clear to the keen insight 6f
St. Paul.
Such is the chequered history of the inner life of
the Apostle, up to and even beyond the time when he
disappears fi-om the regular apostolic narrative. But
we must now remark, that all along its course
¦ " Acts xvi. 3; GaL U. 3. '' Gal. ii. 11.

208 LECTURE VII.
throughout the Acts, we have a series of addresses
which were delivered by St. Peter, and which cover
a much wider field of teaching than the points to
which we have referred. It is material to our pre
sent argument to note, that those formal discourses
are free throughout from every trace of uncertainty
or error, by which his conduct was occasionaUy
biassed for a season (6). Historians have not failed to
mark the signal change which was -wi-ought by the
descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost; the sudden
conversion of the apostles from doubt, timidity, and
lingering ignorance, to a confidence, a boldness, and
a spiritual authority, which perplexed and overawed
the rulers of the Jews. Of these great characteristics
the sermons of St. Peter are the leading proofs; and
from point to point they uphold and develope the
foremost doctrines of revelation with a clearness of
tone, and firmness of purpose, from which human
imperfections are totally excluded. And recurring
to the history, we observe that the notices which we
have collected do not really close the page, nor leave
us with the impression that the struggles of tht
Apostle brought him to no earthly haven of rest.
The Holy Spirit has graciously afforded us that later
record of a more comprehensive nature, the contents
of which establish that all his failures had been
finally surmounted, and that all his misunderstand
ings had been reconciled at last. It is here that the
eridence of his Epistles may be brought in : and we
may use them both without disturbance from any
critical questions bearing on the genuineness of the

LECTURE -VEL 209
second, because the character of both is in this respect
one and the same. And if it were suggested that
the argument which we have been pursuing might
warn us against reasoning from the words of the in
spired writer to the spiritual position of the man, the
thought is overborne at once by the -vritness of their
solemn tone, of conscious, unwavering, steadfast faith.
In this light we may read the special notices, which
prove how completely every earlier sore was finally
healed: the touching aUusions in the one epistle to
the ' -vrisdom given unto ' his ' beloved brother Paul ;'
in the other to the services of that ' faithful brother,'
the well-kno-wn companion of. St. Paul, Silvanus.*
The personal nature of the details shows that a holy
calm had settled down at last, after the casual storms
of that eager, earnest, active Hfe. Resting on the
past, with full assurance for the present, and -with
high anticipations for the future — speaking as him
self ' an elder and a -vritness ' at once of Christ's trans
figuration and His sufferings, and already ' a par
taker of the glory that shaU be revealed ' — he -writes
that he may ' stir up ' their ' pure minds by way of
remembrance;' in the spirit of a man who knows
how sorely he has himself been tempted, and can
therefore encourage others to bear up against the
fiery trial of temptation, and to resist the utmost
mahce of the deril." It is his o-wn experience which
teaches him to place such absolute reliance on the
" 2 Pet. ui. 15 ; 1 Pet. v. 12.
^ 1 Pet. V. 1 ; 2 Pet. i. 18 ; iu. 1 ; i. 12, 13 ; 1 Pet. i. 7 ; iv. 12 ;
2 Pet. u. 9 ; 1 Pet. v. 9.

210 LECTURE VIL
word of God, in opposition to false prophets, and in
contrast to the perishable objects of this transitory
world." It is the recoUection of his own failure which
urges him to bid them not to be ashamed if they are
caUed upon to suffer as Christians ; and which leads
hun to connect the Christian Hfe -vrith the courageous
discharge of all earthly obligations, as the counter
part to those graces of the Spirit which are summed
up in the injunction, to sanctify the Lord God in their
hearts." Well may we say, in Hooker's language,
that his strength had been his ruin, and his fall had
proved his stay." Well may our thoughts pass
quickly on, from the memory of his early vacillation
to the solemn stillness of his closing doxology; when,
as his thoughts revert to Him who had been ' thrice
denied, yet thrice beloved,' he exclaims, ' to Him be
glory, xa) vvv xod e]g T^ixipuv aiwvog'' even throughout
that eternity which is dies sine nocte, merus ac 'per
petuus.^ Does not the record hold out to ourselves the
promise, that a ready faith will never lose its reward ;
that a zealous struggle will never faU, through God's
help, to lead to victory; that as, in some cases. His
' strength is made perfect in weakness,' ° so in other
cases His firmness is created beneath the unsteady
efforts of uncertain strength; and that the doubts
and disappointments of this world are not seldom
closed even before the grave, and will unfailingly
vanish, when we pass to the deep rest of heaven?
" 1 Pet. i. 25; 2 Pet. i. 21; u. 1. ^ 1 Pet. iv. 16 ; in. 15.
c Sermon IIL, Works, ed. Keble, iii. 610.
^ Bengel. in loe. " 2 Cor. xii. 9.

LECTURE vn. 211
AU this it teaches; but it surely teaches no less
clearly this lesson on the character of Holy Scripture :
that its voice was always ' raised above the sphere
-within which earthly controversies are heard to
wrangle ; that the Holy Spirit uses the human cha
racter, but excludes the intermixture of human
infirmity; uses the instrument, but forbids the dis
cords which sometimes spoil its natural tones ; speaks
in the voice of sinful men, whose sins are set forth in
its O'wn records for our warning, but never permits
those voices in its serrice to be swayed for one
moment by the influence of the sin.
II. We pass to a very different character, when
we turn our attention from St. Peter to St. Paul.
In St. Peter we have noted the gradual advancement
fi-om the dominion of hasty impulses to the calm
self-control of settled unity and strength. We can
observe and mark the very crisis of the changes,
when the whole man seemed to be bowed under the
influence of the mighty agencies which lifted him on
from one point to another, to take the lead in every
movement of unfolding Christianity, with an im
petuosity of purpose which left his tardier thoughts
behind. In the case of St. Paul, we trace the opera
tion of a firm consistent zeal, informed and governed
by a resolute conscience ; but by its side we find that
the religious knowledge breaks asunder, at the great
change of the conversion, into two distinct portions,
which might be regarded as respectively typical of
Jewish and of Christian faith. The language in
p 2

212 LECTURE VII.
which the Apostle speaks of his o-wn former life is
constantly coloured by two contrasted lines of re
flection. On the one side he is undaunted in assert
ing the unbroken continuity of what was good; on
the other side, he sorrows over the recollection of its
earlier counterpart of eril. Whenever the question
turns on zeal, he claims it for his younger years, in
its highest fervour and its worthiest forms. ' Taught
according to the perfect manner of the law of the
fathers,' he ' was zealous toward God,' up to the
very highest standard of those whom he addressed.
' After the most straitest sect ' of their religion, he
had ' lived a Pharisee.' In that religion he had
profited above many his equals in his own nation,
' being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of '
his ' fathers.' ' Touching the righteousness which is
in the law,' in short, he was 'blameless.'* Yet, on
the other hand, he is as explicit and energetic in
deploring the sin of that spiritual blindness, which
had darkened his o-wn rision, as it darkened the
vision of the whole nation of the Jews. He says that
he ' was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and
injurious,' though he had ' obtained mercy, because '
he ' did it ignorantly in unbehef;' and he had learnt
to regard himself as in that aspect ' the least of the
apostles,' not worthy, indeed, ' to be called an apostle,'
because he had ' persecuted the church of God.' "
Now this is a very clear account of the spiritual
a Acts xxu. 3 ; xxvi. 5 ; Gal. i. 14 ; PhU. iu. 6. Cf. Acts xxiii. 1 ;
xxiv. 14, 16; 2 Tim. i. 3.
" 1 Tim. i. 13 ; 1 Cor. xv. 9.

LECTURE VIL 213
history ofa most intelligible character. We see that the
current of his religious zeal had always run strongly,
and had filled to overflowing the channels through
which it was directed. But its earlier course had
been misguided into evU; and he never tried to
palliate that evU, even while insisting on the honesty
of purpose -with which the mistaken course had been
pursued. His conversion brought about the instan
taneous change of guiding the whole strength of his
will into a better channel, and remoring the Je-wish
barriers which had enslaved its energies within the
limits of a worn-out system.
Here, then, arise the questions on development,
which become important for our present argument.
First, what was the nature of that religious pro
gress after his conversion, which is acknowledged in
some expressions of St. Paul (7) ? In the next place, .
does it appear to have exerted such a control over
his inspiration, that we can detect its influence in
his writings, in their gradual deliverance ft-om earlier
imperfections? In the third place, is it possible to
trace in any passages the very process of development,
the vibrations of a mind which is stUl balancing in
doubt between two opposite judgments, unable to
decide, yet unwilling to continue undecided ? If we
are compeUed to answer these later questions in the
affirmative, we shaU have found an instance in which
the human element has intruded its imperfections
into the sacred record. If we can establish a reason
able right to answer them in the negative, we shall
have gained a further example of the manner in

214 LECTURE VII.
which aU human weaknesses are overruled and
strengthened by the mighty presence of the enlight
ening Spirit.
1. It is beyond aU question, in the first place,
that St. Paul acknowledges a progress in religious
Hght after his conversion. His companion, St. Luke,
teUs us at the outset, that ' Saul increased the more
in strength ; ' and we cannot doubt that his spiritual
insight was quickened, and his knowledge deepened,
by the ' visions and revelations of the Lord.' " Nor
does it seem difficult to iUustrate from the history
that former knowledge of ' Christ after the flesh ' (s),
which he teUs the Corinthians he has finally aban
doned." We must not forget, as I have already
remarked, that the early Church was reared under
the shade of Judaism; that its earliest teachers, as
well as hearers, were aU 'children of the stock of
Abraham ; ' " that its public ministrations were loiig
connected with the central bond of the temple
services at Jerusalem ; * that Christ's own commission
had originally limited the province of the twelve:
' Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any
city of the Samaritans enter ye not ; but go rather
to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'" 'Unto
you first,' as we have seen, was the message of
St. Peter : ' to you is the word of this salvation
sent ; ' and ' it was necessary that the word of God
should first have been spoken to you,' is the echo
" Acts ix. 22 ; 2 Cor. xii. 1.
b 2 Cor. V. 16. <= Acts xiu. 26.
<! Acts u. 46; iu. 1, &c. « Matt. x. 5, 6.

LECTURE VIL 215
of that language from St. Paul.* Three times
throughout the Acts, as if by three different impulses
of sorrowing indignation, at the obduracy by which
his fellow-countrymen were hardened, the Apostle
announces his intention of turning to the Gentiles,
at Antioch, at Corinth, and at Rome." There is no
reason to doubt that St. Paul, Hke the others, had
once sympathised completely with the Jevrish anti-
ripations of a national Messiah, whose earthly lineage
should fix the main features of His character and
purpose. There was a time when the apostles
themselves imagined that Christ died chiefly for the
Je-wish nation ; now they aU knew that He had
' died for all,' and that ' He should gather together
in one the children of God that were scattered
abroad.' " At one time they had dwelt on the prior
claims of Judaism; now they knew that in Christ
Jesus ' there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision
nor uncircumcision. Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor
free ; but Christ is aU and in aU.' "^ At one time
those original witnesses had doubtless prided them
selves on their acquaintance with the human person
of the Sariour, and on being His brethren after the
flesh, through their common descent fi-om Abraham.
Now they had learnt that faith had the promise of
a higher privUege than sight, and that the very
'mother and brethren' of their Master 'are these
which hear the word of God and do it.' " That the
" Acts iU. 26 ; xiu. 26, 46. ^ Acts xiU. 46 ; xviii. 6 ; xxvUi. 28.
•= 2 Cor. V. 15 ; John xi. 50-2. Cf. 1 John U. 2 ; Lulce xxiv. 21.
* Col. iU. 11. « John xx. 29; Luke viii. 21.

216 LECTURE VII.
' Apostle of the Gentiles ' * would in like manner at
one time feel a deeper conriction of the claims of
those, ' of whom as concerning the flesh Christ
came,' " is thus found to be both Hkely in itself, and
borne out by the analogy of the gradual development
of the other apostles, and entirely consistent vrith the
course of the history.
2. But that we can detect any corresponding
progression in his inspired teaching, seems to be a
groundless suspicion, which a careful examination of
the order of his speeches and epistles -vrill remove.
The steadiness with which, in his epistle to the
Galatians, the Apostle asserts the identity between his
earliest and his latest message," has been justly urged
as a strong argument against the supposed enlarge
ment or correction of the Gospel which he had origi
nally taught. But it is a still stronger argument
if we can find an antecedent witness of St. Paul's
own teaching, by which that identity is explicitly
established. Now it will not be denied that the
discourse at the Pisidian Antioch dates earlier than
the two Thessalonian Epistles, and that we can place
implicit rehance on the accuracy with which St. Luke
has reported it in the Acts of the Apostles. But as
if to meet by anticipation the suspicion of a change,
that Antiochene discourse contains the germs of aU the
later doctrine, even in points on which it has been
most definitely challenged; and amongst them it
embodies St. Paul's most emphatic assertion of the
» Rom. xi. 13 ; GaL ii. 7. ^ Rom. ix. 5. ^ Gal. i. 8, 9.

LECTURE VII. 217
impossibility of obtaining justification through the
Law (9). It stands between the speech of St. Stephen
and the elaborate arguments of the Epistles to the
Galatians and the Romans. It resembles the former (lo)
in its rapid sketch of Jewish history, tracmg the steps
of the election from Abraham to David, and leading
it up to the great Heir of David, whose advent was
heralded by John the Baptist.* It resembles the latter
in its doctrine of the fulfilment of the promise which
had been made unto the fathers ; of the revelation
through Jesus Christ of the Dirine righteousness, in
relation to the sin of man ; and the utter faUure of
the Law of Moses to yield the justification which the
sinner sought." But this question can be reduced to
a single issue. The Thessalonian Epistles, it is alleged,
' say nothing of justification by faith, and not by the
works of the Law.' The inference is, that this great
doctrine had not at that time been unfolded in the
mind of the Apostle. It is enough, by way of answer,
to quote the explicit declaration which he made at an
earlier date to the Jews of Antioch : ' Be it known
unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through
this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins ;
and ev TouTO) TToig I TTKrrsumv htxaiourai • by Him aU
that believe are justified from aU things, from which
ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.' '' As
to the contrast, too, between the Jew and Gentile,
I have had a prerious occasion to point out that
the speech at Lystra sets forth the very same
" Acts xiii. 17-25. * Acts xiu. 32, 38, 39. « Acts xui. 38, 39.

218

LECTURE vn.

conception of GentUe knowledge, which the Epistle to
the Romans afterwards unfolds. God had left them
in times past ' to walk in their o-wn ways,' yet had
sent them His -witness in the rains and seasons.*
Precisely so at Athens, on the very same journey
to which the Thessalonian .Epistles must belong,
the Apostle repeats this doctrine, -vrith the variation
needed for more cultivated hearers, when he shows
how God had winked at times of ignorance, yet had
made men to bear such traces of His image, that they
never ceased to feel after their HeaveiUy Father out
of the midst of their thick darkness."
3. But again it is aUeged, that we can discover the
human workings of the mind of the Apostle, as it
wavers between the opposite sides of a question, and
as he loses the logical control over his argument, and
is tossed from side to side, in the tentative progress
from hesitation to faith (i i). The proof of this position
is commonly made out by limiting the Apostle's words,
on each aspect of the question, to a narrower meaning
than we can conceive them to possess ; and by applying
the stigma of wavering or contradiction to a method
which is simply meant to bring out great truths in all
their breadth and fulness, by an emphatic assertion
of the contrasted alternatives, which are respectively
necessary to give expression to the whole revelation.
On this subject I must refer to some remarks which
I have previously offered." A fair solution of the
difficulty may be found, I think, in every instance,
^ Acts xiv. 16, 17. ^ Acts xvu. 27, 30. " Lecture IIL

LECTURE VIL 219
by prefixing to the argument the broad conception
which is meant to be divided; and then marking the
steps through which the Apostle unfolds it, as he
presents us with first one view of truth, and then the
other, urging vrith strenuous zeal the claims of each
on our acceptance, and leaving to obedient faith, or
the enlightened spirit, the duty of grasping the
connection between them.
For a brief illustration of the Apostle's method, we
might tum to his statements in the Epistle to the
Romans on the presence, the nature, and the operation
of a law (12). We may speak of the laws of God in three
main senses, according as we wish to describe, now a
fact of mere uniformity in nature ; now the supreme
authority, which imposed that uniformity by the
action of His -wUl; and now those principles of moral
obligation, which fix the eternal landmarks between
right and wrong. In this third sense, -with which alone
we are now concerned, law denotes revealed know
ledge, connected vrith the conception of authority,
obligation, or constraint. The term includes the
teaching both of conscience and of special revelation ;
and the law of revelation is subdivided again, accord
ing to the two leading dispensations, into the Law of
Moses and the Law of Christ.
Beginning fi-om this outline, we may classify the
usage of St, Paul. The constituent elements, I say,
of moral law are knowledge and constraint. At one
time, then, he applies the word in its vaguest sense
to the law which was written on the hearts of the
GentUes, where both light and obHgation existed

220 LECTURE VII.
only with their feeblest power. In a second and
far more copious class of instances, he uses the word
for the Mosaic dispensation, where the Law was as
clear as God's hand could write it, and as inflexible as
the granite (i 3) on which it was inscribed. Against
both of these laws mankind had offended, with a
uniformity which established a tyranny of wicked
ness, and so constituted, under a third usage, the
law of sin and death, a law of evil, which mocks
God's uniformities, while it displaces His obHgation
by the bondage of a more bitter serrice. Fourthly,
the Gospel brought in a clearer light and easier
yoke : yet both the elements continued present ; and
the Apostle therefore represents it as the Law of
the Gospel, 'the law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus,' or what St. James calls ' the perfect law of
liberty.'* Through these four meanings, we find,
on examination, that the Apostle's argument moves
clearly and distinctly; the context in every case
fixing the appHcation, and giving no ground for the
charge of obscurity, unless we choose to bind him
by a narrower usage, and refuse to give scope for
the broader utterance of his thought.
We may add, that some of the stronger and more
perplexing expressions in his argument are mere
applications of the words of Christ. In explaining
them we must remember a Scripture pecuHarity
which has been preriously indicated," namely, that
lower degrees of either grace or knowledge are
a Rom. viu. 2 ; James i. 25. ^ Above, p. 19.

LECTURE VII. 221
often described as negations rather than deficiencies.
To be without law means, then, in the case of the
GentUes, to be left to the guidance of that fainter
law, which was only written on the fleshly tables
of the heart.* When St. Paul says, 'I had not
known sin, but by the law,' he no more means to
deny that the Gentiles could sin -vrithout the Law of
Moses, than our Lord meant us to draw a similar
inference when He said, ' If I had not come and
spoken unto them, they had not had sin.' " The
reference of Christ is to the Law of the Gospel ; the
reference of the Apostle is to the Law of Moses.
But behmd both these there lay the Law of the
Gentiles, which in their case also was the strength
of sin, and which gave them such a knowledge of
God's -wiU, as invested their disobedience -vrith the
same character of guUt, which marks the deeper trans
gressions of the Jew and Christian. In all cases
alike, God's law is ' holy, and the commandment
holy and just and good.' " But when it rouses the
opposition of our fallen nature, it evokes the latent
mischief which it does not cause, displays it in its
own.e-vU tendency, and increases the condemnation of
those who sin against the Hght of God. So far as
St. Paul's argument is speciaUy limited to the Law of
Moses, the key to the entire difficulty must be found
in the relation of that Law to the Promise, and in the
uselessness of knowledge unaccompanied by grace.
From his conception of law the step is easy, to
" Rom. ii. 14. •> Rom. vii. 7 ; John xv. 22.
"= Rom. vii. 12.

222

LECTURE VIL

draw out a similar peculiarity which marks his
explanation of the position and prospects of the
Jews.* The germ of the argument by which this
problem is answered can be detected before the
date of St. Paul's conversion, in that speech of
St. Stephen, to which he was a listener, and which
draws so clear a distinction between such outward
pri-rileges as the Law and Temple, and the spiritual
blessing of the approbation of God. It is a mere
extension of that argument to show, that the election
of the Jews was conditioned by its object, which
was the ultimate salvation of the Gentiles also. The
Jews were the people whom God had chosen to keep
alive His truth among mankind, and to prevent the
torch of inspired knowledge from utter extinction
in the darkness. They were subjects of God's law,
guardians of His oracles, kinsmen of His prophets,
the fleshly brethren of the incarnate Son of God. To
them pertained 'the adoption, and the glory, and
the covenants, and the giring of the Law, and the
service of God, and the promises ; whose ' were ' the
fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ
came, who is over aU, God blessed for ever.' " But
as individuals, they faUed to attain ' to the law of
righteousness,' by 'going about to establish their
own righteousness,' and not submitting ' themselves
unto the righteousness of God ; ' " and as a nation,
they forfeited the privilege of their election when
they abused theu- stewardship, and asserted an
* Rom. iii., iv., ix., x., xi.
*> Rom. ix. 4, 5. " Rom. ix. 31; x. 3.

LECTURE VII. 223
exclusive right to blessings which they held only
in the common interests of man. A tenure of this
kind could of course be described in varying lan
guage, as the thought dwelt more on the greatness
of the blessing, or the danger of its loss. It could
not be other-wise than that the argument should move
through a series of contrasted phrases, as the Apostle
passes on from the much advantage of the Jew
to the rightful claims of the Gentile ; as he weighs
the ancient glories of the sons of Abraham against
the sins which had caused their election to be
annuUed; as he balances God's promises against
man's frustrations of His merciful designs ; and as
he qualifies the darkness of their present rejection
by the dawning brightness of their future hope.
But we have only to let the interpretation follow
out the full breadth of the Apostle's meaning, and
the apparent wavering is found to be the mere
method of exposition, and not in any case the sign
of any doubt about the truth.
The nature of our present purpose forbids us to
go into any further details of criticism for establish
ing the position which has now been upheld. It is
enough to have pointed out the grounds on which
we are justified in rejecting the view of his spiritual
development, which casts his earlier message into
an imperfect form, and charges his later teaching
-with vacillation between the sides of incompatible
alternatives. Let us turn, in the last place, to re
mind you again of the impoi-tance of the principle.

224 LECTURE VII.
which is the counterpart to what we have been
studying; the inestimable advantage of that real
human presence, which moulds all the details of
Scripture instruction, yet -without subjecting the
record to any tarnish from man's sin.
If Scripture speaks to all hearts alike — if it meets
every perplexity, strengthens every fainting spirit,
comforts every mourner, and spans the whole
compass of every intellect, fi-om the highest to the
lowest — one main reason of this many-sided influence
may be found in the fact vrith which we have been
dealing: the fact that the Holy Spirit speaks to
us through men who were in all respects exposed
to aU the same emotions -with ourselves; through
men who represented every mode of thohght, every
shade of feehng, every social class, as well as every
phase of the religious character. Throughout all
its countless details we may see that Scripture is
as certainly the book of man as we believe it to
be the book of God. Its voice is the voice of those
who were our feUows, however highly exalted they
might be above ourselves. They were the chosen
lights of human nature, which shone around the
Sun of Righteousness. They formed the royal court
of attendant ministers, who interpreted the vrill of
Him that sits upon the throne as Son of Man; of
Him who can still be 'touched vrith the feehng of
our infirmities,' because He 'was in all points
tempted like as we are, yet -without sin.'* There
» Heb. iv. 15.

LECTURE -ni. 225
is no real difficiUty in combining these two principles,
that the human nature of the sacred writers might
act in its completest development and fi-eedom, yet
might be guarded from communicating its own
imperfections to the revelation which was sent fi-om
God to man through man.
The human characters of Scripture are aU gathered
round a common centre, to which they bear a -vridely
different relation in proportion to their distance
from its light. On their outskirts are crowds of
undistinguished agents, who play the subordinate
parts in the great drama it unfolds. The innermost
circle of the sacred writers retains the perfect impress
of man's threefold nature, while it rises towards a
higher form of being, as it shares in a nearer spiritual
intercourse with God. But God's light loses nothing
of its heavenly purity because it is reflected back
from human faces; whUe man gains aU the advan
tage of the pervading presence of a sympathy which
answers to the most varied emotions of his heart.

Q

226

LECTURE VIII.

2 Tim. u. 15.
' Rightly dividing the -word of truth.'
WE are now dravring near to the conclusion of the
argument, through which I have endeavoured
to unfold the completeness of both the dirine and
human elements in Holy Scripture. It remains that
I should occupy this closing Lecture with a brief
summary of the results which I have sought to
estabUsh, and the lessons which they are intended to
convey. The question -vrith which our enquiries have been
connected forms the narrowest, though not altogether
the least important, of three leading controversies,
which have recently aroused unusual interest : those
which relate to the respective difFerentise of Scripture,
of Christianity, and of mankind. The series -widens
outward, from doubts on the specific characteristics
of Scripture, to doubts on the specific claims of Chris
tianity, and to doubts on the specific distinctness of
man. What is the pecuHarity which justifies us in
marking off Scripture from aU other books, as being,
not only the word of man, but the Word of God?

LECTURE vin. 227
In what respects does Christianity rise so wondrously
above all other religions as to justify the position
which is assumed by its supporters? And what is
the difference between man and the highest of those
lower races which exhibit so strange a mockery of
our reason? While deaHng more particularly with
the first of these questions, we have found it necessary
to touch on both the others at difi'erent points in our
argument. But it would be an unwise course to trust our
cause to any formal definition, which should be
framed so dogmatically as to proclaim itself the. end
of controversy on any of these important topics. No
reasonable person can hope to do more than offer
such suggestions as may serve to establish the pro
found reality of the boundary line by which the
specific difference is in each case guarded, and to
relieve the alarm with which any recognition of the
generic resemblance is commonly received. We
believe that man is distinguished from aU other
tenants of this world which 'we inhabit, not only by
a finer organisation and a keener inteUigence, and
the preeminence which is represented and secured
through the gift of language ; but above aU, and
perhaps as the cause of all, by that spiritual element
which bears its living witness to our creation in God's
image, and which enables us to enter into communion
with God. We believe that Christianity differs fi-om
aU other religions because it centres in the Divine
Person of our Saviour, conveys the special earnest
of the -witness of God's Spirit, operates through
q2

228 LECTURE -VIII.
sacraments and ordinances of covenanted efficacy, and
is perpetuated by the establishment of a sacred society
which preserves the deposit of religious knowledge,
and enjoys the promised presence of the Spirit of
the Lord. That deposit, we believe, was originaUy
embodied in the Holy Scriptures, which differ from
every other book, because they alone contain a guaran
teed revelation, which lifts the veU, so far as needed,
fi-om both the earliest past and the remotest future,
to disclose the motive, the sanction, and the law of
man's labours; and because the Holy Spirit, which
watched over the delivery of that revelation, filled
the spirits of the -writers -with a more complete and
pervading presence than ever presided over the execu
tion of a merely human work. And so long as we
hold these points vrith confidence, we may be ready
to trace out vrith perfect calmness the signs of larger
unity, which extend the analogy to other spheres ; and
we may admire, with reverent adoration, the -vridening
-vritness which they bear to the uniformities of the
Divine counsels. But 'itbecometh weU the just to
be thankful;'* and it is not for the rich to be jealous
of the poor, for those fragments of God's blessing
which they share. Such jealousy would, indeed,
betray dissatisfaction vrith our riches, or a doubt
whether they are reaUy our own. We cannot grudge
God's lower gifts, when we know that He has en
dowed ourselves m more abundant measure. Rather
should our own experience of His , bounty lead us
" Ps. xxxiii. 1.

LECTURE VIII. 229
to expect, that it would often be poured forth in
vrider and less usual channels than those throusrh
which its ordinary blessings reach us. We may
welcome the labours of scientific enquirers, who
draw out man's affinities with lower races, if we have
realised the independent character of those higher
gifts, which make men alone the sons of God. We
may be thankful to acknowledge the fatherly good
ness -with which God lent some jewels of His truth to
the darkened heathen, if we feel sure of our own
position -\rithin reach of that storehouse of His Church,
from which ' every scribe which is instructed unto
the kingdom of heaven ' can bring ' forth out of his
treasure things new and old.'" And we may rejoice
to recognise the Spirit's presence in every lofty work
of man, if we have learnt to appreciate the fiery force
of that more certain inspu-ation, which fills God's
Word -vrith power and light.
In dealing vrith the question which has formed
our own immediate subject, I have been guided
throughout by the strong conriction, that very scanty
success has rewarded any attempt to treat the Scrip
tures either as purely human, or as purely divine, or
as compounded of those two elements in such a
manner that man's reason or conscience can discri
minate unfailingly between them. It has appeared
tome that an escape fi-om these perplexities might
be found in the complete and fearless recognition
of both elements, with all their natural results of
" Matt. xui. 52.

230 LECTURE VIII.
characteristic influence, through every portion of the
sacred record ; a union which is strictly conformable
to the analogy of God's ordinary dealings -with the
human spirit, which He guides, and moulds, and
strengthens, and perfects, but which He never de
prives of its original endowment, of free and respon
sible action. It is not to be denied, indeed, that
the subject-matter may cause now the one element
and now the other to be specially prominent m par
ticular passages; but it is maintained that this never
happens so exclusively, that the one which is less
prominent is utterly -withdrawn.
The theologian can be at no loss for parallel cases,
where two distinct agencies are found to cooperate
throughout one sphere with so complete a presence
that they cannot be distinguished, though they must
not be confounded. Without seeking illustrations
fi-om the more mysterious regions of the interaction
of the Persons in the ever-blessed Trinity, or from
the less definite topic of the Sacramental Presence,
we may venture to recur to the current Ulustration
which is afforded to the Scriptures by the twofold
nature of our Lord. We must not, indeed, use it
without being careful to mark that there are ' limits
to the resemblance, which can be traced between a
Book and a Person : a Book in which two elements
are combined together in one result ; a Person in
whom two natures are united together in one indiri-
duaUty. The analogy extends no farther than this;
that in Chi-ist, the Godhead and the Manhood are
both perfect, yet are inseparably united without loss

LECTURE vm. 231
or Hmitation : in Scripture, the divine and human
elements are both complete, yet, as contributed re
spectively by God and man, they meet in one common
production, each -vrithout limitation, and each -vrithout
loss. The necessary restriction of this analogy is no
objection to our using it so far as it holds true.
When the Athanasian creed compares the union of
God and man in Christ to the union of soul and body
in man, we know that we are deaHng vrith an imper
fect paraUel, which cannot be treated as complete
without faUing into the ApolUnarian heresy. Under
the same reserve for an imperfect figure, we may
illustrate the cooperation of the dirine and human
agencies in producing God's Word Written by the
coexistence of the dirine and human natures in
God's Word Incarnate.
Now the doubts which make men fear to admit
the full influence of the human element rest on a
mistaken conception of the place and effect of sin ;
as though it were an essential portion of that human
nature, which it does but derange and confound.
Such a suspicion might be averted by the recollec
tion that Christ took our nature -vrith all its infir
mities, yet without the slightest shadow of taint fi-om
our sin. Nothing could be stronger than the asser
tion of the inspired -writer, that though absolutely
sinless, yet He ' was in aU points tempted like as we
are.'* Nothing could be clearer than the testimony
of the Gospels, that He ' increased in wisdom and
" Heb. iv. 15.

232 LECTURE vni.
stature,' and hungered and thirsted, and was tempted
by Satan and buffeted by man, and was ' sorrowful
and very heavy,' and suffered even to the utmost
agony by which our feeble nature can be torn and
distressed.* But while He thus felt all, that He might
pity all," and through aU His words and acts of mercy
exhibited the most perfect sympathy for our infir
mities, yet the dark cloud of personal guilt never
cast the faintest reflection on His stainless spirit.
Nay, more than this, there was a dirine decorum (i)
watching round His path, to ward off those sinless
indignities fi-om material agencies which it was not
seemly that the Son of God should suffer. Though
He ate and drank, and slept and rose, and fasted and
was wearied, and had not ' where to lay His head ;'
though He was the mark for the blind assaults of
evil men, and of spirits still more e-riJ ; though ' bemg
in an agony He prayed more earnestly,' and His
' soul ' was ' exceeding sorrowful, even unto death ; "
though ' His pale weak form' was ' worn with many a
watch of sorrow and unrest ; ' " yet we never read that
actual sickness was aUowed to fasten on His sacred
Person. Though He laid down that life, which none
could take from Him,* and conquered Death by the
mere act of dying, yet He never permitted disease or
mortality to tarry in His presence ; but drove them
a Luke U. 52 ; Matt. iv. 2 ; John iv. 7; xix. 28 ; Matt. xxvi. 67,
37 ; Luke xxii. 44.
'' Christian Year, Tuesday before Easter.
<= Matt. xi. 19 ; viU. 24 ; John iv. 6 ; Matt. viu. 20 ; Luke xxu.
44 ; Matt. xxvi. 38. ^ John x. 18.

LECTURE VIII. 233
from their -rictims by an instant assertion of His dirine
supremacy, as baffled and impotent foes."
And here we may gain a clue of guidance to tell
ns what we may expect to find in that element of
Holy Scripture which was to come fi-om the agency
of man. It would be human to the very utmost, in
the broadest acceptation, short of sin, in which the
word can be properly employed ; human in its
sympathy -vrith suffering, resignation, and rejoicing;
human in its recognition of the obligations of the
present ; human in its keen longings for a brighter
future. AU this it might be ; aU this, and more than
this, we actually find it ; yet aU the while it may be
guarded from the sUghtest lapse into such errors as
would be unseemly companions for a message fi-om
above (2).
But now it must be borne in mind, that I state
this principle as the result of an enquiry, not the
dictate of a theory. The proper way to learn the
true character of revelation is not to conjecture what
it ought to be, but to examine what it is. We can
not pay too much regard to Butler's warning, that
'we are not in any sort competent judges, what
supernatural instruction were to have been expected,'
and therefore, that we must not ' pretend to judge of
the Scripture by preconceived expectations.' " When
such an examination has carried us on, from a general
acknowledgement of the deep human sympathies of
Scripture, to compare the nature and history of its
» Matt. viu. 16 ; John xi. 21, &o.
b Analogy, II. 3 (pp. 211, 212, ed. 1836).

234 LECTURE vni.
records -with those of any other ancient -writings, we
find that it obeys implicitly the main conditions under
which aU other early literature was formed and handed
down. Its text may be modified by various readings ;
its inspired guardians appear to have introduced the
same kind of minor changes and explanations which
persons of simUar authority might introduce in
parallel cases ; its sense has often been obscured for
centuries by mistranslations and misinterpretations;
it stands in close contact with large masses of external
material ; it touches at a thousand points on heathen
literature and history ; its later -writers do not hesitate
at times to avaU themselves of facts derived from
outer sources, which tradition, and not Scripture,
must have furnished. And while the strenuous
labours of unfriendly critics have not succeeded in
conricting it of any such departure from the present
historical standard as we cannot account for without
imputing error to the original -writer, it is yet clear
that the form in which the narrative is shaped and
propounded is analogous to that in which other
authentic histories of similar antiquity are moulded.
The argument has indeed been confused by an over
estimate of the importance of various chronological
details, many of which rest on mere hypothesis, and
which are so far not an integral part of the record (3) ;
as well as by laying undue stress on names or nume
rals, which may have been corrupted through the
lapse of ages (4). Nor must we forget to claim a
reasonable allowance on account of the brerity of the
narrative, and our ignorance of details which would

LECTURE vm. 235
at once explain a seeming difficulty. But all these
con-ections and qualifications are in precise conform
ity -with our general position, that the form of the
narrative, and the mode of its transmission, belong, as
a general rule, to the human framework; and yet
that the human framework has been preserved by
God's proridence from any such imperfections as
would offend against the decorum of His revelation to
mankind. The facts which I have mentioned must
be frankly acknowledged, but they must not be
exaggerated. We believe that they have failed to
exercise an evil influence over the sacred record.
They do not prove that it is in any sense untruthful,
unreliable, or unhistorical. They only establish this
fundamental principle, that it shared in the external
characteristics of analogous Uterature, as clearly as it
shared in the human thoughts and emotions of those
by whom its several portions were composed.
A further extension of this position, that Scripture
was written in the language of mankind, and was
meant from the first to be ' understanded of the
people,' enables us to account for the use of terms
adjusted to the scientific knowledge, or common
modes of speaking, which prevaUed in the ages when
the books were written (5). We are ourselves in
the daUy habit of using words in then- superficial
significance, without appealing to the theories in
which they originated, and from which they have
descended into common use, through pedigrees which
have fi-equently been lost. Great interest has been
often thro-wn over phUological studies, by the disclosure

236 LECTURE VIII.
of such facts in the history of words, and by the
ingenious analysis which has forced words them
selves to reveal the origmal causes of their employ
ment. But we should be ready to resist the tyranny
which should try to rule our present usage by an
antiquarian etymology, or make us answerable for
riews on which we have no pai-ticular caU to form a
judgment, and which scientific men have perhaps long
since resigned as erroneous. Now, it is as unreason
able to argue that Scripture writers are responsible
for the opinions under which their customary expres
sions were imposed, as to accuse men of ignorance
when they continue to use the imperfect terms of an
unfinished science ; or to accuse them of superstition
when they call months and days by then- old heathen
names ; or to accuse them of pertinacious adherence
to antiquated error, when they describe the changes
and aspects of earth and heaven, of day and night, in
phrases that have survived abandoned systems.
These remarks may serve to recall the train of
thought by which we have endeavoured to establish
the completeness of that human element which proves
its presence so conclusively, even to the most careless
reader, through the characteristics of the several
sacred writers. And I have sought to show that
this completeness may be maintained and taught,
without the sUghtest disparagement towards that
great truth which is its counterpart and consumma
tion — the truth that the whole of Scripture is not less
certamly penetrated by an influence which is abso
lutely divine. Objective in its origin, and thus

LECTURE VIIL 237
broadly contrasted -with the speculations of mankind ;
perfect in its moral and religious teaching, and thus
strongly opposed to those false creeds, which have
fiUed the earth vrith cruelty and sin ; profound in its
grasp of those eternal principles, which can only be
brought within the reach of the human inteUect by
presentation in a series of balanced and contrasted
statements; aU-pervading in its presence, so that it
lies everywhere beneath the human words of Scrip
ture, and constantly suggests a deeper sense than the
knowledge or designs of the original -wi-iter could
command : the inspiration of the Bible combines with
its revelations -to form an element so conclusively
dirine, that we cannot mistake it for the dream of
man; we cannot hesitate to recognise its heavenly
source and spiritual power. Nor can we under
estimate the fuhiess of its influence, -without closing
our eyes on the entire higher range of the phenomena
of Scripture, and thus faUing into the grave mis
take of constructing a theory from which the more
important series of the facts is excluded. Considera
tions of this kind enable us to complete our state
ment, by sho-wing that Scripture is as dirine as it is
human; the voice of Him who dweUs in eternity,
though reaching us through the organs and minds of
His earthly servants ; the work of the Holy Spirit
Himself, filHng all that He communicates -vrith light
to enhghten and -with grace to save.
If these conclusions have been correctly drawn, we
may expect to find that they -will verify themselves

238 LECTURE VIII.
by their fitness to meet some fair conditions, which
we should not have been justified in demanding at
the outset, but which -vriU serve as a valid test of the
results of our enquiry. From this point of -riew, for
instance, we might reasonably ask whether the truths
aUeged to be revealed are reaUy such as man's unaided
mind was incompetent to furnish ; whether the reve
lation possesses a depth of meaning which admits of
progressive development in the spiritual sense, and is
caused by the presence of a divine significance, lying
hidden beneath the words of man ; and whether the
inspired record stands clear from any taint of human
infirmity, whUe the characteristics of the separate
writers are never obliterated. The importance of
these positions has always been seen so clearly, that
the attempt to disprove the affirmative answers has
furnished three favourite topics to those who have
-vrished to modify or weaken the common faith on
inspiration. At one time such reasoners have tried
to destroy the distinctive claims of revelation, by
arguments which involve the further destruction of
the distinctive claims of Christianity itself; aUeging
— what in a different sense indeed is true — that Chris
tianity is as old as the Creation; and gleaning scat
tered passages from heathen authorities, to prove the
-wide diffusion of some fragmentary light, which they
propose as a rival for the fuU iUumination of the
sacred record. At other times they have raised
formidable difficulties against the doctrine of a double
sense, in which work they have been too often assisted
by the exaggerations of its upholders ; affirming that

LECTURE VIII. 239
the theory, as commonly explained, is inconsistent
•with the facts, or destroys the true position of the
human writer, or is an unfair attempt to get rid of
supposed contradictions, by representing them as
mere developments. At other times, again, they have
striven to prove that the human element exerts an
influence of absolute error— an argument which they
work out by overestimating the significance of aUeged
inaccuracies ; by treating as mistakes what were mere
accommodations ; by thrusting scientific doctrines into
the sphere of Scripture — an en-or, again, in which
their opponents have been only too ready to keep
them in countenance ; and above aU, by urging that
the Old Testament is marred by the harsh dictates of
an imperfect moraUty, and that defects less striking,
but not less certain, can be discovered in the blessed
teaching of the New. The answer to these cavUs
wiU be found, as we believe, in the careful discrimi
nation which separates in aU cases between the matter
and the form; which distinguishes, in moral prin
ciples, between the record of a sin and its express
approbation ; which analyses mixed actions into their
component elements, and confines the praise which is
accorded to the element of good; which recognises
the Jevrish nation as an authorised instrument of
God's vegeance against evU, and therefore invests its
public acts with something like the judicial character,
though careful to stop short of the extension of the
principle, which would make God's command turn
eril into good; and which points out that errors
recorded in the lives of Scripture writers were not

240

LECTURE vm.

permitted to throw a shade of imperfection over the
message which they delivered as ambassadors fi-om
God. To these subjects I have endeavoured to du-ect
attention in such detail as the nature of my task
permitted : with a deep sense of the responsibility
which rests on any one who ventures, however dif
fidently, to suggest terms of peace, while men's
thoughts are stUl agitated by the recollection of the
strife, and whUe the atmosphere is stdl charged -with
tendencies to further controversy ; yet in the earnest
hope, and with the fervent prayer, that there may be
some minds, at all events, which -wUl be thankful to
escape from the contest, and find refuge in a solution
which aims at preserving ahke the absolute di-vinity
of the message, and the unimpafred humanity of those
through whose lips and pens it was conveyed.
Let us pass on now to consider, briefly, the bearing
of this argument on the great question of Scripture
interpretation, to which aU such enquiries lead our
thoughts. It is the foremost duty of the Christian
teacher rightly to divide the word of truth (6). The
metaphor of this passage may be uncertain, but the
precept is distinct and clear. The figure may either
mean that, Uke a good steward, he is to apportion to
each member of God's household his meat in due
season ; or perhaps, that he is ' to distribute the word
rightly,'* by arranging it under different heads of
belief, according to the just ' proportion of faith;' " or
a Hooker, E, P., V. Ixxxi. 2. •> Rom. xu. 6.

LECTURE VIII. 241
that he is to lay straightly out the road or the furrow,
by drawing a direct Hne through the intricacies of error,
without yielding to any bias from his onward course.
Whichever sense we adopt, the duty of the inter
preter is taught clearly and distmctly. It is far less
pardonable in the case of Scripture than in the case
of any other -writing, to have recourse to the derices
of a forced, unnatural, or, worst of aU, an uncandid
interpretation. 1. ' The principle,' says Warburton, 'which Grotius
went upon, in commenting the Bible, was, that it
should be interpreted on the same rules of criti
cism that men use in the study of all other ancient
-writings.' * Now what is the reason why the restate
ment of a precept, which has so much to recommend
it, should have given rise in our o-wn day to special
opposition and remonstrance (7) ? Perhaps Warburton's
remarks may suggest the explanation : ' Nothing,'
he says, ' could be more reasonable than his prin
ciple ; but unluckily he deceived himself in the appH
cation of it. . . . He went on this reasonable ground,
that the prophecies should be interpreted Hke aU other
ancient writings; and on examining their authority
he found them to be truly divine. When he had
gone thus far, he then preposterously went back
again, and commented as if they were confessed to be
merely human.' It is obrious that those who apply
the principle in the same manner can only escape from
the same inconsistency, by denying that the Books
* Divine Legation of Moses, VI. vi. 2 ; vol. iii. p. 230.
R

242 LECTURE VUL
contain that special di-rine element which distin
guishes them fi-om every other composition of man.
The canon, then, which the last generation leamt
under the form that the expounder of Scripture
must foUow ' the same mode of interpretation which
is apphed to classic authors,' * binds us precisely so
far as Scripture resembles classic authors-: but beyond
that point it is necessary that Scripture interpretation
should foUow a course of its own. No fair inter
preter could complain of the injunction to obey the
conditions of truth and candour, to be biassed by
nothing, to pervert nothing; to let no considerations
of possible consequences deter him from accepting the
primary meaning which the literal and grammatical
interpretation would convey. But at that precise
point where Scripture ceases to resemble any other
book, the common rules of criticism faU. No one
attempts to treat aU other books as equal. Rhetoric
and logic ; history and speculation ; poetry and prose ;
the suggestion of probable inference, and the rigorous
deductions of scientific conclusions ; aU are dealt vrith
alike, up to a certain point, and not beyond it. And
when we aUege that there is a line, at which Scripture
passes beyond the analogy of other compositions, we
thereby claim that beyond that Hne it shaU receive an
appropriate criticism.
It is important that this position should be dis
tinctly comprehended; and that it should be known
precisely what we mean when we aUege, that Scrip-
" Bp. Marsh, Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the
Bible, p. 510, ed. 1828.

LECTURE vm, 243
ture throughout contains a dirine element, which is
in itself as complete as the human element, and which
is incomparably more important. We acknowledge
that there is one sense in which Scripture must be
treated like any other book, in so far as it is the
work of those who had TraSvj like unto other men.*
We are thankful to every one who -wUl give us sound
adrice on the grammatical, historical, contextual,
and minute interpretation." We ask for no difference
in criticism as criticism. We merely stipulate that
criticism shall be adjusted to the subject-matter, as it
would be in every other instance. If Scripture were
no more than any other book, the canon referred to
would be irrefragable. So far as Scripture corresponds
to other books, we use it, and claim it as our own, and
welcome all suggestions by which it seems Hkely that
the exposition wUl be served. But if Scripture is all
this and more ; if there is a point at which it outstrips
the analogy of other -writings ; at that point it enters
on a separate province, which must be marked by
a variation in the laws of criticism. Within proper
restrictions, and under proper explanations, the rule
may be useful in reminding men that God's Scripture
revelation is expressed in human language, and sub
mits to the conditions of human thought. But if
ever it is proposed as a sufficient canon of Scripture
interpretation, we are compeUed to rejoin that in that
riew it is either a truism or a petitio principii. If
it merely means that the interpreter of Scripture
" Acts xiv. 15 ; James v. 17. " Aids to Faith, p. 439.
B 2

244 LECTURE VIII.
should be fair, should be truthful, should be accurate,
should be just, should be candid — then it is a truism ;
for who can doubt it ? If it is meant to involve the
denial that God has imparted to the books which form
the Bible any special quahty of spiritual eminence,
which distinguishes it from every other human work —
then it is a petitio principii; for the existence of that
higher element is the very ground on which the spe
cial principles of Scripture exposition rest. The
distinction may be compared -vrith that which must
be drawn to Hmit the domain of positive science in
its relation to religion. We accept the laws which
science teaches, -without permitting it to trench on that
faith in God's providence which a blind regard to its
submissive sequences has often tended to obscure.
And we accept vrith gratitude the labours of the
scholar, without resigning our faith in that di-riner
and more spiritual Hght, to which the deeper meaning
of the Scripture text bears -vritness.
2. But Scripture interpretation should be com
prehensive as well as spiritual. Its expounder should
be ready to weigh one part vrith another, to give to
each phrase its broader rather than its narrower mean
ing, to shun private opinion, to dread partial exposi
tion, and to take the whole tenor of the faith for his
guidance, when he seeks to enter on the mind of
Christ. It is an error against this fundamental prin
ciple when men faU into the habit of relying too
exclusively on isolated texts, -without much regard to
the context, and -vrith stiU less respect for the analogy
of Scripture (s). Controversialists are naturally dis-

LECTURE VHL 245
posed to place an undue value on passages which
seem to command the foremost place in argument, by
the conciseness which condenses whole trains of rea
soning into single phrases, and by the ease -with which
they are transferred to the memory ofthe hearer. But it
often happens that the main principles of an argument
he rather beneath than on the surface, and are more
characterised by the -vrideness of their influence than
by the point and conciseness of then- occasional ex
pression; just as a mountain spruig may prove its
presence rather by the verdure that surrounds it than
by the flashing of its unveUed waters in the sunhght;
or as a tract of rock may rarely break the surface, yet
may uphold wide districts on its basis, as a portion of
the sohd fabric of the earth. In that case single texts
only serve to guide us to the neighbourhood in which
the traces of that deeper influence may be found. If,
on the other hand, we - assume that a text is the sole
vehicle of a doctrine, we suggest the suspicion that it
could be detached -without injury fi-om the great
fi:amework of prmciples on which the revelation
rests; just as a boulder could be removed from the
surface of the ground, whUe no power of man could
have upheaved it had it been a peak emerging fi-om
the firing rock. And this suspicion has been fostered
by the unvrise alarm with which the orthodox have
looked on the labours of criticism whenever it seemed
likely to rob them of some favourite texts. We are
hound, indeed, to defend the text in possession tUl
reason has been shown for the change. But if criti
cism has proved in any case that the marginal notes

246 LECTURE -Vin.
of early Christians have found admission to the record,
we may rest assured that such glosses can be removed
•vrithout injury to the revelation, which, even were
they genuine, they would not so much embody as
epitomise. 3. Closely aUied -vrith this error, is the habit fostered
by the controversial spirit, of taking a stand on one
line of texts to the neglect of such modifications or
corrections as other passages would furnish. This is
the mistake, on which we have previously dealt in
detail, of taking half-truths for truths, and yielding
them an undivided instead of qualified obedience.
A practical iUustration may prove the most weighty ;
and I know not where we could find one of such sur
passing magnitude, as tbe course of reasoning which
seems to have led the Jews to the rejection of our
Lord (9). At first thought, indeed, we never look
after their reasoning. We only ask, in perplexed
surprise, was ever guilt or penalty Hke theirs! To
reject that Saviour, whose promise had been the sole
day-star of humanity, ever brightening from the dark
ness of the FaU; to repudiate the long-sought de
scendant of Abraham, who had been foreshadowed
for nearly two thousand years, as the culmiaating
gloi-y of their ancient line; to refuse aUegiance to
that Son of Darid, who was to found a nobler
power than David's kingdom, and was to bear the
rank of Darid's Lord: can we conceive of a more
fatal national infatuation than that which thus cast
away the single object of their own election, the one
flower and perfection of their race and name? Our

LECTURE vra. 247
very reason seems sUenced by the greatness of their
crime. We shrink fi-om its analysis. We hesitate to
account for it by ordinary motives. We take refuge
in some theory of inexplicable frenzy, or demoniacal
influence, which removes it beyond the rank of the
common laws of human nature. And yet that solu
tion is inconsistent with the clearness of the inspired
narrative, and incompatible with any keen perception
of the warning it embodies for . ourselves. If we
examine carefully the Gospel records, we shaU dis
cover, I think, that the Jews were simply acting upon
their o-wn narrowed interpretation of one portion of
the Divine injunctions, in defiance of the obligations
which countless other passages conveyed. Dis
appointed by the low estate to which our gracious
Lord had condescended ; vexed by the downfal of the
carnal expectations which had looked forward to
Messiah's promised kingdom, as a more splendid
dominion than had hitherto been gathered under a
Jewish sceptre; they simply sought for weapons to
avenge their disappointment from misappHcations of
the word of God. And then they feU into the too
common error of letting one text blot out a thousand ;
of dweUing on favourite dogmas, and misinterpreted
passages, tiU the -vride fields of Scripture truth were
narrowed to the limits of their prejudiced and partial
zeal. There can be little doubt that the Je-wish
leaders beheved themselves to be acting under the
authority of that command in Deuteronomy, which
enjoins that they should slay the prophet who came to
them with signs and wonders, in case he tempted

248

LECTURE vra.

them to 'go after other gods.' * They wUfuUy over
looked the promise of that other prophet, whom the
Lord theu- God was to raise up from amongst them : "
a promise which lies near to the other passage in the
Mosaic record, and which is supported, explained, and
unfolded in the great stream of prophecy which runs
from one end to the other of the ancient Scriptures.
It was a biassed zeal for a Hteral, isolated, and faith
less interpretation, .which made them set the special
against the general revelation; and persuade them
selves that Christ was teaching a new Dirinity, ' because
He made Himself the Son of God.' "
4. And from this lesson we may draw another
inference; namely, the importance of paying due
regard to every part of Scripture, alike for its place
in the past, and its possible use in the future. This
principle should lead us to retain a firm hold on those
portions of the sacred record in which we can see no
present utihty, or which may seem to create some
passmg difficulty. Christianity does not come before
us merely as a present life, which would continue to
exist if dissevered fi-om the past. It would be felt
that an open attempt to set aside the Bible which
records its history would be a definite attack on
Christianity itself. Attempts of that kind, therefore,
possess at aU events that measure of security which
accompanies an open and acknowledged danger.
Much greater is the need of watchfulness against the
more covert and perUous proposals, which would
" Deut. xui. 1, &c. '' Deut. xvui. 15. • John xix, 7.

LECTURE vra. 249
break at least some of the many Hnks of connection
between our living Christianity and the Book of God.
We have to resist the temptation which presents itself
under the specious suggestion, that we might resign
the letter -vrith aU its difficulties, yet retain the full
blessings of its spiritual teaching. Thus some have
tried to assaU a book here and a chapter there; in
one place a few sentences, in others a mere phrase ;
and they would persuade us that these may be allowed
to faU away and perish, as -withered leaves might
drop from a tree which continues to flourish. It is a
more true figure to say that the result would rather
resemble the slow degrees by which life passes fi-om
the dying body: first, the extremities are chilled
under the grasp of death; then the fatal numbness
steals gradually onward, tiU it fastens on life's strong
hold in the heart. Or we might lilcen it to the dying
out of an Ulumination in a royal mansion : first, there
is darkness in some distant chamber ; then it steals
along the corridors and haUs ; one room after another
vanishes fi-om sight ; one light after another is extin
guished ; tiU the whole buUding rests in unbroken ob
scurity, when the last lamp of aU has been -withdrawn.
But the waning time reminds me that this is not
the opportunity for entering more minutely into the
detaUs of Scripture interpretation, and that it is
necessary to bring these observations to a close. How
can I find a better conclusion than by reminding you
of the lesson which the Church suggests, when the
prayers for inspiration which she puts into our mouths

250 LECTURE vm.
recaU us from theories on the inspiration of Scripture
to seek the inspiration of a holy life ? If the end is
greater than the means, that li-ring gift of the Spirit
is greater than even those lofty endowments which
raised men to become its authorised -vritnesses, and
to guide us to the ordinances through which it is
bestowed. Greater, indeed, yet very different ; greater
in its universality, its duration, its practical connec
tion -vrith our o-wn personal experience; yet inferior
in those high attributes of supernatural illumination,
in which the writers of Scripture stand alone. When
St. Paul has enumerated the most precious gifts that
man can long for, he assigns the highest rank to
charity, which sums up all the purest graces of the
Christian life.* Prophecies and tongues and know
ledge — the gifts of the teacher, the preacher, the
expounder of God's will — these are but parts of the
earthly organisation which God has established for the
recovery of man. They fail, they cease, they vanish
away. Our highest knowledge here is partial. Our
spiritual vision does but resemble the wavering
outline reflected from a clouded mirror. But the
life of true love grows ever upward, -vrith an un-.
interrupted progi-ession, toward 'the measure of
the stature of the fulness of Christ.' " And while the
river of life is flovring past us, and each of us may
drink and Hve for ever, no foUy could be greater than
to neglect the pririlege, and waste time and pains in
endless contests on the nature of its earthly source.
" 1 Cor. xui. 13. '' Eph, iv. 13.

LECTURE VIIL 251
And let me close -with an earnest exhortation to
our younger brethren, that they -vrill not perplex
themselves with curious questions on the inspiration
of Scripture tUl they forget to claim that present
inspiration, ' the spirit of truth, unity, and concord,'
which they are bound to pray for and to make their
own. There may perhaps be others here, who need
as earnest a word of warning against faUing into such
bondage to the pleasures of their age, that the voice
of God's Spirit is scarcely heard within their hearts.
It is weU that they should rejoice in the gifts of their
youth, if they do but remember to rejoice -with trem
bling, and to pray that the Holy Spirit wiU continue
to dwell -vrith them, filling then- bodies with purity
and their spirits with devotion. The eril days -wiU
come before they are expected ; and then where -wiU
be the pleasures which deceived them for a season?
The sun and the light and the stars -vriU be darkened,
and 'the clouds' wiU 'retm-n after the rain.' 'The
daughters of music shall be brought low,' ' and the
grasshopper shaU be a burthen, and desire shaU fail;
because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners
go about the streets.' " We have often had to look
on faces that were younger than yours, and not less
bright and hopeful, over which the cloud of death had
gathered, when the child of God was summoned early
to the blessed shelter of its Father's house. And now
they draw nearer to God's hidden mysteries than the
wisest student of God's Word can reach before the
grave. » Eccles. xii, 1-5.

252 LECTURE VHL
The knowledge of God which we gather from the
Scriptm-es is the earthly foretaste of that beatific
rision, which is the crown and consummation of
created bliss. The condition which admits us to aU
gradations of that knowledge is the childlike purity
of heart to which its highest gifts are promised — ^the
' holiness vrithout which no man shaU see the Lord.' *
It is no light blessing, be assured, that your secular
studies are in this place hallowed by the daUy circle
of religious duties; that your youth is trained to
emulate the temper of great saints, because it is
passed amidst the forms and memorials of ancient
devotion. But the greater is the sorrow if the rich
ness of God's gifts is wasted ; the sorer -vriU be the
burthen of the grievous punishment, if you pass fi-om
the light of God's altar to the outer darlaiess of sin.
Be it rather your lasting study and your earnest
prayer that you may see God's Spirit present in His
Word, and that you may feel God's Spirit present in
your spirits; that the letter of Scripture, which is
deadly to the sinner, may be found full of dirine life
by the humble faith which receives it gladly; and
that the endowments which would tum to corruption
in the serrice of sin, may be purified and elevated
till you reach that heavenly kingdom, where there is
no more sorrow, no more doubt, no more perplexity ;
but where we shaU see Christ as He is, and know as
we are known."
a Matt. V. 8 ; Heb, xu. 14, •• 1 John iu. 2 ; 1 Cor. xui. 12.

NOTES.

NOTES.

LECTURE I.
Note 1, page 2. Expressions are often found in theological
writers, 'which imply that the heathen entirely lost the human
TTPev/xa, as 'weU as the presence of the Holy Spirit. Compare
Mr. J. B. Morris's Essay towards the Conversion of the Hindus,
p. 320, &c. : ' The spirit here spoken of (1 Thess. v. 23) is that
supernatural gift 'whereby Adam 'was -what he -was in Paradise.'
' Body is almost essential to the idea, man : it may be logicaUy
divided into body and soul ; but man and this gift (i. e. spirit)
together make up the idea, Christian.' ' The Christian man is this
natural man -with that supernatural gift which Adam had, restored
to him.' Cf p. 324. So Grotius on 1 Thess. v. 23 : ' Grseci omnes
spiritum hoc loco exponimt ¦)(a.piafia'=donum.' On the opinion of
Irenssus, see Mosheim's Note on Cud-worth, Intellectual System of
the Universe, iii. 329, ed. Harrison.
But the donum supernaturale, -which man had thus possessed and
lost, was not the human irvevfia, which must be regarded as an
integral portion of his nature. It was rather the presence and
operation of the Holy Spirit, which purified the created spirit and
conformed man to the image of our Lord, See Mr. Scudamore's
Essay on the Office of the Intellect in Religion, pp. 133, 139, &c. ;
and, for the general tenor of English teaching, compare Hooker,
E. P., I. xi. 5, and Appendix to Book V., Works, u. 539 ; BuU,
Life, p. 440; Works, U. 52, 82; iv. 211, 213 ; Waterland, Works,
iv, 176; MUl, On our Lord's Temptation, pp. 38-42, 156 ; -Wilber-
force. On the Incarnation, pp. 62-3 ; Mozley, On Predestination,
pp. 10, 111. Man exspoliatur gratuitis; but only vulneratur in
naturalibus (Bede in S. Thom. Aquin., I™* Il^ae Ixxxv. 1), and the

256 NOTES TO LECTURE L
human irvev/xa is naturale. On another aspect of the subject, compare
Olshausen's Dissertation, in which Antiquiss. Eccles. Grcecw Patrum
de Immortalitate Animce Sententice recensentur ; Opuscula, No. vii.
' Patres Grseci — de spiritu Ubentissimfe concedunt, quod nostri animce
tribuunt, imo plus etiam spiritui dant, dicentes spiritum esse
ffitemum, a^Qaprov, imo ^looirowvv : at longfe aliam volunt esse
4'vxni conditionem. Hsec post hominis lapsum a spiritu sejuncta
GvrjTri est, atque tum demum immortalitatis particeps erit, si cum
spiritu denuo fuerit conjuncta.' P. 171 ; cf. p. 174. On the position
ofthe heathen, see also Lecture IL, p. 40, sqq.
Note 2, page 2. See the positions laid dcwn in 529 at Concil.
Araus. IL, Labbe, viii.711. Compare S. Thom. Aqiun., I™* II'^"*
cix. 2 ; Hooker, Works, ii. 549 ; BuU, Works, ii. 134 ; Mohler,
Symbolism, i. 36, &c. ; Mozley, Predestination, pp. 163, 345, &c. ;
Bright, Notes on XVIII. Sermons of St. Leo, p. 144. The two lines
of opinion are dra'wn out at length in an article on the relation of
Calvinism to Modern Doubt, in the Christian Remembrancer for
Jan. 1863.
Note 3, page 4. FoUowing the more general expressions of
Scripture, rov 'Kvpiov avvepyovvroQ, Mark xvi. 20 ; Qeov yap kafiev
avvEpyoi, 1 Cor. iii. 9 ; ervvepyovvTEQ ?£, 2 Cor. vi. 1 ; the early
Christian 'writers applied suoh terms to the composition of the
Bible as awepyovvroe Kal rov ayiov Hfev/xaToe' Origen, On Matt.
iii. 732, B. ; cf. rij tov Qelov Hyevfiaroe rov uvvepyovvroQ avroTc
aTToSe/^Ei" Euseb., H. E., iii. 24, p. 84, ed. Burton. Even so early
an authority as Irensjus accounts for hyperbata in the style of
St. Paul : ' propter velocitatem sermonum suorum, et propter impetum
qui in ipso est spiritfts.' — Contr. Hcer., iii. 7, p. 182. "With this we
may compare St. Augustine's ' inspiratus a Deo, sed tamen homo.'
{In Joh. Evang. I. i., Opp. III. u. 289.) But the complete recog
nition of the human element, in correction of the stricter definitions
of the seventeenth century, was reserved for writers nearer to our
own time, who are now accustomed, on aU hands, to accept the
distinction, which was once regarded with deep suspicion, as the very
basis of their reasoning. See, for instance, among works expressly
on the subject of inspiration, Gaussen's The'opneustie, p. 54: 'Tant
s'en faut que nous m^connaissions cette individuality humaine,
partout empreinte dans nos li-vres sacris, qu'au contraire c'est avec
une gratitude profonde, avec ime admiration toujours croissante, que
nous consid^rons ce caractfere vivant,' &c. Dr. Lee, Inspiration of

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 257
Holy Scripture, 2nd ed., p. 18, &c. : ' The Bible presents to us, in
whatever Ught we regard it, two distinct elements, the divine and
the human. This is a matter of fact. On the one hand, God has
granted a revelation ; on the other, human language has been made
the channel to convey, and men have been chosen as the agents to
record it. From this point aU theories on the subject of Inspiration
take their rise.' Cf pp. 369, 505, 507, 510, &c. Mr. -Westcott's
Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Pref, init. : ' A message of
God through men and to men.' P. 5 : the wrong view, when ' men
considered the Divine agency of Inspiration as acting externaUy,
and not internaUy, as acting on man, and not through man.' P. 7 :
' it is authoritative, for it is the voice of God ; it is intelligible, for
it is in the language of men.' P. 10 : ' the divine element is already
in combination with the human when we are first able to observe
its presence.' P. 12 : 'the combination ofthe Divine influence with
the human utterance.' P. 14 : ' the human element becomes part of
the message from heaven,' &c. &c. Mr. T. R. Birks, The Bible and
Modern Thought, p. 339 : ' The two elements (doctrine and science)
are blended throughout no less intimately than body and soul are
united in man himself.' Pp. 475-85, an Appendix on ' the im
portance of recognising fuUy the human element in Scripture, as
one integral part of the true doctrine of Inspiration.' (Cf 'pp. 212,
216, 259, 261, 263, 283, 284, and Christian Observer, January
1863, pp. 65-7.) Dr. Davidson, Introduction to Old Testament,
ii. 438 : ' the Old Testament prophecies . . . bear the irresistible
impress of their people and time, as well as the personality of the
speaker; in other words, the cooperation of his own spirit.'
The list of these names indicates that the position may be made
the starting-point for the most opposite opinions. But it wiU be
worth while to collect a few more scattered quotations ii-om writers
equaUy distinct in view, to show the hold which the formula has
gained upon contemporary language. Monod, Les Adieux d'Adolphe
Monad a ses Amis et a I'Eglise, p. 170: 'II a it6 clairement
dans les vues de Dieu qu'a chaque page de ce livre que nous
appelons la Parole de Dieu, on reconnftt en m^me temps une parole
d'homme.' Dr. Arnold, Appendix to Sermons, i. 427 : ' Every
prophecy has, according to the very definition of the word, a
double source ; it has, if I may venture so to speak, two authors, the
one human, the other Divine.' Schaff, Germany, its Universities, &c.,
p. 298 : ' The Holy Scriptures are strictly Divine and strictly human
S

258 NOTES TO LECTURE I.
from beginning to end. The two natures are here united in one
organic whole. The Holy Spirit lived, thought, moved in, and
spoke through, the prophets and apostles, but as conscious, intel
hgent, free agents, not as blind and passive machines.' Professor H.
Bro-wne, in Aids to Faith, p. 287 : ' When we come to consider it,
there can be no doubt but that we must admit a human and a
divine element.' P. 290 : ' Such observations (of Chrysostom and
Jerome) led to a greater appreciation of the human element in the
composition of Scripture.' Cf pp. 289, 293, 302, 308, 309, 313, 318.
Dr. Vaughan, The Book and the Life, p. 108 : ' Impossible as it is
accurately to define in such compositions the Umits of the Divine
and the human, yet unquestionably both elements enter largely, and
must do so, into the result.' Mr. J. Grote, Examination of Dr.
Lushington's Judgment, p. 23 : ' I do not see why, so far as penalty
is concerned. Dr. "WiUiams may not as weU say unquaUfiedly that
the Bible is an expression of hum,an reason, as Dr. Lushington may
say imqualifiedly that it is the result of Divine interposition. Each
proposition is incomplete : the Bible is from God as well as from
man ; from man as weU as from God.' Mr. Chretien, Letter and
Spirit, p. 59: '"We look at the instrument; we see that one mind
has adapted its parts to a single purpose : but we also see, that to
form each of these parts, subordinate agents 'wrote with hand and
mind. God in His providence has joined the several books together
in a volume ; the several books were written by individual men.'
Bishop of St. David's, Letter to Rev. Rowland Williams, D.D., p. 62 :
' In common, I believe, with all on whose opinion I set any value,
I not only recognise, but claim for Scripture a human as weU as a
divine element. That would be the fundamental condition of any
"theory of inspiration" that I should lay down.' Bishop of
Gloucester, in Aids to Faith, p. 411 : 'If asked to define what we
mean by the inspiration of Scripture, let us be bold and make
answer, that fuUy convinced as we are that the Scripture is the
revelation, through human media, of the infinite mind of God to the
finite mind of man, and recognising as we do both a human and a
divine element in the written Word, we verily believe that the
Holy Ghost was so breathed into the mind of the writer, so illu
mined his spirit and pervaded his thoughts, that while nothing that
individualised him as man was taken away, everything that was
necessary to enable him to declare Divine truth in aU its fulness
was bestowed and superadded.' Bishop of Brechin, Sermons on the

NOTES TO LECTURE L 259
Grace of God, p. 108: 'Looking at the human element in this
Divine song.' Bishop of Oxford, Fellowship in Joy and Sorrow,
init. : ' By no other token does Holy Scripture more manifest itself to
the conscience to be the Book of God, than by that profound know
ledge of humanity which makes it the book of man.' Bishop of
London, The Word of God and the Ground of Faith, p. 31 : ' I do
not wish to enter here on any intricate or subtle questions as to all
that inspiration implies, or how far it is either possible or expedient
to discern those fine limits which mark the convergence and separa
tion of the divine and hiunan elements in the aggregate 'written word.'
For recent remarks on the varying measure of the human element,
compare Christian Remembrancer, ubi supri, pp. 56, 57, 'with
Dr. Stanley's Lectures on the Jewish Church, pp. 284, 427.
Throughout the series quoted in this and the next note, both of
which, as I need scarcely add, could be ahnost indefinitely lengthened,
we may accept the recognition of both elements, without yielding to
the disposition, in any quarter, to let the one element predominate
to the exclusion or extinction of the other.
Note 4, page 6. The following extracts, which form a con
tinuation to those cited in the preceding note, will justify the
assertion that there is a ' growing disposition ' to accept this parallel,
'which is examined more closely in Lecture VIH., p. 230.
The 20th number of Les Adieux d'Adolphe Monod, p. 175, &c.,
draws out the thought in detail: 'L'une de ces paroles, J^sus-
Christ, est la Parole vivante de Dieu, la manifestation personnelle
de ses perfections invisibles au sein de I'humanit^ ; I'autre, I'Ecri
ture, est la Parole (Verite de Dieu, manifestation verbale donnee
par le langage de ces memos perfections invisibles,' &c. This is
copied at length by Mr. Swainson, Authority of N. T., p. 145, who
adds: 'The analogy may be carried onward. The early heresies
relating to our Lord's Person, and the efiPorts made by the Church
to meet those heresies, have almost their paraUels in the later
controversies as to the inspiration of Scripture.' Also cited by
the Bishop of St. David's, 1. 1., p. 63, who remarks, that the ' idea
has since been more fully carried out in yqtj beautiful analogies
by others.' Gaussen, The'opneustie, p. 71: 'Oui, nous I'avons dit,
c'est Dieu qui nous y parle, mais aussi c'est I'homme; c'est
I'homme, mais aussi c'est Dieu. Admirable parole de Dieu ! eUe
a et^ faite homme k sa maniere, comme le Verbe 6ternel ! ' Words-
'worth, Introd. to N. T., p. xix. : ' May we not even say, that the
s 2

260 NOTES TO LECTURE I.
mystery of Inspiration bears some likeness to the highest of all
mysteries, in which the human is joined with the Divine, the
mystery of the Incarnation itself?' (So also in The Inspiration
of the Bible, p. 6.) WiUiams, Beginning of the Book of Genesis,
p. 35 : ' And thus the written Word of God in the world in some
respects serves the same purpose as His Presence beheld in the
flesh.' P. 39 : ' And here again, although the analogy must not
be pressed too far, we may say that in some respects it is like the
Incarnate Word, in that it is Divine and yet human,' &c. Bishop
of Gloucester, in Aids to Faith, p. 413 : ' Theories of inspiration
are what scepticism is ever craving for : it is the voice of hapless
'unbelief, that is ever loudest in-its call for explanation of the manner
of the assumed union of the Divine with the human, or of the
proportions in which each element is to be admitted and recognised.
Such explanations have not been vouchsafed, and it is as vain and
unbecoming to demand them as it is to require a theory of the
union of the Divinity and humanity in the Person of Christ, or an
estimate of the proportions in which the two perfect natures are
to be conceived to co-exist.' Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation,
p. 2 : 'Of the -written Gospel, many of the self-same things are
said in Scripture which are said of Him by whom that Gospel was
preached.' P. 3 : ' But even more remarkable are the analogies
which subsist between the written record of our Lord's life and
teaching and the actual Person of our Lord.' P. 4 : ' Most sur
prising of all is the analogy observable between the union of the
divine and the human element in the Gospels, and the strictly paraUel
tmion, as it seems, of the two natures, the Divine and the human,
in the Person of our Lord.' (Cf p. 107, and quotation from Eden,
p. 267.) Birks, The Bible and Modem Thought, p. 476: 'A
simple reference to the analogy between the personal and the
written Word ought to remove this hasty impression.' (Cf p. 264,
and Christian Observer, Jan. 1863, p. 66.) Westcott, Introduction
to the Study of the Gospels, p. 15 : ' it may well seem that the
image of the Incarnation is reflected in the Christian Scriptures,
which, as I believe, exhibit the human and Divine in the highest
form and in the most perfect union.' Cazenove, On certain Charac
teristics of Holy Scripture, p. 59 : ' The written Word embodies,
we maintain, a divine and a human element ; herein preserving,
in some faint measure, that resemblance to the Eternal Son made
man, of which we have just been speaking.' Magee, Oxford Lenten

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 261
Sermon, Growth in Grace, p. 4 : 'as with the idea of the Incarnate
Word, so with the idea of the written Word : here, too, we have
a union of the Divine and of the human, a Word that is God's
word, and yet that is also the word of man.' Woodford, ib., The
Spirit interceding, p. 9 : ' And is it not precisely the same difficulty
which besets us in regard to the question of inspiration ? The
work of the Spirit and the work of man in the compilation of
Scripture ; where the influence of the Divine agent ends and that
of the human begins ; the way in which the one operated upon the
other : all these are but the transfer to the subject of inspiration
of the self- same mexplicable questions which exercised the mind
of the Church in earlier times with reference to the Incarnation
of Christ and Sacramental Grace.' Thorold, in Radley Sermons,
1861, p. 89 : ' Surely there is a real and close analogy between the
human and Divine natures in the Person of Christ and the human
and divine elements in the inspired Word.' See also Schaff,
Germany, ^c, p. 298 ; Tait, Inspiration and Justification, 1861 ;
Heard, New Wine in Old Bottles, p. 137 ; Quarterly Review, Jan.
1861, p. 304,- Journal of Sacred Literature, July 1862, p. 470, &c.
Note 5, page 6. The history of this distinction is traced by
Dr. Lee with his usual admirable fulness : Inspiration of Holy
Scripture, 2nd ed., pp. 27, 462, &c. On the theological side of
his theory, compare Coleridge, Confessions of an Enquiring Spirit,
p. 20 : ' the reveaUng Word and the inspiring Spirit.' P. 77 : ' the
inspiration, the imbreathment, of the predisposing and assisting
Spirit — the revelation of the informing Word.' P. 88 : 'revelation
by the Eternal Word, and actuation of the Holy Spirit.' For what
may be said against this theological determination, that ' Revelation
is the pecuUar function of the Eternal Word, Inspiration the
result ofthe agency ofthe Holy Spirit' (Lee, p. 29) — a point
which does not come under consideration in these Lectures — see
Christian Remembrancer, Jan. 1856, p. 23, and Donaldson's Christian
Orthodoxy, p. 309, with Dr. Lee's rejoinder in the Preface to his
second edition, to which all references in these notes are adjusted.
More generally, compare MoreU, Philosophy of Religion, p. 150 :
' all revelation, as we showed, impUes two conditions : it implies,
namely, an intelligible object presented, and a given power of
recipiency in the subject ; and in popular language, when speaking
of the manifestation of Christianity to the world, yf& confine the
term revelation to the former of these conditions, and appropriate

262 NOTES TO LECTURE L
the word inspiration to designate the latter.' See on this, Aids to
Faith, p. 299 ; and on the other side, Davidson's Introduction io
the Old Testament, i. 445.
Whatever may be said of the aUeged connection between this
distinction and the objective truths of theology, and whatever
difficulties may be raised against the subjective analysis, there can
be no question that it is absolutely necessary, for the sake of clear
ness, to draw a broad difference between the materials, which may
or may not have been supernaturaUy communicated, and the
faculties which were in aU cases enabled to receive them. The
distinction, for instance, would tend to clear up the controversy
on TiUotson's meaning, as discussed by Mr. Fitzjames Stephen,
Defence of Dr. Williams, p. 135, and Dr. M'Caul, Testimonies to
the Inspiration of Holy Scripture, p. 133. The assertion that ' aU
the penmen of the Old Testament were inspired,' is entirely con
sistent with the beUef, that ' Moses might -write ' what things he
had done or seen ' without an immediate revelation of them.' Cf
other simUar oases in Stephen, pp. 146, 156, &c., and E. and R.,
p. 345. Similarly in an argument of Mr. Burgon's, I. I., pp. 94,
102, the difficulty arises from a confusion between these two
conceptions. There is plainly truth on both sides ; inspiration was
not likely to come and go, as the subjects of successive chapters
varied ; yet we need not suppose that the list of the Dukes of
Edom was dictated to Moses by a voice from heaven. The inspira
tion may be held to be all-pervading by those who acknowledge
that the revelation was but partial. Compare Bull's Sermon,
Woi'ks, i. 240, on Human Means useful to Inspired Persons : ' even
persons Divinely inspired, and ministers of God, did not so wholly
depend upon Divine inspiration, but that they made use also of
the ordinary help and means, such as reading of books, with study
and meditation on them, for their assistance in the discharge of
their office.' And see below, Lecture IL, Note 12.
Note 6, page 7. For definitions of inspiration, and criticisms
upon them, besides the great magazine of materials in Dr. Lee,
and other writers on the special subject, see Mr. 'M.oreWB Philosophy
of Religion, pp. 149-92, and the remarks of Professor H. Browne,
Aids to Faith, p. 316, and Mr. Farrar, B. L., p. 40. Add Stanley,
Epistles to the Corinthians, i. 253, 268, 1st ed. ; EUicott, Aids
to Faith, p. 411; Westcott, Introd. to Study of Gospels, p. 8;
WiUiams, Christianity and Hinduism, p. 471, sqq.; an article by

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 263
Tholuck, translated in Journal of Sacred Literature, July 1863,
p. 353 ; J. M. CampbeU, Thoughts on Revelation, p. 73, sqq. ;
Mr. Jenkins's pamphlets. Scriptural Interpretation, and A Word on
Inspiration,' &c. See also below. Lecture V., Note 6. But the
main question of recent times has related to the conditions under
which we must accept that wider view of inspiration which the
formularies of our own Church embody. To give references on
this subject would be to present a Ust of a large portion of recent
controversial writings.
Note 7, page 9. The sense of the cardinal text, 1 Thess, v. 23,
has been obscured by three imperfect interpretations, which respec
tively fail to exhaust it.
1. That it ia only the same trichotomy with which we are
famUiar in the classical writers. See Whitby, in loe. ; Donaldson,
Vindication of Protestant Principles, -p. 162 (cf. Christian Orthodoxy,
p. 382) ; Mill, Analysis of Pearson, p. 87. Against this, see Bull,
Works, u. 95 : ' many learned interpreters tell us here, that St. Paul
aUudes to the threefold distinction of the soul, into the vegetative,
the sensitive, and the rational, and so that the Spirit in St. Paul
signifies no more than the ro fiyefioviKov, or mind. But it seems
plain to me, that the Apostle meddles not with the threefold faculty
of man's soul (for what hath the body to do in that distinction ?),
but rather describes the threefold principle of the compositum, if I
may so speak, of a Christian (which St. Paul caUs the 6Xo/.-\?)pov),
who, besides his body and soul, which make him a perfect natural
man, hath also the JlvEVfia, the Spirit (that Philo speaks on), to
render him a perfect man in order to a supernatural life.' Compare
Mr. Jowett, Comment, on Rom. vii. 14 : ' the language of the New
Testament does not conform to amy received views of psychology.'
2. That the irvEvfxa in this passage is the Holy Spirit. This is
the meaning of Bishop BuU, in the argument just cited. But his
statements on the subject vary. See Works, i. 32 : ' The same
our blessed Saviour assures our beUef of this truth by His o'wn
example, when, being at the point of death. He said. Father, into
Thy hands I commend my spirit, Luke xxiii. 46. He believed that
He had a spirit, a superior soul, that after the death of His body,
and the extinction of His animal soiU, should stiU remain ; and
this He recommends to the gracious and safe custody of His.Father.
And lest we should think that this was a peculiar privilege of the
soul ofthe Messias, St. Stephen, when dying, after the same manner

264 NOTES TO LECTURE I,
commits his spirit to Christ Himself, then exalted at the right hand
of the Father, saying. Lord Jesus, receive my spirit, Acts vii. 59.'
See also Grotius, in loe, and Scudamore, Office of the Intellect,
p. 141. But compare the extract from Tatian, ib., p. 135 ; and Kaye,
Justin Martyr, p. 183. Also Olshausen, in loe. : ' That iryevpa
cannot here be understood of the Holy Spirit, but denotes the
human spirit, is acknowledged by the latest interpreters,' &c. Bp.
EUicott remarks, that ' BuU's theory is, in fact, reaUy a tetractomy —
body, soul, spirit, and Holy Spirit.' Destiny ofthe Creature, p. 172.
3. That it is a gift pecuUar to Christians. See above. Note 1.
A series of patristic quotations on the subject is coUected by
Mr. J. B. Morris, in a note already referred to. Essay towards the
Conversion of the Hindus, pp. 319-29 ; and the doctrine, which
has been elaborately worked out by Delitzsch, Olshausen, and
others, is unfolded with great care in the Bishop of Gloucester's
Destiny of the Creature, &c. Compare his Commentaries on 1 Thess.,
in loe; GaL v. 16; Pastoral Epistles, -pp. y.yi., and 1 Tim. iii. 16, &c. ;
and Historical Lectures ontheLife of our Lord, ip. 112. The subject
has also received much attention in recent periodical 'writings.
Note 8, page 10. A mere arrangement of the passages will show
the different point of view from which Aristotle teaches the existence
of a Divine principle in man : —
AU things have something Divine in them {irayra ydp (jivtrei iyei
TL OiloV Eth. N., VII. xiii. § 6 ; and Kiysl ydp irwe irdvTa ro lv i]fxlv
Otiov Eth. Eud., vii. 14, p. 1248, a. 26). The Final Cause, especiaUy,
in all things is Divine {ttjv dp'^rivSe koi to u'Itiov twv ayadiivripiov
Ti Kal dtiov Tidefxcv Eth. N., I. xii. fin.). In man, therefore, happiness
is Divine {tuiv QeiOTarwv — d prj de6irE[XTrT6c irrriv, lb., I. ix. § 3, xii.
S 4). The character of Divinity becomes more marked, in propor
tion as each thing advances nearer to that central light of God.
Thus, as the ttoXic is nobler than any individual man, so the end of
the TToXic is more Divine than that of the individual {lb., I. ii. § 8).
And the same rule exalts the universe itself, in proportion as it
is thought loftier than man (/J., VI. vii. § 4). As the Deity is pure
intelligence (eotlv ri vorjaie voiiaewg vvrjirig- Metaph. A. 9, 1074, b. 34),
it follows that rovs is the most pure and heavenly element in man
(voxiQ — Are QCiov ov Kni avro, iire Tuiv kv lipiv rb deiorarov Eth. N, X.
vu. § 1, § 8 ; cf Metaph., p. 1074, b. 16). But this is especially
the active inteUect {De An., III. 5). NoOe alone is entirely separable
from the rest of man's nature {rj U roH voii Kcx<^pt(Tpevr]- Eth. N, X.

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 265
viu. § 3 ; cf De An., III. 5). It came to him from without, as
something nobler than the rest of his organisation ; a visitant from a
higher sphere (6 Se vovg eoiKev eyylvitrBat' De An., I. 4, 408, b. 18 :
XfiVtrat TOV vovv fiovov dvpadev ewinrUvai, Kcit detov eivai fiovov ' De
Gen. An., II. 3, p. 736, b. 27). It survives alone when this mortal
body perishes {De An., 1. 4, p. 408, b. 29 ; Metaph., A. 3, p. 1070,
a. 26). Therefore a Ufe in which vovq receives the most undivided
culture is the happiest Ufe {Eth. N, X. vii. fin.). By Uving it, man
passes beyond his compound nature, into a state of being superior
to his o-wn; and through such a Ufe we may conceive that the best
man draws nearest to the state and happiness of God {Eth. N., I. xii.
§4; VILi. § 2; X. viU. § 13).
On looking back over these passages, we may say, -with Sir W.
Hamilton, that in the view of Aristotle, ' intellect, which he elsewhere
(than in Eth. Eud., vii. 14) aUows to b© pre-existent and immortal,
is a spark of the Divinity' {On Reid, p. 773); but we must add,
with Bishop Hampden, that ' he mistakes the nature of the Divine
principle in man, not including in it a capacity of moral improvement,
since he Umits it to vove, or inteUect ' {On the Philosophical Evidence
of Christianity, -p. 53, note); andwith De Pressense, that 'his God,
as he himself says, is above virtue ; it is pure thought, rather than
moral perfection ; indifferent and alone. He takes no cognisance of
man ; moraUty has no Divine basis, no eternal type, no aid to look
for from above' {Religions before Christ, p. 134).
We may suppose him to maintain that there are gradations
of Deity in aU things that faU short of God ; as though it were
flashes of His light, particles of His essence, dispersed throughout
the universe ; springing from Him as their source, tending
to Him as their centre ; the final cause of aU things being,
in a less proper sense, and, as though it were unconsciously, the
efficient cause of aU things also, by virtue of an attractive or
magnetic power. But it is rather in his commentators than in
himself that we find the more explicit view, that aU mind every
where is but a portion of the Divine essence, and wiU be reabsorbed
after death in the fountain of light from which it has been
parted. Compare Mr. Farrar, B. L., p. 140. Also Sir A. Grant,
Essays on the Ethics, p. 238 : ' As long as the soul is described as
bearing the relation to the body of sight to the eye, of a flower to
the seed, of the impression to the wax, we may be content to consider
this a piece of ancient physical philosophy. Our interest is different

266 NOTES TO LECTURE I.
when the soul is said to be related to the body " as a sailor to his
boat " [De An., II. i. p. 413, a. 9]. But here is the point also where
Aristotle becomes less explicit. Having once mooted this comparison,
he does not foUow it up.' A creed which is thus impUcitly, if not
expUcitly, pantheistic, suppUes no paraUel for the Scripture doctrine,
that God bestowed on man a created and separate spirit, which, from
the moment of creation, would remain distinct from its Creator ; the
organ of Divine communion, the vehicle through which the Holy
Spirit visits us with power and light.
Note 9, page 10. I refer to the discussions raised by Mr, Darwin,
On the Origin of Species, Sir C. LyeU, On the Antiquity of Man, and
Professor Hujdey's Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature ; to which
I may add Professor RoUeston's Lecture On the Affinities and
Differences between the Brain of Man and the Brains of certain
Animals, in the Medical Times and Gazette, Feb. and March, 1862.
The following scale is given in Sir C. Lyell's work : — The largest
gorilla brain, 34^ cubic inches ; smaUest human, 62 ; largest human,
114 (p. 491 ; cf Huxley, 1. 1., p. 77, who there suppUes the reason
why, in an earUer part of Sir C. LyeU's book, p. 84, the smaUest hu
man brain is brought do'wn to 46). Dr. RoUeston says : 'the maximum
ape's weight is 14 ounces, the minimum human is, speaking roughly,
21b., i.e. 32 ounces avoirdupois;' 1. 1., p. 262. Dr. Rorison had
stated the difference in the following terms : ' On a centigrade scale
of cerebral development, aU values of the human organ shade into
each other from one hundred downwards to seventy-five ; while
aU values of the brute brain, from the fish to the ape, range upwards
in close sequence from zero to about thirty.' {Replies to E. and R.,
p. 325 ; cf The Three Barriers, pp.. 92, 97, 161, 164, 175.) 'But,'
he adds, ' there is no bridging brain between.' So also Huxley,
p. 104. Compare Anthropological Review, i. 57.
Note 10, page 11. ' Alterum argumentum, quo probamus Numen
esse aUquod, sumitur a manifestissimo consensu omnium gentium,
apud quos ratio et boni mores non planfe extincta sunt inducts
feritate ' (Grotius, De Ver. Rel. C, i. 2). I take this statement from
an elementary work, to show that the limitation under which aU
reasonable men would propound it, excludes the appeal to the few
doubtful and degraded instances which have been urged against the
universality of the main proposition. Cf the E. T. of Saisset, Modern
Pantheism, i. 34, note ; and Max MiiUer, Ancient Sanskrit Litera
ture, p. 538.

NOTES TO LECTURE L 267
Note 11, page 11. The foUowing are among the chief recent
opinions on the differentia of man : — Language : Professor Max
MuUer, Lectures on the Science of Language, 1861, p. 13: 'However
much the frontiers of the animal kingdom have been pushed forward,
so that at one time the Une of demarcation between animal and man
seemed to depend on a mere fold in the brain, there is one barrier
which no one has yet ventured to touch — the barrier of language.'
Cf Locke, on p. 14 : ' the power of abstracting is not at aU in brutes,'
&c. ; and p. 340 : ' "Where, then, is the difference between brute and
man ? . , . I answer, without hesitation, the one great barrier between
the brute and man is Language.' Huxley, Man's Place in Nature,
p. 103, note : ' believing, as I do, with Cuvier, that the possession
of articulate speech is the grand distinctive character of man,' &c.
P. 112 : 'he alone possesses the marveUous endowment of inteUigible
and rational speech, whereby, in the secular period of his existence,
he has slowly accumulated and organised the experience which is almost
whoUy lost with the cessation of every individual Ufe in other animals ;
BO that now he stands raised upon it as on a mountain top, far above
the level of his humble feUows, and transfigured from his grosser
nature by reflecting, here and there, a ray from the infinite source of
truth.' Self-consciousness : — Bischoff, in Anthropological Review,
No. I. p. 56. Mind, Tongue, Hand : — Dr. Rorison, The Three
Barriers, p. 128; cf pp. 92, 96, 97, 127. Improvable Reason: —
Archbishop Sumner, Records of Creation, p. 179, ed. 1850 ; cf.
LyeU, On the Antiquity of Man, p. 496. Morality and Religion : —
M. de Quatrefages; see LyeU, I.l., 496; translator of M. Saisset,
Modern Pantheism, i. 34, note; also ii. 237. Compare Mr. Maurice,
Claims of the Bible and of Science, p. 49 : ' Let the physical
enquirer make out the affinity of each of us to the ape — such
humUiation is seasonable and profitable ; but he shall not hinder us
from bearing witness to him, that he has a glorious parentage ; that
he has the nature which was redeemed by the Son of God.' I need
not point out in detail the completeness with which this view
exhausts the imagery, in which the superiority of man over brute
has been so repeatedly described; Huxley, I. I., p. Ill; HaUam,
Literature of Europe, iii. 286 ; &c. We must only bear in mind
the warning of Pascal : ' It is a dangerous thing to demonstrate to
man how he resembles the brutes, without at the same time showing
him his superiority over them.' Thoughts, iv. 15 ; p. 85, ed. Pearce.
See further, Lecture VIIL, p. 227.

268 NOTES TO LECTURE L
Note 12, page 13. 'Among other things which revelation makes
known to us concerning the Divine Nature, is this, that it is capable
of divers kinds or manners of Presence, according to its own WiU.
.... First of aU, while existing everywhere. He yet dweUs by a
purer and subtler influence, and, as we may say, by a more intimate
Presence, in some creatures than in others, in angels than in men,
in men than in the lower animals, and in these last, it should seem
probable, than in inanimate matter. . . . Again, it has pleased Him
on occasion to dwell, by intenser localisation, so to speak, in particular
places : as in the cherubic forms (probably) at the gates of Eden
after the FaU ; in the burning bush ; in the cloud at the Exodus,
and on Mount Sinai ; in the Tabernacle ere the ark of the covenant
was made ; on the outstretched wings of the cherubim above the
ark, both in the Tabernacle and first Temple ; and behind the veU,
though there was no ark, in the second Temple.' — Freeman, Prin
ciples of Divine Service, ii. 157-8. I am not concerned with the
inferences which Mr. Freeman draws. Cf. ib., iii. 15. ' Undoubtedly
there are many different degrees of the Divine Presence. God is in
some real sense more present in heaven than upon earth, and
in heaven itself most present on His heavenly throne ; and so upon
earth also, though He pervade the whole of it, yet is He chiefly in
His sanctuaries, and in them (it may be) most present at the holy
altar.' — Rawlinson, Christianity and Heathenism, p. 16. Compare
Moberly, Sayings ofthe Great Forty Days, pp. 47, 84, &c. ; Hessey,
B. L., p. 183.
Note 13, page 17. The ^oQev supplied in the E. V. of John vii. 39
is the old interpretation. See Suicer, Thes. Eccles., ii. 777-8.
Lachmann admits oeSofievov into his text. ' Quod dicit Evangelista,
Spiritus nondum erat datus, quia Jesus nondum erat glorificatus,
quomodo intelligitur, nisi quia certa ilia Spiritus Sancti datio vel
missio post clarificationem Christi futura erat, qualis nunquam antea
fuerat ? Neque enim antea nulla erat, sed talis non fuerat. Si
enim antea Spiritus Sanctus non dabatur, quo impleti Propheta;
locuti sunt ? ciim apertfe Scriptura dicat, et multis locis ostendat,
Spiritu Sancto eos locutos fuisse ; cum ct de ^ Joanne Baptist^
dictum sit, Spiritu Sancto replebitur jam inde ab utero matris
sum ; et Spiritu Sancto repletus Zacharias invenitur pater ejus,
ut de illo talia diceret; et Spiritu Sancto Maria ut talia de
Domino quem gestabat utero preedicaret ; Spiritu Sancto Simeon et
Anna, ut magnitudinem Christi parvuli agnoscerent : quomodo ergo

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 269
Spiritus nondum erat datus, quia' Jesus nondum erat clarificatus,
nisi quia ilia datio, vel donatio, vel missio Spiritus Sancti habitura
erat quandam proprietatem suam in ipso adventu, qualis antea
nunquam fuit ? ' — S. August., De Trinit., iv. 20 ; Opp., viii. 829.
But see the ample coUection of passages and criticisms in Archdeacon
Hare's Mission ofthe Comforter, note H., pp. 231-97. The highest
form pf the Presence of the Spirit in the spirit of man must be dis
tinguished from His Presence ' not by measure ' in our Lord ; John
ui. 34, ' Habere Spiritum non per se, sed per participationem, ut
Theologi loquuntur, id est ad mensuram habere ; et eo modo dare,
est ad mensuram dare.' — Maldonat. in loe. ' Dixit R. Acha :
Etiam Spiritus S. non habitavit super Prophetas, nisi mensur^
quMam. Quidam enim librum unum, quidam duos vaticiniorum
ediderunt.' — Schoettgen., Hor. Hebr. in loe. Cf. Origen, Hom. in
Imc, xxix. ; Opp., iu. 966.
Note 14,, page \9i. See Mr. Fitzjames Stephen's i)e/%MC« of Dr.
Williams, p. 207, &c. ; E. and R., p. 78 ; Dr. Stanley's Lectures on
the Jewish Church, p. 442, &c. Mr. Chretien says : 'It has often been
remarked, that the word " inspiration " is employed in the Prayer
Book only to express the action of the Holy Spirit on the mind and
heart of the believer. It has not been so often observed that even
in these instances the word is of comparatively recent introduction.'
— Letter and Spirit, p. 179. The passages are as foUows : —
(1.) Collect for Fifth Sunday after Easter, Gelasian, te inspirante ;
Muratori, i. 585. (2.) Prayer for the Chiuxh militant. (3.) CoUect
for purity before Communion, per infusionem, Muratori, u. 383 ;
Sarum Missal, p. 579, ed. Forbes. (4.) The Veni Creator Spiritus ;
' Thy heavenly grace inspire,' 1552 ; ' Our souls inspire,' 1662.
(5.) Article XIII. : ' Works done before the grace of Christ, and the
inspiration of His Spirit; ' spiritus ejus affiatum, 1552-62. Cf. Concil.
Trid., Sess. vi. Can. 3 : ' si quis dixerit, sine praeveniente Spiritus
Sancti inspiratione,' &c.
Note 15, page 19. Compare a .similar distinction drawn by
Hooker on another subject, E. P., III. -viii. § 5 : ' The cause why
such declamations prevail so greatly, is, for that men suffer them
selves in two respects to be deluded : one is, that the wisdom of man
being debased either in comparison with that of God, or in regard of
some special thing exceeding the reach and compass thereof, it
seemeth to them (not marking so much) as if simply it were con
demned.' ' As there is a sense in which the grant of glory was made

270 NOTES TO LECTURE I.
even under the Law, as in its miracles, ... so in another point of
view it belongs exclusively to the promised blessedness hereafter.
StUl there is a real and sufficient sense in which it is ascribed to the
Christian Church.' — Newman, Parochial Sermons, Ui. 281. 'Now
what were aU these but pledges and earnests of a bUss which is to
come hereafter ? Real and high as was this fellowship with God, it
was but the first manifestation of that glory which shall be revealed. It
was the foretaste of this Beatitude ; the inheritance of the pure in
heart ; a faint anticipation of that vision in bUss, which makes
blessed aU who behold it. Let us then go on to consider, so far as
we may, what is the nature of the beatific vision. It is plainly
something that is yet to come. " The pure in heart shall see God."
This was not finally fulfiUed in the visions of seers, nor in the
presence of^ Christ in the flesh, nor in any manifestation that has yet
been made of God to His servants. Such beginnings and first intui
tions as they may have had here in this Ufe did but lead on to the
perfect sight ofthe Divine Presence. They were of old 'hoih. fulfilments
and prophecies, earnests and actual gifts, in part realities, and in
part adumbrations, of that 'vision of God which shall be hereafter.' —
Manning, University Sermons, p. 123. 'The gift, then, of written
revelation in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, is distinctly and
expressly referred to the Spirit of God. But the Gospel is eminently
the dispensation of the Spirit. His Presence after our Lord's
ascension was to be so much more fully manifested, that -by com
parison it is said to be vouchsafed for the first time.' — Birks, The
Bible and Modern Thought, p. 238. Cf Maldonat. on Matt. ix. 13.
Note 16, page 20. ' When the Church is asked for her proofs of
the Divine authority of the Scriptures, her first word is — Testimony;
and her second is — Testimony ; and her third is — Testimony. It
is true there are countless subsidiary confirmations of their claim to
be what she says they are ; just as there were many subsidiary
things which went, in Demosthenes' view, to make an orator. But
in the last resort, when pressed with the enquiry as to what her
mind rests on as ultimate and beyond appeal and gainsaying, the
proof which the Church alleges is one and one only. The whole
thing has been a matter of testimony from the beginning.'  Christian
Remembrancer, Jan. 1856, p. 6. ' We receive the books of Holy
Scripture on the testimony of Christ, speaking in His Church.' 
Wordsworth, Inspiration, p. 82. We must distinguish, however,
between the testimony of the Church and the personal authority of

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 271
the individual writer. Thus, when Mr. Swainson says : ' By an
amount of evidence which seems to be overwhelming, it is proved
that when a book claimed to be admitted on the Canon of the
Church, only one enquiry was made, and that was. Who was the
Author ? and if the document or letter could be proved satisfactorily
to have proceeded from an Apostle of our Lord, the enquiry was
closed' {Authority of N. T., p. 9), we feel that the account leaves
some difficult questions altogether without an answer. E.g., on
p. 18 he says : ' The question which so long agitated the Church as
to the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, was reaUy a question
as to its author, and not untU it was believed that the Epistle was
written by St. Paul, does it seem that men's minds were satisfied,
and the work aUowed to take its place among the acknowledged
documents of the Christian covenant.' It seems to follow, that
whenever they doubt whether it was written by St. Paul, they are
justified in being dissatisfied again, We must be cautious not to
lay down unguardedly a principle of only partial application, which
would needlessly increase the responsibility of aU critical enquiries.
Mr. Chretien, Letter and Spirit, p. 49, dweUs on the difficulties in
point of fact ; and Dr. Wordsworth says : ' We cannot say, with some
persons, that we receive the Scriptures as Divine because we know
luho their 'writers were, and that they were good men, full of the
Holy Ghost, and that therefore whatever they wrote must be inspired
of God. The truth is, we do not know by whom some of the books
of Scripture were 'written.' — Inspiration, p. 81.
On the other hand, ' a true revelation of God must be its own
witness.' — CampbeU, Thoughts on Revelation, pp. 13, 26, 71, &c.
' The question of the Canon of Scripture, and the question of the
Inspiration of Scripture, are in no way to be confounded. The
0. T. Canon 'we receive now, as it was recognised by the 0. T.
Church. The N. T. Canon, the N. T. Church, after a time, felt
called to fix, and proceeded to ascertain and fix accordingly 
But the question of Inspiration is altogether prior to, and indepen
dent of, this matter. The existence of inspired writings having
Divine authority was a fact kno'wn and famiUar to the Church from
the beginning. The N. T. Scriptures, successively as they were
written, added themselves to the Old in the Canon of men's faith,
as new stars appearing in the firmament 'would take their place
among the stars of heaven.' — lb., p. 103. This conception of
'proving itself by its own light' has been the subject of much recent

272 NOTES TO LECTURE L
criticism. See of Calvin, E. and R., 328 ; Stephen, Defence of Wil
liams, p. 88 ; M'Caul, Testimonies, p. 83 : of Jackson, Stephen, p. 97 ;
M'Caul, pp. 84, 115 : of ChUUngworth, M'Caul, p. 84, &c. Compare
Mr. Goldwin Smith, Rational Religion, p. 16 : ' The histories which
contradict the Article as to the matter of fact require elaborate con
futation. If we can know God, and know His voice, these difficulties
are as nothing ; if we cannot know God, they are death.' ' In short,
whatever finds me bears witness for itself that it has proceeded from
a Holy Spirit.' — Coleridge, Confessions, &c., pp. 10, 13, 72. Cf
'Browne, Aids to Faith, pp. 297, 314 ; Stanley, Jewish Church, p. 454 ;
ElUcott, Aids to Faith, p. 409 ; ' The Book has found him,' &c.
^ Eye of God's Word! ' — Christian Year, St. Bartholomew ; with the
quotation from MUler's B.L., p. 135 : ' this eye, Uke that of a por
trait, uniformly fixed upon us, turn where we will.'
' But how do we know the Bible to be the Word of God ? Both
by testimony and by the answer of its Spirit to our spirit — by
external authority, and by its O'wn.' — Chretien, Letter and Spirit,
p. 17. ' A healthy eye is required for perfect vision. But it is
not needful, happily, to know whether our sight depends on the
cornea or the crystalUne lens, on the aqueous or the vitreous
humour, or " on a combination ofthe four, or of some of them, and
in what order and proportion," before we can discern and rejoice in
the presence of a beloved friend. A humble heart and a healthy
conscience wUl lead the most unlettered Christian to a firm beUef in
the Gospel, and in the truth of the sacred Scriptures, though he
may never have cared to settle what share each kind of evidence
may have had in this result.' — Birks, Bible and Modern Thought,
p. 201.
The Scripture testimonies have been coUected by Gaussen, Dr.
Wordsworth, the Bishop of Gloucester, and others ; the patristic
proofs are arranged in Routh, Rell. Sacr., v. 335—53 ; Lee, Appendix
G., pp. 484-527 ; Westcott, Introd. to Study of Gospels, Appendix B.,
pp. 383-423 : and the witness of the English Church is discussed
in the speeches of Mr. Fitzjames Stephen and Sir R. Phillimore, and
the work of Dr. M'Caul. On the consilience of reasonings, com
pare LyaU, Propmdia Proph., pp. 138, 35 1 ; Birks, Bible and Modern
Thought, p. 202 ; Westcott, I. l, p. 18.
Note 17, page 22. Mr. MoreU has coUected several definitions of
Revelation ; Philosophy of Religion, p. 148. Many others will be
found in treatises to which reference has been already made in

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 273
Note 6, and elsewhere. A definition proposed by Dr, Rowland
WUUams gave rise to a controversy, which ran through several
pamphlets : — ' Revelation is an unveiling of the true God, espe
cially as Love and as a Spirit, to the eyes of our mind;' — Lam
peter Theology, p. 35, criticised by the Bishop of St. David's,
Charge, 1857, p. 73. The reply of Dr. WiUiams is in his Earnestly
respectful Letter, p. 23 ; the Bishop's rejoinder, on p. 24 of his
Letter to the Rev. Dr. Williams ; and Dr. WiUiams's further answer
on p. 2 of his Appendix, and p. 18 of his Persecution for the Word.
Compare Christianity and Hinduism, p. 26. I annex one definition
fi-om the interest attached to the name of its author : ' Revelation is
a voluntary approximation of the Infinite Being to the ways and
thoughts of finite humanity.' — Remains of A. H. Hallam, p. 176.
In the first edition of Mr. Jowett's Commentary on Galatians, i. 12,
he had said that ' it seems to come from without, and is not to be
confounded with any inward emotion, any more than a dream or
the sight of a painting.' But the passage is altered in the second
edition. An important question has been raised on the propriety of extend
ing the term beyond the bounds of Scripture, as in the analogous
case of Inspiration. The practice has been not uncommon : ' In-
nititur fides nostra revelation! Apostolis et Prophetis factse, qui
canonioos libros scripserunt, non autem revelationi, si qua fuit aliis
doctoribus facta.' — S. Thom. Aquin., I. i. Art. viii. fin. ' So full, so
unambiguous, is St. Paul's testimony to this revelation of God,
written in " the volume of the creatures ;" and such a revelation,
too, as he declares man had the inteUectual eye to read, if he had
but had the wiU to obey. But there is also a second natural reve
lation of God, which the Apostle wUl not suffer us to forget ; that
which is contained in the innate sense of our nature ; that moral
constitution of our souls,' &c. — Davison's Remains, p. 90. ' That
supernatural notices and revealed Ught were communicated, more
or less, to the bulk of mankind in every age is most certain and
uncontestable ; but whether directly by Scripture, or by other more
obUque or more remote means, may often admit of a dispute.' —
Waterland, Works, v. 15. 'I apprehend that it would be more
correct to speak of the Revelation of God as consisting of four parts,
or rather as made in four modes,' by creation, by miracles, by the
Spirit of God, and in a written book  .Maitland, Eruvin, p. 2.
' Revelation, properly speaking, is an universal, not a partial gift.'~-
T

274 NOTES TO LECTURE I.
Ne-wman, Arians, p. 89 ; see below, Lecture IL, Note 2; ' What
can we really know of Him but from His own revelations of Him
self; His revelations in the book of nature, in the book of the
world's history, iu the book of our O'wn consciences, but, above aU,
in that book which contains His own utterances by His prophets,
and in these last days by His Son ?' — Professor H. Browne, Messiah
as foretold, ^c, p. 54. 'A Divine Revelation is knowledge bestowed
on us by God in the form of human thought and speech, the Holy
Spirit employing men for this end. This is what we mean when we
speak of the Scriptures as a Di-vine Revelation ; while in a larger
sense, aU by which God utters Himself to us in creation and provi
dence, and the Divine constitution of things, is Revelation.' —
J. M. Campbell, Thoughts on Revelation, p. 74. On the other hand,
the Provost of Oriel has recently protested against the application of
the term to ' a voice within us, prior to Revelation, or itself, as we
may choose to caU, or rather to miscaU it, a prior Revelation.' —
Province of Private Judgment, 1861, pp. 17, 28. So also Dr. Lee,
p. 4, proposing to restrict the word revelation to the one sense, and
to use the word manifestation for the other.
Note 18, page 24. Compare the two passages translated by Sir W.
HamUton from Kant and Jacobi ; Lectures on Metaphysics, i. 39-41.
The latter, 'Nature conceals God ; man reveals God,' isalso quoted by
Mr. Mansel, B.L., p. 343, and^zrfs to Faith, p. 28. The former has been
far more widely used. ' Two things there are, which, the oftener and
the more steadfastly we consider, fiU the mind with an ever new, an
ever rising admiration and reverence ; the starry heaven above, the
moral law within.' Quoted also. Discussions, p. 301 ; Young, Pro
vince of Reason, p. 141 ; Jowett, Commentary on St. Paul, ii. 387,
413, first ed. ; ^3.i%&%t, Modern Pantheism, n. l^Q ; Stanley, ASermoras
in the East, p. 75.
Note 19, page 26. ' In the Old Testament, as in the New, the
question as regards religion is not the reality of the facts which are
there recorded — that is a matter to be determined by historical
proof — but the proper explanation of them. Whether the facts
related in the books of Moses really happened is one thing ; whether
they were wrought by God, and if so, for what end, belongs to a
different enquiry. So, also, when we are speaking of the facts re
corded in the New Testament,' — Lyall, Propcedia Prophetica, p. 3.
' Our revelations, we may say, were not the literary work of some
sage or legislator, or put forth as a mere -writing or coUection of

NOTES TO LECTURE I. 275
writings ; but they are a series of historical revelations, given at
different times and in different manners, and by different messengers,
each for its special purpose in connection with what was then passing
in the world ; and yet all having reference to one great evan
gelical purpose.' — Hampden, B. L., Preface to 2nd ed., p. xU. 'The
conveyance of God's wUl by means of facts is the foundation of what
we term Revealed Religion.' — Lee, p. 6. ' Much of what we learn
fi'om the sacred record is not of a spiritual nature at all ; but even
when that which is written is in its highest aspect purely spiritual,
and what is only truly known when spirituaUy discerned, the spiri
tual is presented to us in Divine facts, which, as facts, could only
become known by revelation. The Divine facts are commended to
our faith by the glory of God which shines iu them, and by the
hght which they shed on our condition as subjects of the kingdom
of God ; but as facts they could never have become the subjects of
human knowledge, excepting by such inspiration as we ascribe to
holy apostles and prophets. The great facts which our faith em
braces are as the Unks of a Divine chain, of which some Unks have
had a visibility here on earth, whUe the rest belong entirely to the
invisible. But even of those Unks which have been 'visible — the Ufe
and death of the Son of God — the whole spiritual aspect has been
invisible, and could only be known to man by revelation.' — CampbeU,
Thoughts on Revelation, p. 90. Cf. Birks, Bible and Modern Thought,
pp. 86, 237, 340, 374, sqq.
Note 20, page 35. Dr. Lee has coUected instances from the
Fathers of the simiUtudes employed ' to iUustrate the effect of the
Divine influence upon the souls of those "holy men of old, who
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," ' under the two
classes of musical instruments and material simiUtudes of any kind.
Appendix G , pp. 503-7 ; cf pp. 81-3. I annex a few from
more recent writers. A Harp or Lute (S. Justin. Mart., Cohort.
ad Gent., 8 ; Opp., U. 38, ed. Otto ; S. August., De Civit. Dei, xvi. 2 ;
Opp., vu. 416, &c.) ; Hooker, Works, iu. 662-3 : ' They neither
spake nor wrote any word of their O'wn, but uttered syUable by
syUable 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 skUl. The difference is
only this : an instrument, whether it be a pipe or harp, maketh a
distinction in the times and sounds, which distinction is weU per
ceived of the hearer, the instrument itself understanding not what
T 2

276 NOTES TO LECTURE I.
is piped or harped. The prophets and holy men of God not so . . ,
For herein they were not Uke harps or lutes, but they felt, they felt
the power and strength of their o'wn 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.' — (Also in Lee,
pp. 22, 82.) Coleridge, Confessions, p. 14 : ' This is the very essence
of the doctrine, that one and the same InteUigence is speaking in
the unity of a Person ; which unity is no more broken by the diver
sity of the pipes through which it makes itself audible, than is a
tune by the different instruments on which it is played by a con
summate musician, equally perfect in all ; ' after which he proceeds
to ' enquire on what authority this doctrine rests.' An Organ ;
Gaussen, The'opneustie, p. 67 : ' Avez-vous visits I'^tonnant organiste
qui fait eouler avec tant de charme les larmes du voyageur, dans la
cath^drale de Fribourg, pendant qu'il touche I'un apr^s I'autre ses
admirables claviers, et qu'il vous fait entendre tour h. tour, ou la
marche des guerriers sur le rivage, ou les chants de la prifere sur
le lac, pendant la temp^te, ou les voix de Faction de graces aprfes
qu'eUe est calmee? Tous vos sens sont ^branles, car vous avez
tout vu et tout entendu. Eh bien, c'est ainsi que I'Eternel Dieu,
puissant en harmonie, a, tour k tour, appuy^ le doigt de son Esprit
sur les touches qu'U avait choisies pour I'heure de son dessein, et
pour l'unit6 de son hymne celeste.' Again, p. 75 : ' Ce sont les
orgues du Trfes-Haut, mais qui vont charmer le coeur de I'homme,
et remuer sa conscience, dans les cabanes du' berger, comme dans
les palais ; dans les chambres hautes du pauvre, comme dans les
tentes du desert.' The figure is worked out with great skill and
refinement by Mr. Chretien, Letter and Spirit, p. 25. A Pen and
Penmen, from Ps. xlv. 2 : ' My tongue is the pen of a ready
writer.' (Cf S. August., Conf. vii. 27, Opp., I. 143, E : ' venerabilem
stUum Spiritus tui;' Enarr. in Ps. cxliv, 17, Opp., IV. 1620, F:
' chirographum Dei.') On the mechanical theory, the -writer becomes
' the pen and not the penman of the Holy Spirit.' — Westcott, Introd.
to Gospels, p. 6 ; Lee, p. 22 ; Stanley, Jewish Ch., p. 433 ; Farrar,
B. L., p. 159. ' According to this theory, as expounded by such
divines as Quenstedt and HoUaz, the prophets and apostles were mere
amanuenses of the Holy Ghost. It was only per catachresin that
they could be properly said to be the authors of the writings which

NOTES TO LECTURE L 277
bore their names ; utpote qui potius Dei auctoris calami fuerunt:' 
Bishop of St. David's, Letter to Dr. R. Williams, p. 38, On the other
hand, ' if the sacred 'writers were not clerks, but, so to speak, secretaries
of state, men entrusted with God's secrets, imbued with the mind
and counsels of God, acquainted with His secret wiU and designs,
recei'vong from Him, when necessary, precise verbal instructions,
when this was unnecessary, speaking from the fulness of their own
knowledge, but in every case (to keep up our metaphor) having to
submit their despatches to the eye of the Great King, to receive His
sanction and authentication, before sending them forth as documents
containing their Master's pleasure; then diversities of style, and
individual idiosyncrasy breaking out, is exactly what we should
expect.' — Lord A. Hervey, Inspiration of Holy Scripture, p. 83.
' Not copying machines, but living men.' — Birks, Bible and Modern
Thought, p. 283. ' No figure can more correctly represent the idea
to be conveyed, as there is none more common with writers both of
the Old and New Testaments, than that which teaches us to consider
the prophets and apostles as ambassadors from God to mankind.' —
LyaU, Propcedia Proph., p. 175.

278

LECTURE II.
Note I, page 38. This phrase is sometimes challenged ; but I
think without just cause. In his Charge of 1857, p. 82, the Bishop
of St. David's speaks of the 'original rule' of Holy Scripture 'as
one superior to every other in kind as weU as in degree.' Dr.
WUUams objects. Earnestly Respectful Letter, p. 30 : ' Difference
of degree is as of light from twilight, or fuU-grcwn manhood from
childhood. Difference of kind is as of good from evU.' The Bishop
rejoins by enlarging his original image. He had said : ' The fulness
of the stream is the glory of the fountain ; and it is because the
Ganges is not lost among its native hiUs, but deepens and widens
until it reaches the ocean, that so many pilgrimages are made to its
springs.' ' I meant,' he now writes (p. 34), ' th.at the authority
of Scripture was unique," because it is not merely a record of
revelations, but the one original record of all the revelation that
mankind has ever received, or has any reason to expect, concerning
the objects of Christian faith and hope. I meant that it stands
alone,' &c. ' K I had aimed at a more exact correspondence, I
should have compared Holy Scripture to the source of a mighty
stream, with the addition, that it possesses a quaUty distinguishing
it from aU other waters, and likewise a marvellous virtue, by which
it assimilates aU the tributaries which sweU its volume to its o'wn
nature.' In Dr. Lushington's Judgment on Dr. WUUams, June 25,
1862, p. 16, it is held that the acknowledgement ofa difference in
degree is not enough to satisfy the English formularies.
Dr. Lee, in Uke manner, had said that the inspiration of the
sacred -writers ' differs, not merely in degree, but absolutely in kind,
from that ordinary operation of the Spirit usually caUed by the same
name ' (p. 31) ; and again, p. 232, note.. For this he is taken to
task by Mr. Swainson, Authority ofN. T., p. 60, note : ' How things
which differ in kind can be compared in degree, I am unable to
judge.' We may borrow an answer from a different branch of
science, where the same denial has been often given (e. g. in Anthrop.

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 279
Bev., i. 117). ' Even if it were to be clearly proved, which, however,
I do not say it yet is, that the differences between man's brain and
that of the apes are differences entirely of quantity, there is no reason
in the nature of things why so many and such weighty differences of
degree should not amount to a difference of kind. Differences of
degree and differences of kind are, it is true, mutually exclusive
terms in the anthropomorphic language of the schools; whether
they are so also in the laboratory of nature, we may very well
doubt.' — ^RoUeston, in Medical Times and Gazette, March 1862,
p. 262.
But in truth the matter seems sufficiently simple. The objection
overlooks the fact, that inspiration can be regarded under different
categories. Under one, we can mark out and compare together the
different gradations of the Holy Spirit's Presence (Lecture I., Notes
12, 13). Under another we can deal with the highest modes of
His Presence, as specifically distinct from all other forms, by the
use of a differentia, in which the fulness of His influence becomes a
leading feature. For purposes of comparison, we recognise the
difference of degree. For purposes of contrast, we maintain that the
highest form of presence combines with the gift of an objective
revelation, to constitute a difference in kind.
Note 2, page 40. Compare Horsley's Dissertation On the Pro
phecies of the Messiah dispersed among the Heathen, p. 28, &c. ;
LyaU, Propced. Proph., p. 390, on the Preparation of Prophecy
among the Heathen ; Mr. Gladstone's Homer and the Homeric Age,
vol. u. ; Ne-wman's Arians, p. 88, on the ' doctrine of the Alexan
drian School,' which he caUs ' the Divinity of Traditionary Religion,'
and more generaUy, such passages as the foUo-wing : ' I mean those
historical matters concerning the ancient state of the first world, the
deluge, the sons of Noah, the ChUdren of Israel's deUverance out of
Egypt, the life and doings of Moses their captain, with such like :
the certain truth whereof deUvered in Holy Scripture is of the
heathen which had them only by report so intermingled with
fabulous vanities, that the most which remaineth in them to be seen
is the show of dark and obscure steps, where some part of the truth
hath gone.'— Hooker, E. P., I. xiii, 2, note. ' Whatsoever good
effects do grow out of their reUgion, who embrace instead ofthe true
a false, the roots thereof are certain sparks of the Ught of truth
mtermingled with the darkness of error, because no religion can
whoUy and only consist of untruths.' — lb., V. i. 5. ' The pagans

280 NOTES TO LECTURE IL
might be instructed in Divine things, either by reading the Scriptures,
or by conversing with Jews, or by conversing with other nations
that had been acquainted with Jews, or by means of pubUc edicts of
several great princes that had favoured the Jews, or lastly, hy tradi
tion handed down to them from Abraham, or from Noah, or from the
first parents of mankind.' — Waterland, Works, v. 16. ' There is yet
another more general way by which revealed religion, in some of the
principal heads or articles of it, has been diffused through the world;
I mean tradition delivered down from Noah, or from the first parents
of the whole race, who received it immediately from God. The
doctrine of one true God supreme might probably come this way,
and be so diffused to all mankind. The like may be said of the
doctrine of an overruUng Providence, and of the immortality of
the soul, and a future state of rewards and punishments. These
genera] principles, so universally believed and taught in aU ages and
countries, are much better referred to patriarchal tradition than to
any later and narro'n'er source. I know not whether the same
observation might not be as justly made of some other doctrines ; as
of the creation of the world, and corruption of human nature, and
perhaps of several more of slighter consideration ; ' and possibly
such rites as sacrifices. Sabbaths, and tithes, and also morality. —
lb., pp. 19-22. 'The whole of the Timseus, in fact, is a legend,
rather than a philosophical enquiry. It appeals, for the reception of
its truths, to the shadows with which it veils them, and the mystic
echoes of sounds heard by the Ustening ear from afar. In that
legend, indeed, we have very considerable evidence of the pure
source, from which the heathen world drew much of the sacred
truth that was wrapped up and disfigured in their fables. We
perceive in such a document of ancient philosophy, at once the sure
ahd wide-spread knowledge resulting from a Scriptural Revelation,
and the obscurity and falUbility of the information of Tradition.'
— Hampden, Fathers of Greek Philosophy, p. 287. ' The most
reverent regard to the inviolable sacredness of that truth with which
the father of the promised seed and his descendants were peculiarly
entrusted, consists weU with the belief of the preservation of much
original truth elsewhere.' — MUl, Pantheistic Principles, ii. 62. 'It
would seem, then, that there is something true and divinely revealed
in every religion all over the earth, overloaded as it may be, and at
times even stifled by the impieties which the corrupt wiU and under
standing of man have incorporated with it. Such are the doctrines

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 281
of the power and presence of an invisible God, of His moral law
and governance, of the obUgation of duty and the certainty of a
just judgment, and of reward and punishment being dispensed in
the end to individuals ; so that revelation, properly speaking, is an
universal, not a partial gift ; and the distinction between the state
of IsraeUtes formerly and Christians now, and that of the heathen,
is, not that we can, and they cannot, attain to future blessed
ness, but that the Church of God ever has had, and the rest of
mankind never have had, authoritative documents of truth, and
appointed channels of eommunication with Him.' — Newman, 1. 1.,
pp. 88-9. The Umitations under which this view must be appUed
are now generally recognised. ' Few, if any, wUl now maintain tha
hypothesis of our old divines of the last century, that the stories of
Iphigenia and Idomeneus are stolen from the story of Jephthah's
daughter, or the labours of Hercules from the labours of Samson.'
— Stanley, Jewish Church, p. 306. ' It seems blasphemy to consider
(some) fables of the heathen world as corrupted and misinterpreted
fragments of a Divine revelation once granted to the whole race of
mankind.' — M. Muller, Comparative Mythology, p. 8 {Oxford Essays,
1856). Note 3, page 41. In Waterland's Charge, The Wisdom of the
Ancients borrowed from Divine Revelation {Works, v. 1-29), he
gives a catena of passages in iUustration of the method ; tracing it
through Aristobulus, Josephus, Justin Martyr, Tatian, TheophUus
of Antioch, Clemens Alexandrinus, TertuUian, Minucius FeUx,
Origen, Lactantius, Eusebius, and Theodoret. Dr. Csesar Morgan
gives a simUar set of references from Justin Martyr and Clemens
Alexandrinus ; Trinity of Plato, 91-9, ed. Holden. ' Yet this
advantage, great as it reaUy is, has not always been sufficient to
satisfy the pretensions of those who have been blessed with a Divine
revelation. Not contented with the bright sunshine which blazes
around them, they wUl scarcely allow the benighted heathen the
dun taper of human reason to guide their steps in their laborious
travels over the dark mountains. Whatever the Apostle Paul may
have said in his various expostulations -with the GentUes, and
particiUarly in his Epistle to the Romans, there are some far wiser,
in their own conceit, than seven men that can render a reason, who
boldly maintain, that whatever glimmerings of light the pagans of
old have been able to strike out by mere dint of labour and study,
have been all either directly or circuitously derived from the sacred

282 NOTES TO LECTURE II.
writings.' — lb., p. 90. On the views of Clement, see also Bishop
Kaye, Clem. Alex., p. 186; Mozley, Prcedest, 115; and on those of
Eusebius, Donaldson, Greek Lit., Ui. 331-3.
Note 4, page 42. The titles of three well-kno'wn works by
Mr. Blakesley (Five Sermons on the Dispensation of Paganism, in
Condones Academics), Dean Trench {Christ the Desire of all
Nations ; or the Unconscious Prophecies of Heathendom, being the
HiUsean Lectures for 1846), and M. De Pressens^ {The Religions
before Christ, E. T., 1862). Add Mr. Maurice's Religions of the
World and their Relations to Christianity ; and a work which was
unfortunate only in its title, and in the melancholy event which
left it incomplete, the Christ and other Masters of the late Arch
deacon Hardwick. A great storehouse of materials is suppUed
by Dr. DoUinger's Heidenthum und Judenthum, Regensburg, 1857
(E. T., The Gentile and the Jew in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,
1862). In other forms, and unhappily too often with different
issues, the subject has had a strong attraction for some of the most
active minds of the age ; see, e.g., M. Renan's review of the great
work of Creuzer and Guigniaut, in Etudes d'Histoire Religieuse,
pp. 1-71, &c. Add M. Denis, Histoire des Theories et des Ide'es
Morales dans VAntiquite ; ouvrage couronne, 1856.
Note 5, page 42. 1. ' In what sense can it be said that there
is any connection between Paganism and Christianity so real as
to warrant the preacher of the latter to conciliate idolaters by
allusion to it ? St. Paul evidently connects the true religion -with
the existing systems which he laboured to supplant in Acts xvii.,
and his example is a sufficient guide to missionaries now, and a fuU
justification of the line of conduct pursued by the Alexandrians in
the instances similar to it.' — Newman, Arians, p. 87. ' Justin's
wish was to render the doctrines of Christianity as acceptable as
possible to the Gentiles, by pointing out features of resemblance
between them and the tenets of the philosophers.' — Bishop Kaye,
Justin Martyr, p. 47. ' Earlier Christianity regarded the Gentile
world more as a field of promise ; and saw in it the future harvest
rather than the present foe. . . . The early Church thus adopted
a friendly tone toward Gentile philosophy, and acknowledged sym
pathies -with it.' — Mozley, Pradest., pp. 112-3.
2. The Prceparatio Evangelica of Eusebius ' is the epochal work
in regard to the new attitude assumed by Christian literature ; it
is the declaration of a Christian, himself learned in profane lore,

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 283
that from thenceforth the Church is as independent of heathen
philosophy as it is fearless of the secular opposition of the heathen
world.' — Donaldson, Greek Lit., iu. 332. Compare Mr. Farrar's
B. L., pp. 539, 639, sqq.
The following may suffice as representative passages for the two
chief stages : —
1. Ore Ze SuixparriQ Xdya aXj/Ott Kal i^ETaartKuis ravra els
ipavepov eireipdro (jtepeiv, Kal airdyeiv tUv Saifx6vo>v rove avOpwirovc,
K.r.X. — S. Just. Mart., Apol., I. 5; Opp., i. p. 14, ed. Otto.
Kai 01 fieTa. Xdyov (iiuxravTeq XpiCTiavoi elai, Kav ddeoi kvo[ii(79rirTav,
olov iv "EWrj(Ti pev Swicparj/c Kal 'HpaKXciTOC Kal ol opoioi avTo'tg,
K. r. X. — lb., 46; i. p. 110. Xpiurji ?£, r^ Kat tiTro Swcparouc utto
filpovs yvuiaQevTi, k.t.X. — Ih., IL 10; i. p. 194. 'Hi' fiev ovv irpd
r^C tov Kvpiov irapovfrlas elg ZiKawavvrjv "EXXtjo-iv avayicaia <piKoao(pia'
vvvl Ze ¦^rjcripri irpdc Beoaefieiuv yiverai, irpoizaiZela tiq ovaa ro'ig
Triv tt'kttiv St' cnroZel^eas Kapirovpevotc' on 6 irovg trov, (prjirlv, ov pfi
irpoiTKOipri, liri r^v Trpovotav ret KaXct avatpepovTog, idv re EXXqi'tica
»;, eav re riperepa. irdvTWV pev ydp a'irioQ tUv KaXiOiv 6 Qeof aXXa
tSiv pev, Karii Trpotjyovpevov, (ic Trie re StadriKiie rrjc iraXaiag Kal
Trjg veag' tUv Se, kot eiraKoXovOripa, u>g r^e iptXoaoipiag' rd^^a Se Kal
'Ttporiyovpevuig Tolg "EXXf/trij' eSodrj rore, irplv jj tov Kvpiov KaXeaai
Kal Tovg ' EXXrjvag' iTraiSayojyei ydp Kai aiir^ to 'EXXhjvikov, u)g 6
vopog Tovg E(3paiovc, elg Xpitrrdv. ¦wpowapaaKevdi^ei to'ivvv ri (piXoaoipia,
¦Kpoolo-Koiovaa tov into 'Kpiarov reXeiovpevov. — S. Clem. Alex., Strom.,
I. 5 ; Opp., i. 331, ed. Potter. KatVot Kal Kad' eavTrjv iSiKalov irore
Kai fl (j)iXo(TO<pia rovg 'EXXjjvas* ovk elg rrjv KadoXov Se SiKawavvrjv,
eig rjv evpiiTKeTai avvepyog, Kadd'rrep /cat 6 ¦trpuiTog Kal b Sevrepog fiadpog
Ta elg to virepaov dviovri, Kal 6 ypapparitrrfig rii ^iXoao<fir]aovTi. —
lb., I. 20 ; i. p. 377. T^v Se (piXoaocjiiav /cat juaXXov "EXX-qaiv olov
oiadfiK'qv oiKeiav avrolg SeSotrdai, vtroftddpav ovaav rrjg Kara Xptoroc
(jiiXoiroipiag  lb., VL 8 ; ii. p. 773.
2. ' Adeo quid sirhile phUosophus et Christianus ? GrEeciae di-
scipulus et coeli ? famse negotiator et vit® ? verborum et factorum
operator^ et rerum sedificator et destructor? amicus et inimicus
erroris? veritatis interpolator et integrator et expressor, et furator
ejus et custos? ' — Tertull., Apolog., 46 ; Opp., i. p. 285, ed. Oehler.
' Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis ? quid academia2 et ecclesise ?
quid hsereticis et Christianis ? ' — Id., De Prcescr. Hairet., 7; ii.
p. 10.
Note 6, page 43. ' The study of the history of the ancient

284 NOTES TO LECTURE H.
world is likewise important from another point of view. Chris
tianity found in it, not only vigorous foes or latent sympathy, but,
according to a strange law, by which the vanquished almost always
end in exercising over the victors an influence, the greater because
least suspected, we shaU see the ancient world, at the moment that
aU things announced its defeat, morally regain the ground it had
externally lost. Heresy was nothing but a hypocritical reaction of
Paganism against Christianity.' — De Pressens^, Religions before
Christ, p. 6. Compare Stanley, Jewish Church, 270, 290.
Note 7, page 45. 'When Joseph was brought to Pharaoh to
interpret his dream, the holy patriarch and the Egyptian king
speak of God in much the same language, and with the same
acknowledgement of His overruUng providence.' — Horsley, Disser
tation, &c., p. 46 ; so before, of the Abimelechs, of the family of
Nahor, &c. ' Abimelech, Ephron, Mamre, Melchizedek, aU either
worship the same God, or, if they worship Him under another name,
are all bound together by ties of hospitality and friendship.' — Stanley,
Jewish Church, p. 40 ; cf p. 68, of Job ; p. 142, of Jethro ; p. 187,
of Balaam ; and p. 416. ' The Book of Genesis contains a record
of the dispensation of natural religion, or Paganism, as weU as of
the patriarchal. The dreams of Pharaoh and Abimelech, as of
Nebuchadnezzar afterwards, are instances of the deaUngs of God
with those to whom He did not vouchsafe a written revelation.
Or should it be said that the particular cases merely come within
the range of the Divine supernatural governance which was in their
neighbourhood — an assertion which requires proof — let the Book
of Job be taken as a less suspicious instance of the deaUngs of God
with the heathen. Job was a Pagan in the same sense in which
the Eastern nations are Pagans in the present day. ... If it be
objected that Job Uved in a less corrupted age than the times of
ignorance which foUowed, Scripture, as if for our full satisfaction,
draws back the curtain further stUl in the history of Balaam. There
a bad man and a heathen is made the oracle of true Divine messages
about doing justly and loving mercy, and walking humbly ; nay,
even among the altars of superstition, the Spirit of God vouchsafes
to utter prophecy.' — Newman, Arians, pp. 90, 91.
' Other nations or persons, ordinarUy, were not obliged to become
Jews ; and therefore Moses did not insist upon it with his father-in-
law Jethro ; neither did Elisha expect it of Naaman the Syrian,
nor Jonas of the Ninevites, nor Daniel of Nebuchadnezzar ; neither

NOTES TO LECTURE H. 285
did the prophets insist upon it with the Chaldeans, Egyptians,
Sidonians, Tyrians, Edomites, or Moabites, as Grotius has well
observed : but though they were not obliged to become Jews, they
were obliged to admit the true God, and the most substantial parts
of true reUgion; the knowledge of which had been handed down by
tradition, and was often renewed and revived by means of the Jews,
who were the standing witnesses and memorials of it.' — Waterland,
Works,Y. 25. ' There is no absurdity in supposing that God might
have some prophets (abroad in the heathen world) who were not
of Israel. Job was undoubtedly such an one ; and why might not
Balaam be another?' — lb., 749. '"Whenever God brought His
people into any relation with other people. He made Himself known
to them. The mode of His manifestation varied ; the fact remained
uniform. So He made Himself kno'wn to Egypt through Joseph
and Moses ; to the Philistines at the capture of the ark ; to the
Syrians by Elisha ; to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar by Daniel ;
as again to Darius and Cyrus.' — Pusey, Introduction to Jonah ;
Minor Prophets, p. 247. Compare Mr. Gladstone, Homer, &c.,
u. 6, 7.
That the ' Hebrew midwives ' of Ex. i. 15 were Egyptian women,
appointed by the king to act as midwives to the Hebrews, see
Josephus, Antiq., IL. ix. § 2; Kalisch, Exodus, p. 15; Horsley,
Z.Z., p. 47.
Bishop Hampden remarks, that the verse Micah vi. 8 ' may be
inscribed as its motto on any authentic record of the Divine 'will.' —
Philos. Evidence of Christianity, p. 26. Now we have a long series
of EngUsh theologians who take that vie,w of the dialogue in Micah
which places the words in the mouth of Balaam ; Butler, Sermon
"VII. p. 89 ; Lowth, de S. P. Hebr., Prael. xviii. p. 201, ed. Lips,,
1815; Horsley, 1. 1., p. 102 ; Faber, Eight Dissertations, i. 337;
Newman, 1. 1., p. 91, and Parochial Sermons, iv. 28 ; Burgon,
Inspiration and Interpretation, p. iii. note ; Stanley, Jewish Church,
p. 189, adding a confirmation of the exposition from 2 Kings iii. 27 ;
and several others.
Note 8, page 48. The precise relations of Heathenism, Judaism,
and Christianity are dra'wn out in different aspects in most of the
books enumerated above. Note 4 ; and whatever is said of Judaism
and Christianity can be adjusted to the Holy Scriptures, when the
position of the sacred record has been accurately defined. Dr.
Stanley traces out such distinctions as these ; that from the days of

286 NOTES TO LECTURE U.
Abraham himself, ' the interval between the human and Divine is
never confounded' {-lewish Church, p. 14); that the passage of the
Red Sea ' was a fit opening of a history and of a character which was
to be specially distinguished from that of other races by its constant
and direct dependence on the Supreme Judge and Ruler of the
world ' {ib., p. 129) ; that Moses received a positive revelation at
Sinai, ' the very reverse ofa negation or an abstraction ' (p. 151) ;
that ' the union of the quaUties so often disjoined in man, so little
thought of in the gods of old, ''justice and mercy," " truth and
love," became henceforward the formula, many times repeated, the
substance of the creed of the Jewish Church ' (p. 152) ; that ' not
from want of religion, but (if one might use the expression) from
excess of religion, was this void left in the Jewish mind,' — ' the
dimness of its conception of a future Ufe ' (p. 154) ; that the prophets
were distinguished, in the first place, by ' their proclamation of the
Unity and of the Spirituality of the Divine nature ' (p. 446), &c.
All other distinctions, however, must be brought to their centre in
the recognition of ' the one image of God in humanity, as the source
of their Divine Ufe, which is the vital principle of Christianity.' —
MUl, Pantheistic Principles, i. 116. 'What is the reason which all
sects and Churches are most Ukely to agree in, were they asked their
reason for this veneration of the Bible ? Surely, because it contains
the records of a Life, of the conditions which preceded it, and of the
consequences which foUowed it ; because we read there the histoi-y
of Him, without whose Divine Ufe the world was not, and -without
whose human Ufe the Church was not.' — Chretien, Letter and Spirit,
p. 41 ; cf pp. Ill, 114. ' The Word and the Sacraments are the
characteristic of the elect people of God.' — Newman, Arians, p. 89.
' With the two ideas of Redemption and Salvation the entire frame
work of Revelation is inseparably connected. To the first man was
given a hope of the redemption of his race ; and beyond this the last
of the prophets cannot go. The appearance of the Redeemer Himself
did no more than give reality to such anticipations.' — Lee, p. 13.
Note 9, page 49. The doctrine ofthe Divine name is worked out
by Dr. Moberly, Sayings of the Great Forty Days, p. 200, and Law
of the Love of God, p. 98 : ' The third commandment no longer
speaks of God as He is in Himself, but of the Name of God ; of God",
that is, as He can be named or spoken of in human words ; of God,
not as the inteUect of man contemplates Him, or the faith of man
holds fast the beUef in Him, or the piety of man worships Him ;

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 287
but as He is pleased to aUow Himself and His being to be projected,
if I may so express myself, upon the imperfect media of human and
earthly things : His Name named in words. His Nature confessed in
creeds. His Truth made known by inspiration to the hearts of men,
and by them spoken in speech, and written down in books, Llis
Presence attached in some manner to persons, things, and places.'
Cf p, 101. ' The name ofa person is that which brings him before
the mind as all that he is ; and is often used in Scripture as a sum
mary of the character or quaUties.' — Vaughan, on Rom. i. 5.
The controversy, which has been recently reopened, can be traced
through aU the larger commentaries on the Pentateuch. Waterland's
solution of the difficulty is not very satisfactory. {Works, i. 312.)
Lightfoot closes his exposition thus : ' The name Jehovah, and the
agnificancy of it to the utmost, did the holy Fathers know before
Moses. But they saw not experience of the last signification named,
namely, the faithfulness of God in His promise made to Abraham
concerning His delivery of his seed from bondage, and bringing
them into a land flowing with mUk and honey. God gave them the
promise by the name of El Shaddai, God Omnipotent ; and they
reUed upon His omnipotency, because He that promised was able to
perform : but they beheld it afar off, and tasted not of My perform
ance of it. But now wiU I show Myself Jehovah, faithful to bring
to pass and accomplish what I promised.' — Works, i. 704, ed. 1684.
The word ' significancy,' at the beginning of this extract, must be
qualified by what is said at the end of it. If the name was not
known by personal and practical experience ; if, indeed, there was a
sense in which God could say, ' By My Name Jeho-vah was I not
known to them ; ' its ' significancy ' could not have been disclosed
' to the utmost ' to the Fathers. And nearly so Pearson : ' It cannot
be denied but God was known "to Abraham by the true importance
of the title Adonai, as much as by the name of Shaddai; as much
by His dominion and sovereignty, as by His power and aU-suffi-
oiency ; but by any experimental and personal sense of the fulfUUng of
His promises. His name Jehovah was not known unto him.' — On
the Creed, Art. U., p. 184, ed. Oxon. 1843. Compare Stanley,
Jewish Church, p. 110, ' The assertion is not that the word
Jehovah was not used io. the patriarchal language; but that the
name Jehovah, as a title of honour, whereby a new idea was affixed
to an old word, was unknown to them,' — Warburton, D. L., iv. § 6 ;
n. p. 300, ed. 1846.

288 NOTES TO LECTURE H.
Of what he caUs ' the ordinary mode of " reconciling " these dis
crepancies,' as exhibited by Kurtz and Kalisch, Bishop Colenso says,
that it is ' evidently an assumption made only to get over a diffi
culty. If Abraham made use of the name Jehovah at aU, then God
was known to him in some measure — iu some sense or other — ^by
that name, if not known so perfectly as by the IsraeUtes in later days '
(§ 299) ; which no one, I think, need wish to deny. The name
Jehovah might have been known, and unquestionably was known,
as a denotative, long before its complete connotation was revealed.
That is to say, Jehovah was known ' in some measure — in some sense
or other — by that name,' though the usage did not amount to what I
have caUed the ' high and special significance,' ascribed in Scripture
' to the knowledge of the name of ' Jehovah, and connected with the
fulfilment of His promise.
Note 10, page 50. ' In the second place, I observe that this moral
revelation, made by the succession of Prophets, holds an interme
diate place between the Law of Moses and the Gospel itself. It is
a step in progress beyond the Law, and preparatory to the Gospel.'
— Davison, On Prophecy, p. 43. ' In the Prophets there is a more
luminous, and more perfectly reasoned, rule of life and faith than
in the primary Law ; and therefore God's moral revelation was pro
gressive. It is more perfect in the Prophets than in the Law ; more
perfect in the Gospel than in either.' — lb., p. 44; cf. p. 61. Also
Dr. Stanley, Jewish Church, 436, 447-9. But, again, we must not
draw the line so sharply, as to forget what has been before suggested
on the difference between comparative and absolute exclusion ; above,
pp. 19, 220. So Mr. Morris urges : ' The ceremonial law was not the
real object of the legislator, even from the very first : the moral law
was given first in the decalogue ; the ceremonial was added after,
because of transgressions.' — Essay towards the Conversion of Hindus,
p. 72. ' Revelation has aU along been progressive, but not on that
account self- contradictory.' — Browne, in Aids to Faith, p. 315,
note. Note 11, page 52. ' The true intent and scope of these Positive
laws (and it may be of such an external promulgation of the Moral),
seems to be nothing else but this, to secure the Eternal Law of
Righteousness from transgression.' — John Smith's Select Discourses,
p. 154, ed. 1673.
We may compare the account of Justice in Eth. N, V. 6, which
shows how the universal principles of right and wrong, to which the

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 289
hearts of all mankind bear witness, receive a peculiar shape and
impress, in each separate state, from the enactments which are
requisite to give them efficiency. We are thus taught to distinguish
between the eternal law and its temporary form ; between truths
which admit of no exception, and can nowhere be transgressed
without sin, and statutes which are shaped by local needs and
local conveniences, and possess no more than a territorial obligation.
The province of equity, in conformity with this distinction, is
defined to be that of recalling us, in doubtful cases, from the rule to
the principle, so as to guard against the danger, which is immi
nent in aU human arrangements, lest special -wrong should be
inflicted under the name and authority of Justice. For an application
of this principle to the Mosaic code, and for the value of its precepts,
as ' moral rules ordained by God,' I may refer to Discourses on the
Fall and its Results, pp. 239-41. See also below, Lecture IV.,
Note 10.
Note 12, page 54. The diversity of h-uman characters is recog
nised in most of the -writers quoted above. Lecture I., Notes 3 and 4.
With regard to human learning : — ' There is in the world no kind
of knowledge, whereby any part of truth is seen, but we justly
account it precious ; yea, that principal truth, in comparison whereof
all other knowledge is vile, may receive from it some kind of Ught ;
whether it be that Egyptian and Chaldean wisdom mathematical,
wherewith Moses and Daniel were furnished ; or that natural, moral,
and civil wisdom, wherein Solomon excelled all men ; or that
rational and oratorial wisdom of the Grecians, which the Apostle
St. Paul brought from Tarsus ; or that Judaical, which he leamed
in Jerusalem, sitting at the feet of Gamaliel : to detract from the
dignity thereof were to injure even God Himself, who being that
light which none can approach unto, hath sent out these lights
whereof we are capable, even as so many sparkles resembling the
bright fountain from which they rise.' — Hooker, E. P., III. viii. § 9.
' To descend to Moses the lawgiver, and God's first pen : he is
adorned by the Scriptures with this addition and commendation,
that he was seen in all the learning of the Egyptians. ... So
hkewise in that excellent book of Job, if it be revolved with
dihgence, it wiU be found pregnant and sweUing with natural
philosophy. ... So likewise in the person of Salomon the
king, we see the gift or endowment of wisdom and learning, both in
Salomon's petition and in God's assent thereunto, preferred before
U

290 NOTES TO LECTURE II.
all other terrene and temporal felicity,' &c. — Bacon, Advancement of
Learning; Works, iu. 297-8, ed. EUis and Spedding. For Bishop
Bull, see above. Lecture I., Note 5. On the quotations in St. Paul,
cf Bull, 1. 1., p. 244-5; 'Milton, Preface to Samson Agonistes; Donald
son, Greek Lit., Ui. 316. It has been thought that the Ust is not
exhausted by the instances ordinarily given. See Humphry on
Acts xiv. 17 : ' both the language and the rhythm of this passage
lead to the conjecture (which does not appear to have been pro
posed before), that it is a fragment from some lyric poem.' ' Very
improbable,' says Dean Alford. Another suggestion, which is, how
ever, StUl more improbable, wiU be found in Donaldson's Christian
Orthodoxy, p. 292. See also John Gregory's Note on Jannes and
Jambres, Works, 1684, i. 61. For a collateral enquiry of singular
interest in a different field, see Dr. Neale's Essay On Liturgical
Quotations ; Essays on Liturgiology, &c.. No. XV.
Note 13, page 55. See the details in the works of DoUinger and
De Pressens^ ; or in Tholuck's Essay On the Nature and Moral
Influence of Heathenism. Compare Mr. Jowett's Essays On the Con
nexion of Immorality and Idolatry, and On the State ofthe Heathen
World; Epistles of St. Paul, ii. 64, 68, 1st ed. Dr. Vaughan
marks the foUowing steps in St. Paul's argument, Rom. i. 18-32 :
' 1. Knowledge abused; 2. Ignorance and unbelief; 3. Gross cor
ruption ; 4. Judicial hardness.' — Comm. in loe. Yet, ' in behalf of
revelation, I should press for the superiority of the civilised Gentile
world in art and science, poetry and eloquence, and every depart
ment of inteUectual culture, together with aU the wisdom of civU
and political institutions derived from that source, and bright
examples of patriotism, courage, and many other virtues; in a
word, in all respects but one — the true religion, the possession of
the oracles of God. This contrast between the inferiority of the
chosen people in aU secular advantages, and their pre-eminence in
reUgious privileges, seems to me an argument which cannot be too
strongly insisted on by a Christian advocate.' — Bishop of St. David's,
Letter to Dr. R. Williams, p. 65. So from M. Renan's point of view :
*- C'est la race s^mitique qui a la gloire d'avoir fait la religion de
I'humanit^' {Vie de Jesus, p. 5); yet, ' c'est beaucoup moins dans
I'ordre politique que dans I'ordre reUgieux que s'est exercde leur
influence. . . . C'est, par excellence, le peuple de Dieu et le
peuple des religions, destind k les creer et k les propager ;' but ' La
race sdmitique, compar^e h la race indo-europ6enne, repr^sente

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 291
reellement une combinaison iuKrieure de la nature humaine.' —
Hist, des Langues Semitiques, i. 3, 4.
Note 14, page 56. The remark constantly suggests itself to
students of ancient mythology, that the worshippers were often
better than their gods. Compare Jowett, I. I., ii. 70 (2nd ed.) :
' The deities of the Homeric poems are not better than men, but
rather worse ; compared with heroes, they have a fainter sense of
truth and justice, less certainly of moral greatness.' ' Not from
religion, but from philosophy, come the higher aspirations of the
human soiU in Greece and Rome.' — lb., 72. ' Nothing can more
clearly demonstrate that man was better than the gods he had
created.'— De Pressens^, I.l, p. 27 ; cf. pp. 78, 80, 168-9, 170.
See also Mr. Cox's Introduction to his Tales of the Gods and Heroes :
' The contrast is very marked between the character of the people
and that of their theology.' — P. 4. ' It would be difficult to dis
cover a more marveUous combination of seemingly inexplicable
contradictions ; of belief in the history of gods utterly distinct from
the faith which guided the practice of men ; of an immoral and
impure theology with a condition of society which it would be
monstrous to regard as utterly and brutally depraved.' — P. 7. ' It
is the character of the religions which men invent, that they begin
purely and end in corruption. . . . On the contrai-y, in the
0. T. Scriptures, it is always a growing light.' — Mr. R. P. Smith,
Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah, p. vi.
Note 15, page 58. ' All superstition, all idolatry, has its root
in the beUef that God is made in our image, and not we in His ;
the most prevalent assumption of the modern as of the ancient
sophist is, that man is the measure of all things ; that there is
nothing great or holy which is not his creation.' — Maurice, On the
Lord's Prayer, p. 22. ' In order to show that there really is this
essential distinction between that which we caU revealed religion,
and all the systems of belief and worship which we can trace to a
human origin, it is necessary that we should, however briefly,
examine the different modes in which the inteUect has grappled
-with religion, and contrast them with those views respecting the
personality of God and the nature of sin, which are to be found
only in the religion of Jesus Christ, and in that part of the religion
of Moses which the Gospel has accepted and ratified. It may be
said with truth, that all false religions fall into three main classes,'
namely. Polytheism, Dualism, and Pantheism. — Donaldson, Christian

292 NOTES TO LECTURE II.
Orthodoxy, p. 101. ' It is no matter from what point of view we
commence our examination ; whether, with the Theist, we admit
the coexistence of the Infinite and the Finite, as distinct reahties, or,
with the Pantheist, deny the real existence of the Finite, or,
with the Atheist, deny the real existence of the Infinite,' &c. —
Mansel, B. L., p. 68. Compare J/ara's Conception of Eternity, p. 10 :
' Pantheism and Anthropomorphism (using the latter term in its
widest sense) are the two alternatives of religious thought ; the one
representing the negative, the other the positive side.' Also, Second
Letter to Professor Goldwin Smith, p. 2 : ' From the earliest days in
which Philosophy and Christianity came in contact, the aim of the
Church has been to keep a just middle course between two extremes,
both in themselves errors, yet both only exaggerations of truths : —
the tendency to Pantheism, which perverts the true doctrine of the
unity and simphcity of God, and the tendency to Anthropomor
phism, which perverts the true doctrine of His personality.' So
again p. 17. Compare De Pressens^, 1. 1., p. 248 ; E. T. of Saisset,
Modern Pantheism, ii. 203 ; M. Muller, Comparative Mythology,
p. 48 : ' It was a mistake of the early Fathers to treat the heathen
gods as demons or evil spirits, and we must take care not to com
mit the same error with regard to the Hindu god. Their gods
have no more right to any substantive existence than Eos or Hemera
— than Nyx or ApatS. They are masks without an actor, the
creations of man, not his creators ; they are nomina, not numina ;
names without being, not beings without names.'
Note 16, page 60. Of Bentley's eight Boyle Lectures (in Works,
vol. iii., ed. Dyce), four are based on Acts xvii. 27, and three on
Acts xiv. 15, &c. He points out the clear-sighted prudence with
which, under Divine guidance, St. Paul adjusted his speech on the
one occasion to the ' phUosophers and that inquisitive people of
Athens;' on the other, ' to the rude and simple semi-barbarians of
Lycaonia,' pp. 120-1. The one passage suggests to him arguments
against Atheism, ' from the faculties of the soul,' and ' from the
structure and origin of human bodies ;' the other passage suggests a
confutation ' from the origin and frame of the world.' In the
former series he analyses the elements of partial agreement which
would extend to portions of the Apostle's hearers : the populace
would admit the appeal to poets, and possibly also the Divine
creation ; but would not agree with his attack on images and tem
ples, or on the belief that the feasts of men were pleasing to the

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 293
gods : the .philosophers would accept his spiritual view of Deity,
but would differ on almost every detail of his argument. ' The
presiding idea of this portion of my work, is that which animated
St. Paul in his discourse at Athens, when he found, even in that
focus of Paganism, religious aspirations tending to Jesus Christ.' — De
Pressens^, I.l., Preface to E. V. ' We cannot fail to notice how the
sentences of this interrupted speech are constructed to meet the
cases in succession of every class of which the audience was com
posed. Each word in the address is adapted at once to win and to
rebuke.' — Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul,
i. 408. Compare the recent Essays ioivards the Conversion of Hindus;
Morris, p. 16 ; WiUiams, pp. 1, 380, &c.
Note 17, page 62. "On pev toIwv elal fvijei nveg ol pev iXevdepoi ol
ie SoiXoi, (fiavepor, olg Kal (Tvp(pepei ro SovXeveiv Kal SiKaiev ian. — Ar.,
Pol., I. ^,fln. 'Where the Greek saw barbarians, we see brethren.'
— MuUer, Comp. Myth., p. 4. ' Very early in their history the Greeks
explained the institution (of slavery) as grounded on the intellectual
inferiority of certain races, and their consequent natural aptitude for
the servUe condition.' — Maine, Ancient Law, p. 163. On the
superiority of the Hebrew law in this respect to both Greek and
Roman theoiy and practice, see Mr. Goldwin Smith on American
Slavery, p. 49.
Note 18, page 62. To ydp firjdev ek firj ovrog yiyveaOai wav
S' ii, ovTog, (T'^eSiiv aVajrwi' iarl koivov Soypa tUv Trept <j>vaeutg. — Ar.,
MetapJi.,^. 6; p. 1062, b. 24. With regard to Plato, on whose opinions
a doubt has been raised, compare Mr. W. Mills's Essays atid Lectures,
p. 72 ; Professor Thompson's Note on Archer Butler's Lectures on
Ancient Philosophy, ii. 190; Rawlinson, Christianity and Heathenism,
Sermon I., note 1 ; Mansel, B. L., Lecture IIL, note 12, p. 335.
' The later Platonists, and even the Christian Fathers, speak of Plato
contradicting himself, by sometimes saying that matter was eternal,
and sometimes that it was created. The Platonists went so fiir as to
assert that Plato did not hold that matter was eternal. But the
assertion was undoubtedly false.' ' Plato certainly did not believe
the world to be eternal, though such a notion is ascribed to Aristotle.
Plato held the eternity of matter ; but he beUeved the arrangement
and harmony of the universe to be the work of the Deity.' — Burton,
B. L., pp. 59, 61. More generally : 'As it was impossible for them
to conceive the creation of matter, the workman, in the Stoic
philosophy, was not .sufficiently distinguished from the work.'

294 NOTES TO LECTURE II.
—Gibbon, R. E., i. 167, ed. Smith. ' AU (Gnostics) were agreed in
maintaining that matter itself was not created ; that it was eternal.'
— Burton, B. L., p. 36. ' The Egyptians held matter to be eternal,
though they believed that the world was created.' — lb., p. 67. ' In
the first place, as aU the ancient philosophers decided that nothing
can come out of nothing, I consider it certain that they aU supposed
matter to be eternal.' — Mosheim's Note on Cudworth, i. 301, ed.
Harrison. And for details, see his Dissertation ' showing whether
any heathen phUosopher ever taught that the world was created by
God out of nothing,' ib., iii. 140.
Note 19, page 64. "Ert Se e'lre vovg fi ohaia avrov e'ire v6r]tng
i(7Ti, tL voel ; T] ydp avrog avrov, rj 'erepov n ' Kal el erepov ri, rj to
avTO all )) aXXo. ¦Korepov ovv Siacjiipei n rj ovdev T() voe'iv tu KaXov
ri TO Tvypv; ft Ka\ droirov to Siavoe'icrdai i:epl iviuiv ; SrjXov toIvvv
on TO Bewrarov Kal rtftiwraTov voet, Kal ov perapaXXet, k. t. X. — Ar.,
Metaph., A. 9 ; p. 1074, b. 21. iBor' el ipevKTov tovto (icat yap pri
bpq.v evia Kpe'irrov r) bpS.v) ovk av e'iri to apiarov li v6r](ng. avrov apa voel,
e'lTrep iort to Kpdncrrov. — lb., 32. ' Ou bien, si vous voulez qu'eUe
s' exerce, donnez a Dieu la connaissance du monde ; mais alors
supprimez, avec le reste, le chapitre entier ou Aristote demontre
que son Dieu ne connait que lui. Et cependant ce n'est pas une
affirmation, c'est une demonstration que vous supprimerez ; I'affir-
mation aurait suffi ; car si Dieu n'agit pas volontairement sur le
monde, U est impossible qu'U le connaisse. Mais Aristote insiste ;
il demontre que la pens^e de Dieune s' applique qu'^ Dieu lui-meme.
Ou Dieu se pense lui-meme, dit Aristote, ou il pense quelque autre
objet ; si quelque autre objet, c'est toujours le meme, ou tantot I'un
et tantot I'autre. Supposons qu'il change ainsi, et que sa pens6e,
comme la notre, parcoure des obj ets divers, Dieu tombe dans le
mouvement. Voihi deja I'univers exclu ; le monde est un, sans
doute, mais de cette unit^ qui resulte de Fharmonie entre les parties
diverses ; U vit d'aiUeurs, il dure, et en durant, il change. Le
monde a une histoire ; U n'y a que Dieu, I'aote etemel et toujours le
meme, qui n'en ait point.' — Simon, Etudes sur la The'odicee de
Platon et d' Aristote, p. 50.
The fatal defect of an impassable barrier between God and man
recurs in every analysis of philosophic creeds. The Elean school ' had
gone into the other extreme, by condemning the absolute Being to
eternal immobility, by representing Him as an impassible inteUigence
holding no relations with humanity.' — De Pressens^, Religions before

NOTES TO LECTURE IL 295
Christ, p. 112. Even in Plato's system, ' a vast interval separates
man from God.' — lb., p. 122. ' Plato, like the Gospel, says to man
that his duty is to resemble God ; but while Plato's god is only
a sublime idea, a being of the reason, which does not enter into
communication with man, the God of Christians is the Uving God,
the most holy and the most good, the God revealed by Jesus Christ,
whose name is Love.' — /5.,p. 127. For Aristotle, see z'J., p. 134. For
his immediate disciples : they had ' deUberately set aside the god of
philosophy, affirming that a divinity was unnecessary to the ¦explana
tion of the formation of the world.' — lb., p. 140. For the Epicureans,
see ib., p. 141. At a later time, Plutarch ' gave a more rigid formula
to duaUsm, and deepened the abyss between the supreme God and
creation.' — lb., p. 183. For ' the Platonic doctrine, so far as it is
represented in an impure form in the early centuries : ' 'its
invincible dualism, separating by an impassable chasm God from
the world, and mind from matter, identifying goodness with the one,
evU with the other, prevented belief in a religion like Christianity,
which was penetrated by the Hebrew conceptions of the universe, so
alien both to duaUsm and pantheism.' — Farrar, B. L., p. 63. For
Maimonides : ' Whence did this view come ? Not from Christianity.
The philosophy which makes an impassable barrier between God and
man was not cradled in the Gospel of reconciUation, which bridges
over the chasm between God and man in the mystery of the Incar
nation.' — Christian Remembrancer, Jan. 1863, p. 104.
Nor should we be deceived by phrases which seem to suggest
a nearer view of Deity, and many of which are scattered over
Aristotle's practical treatises. In a case of this kind, the exact
philosophy must be held to give its interpretation to more popular
language. Again, Mr. M. MuUer says : ' We can hardly expect
among pagans a more profound conception ofthe relation between God
and man than the saying of Heracleitos, ' Men are mortal gods, and
gods are immortal men.' — Compar. Mythol., p. 8. Can we accept so
good an interpretation ofthe phrase ? Cf Brucker,.ffzs<. Phil., i. 1222 :
'Nec aliud vult obscura sententia HeracUti, HeracUto jvmiori
memorata: Qeol avOpwrrot dddvaroi, avdpuj'jroi deoi 6)')jroi, ^uivreg rov
eKetvuiv Odvarov, QvritjKOVTeg riiv iKeivuiv i^wriv. DU enim in anim^
mundi comprehensi dsemonesque, quorum mundus plenus est, in eo
tantum ab hominis animsl distant, quod hsec corpus suliit, sicque
igaek et diving vi suS, quasi privatur et moritur, atque ex Deo homo
fit, ubi vero homo moritur, ad Deos iterum et divinam naturam

296 NOTES TO LECTURE II.
redit.' Compare Mr. CampbeU, Introd. to Thewtetiis, p. xlUi. :
' Indeed, as in aU things else, so in man, Ufe and death are ever
working together. His body is ever absorbed into his soul, his soul
is ever dying into his body ; his birth into the world is the entomb
ment of a higher Ufe, the death of what is earthly in him is the
awaking of the god.'
For the grosser form, in which the feeling of the distance of the
Deity exhibited itself through the worship of men, we may turn to
the hymn with which the Athenians welcomed Demetrius PoUorcetes,
and which is preserved by Athenseus (Muller, Fragmenta Histor.
Grcec, U. 477 ; cf De Pressens6, p. 137 ; ThirlwaU, History of Greece,
vU. 362, 382, 8vo. ed.) :
"AXXoi pev ri paKpdv ydp aire'^ovaiv Qeol
17 oiiK eypvaiv uira,
fl oiiK Ettrt)', 5 ov wpoae\ovaiv ripiv ovSe ev •
<7£ Se irapovd' opuipev,
ov ^vXlvov, ovSe Xidtvov, dXX' dXrjdivov.
Eu)(0;U£(r9a Sri aoi.
Note 20, page 66. The five opinions summed up in this para
graph give a progressive series of the main views which man can
form as to the condition of the soul after death. 1. Annihilation :
the grosser heathen view, represented occasionally by the despairing
language of their poets. So the Samaritans, and apparently fi-om
them the Sadducees. — Davison, On Prophecy, pp. 505-6 ; cf BuU's
Works, i. 35-42. The difference of tone, on this point, between
Epicurus and Lucretius is admirably worked out by Professor
Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 296. On the notion that
the book of Ecclesiasticus was written by a Sadducee, see Dean
Milman, History of the Jeivs, 1863, ii. 32, note. 2. Absorption: the
ultimate view of pantheists in every age. The mind is not now held
to perish with the body, but its individuality is lost. On the view
of Aristotle, see above. Lecture I., Note 8. In general, compare
Rawlinson, Christianity and Heathenism, p. 32; Farrar, B. L., 125,
140, 143, and their references. 3. An immortality of pure inteUect :
the soul immortal, and retaining its individual consciousness, but
only as mind, purified by knowledge, the proper moral element being
lost : the Gnostic view. See Burton, B. L., p. 40, &c. 4. Immor
tality without resurrection : iwiSiapovfi without dvaaraaiQ. Com
pare Bishop Thirlwall's vivid description of the Homeric view of a

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 297
future state- {H. G. i. 222) : ' Plomer views death as the separation
of two distinct, though not wholly dissimilar, substances, the soul
and the body. The latter has no Ufe without the former; the former
no strength without the latter . . . When the soiU has made its
escape through the lips or the wound, it is not dispersed in the
air, but preserves the form of the living person. But the face of the
earth, Ughted by the sun, is no fit place for the feeble, joyless
phantom. It protracts its unprofitable being in the cheerless twilight
of the nether world, a shadow of its former self, and pursuing the
empty image of its past occupations and enjoyments.' The hopes of
the heathen might reach a higher level than this, yet without
departing from the definition of the class, and 'without approaching
to the doctrine of a future resurrection. A modification of this view
would give rise to the doctrine of metempsychosis, which rests, in
its exoteric form, on the fundamental distinctness ofthe seZ/'from the
body. In a deeper sense, it might be brought under the second
head. 5. Above all these rises the fuU Christian doctrine of the
resurrection fi-om the dead : above annihilation, for the life once
given is never withdrawn; above absorption, for the separate
individuality is never lost; above Gnosticism, for every moral
faculty will find a loftier occupation in another world — an immor
tality of the soul, completed by the restoration of the body, of which
we have both an instance and a pledge in the- resurrection of our
Lord. It is clear that St. Paul was confronted at different times with
upholders of all the four erroneous views : with Sadducees, Acts xxiii.
6, &o. ; with Epicureans and Stoics, Acts xvii. 18 ; with Gnostics,
2 Tim. ii. 18, and elsewhere ; ¦ and apparently with some Gentile
Christians at Corinth, who had .blended the errors of their old creed
with the Christian faith, and were endeavouring to accept j;he immor
tality of the soul without admitting the resurrection of the body —
1 Cor. XV. On this last point, however, different opinions have
been held. Burton maintains that St. Paul was there combating
the j?rsi view ; that his opponents ' denied a resurrection in any sense
of the term,' and ' did not believe in any future state of the soul at
aU.' — B. L., p. 428. Archbishop Whately thinks that they held
'some such doctrine ' as the second view. — Scripture Revelations ofa
Future State, pp. 19, 20, 110. On the other hand, see RUckert's
commentary on the passage, which has been translated as a separate
tract ; and compare Arnold, Sermons chiejly on the Interpretation of

298 NOTES TO LECTURE IL
Scripture, p. 281 : ' To be immortal was a glorious prospect ; but
to rise again with a body, — not to be aUowed to consider their
outward body as the prison which kept in the pure spirit, and so to
cast off upon it, away from their proper selves, the blame of aU their
evil, — this was what they could not endure.'
The fact that the apostle, in that chapter (1 Cor. xv.), is able
to assume and argue on marked Christian principles with regard to
our Lord's history and nature, shows that he is dealing with
professing, though mistaken. Christians ; and the fact that he can
appeal so confidently to their o-wn faith and hopeS, as based on their
personal position, shows that the errors into which they had fallen
on the resuiTcction of the body fell short of a denial of the immor
tality of the soul. The argument is indeed an appeal to consistency.
It rests partly on their longing for immortality, partly on their
faith in Christ. The whole scope of it is to show that there is no
other immortality promised to man but that which is connected
with the resurrection of the body, and no certainty of the resurrec
tion of the body but that which is rested on the resurrection of
Christ. Many detaUed references on the subject will be found in the notes
to Mr. Rawlinson's Second Sermon on Christianity and Heathenism ;
and for a condensed view of some recent opinions, see Mr. Mansel's
First Letter to Professor Goldwin Smith, p. 30. Cf Rational Religion,
p. 66, and Second Letter, p. 37.
Note 21, page 69. There is, however, great force and beauty in
the argument from imperfection to perfection, if we view it as the
corroboration, not the basis, of our faith. On the Cartesian form
of it, see Mosheim's note on Cudworth, iii. 41, ed. Harrison ; HaUam,
Literature of Europe, ii. 438 ; Saisset, Modern Pantlieism, E. T.,
i. 36-38, 52 ; ii. 43, 65 ; and a review ofthe English Translation of
that work in the Christian Remembrancer, Jan. 1863, p. 98, &c.
' Quia perfectiones procedentes a Deo in creaturas altiori modo sunt
in Deo, oportet quod quandocunque nomen sumptum k qufi,cunque
perfectione creaturse Deo attribuitur, secludatur ab ejus significatione
omne illud quod pertinet ad imperfectum modum, qui competit
creaturse.' — S. Thom. Aq., I. Qu. xiv. Art. i. ' Whatsoever speaketh
any kind of exceUency or perfection in the artificer, may be attri
buted unto God ; whatsoever signifieth any infirmity, or involveth
any imperfection, must be excluded from the notion of Him.' —
Pearson, On the Creed, Art. i. p. 68. Compare BramhaU, quoted by

NOTES TO LECTURE II. 299
Mr. Mansel, Second Letter, &c., p. 10 ; cf 11, 45. ' If aU true
philosophy begins with the personality of man, and ends with the
Personality of God, it wiU be seen what grand and genuine elements
of Christian Theism are contained in a system which makes our
personality the type of force, and applies this conception to the Per
sonality of God, eliminating from it only that which is weak and
imperfect.' — Christian Rem., I. I., p. 112 (of Leibnitz).
Note 22, page 71. ' You must not suppose me to believe that
the Highest of aU intelligences is degraded by contact with such
groveUing things as are employed in the fashioning of the world, or
that His blessed calm is disturbed by anxiety about things con
stantly changing and being destroyed.' — Buddhist in WUUams,
Christianity and Hinduism, p. 12. For the image of the sun, see
the weU-known passage in Plato, De Rep., vi. p. 508, with which
Mr. Morris compares the Vedas, Essay, pp. 6, 56. The image of
the sea is in S. Joann. Damasc, De Fide Orthod., i. 9 : SokeI pev ovv
Kvpiwrepov ¦ndvToiv tuiv ctti Qeo'ii Xeyopevwv oi'opdrwv elvai 6 &v,
aadiog avrog ¦)(pripaTil,u)V tm Mwvtrel £7rt roii opovg iprjuiv eiirov rdig
violg 'laparjX, 6 Siv diveaTaXKe pe. oXov ydp iv eavr^ (rvXXaljOiv
exti TO elvai, oiov n ¦KtXayog ovffiag direipov Kal aopKTTOv. Cf,
S. Thom. Aq., I. Qu. xiii. Art. xi.

300

LECTURE IIL
Note 1, page 75. In the argument On the Limits of Religious
Thought, which Mr. Mansel has treated with consummate abUity,
we must distinguish between three different terms — God as existing,
God as revealed, and God as apprehended by created minds. It is
allowed on aU hands that the second and third of these must pre
cisely correspond ; that the revelation must be regarded as adjusted
to the capacity of its recipient. But how far are we justified in
assuming that the second is a sufficient index to the first ? that the
revelation is a direct unveiling of the Divine nature, as well as
adapted to the intelligence of man ? Can we possibly suppose that
it is capricious and arbitrary, or must we take it for granted that
it is as absolutely true and effectual as the nature of the case
allows ?
When Mr. Mansel spoke as follows — ' ideas and images which do
not represent God as He is may nevertheless represent Him as it is
our duty to regard Him : they are not in themselves true, but we
must, nevertheless, believe and act as if they were ti-ue ' {Man's
Conception of Eternity, p. 9); ' a conception which is speculatively
untrue may be regulatively true' {ib., p. 10) ; ' a regulative truth
is thus designed — not to tell us what God is, but how He wills that
we should think of Him ' {ib., and B. L., 127, 143) — the rigour ofthe
definitions which had dictated his language did not save him from
the suspicion of casting doubts on the reality of the disclosures
which God had made to man. But the following expressions, which
occur in his two Letters to Professor Goldwin Smith, may serve to
supply the explanation which was wanting : ' The terms Father,
Ruler, Judge, Good, Wise, Just, all represent notions derived in the
first instance from human relations, and applied to God, not as
exactly expressing the perfection of His ab,solute nature, but as
expressing the nearest approach to it which we are capable of
receiving' {First Letter, p. 36) ; ' the word Person , . .isa mode of

NOTES TO LECTURE IIL 301
expressing the infinite nature of God by that which is most nearly
analogous to it among finite things' {Second Letter, p. 29) ; ' when
we speak of God as feeling anger or pity, we do not mean Uterally
to ascribe to Him the human passions caUed by those names, yet
we have no means of expressing more exactly the Divine perfection
of which these passions are the representation' {ib.,p. 63). Cf ib.,
pp. 16, 18, 28. To doubt the reaUty, then, of the revelation under
which God has made Himself known to His creatures, would be to
place a Umit on the power of God. But it does not follow that
what forms a sure basis for our faith and love conveys to our
inteUects the possession of such rounded and completed knowledge
as would justify a tone of argumentative confidence on any point
not expUcitly revealed to us.
The Second Letter contains a catena of passages to iUustrate the
mode in which the question ' has been dealt with, directly or indi
rectly, by the great CathoUc 'writers of successive generations.' See
also Suicer, Thesaurus ^ccZ«s., under the words oiKovopia, oiKovopiKuig,
avyKardjiacng; Glassii Philol. Sacr., i. 921, ed. Dathe ; Lee, Inspira
tion of Holy Scripture, pp. 63-69, 343, 411, &c. ; Bishop Marsh,
Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible, p. 488, ed.
1828 ; Bishop Ka.je,Early Church, p. 59 ; Justin Martyr, pp. 173-4 ;
Trench, On the Parables, p. 21 ; Waterland, Works, iv. 180, &c.
Dean MUman observes that ' accommodation ' is an ' unpopular ' and
' bad word, as it appears to imply art or design, whUe it was merely
the natural, it should seem inevitable, course of things.' — Pref. to
History of the Jews, 1863, p, x. ' Truth is content, when it comes
into the world, to wear our mantles : " Lumen supernum nunquam
descendit sine indumento." ' — J. Smith, Select Discourses, p. 165.
The use of the economy is discussed at length by Dr. Newman,
Arians, pp. 72-87.
' No doubt God's revelation of Himself through man, as also His
revelation to man, is limited by what He Himself has made humanity
to be ; though when we think of humanity in the light of Christ,
the Son of God and the Son of Man, we may question how far we are
justified in speaking of Umits here at aU. But it is one thing to
say, that, because of human limits, what God can reveal of Himself
to man is to be held to be less than what God is ; and it is quite
another thing to say, that what God sees it good to reveal of Him
self to man He cannot truly and effectually reveal through man ; that

302 NOTES TO LECTURE III.
the medium must more or less colour and distort the light passing
through it. This consistently held makes a revelation to man and a
revelation through man equaUy impossible. If man cannot ti-ansmit
Ught -without distorting it, then neither can he receive light without
misconceiving it.' ' As we beUeve that God, who teaches us know
ledge of Himself by the works of His hands, teaches us also by holy
apostles and prophets a higher knowledge than these His material
works can convey, so we also beUeve that m communicating that
higher knowledge, He presents it to us pure and unmixed, as in the
case of the lower knowledge He confessedly does.' — J. M. CampbeU,
Thoughts on Revelation, pp. 75-7.
I am not now concerned -with the misuse of the principle of
accommodation which can be traced downwards from Spinoza,
Tractatus Theologico-Polit., U. 41, sqq., pp. 43-7, ed. 1846. Cf.
Bauer's Glassius, iii. 29. For an account of Semler's method, more
especially, see Conybeare's B. L., 1824, pp. 27, 277 ; Pusey, Theology
of Gc'rmany, i. 140-4; Rose, Protestantism in Germany, p. 74;
Kahnis, History of German Protestantism, p. 122 ; Wordsworth,
On Interpretation, pp. 11, 12 (cf. 22, 28), and in Replies to E.
and R., pp. 477-8, 480, 489; Farrar, B. L., pp. 311-6.
Note 2, page 75. Mr. Mansel, in speaking of ' the image of
God,' says : ' Whatever may be the exact import of that declaration,
as applied to Adam in Paradise, it should not be forgotten that the
same Book which tells us of man's creation in God's image, tells us
also of his faU from that image.' — First Letter, p. 15, note. But man
did not faU so utterly that the image was altogether destroyed. See
the texts referred to at the foot of page 75. I have dra'wn out this
distinction in a former work. Discourses on the Fall and its Results,
Disc. iii. and iv. See especially note there on p. 45. Again, in
the Second Letter, p. 61, note, Mr. Mansel says, of the Divine
vision promised to the pure in heart (Matt. v. 8), that ' others,
with more reason, maintain that this is reserved for the beatific
vision hereafter.' Doubtless, — in its highest sense; but here
again we need the distinction of degrees, — between comparative
and absolute admission and exclusion. ' If this be the end and
reward of the saints hereafter, it would seem to foUow that they are
tndy made partakers of it, in kind and in earnest, now.' — Manning,
Univ. Sermons, p. 136. Though man, in his faUen state, is both
degraded and darkened, the Divine image is not wholly obliterated ;
the Divine vision is not absolutely withdrawn : and the reUcs of

NOTES TO LECTURE IH. 303
that image, and the glimpses of that vision, are two forms of the
Divine manifestation, through which we reach forward to the know
ledge of God.
Note 3, page 77. The metaphor in the text is not quite free
from ambiguity ; but it seems most probable that St. Paul is
using the analogy, not of a window, made of half opaque material,
but of a mirror with imperfectly reflecting power, which gives an
mcomplete picture ofthe objects cast upon it. (Cf Wordsworth, in loe.)
The figure would thus remind us of the image of God within the
Boul of man ; a reflection which is at once imperfect, yet direct.
The outUne may be dim, but the image is not lost ; just as a true
reflection of the skies may rest by night upon the waters, though
confiised and shattered when the stUlness is disturbed by winds
which typify the wayward influence pf human emotions and
thoughts. The Apostle probably referred to the passage in Numbers (xii. 8),
where God contrasts the vision and dream of other prophets with the
more open revelation given to Moses. They saw St' alviypdruiv - he
saw aropa Kara aropa, iv e'lSei. Compare the earUer passage, Ex.
xxxiv. 29-35, which describes how the face of Moses shone when
he descended from the mountain, and how he veiled his face to hide
that glory ; or it may be to conceal its transitory character. To this
St. Paul refers, 2 Cor. Ui. 18, where KaroTrrpi^opevoi appears to mean,
that ' we aU with open face ' reflecting ' as in a glass the glory of the
Lord,' receive and shadow back that glory ; that admitting it into
om- spirits with the open freedom of the Gospel, we are ' changed
into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of
the Lord.' (Cf. Stanley, in loe, and Sermons and Essays on the
Apostolic Age, p. 25 ; Moberly, Sermon on the Transfiguration of
Christians, p. 8.) ' Dominus est exemplar, nos imagines.' — Bengel.
in loe. The Christian thus receives the rays, and they transform
him. He is transfigured as he gazes into the likeness of the glorious
reaUty which he is contemplating, just as when we hold a mirror to
the sun, it is filled with the reflection of that heavenly Ught.
The same figure explains St, James's contrast between ' beholding'
for a moment the 'natural face in a glass,' iv irro-mpig, and looking
'into the perfect law of liberty' (i. 22-5). The word TrapuKVipag
seems to denote the attitude of one who stoops down to look into ;
as though bending to scrutinise the image of the perfect law, which
is mirrored in the regenerate heart.

304 NOTES TO LECTURE IIL
The parallel with Moses suggests the gradations of spiritual know
ledge, to which I have made previous reference. As he was to
other prophets, so shaU we be to our present selves, when we rise above
the conditions of humanity, and ' shaU be Uke' Christ, 'for we shall
see Him as fle is' (1 John iU. 2). The vision of Moses was stiU
imperfect ; the loftiest intuition of the older covenant did not reach
the level of Christian knowledge ; and the knowledge of the Christian,
even at its highest, faUs short of the glory of the beatific vision.
But the light that reaches us, however broken and fragmentary it may
be, at every step flows stra,ight from heaven.
On the degrees of access to the sight of God, see Manning,
Sermon on The Beatific Vision ; University Sermons, No. VI. ; and
above. Note 2, and Lecture I., Notes 12, 15.
Note 4, page 77. It is convenient to borrow from philosophy
the Kantian term, to express what has been more vaguely called a
' mystery' in religion (Thomson, B. L., p. 125 ; TuUoch, Theism,
p. 370; E. T. of Saisset, Modern PantJieisjti, ii. 172, note; &o.);
the case of ' problems insoluble theoreticaUy, but capable of harmony
when 'viewed on the moral side' (Farrar, B.L., p. 117). Compare
the word evavrtofdveia adopted by Bishop Bull; and the Sia^6pu)c,
but not ivavriwg, of Chrysostom ; Kal ydp erepov ian Sia(p6p(i>g eltrely,
Kal pa-)(ppevovg elire'tv Hom. I. in Matth. ; Opp., vii. p. 8, C. The
subject might be iUustrated at length by the history of contradiction,
which is traceable in philosophy from Heraclitus to Hegel ; and
which is equaUy traceable in the history of religious thought, from
the antitheses of Marcion, through the Sic et Non of Abelard, to the
chapter in which Spinoza fixed attention on the ' discrepantes opi-
niones' ofthe prophets; Tract. Tlieol.-P., U. 49; p. 45.
The principle itself may be regarded as a double-edged weapon ;
used by error when it dwells on the apparent contradiction ; used by
truth when it points to the deeper harmony, in which faith sees the
difficulty disappear. In this latter sense it has been a favourite in
strument of recent theology ; employed by Mr. Mozley to account for
the Predestinarian Controversy ; by Dr. Pusey and others, to remove
scruples on the nature of the Eucharistic presence ; by Mr. Mansel,
in his exposition of the limitations of reUgious thought. Abun
dant iUustrations will be found in the foUowing Notes ; but on the
general subject I may refer to Archbishop King, On Predestination,
pp. 51-62, ed. Whately ; Trench, Iluhean Lectures, 1845, p. 118,
and On St. Augustine, pp. 35, 61 ; Arnold, Sermons, i. 161 ; David-

NOTES TO LECTURE HI. 305
son, ed. of Home's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 477-8 ; Isaac Taylor,
Restoration of Belief , p. 279; Pusey, The Presence of Christ in the
Holy Eucharist, p. 17 ; Freeman, Principles of Divine Service, ii. 15 ;
Thomson, B. L., pp. 124-6 ; Mozley, Augustinian Doctrine of Pre
destination, ch. u., &c. ; Mansel, Man's Conception of Eternity, pp.
14, 15; B.L., pp. 8, 16, 17, 22, &c.; Wordsworth, On Inter
pretation, pp. 32, 34, 98, 100.
Note 5, page 79. The principle, that error generaUy consists in
the mistake of half-truths for truths, is correlative to Leibnitz's
observation, that sects are generaUy right in what they affirm, and
'wrong in what they deny. The foUowing iUustrations show the
extent to which this analysis of error has been accepted : —
A'inov Se Tfjg ivavnoXoylag, on' Seov oXov Tt deurprjaai, pipog ti
TvyxdyovaiXeyovreg Isartpot* Ai.,DeGen. et Co7T.,I. 7; p. 323, b. 17.
Mide Toivvv ovarig r^e dXrideiag ' to ydp ipevSog pvpiag eKTpoTzdg
e^ei' Kaddirep ai BaK^at ru tov Ilevdiuig Sia(popri(Ta<jai peXt], al rrjg
fiXoaofiag rijg re fiap^dpov rfig re '^XXriviKrjg aipiaeig, eKdarri oirep
iXa^ey uig iraaav avy(^e'i rriv dXrideiav ' S. Clem. Alex., Strom. I. 13 ;
i. p. 348-9. ' — . si quid de scripturis ad sententiam suam excerpent,
cetera nolentes intueri .... proprium hoc est omnium hsereticorum.'
— TertuU., Adv. Praxean, 20 ; Opp., U. 679. ' J'ai trouve que la
plupart des sectes ont raison dans une bonne partie de ce qu'eUes
avancent, mais non pas tant en ce qu'eUes nient.' — Leibnitz, Opp.,
ed. Erdmann, p. 702 ; cf Michelet, Metaphysique d' Aristote, p. 244.
' Each is false only as it is incomplete. They are aU true in what
they affirm ; aU erroneous in what they deny.' — Sir W. Hamilton,
Discourses, p. 11. ' The CathoUc creed is for the most part the com
bination of separate truths, which heretics have divided among
themselves, and err in dividing.' — Newman, Tract 85, p. 73 ; On
Development, p. 88. ' It being almost a definition of heresy, that it
fastens on some one statement as if the whole truth, to the denial of
aU others, and as the basis of a new faith ; erring rather in what it
rejects, than in what it maintains.'— Id., University Sermons, p. 338-9 ;
cf Parochial Sermons, i. 357-8. ' Every heresy almost has been
buUt upon some insulated statement in God's Word.' — Pusey, Pre
sence of Christ, &c., p. 19. ' To mistake a part for the whole is
the most common form which human error takes.' — Blakesley, Cone.
Acad., p. 27. ' All the ancient heresies contained a certain element
of truth ; but they aU excluded some other truth, which was
X

306 NOTES TO LECTURE HI,
necessary to complete that element of truth which they contained.'
— ^Wordsworth, I. I., p, 32. ' Truth ever one,
Not here or there, but in the whole hath shone.' Lyr. Ap., xcix. 2.
' And so ye halve the truth.' — lb., cix. ' Locke erred only in taking
half the truth for a whole truth.' — Coleridge, Aids to Reflection, i. 48,
' A whole truth instead of a half truth.' — Bishop ThirlwaU, Reply to
Williams, p. 27, ' The half truth rounding itself out -with false
hoods.' — Froude, On Joh, p. 8 ; cf p. 14. ' We see in aU these
half truths of the different dividers a witness for the whole truth.' —
Maurice, Tracts for Priests and People, ii. 40 ; cf xiv, 74. ' One
of those half truths, which have often the mischievous effect of
entire falsehood.' — Birks, Bible and Modem Thought, p. 261. ' Such
have been many of the capital doctrines of later theological systems ;
true or half true in themselves, but deprived of their own vitaUty,' &c.
— Stanley, The Bible ; its Form and its Substance, p. 96. ' Half-
truths, perhaps, but also half-falsehoods ; for what, in science, is a
half-truth but an error ? ' — I. G. St. Hilaire, in LyeU, Antiquity of
Man, p. 475.
Note 6, page 81. The foUowing are instances of the forms of
expression under which the combination of half-truths in Scripture
has been recognised : —
' We ought not to be surprised, when we find the Scriptures
giving different and seemingly contradictory schemes of Divine
things. It is manifest that several such are to be found in Holy
Writ.' — King, I. I., p. 51. ' It is ever the manner of that Word . . .
now boldly to declare its truth upon this side, and then presently to
declare it as boldly and fearlessly on the other ; not painfuUy and
nicely balancing, limiting, qualifying, till the whole strength of its
statements had evaporated, not caring though its truths should
seem to jostle one another. Enough that they do not do so indeed.
It is content to leave them to the Spirit to adjust and reconcile,'
&c. — Trench, I. I., p. 118. 'While each (of two seeming contradic
tions in Scripture) delivers a truth, each also was meant to hinder
us from dwelling only upon what the other teaches us,' &c.  Amold,
I. I. ' Such is the weU-known course of Scriptural teaching, to
oppose, as it were, one evil at a time, and that with the utmost
force, and often -without qualification; leaving the qualification
required to be sought for in other parts of Scripture directed against

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 307
the opposite error.' — Id., Sermons chiefly on the Interpretation of
Scripture, p. 360. ' It is no unusual way of teaching in Holy
Scripture, to speak of that only, which is at the time meant to be
declared or impressed upon us.' ' God inculcates, at one time,
one side of Divine truth ; at another, another : in order that our
finite human minds may graspj in their degree, truth after truth,
and each may sink more deeply in our souls.' — Pusey, I. I., pp. 17,
19. Add Sermon on Justification, p. 11, where he goes on to
remark : ' I do not mean that rminspired man ought to use the
same fearlessness of speech as the unerring wisdom of God.' We
have ' to hold in conjunction, simply and without reserve, some
two divinely affirmed matters or positions, either of which we
should probably make no difficulty of accepting by itself, but
whose compatibility or possible coexistence we are unable to per
ceive.' — Freeman, 1. 1. 'A contradiction requires a confession _of
positive error ; whereas an antinomy only suggests a sense of the
imperfection of our understanding, which can comprehend two oppo
site results, and not the mode of reconcUing them.' — Archbishop of
York, I. I. ' Such is ever the method of Scripture ; to state each of
two apparently confUcting principles (e. g., God's grace and man's
responsibility) singly and separately, and leave conscience rather
than intellect to reconcUe and adjust them.' — Vaughan, On Rom.
ix. 18 ; cf on xii. 6. ' AU revealed reUgion rests upon certain great
principles; which the human mind can hold together in what it
knows to be a true concord, whilst yet it cannot always by its
intellectual processes limit, define, and reconcile what its higher gift
of intuition can harmonise.' — Bishop of Oxford, Charge, 1860, p. 62.
' It is a characteristic of the Divine mind in Holy Scripture, to speak
strongly on special points of Christian doctrine in particular places of
Holy Writ, and to leave it to the reader of Scripture to supply the
correlative truths from other portions of Holy Writ, which are
necessary to complete the statement of the doctrine as a whole.'
—Wordsworth, I. L, p. 98,
Note 7, page 82. Such contrasted propositions must not be called
contradictories, as though they held a distinct logical opposition to
each other. This caution is implied in the quotation from the
Archbishop of York's B. L. in the last Note ; and compare Professor
Fraser's criticism of Mr. Mozley's work in his Essays in Philosophy,
p. 274 : ' To assert that man must believe both of two " contradic
tory " propositions, is either to encourage absolute scepticism, or to
X 2

308 NOTES TO LECTURE IIL
discourage our spontaneous faith in one or other of the counter pro
positions. If both are inteUigible propositions, every logical thinker
is compeUed to make his election between them, and to foUow out
that election into its consequences. But to offer an independent
proof that, whUe apparently contradictoi-y, they are reaUy incom
prehensible, opens a way for the mysterious retention of both,
without offence to logic. It converts into a fact above reason what
had seemed to subvert its fundamental law.' Also Mr. Mansel's
B. L., VIL note 42 ; p. 408.
Incommensurable propositions, here called ' incomprehensible,'
can neither of them be finaUy reduced to the language of tmquaUfied
logical distinctness, so as to confront each other with a sharp and
clear antagonism. They conform, indeed, to the laws of a loftier
logic, which belongs to the highest reason, rather than the common
understanding. The cry that iUogical compromises are often
stronger than trim logical theories, is simply a mistal^e, in which
this truth is forgotten. The real distinction Ues in the breadth
and depth of those laws of the spirit, which rise above the riUes
of the sensational world. The former, from their very magnitude,
can find no fuU expression in the words of man. The latter may
easily be clear and orderly, because there is no reserve beneath the
surface to cloud the distinctness of their lucid language.
Another evil woiUd result from regarding such propositions as
contradictories; namely, the assumption that the denial of one
doctrine must needs involve the assertion of its opposite ; whereas
the instances in any given case may be expressed in a form so
extreme as to ignore a vast range of intermediate considerations ;
and when so stated, neither the one nor the other would be true.
Thus, in the Eucharistic controversy, those who decUned to accept
a particular view of Christ's presence, were aUeged to teach His
real absence, or to preach a dead Christ. In disputes on inspiration,
the support of the special claims of Scripture is said to be an
attempt to sUence the Spirit in true hearts for ever. To reject one
view of eternity is to identify eternity with time. To maintain
the limitation of the human faculties is to deny that man possesses
any real revelation from God. ' I believe,' says Dr. WUUams, ' it is
not sarcasm, but reason, to conclude that in a purely dual antithesis
you hold the opposite of what you blame.' — Letter to Bishop of
Llandaff, 1857, p. 70. On this principle much of the contrast between
' Modern Judaisers ' and ' Rational GodUness ' has been constructed.

NOTES TO LECTURE HI. 309
{Lampeter Theology, 1856, p. 56, &c. ; cf. Letter, as above, p. 92,
note.) It is sufficient to answer, that in most such forms of expression
the ' antithesis ' is not a ' dual ' one ; and it is a groundless assump
tion that the rejection of one view is equivalent to the adoption of
the other.
Note 8,' page 83. ' Though the maxim, that every event must
have a cause, is undoubtedly true, what kind of a truth is it ? Is
it a truth absolute and complete, &c., or is it a truth indistinct,
incipient, and in tendency only ? ... It is a truth of the latter
kind, for this simple reason, that there is a contrary truth to it.' —
Mozley, I. I., p. 24. Again, p. 29, as to the idea of Divine power :
' does it belong to the class of fiiU and distinct, or of incomplete
truths ? Certainly to the latter, for there appears at once a counter
truth to it, in the existence of moral evil,' &c. In cases of this
kind, it appears to me that the difficulty is rather absolute than
relative. It is not the fact of the opposition that discloses the
existence of the mystery. Rather we might reason out the existence
of the mystery on either side, and its recognition would then
explain the fact ofthe opposition. Cf. Fraser, I. I., p. 273.
For the rest of the paragraph, see Pascal's chapter, ' Disproportions
or InequaUties in Man ; ' Thoughts, ch. Ui. : ' What is man in the
midst of nature ? He is a nothing in comparison with infinitude ;
he is everything in comparison with nulUty ; he is a central point
between nothing and everything. Their extremes being infinitely
beyond his comprehension, the finJiUty and the first principle of things
are concealed from his view under an impenetrable mystery ; and
he is equally incapable of searching into the nonentity from which
he was derived, and the iufinitude into which he is absorbed.' —
P. 67, ed. Pearce. Of time, viewed ' as a form or condition of our
internal consciousness,' 'neither an absolute limit, whether beginning
or end, nor yet an absolutely unlimited duration is conceivable.' —
Mansel, Eternity, p. 6. ' Our mind is so constituted, that it cannot
apprehend the absolute beginning or the absolute end of anything.'
— MiiUer, Lectures on Language, 1861, p. 331. ' Leibnitz was never
tired of proving and iUustrating the principle that aU in nature
tends to infinity. The two abysses of which Pascal speaks — the
abyss of greatness over our heads, and the abyss of littleness beneath
and around us — opened out before his eyes.' — Christian Rem., Jan.
1863, p. 112. So in Kant's Antinomy of Pure Reason, First
Contradiction of Transcendental Ideas: ^Thesis. The world has a

310 NOTES TO LECTURE IIL
beginning in time, and is also enclosed in limits as to space. Anti
thesis. The world has no beginning, and no Umits in space, but is,
as weU in respect of time as of space, infinite.' Cf. Sir A. Grant,
On the Ethics of Aristotle, i. 95.
Note 9, page 85, Many points mentioned in this and the fol
lowing paragraphs are commonly discussed under the head of the
anthropomorphic language of Scripture ; e. g. the repentance ascribed
to God, in Spinoza, Tract. Theol. Pol., xiii. 26, p. 189. Compare
Glassius, I. I., i. 944; iU. 213-5; Davidson, ed. of Home's Intro
duction, u. 403 ; Introd. to 0. T., i. 29, 57, 159, &c. ; Hengstenberg,
Genuineness of Pentateuch, ii. 372 ; Kenrick, Essay on PrimcBval
History, p. 43. ' There is one respect in which Strauss is himself
constrained in a remarkable manner to confess, that the Hebrew
religion has no mythus, viz., in its constant maintenance of the
immutability of the Divine Being in Himself, His aspects only
changing to the varying world — unlike in this to every heathen
representation of the Divinity.' — MiU, Pantheistic Principles,
ii. 10, note. In another place, ii. 50, p. 45, Spinoza treats 1 Sam.
XV. 29 as a contradiction to Jer. xiii. 8, 10, and Joel ii. 13;
whereas the counter-view of God's repentance is traceable in the
same chapter of Samuel, verses 11 and 35, as has been frequently
remarked; above, pp. 91, 93; Hengstenberg, I.l., and On Daniel and
Balaam, p. 425 ; Mansel, B. L., p. 22 ; De Teissier, Village Sermons,
p. 280.
On the fatal weakness of the theory which ascribes to prayer
a merely subjective value, see Mansel, JS. L., p. 17 (and notes),
and Man's Conception of Eternity, pp. 14, 15. Compare Bishop of
Oxford, Seventeen Sermons, p. 152. I have dealt with this subject
previously, in Discourses on the Fall and its Results, p. 259.
On the difference between the object of Christ's coming and its
results, which may be connected with the larger question of the
fulfilment of prophecy, see Copleston, On Predestination, p. 101 ; and
Mr. R. P. Smith's Messianic Interpretation of the Prophecies of
Isaiah, p. 295 ; whence it appears that the contrast which can be
traced in the very words of Christ Himself and in the Gospel
narrative, has been offered by Jewish objectors as a proof of
contradiction between prophecies and their fuUUment ; e. g. Zech.
ix. 10, Mal. iv. 6. Compare Arnold's Sermons, i. 385 : ' How
shaU the truth of God's Word be reconciled with the laws of His
moral government ? Must He stint for our sin's sake the abundance

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 311
of His mercy, or impair for His promise's sake the perfection of His
justice ? Surely here, too, as in other respects . . . hope and
disappointment were struggling together; the promise was stiU of
blessing, but the experience was of sin, and, therefore, not of
blessing, but of judgment.' See also ih., p. 102, and Stanley,
Jewish Church, p. 465. ' Amid former promises to Israel, there
had been constant warnings that the fulfUment of the promises was
in great measure conditional. God's word should not faU, but it
would not be found to have spoken peace to the -wicked.' — H.
Brovme, Messiah as Foretold and Expected, p. 43. ' Their Lord,
whUe His shadow brought peace upon earth, foretold that in the
event. He came to send " not peace, but a sword." ' — ^Newman, Office
and Work of Universities, p. 158.
The Scripture antitheses on the relation between grace and
man's exertions are drawn out by Hooker, App. to E. P., v.; Works,
U. 549 : ' David, to shew that grace is needful, maketh his prayer
unto God, saying, " Set Thou, O Lord, a watch before the door of
my Ups ; '' and to teach how needful our travail is to that end, he
elsewhere useth exhortation, " Refrain thoU thy tongue from evU,
and thy Ups that they speak no guUe." Solomon respecting the
use of our labour giveth counsel, " Keep thy heart with aU the
custody and care that may be." The Apostle, having an eye unto
necessity of grace, prayeth, " The Lord keep your hearts and imder-
Btandings in Christ Jesus." '>
From the ' two cross-clauses,' Luke ix. 50, xi, 23 (above, p. 92),
Bacon draws out the distinction between ' fundamental points' and
' points not fundamental ; ' Adv. of L., ii. ; Works, iii. 482 ; and
Essay of Unity in Religion, ib., vi. 382. On the practical perplexity,
compare Rich. II., Act v. Sc. 5 :
' For no thought is contented. The 'better sort, —
As thoughts of things di-fine, — are intermixed
With scruples, and do set the word itself
Against the word :
As thus, " Come, Uttle ones ;" and then again,
" It is as hard to come as for a camel
To thread the postern of a needle's eye." '
Note 10, page 88. There is a doubt on the interpretation of
2 Sam. xxiv. 1, as is noted in the EngUsh margin (on which see
Mr. F. Stephen's remark. Defence of Dr. Williams, p. 272). Com
pare Waterland, Works, iv. 271 : ' If (the objector) had been dis-

312 NOTES TO LECTURE IIL
posed to look into the original, and had known anything of the
Hebrew idiom, he might have perceived that the text does not say
that God moved David (for the word God is not in the text at aU),
but one moved, which comes to the same thing with, Da-vid was
moved to say, &c., as Castalio renders.' ' Secundum Hebrasos Deus
non incitavit David contra populum, sed cor Da-vid incitavit ip.sum,
&c. — Munster. et Clar. ' Quidam Hebrajorum non malfe subaudit
eor Davidis, Davidem, q. d. David a propria concupiscentia fuit ten-
tatus.' — Vatabl. ' MaUem personale resolvi in impersonale, com-
motus seu inoitatus est David, vel si id non placet, interseri nomen
SatanoB.' — Amam. ' Activum pro passive, ut ssepe, id est, com-
motus est, nempe a diabolo.' — Grot. (All in Crit. Sacr., ad loe.)
' Cum tamen phrasis hsec ex se sumpta impium quid et blasphemum
inferat, tribuens Deo malum, quod ab ipso alienum est, uti neque
furor est uUus in Deo, vertendum videtur : Et non cessavit irasci
Dominus in populum suum, quia David malo illorum incitatus fuit ut
imperaret,' &c. — Calmet, in loe. See also Glassius, Philol. Sacr.,
i. 244, 609, ed. Dathe. Mr. Barrett gives a later series of comments
in his Synopsis of Criticisms. In some of these cases, the interpre
tation has been obviously governed rather by the wish to avoid a
supposed difficulty, than by purely philological considerations.
Dr. Stanley retains the contrast as it stands in the EngUsh version :
' The same temptation which in one book is ascribed to God, is in
another ascribed to Satan.' — Jewish Church, p. 48, note ; and so
Lightfoot, Works, i. 68.
' Et tamen peccabam, Domine Deus, ordinator et creator omnium
rerum naturaUum, peccatorum autem tantum ordinator.' — S.August.,
Conf.,1. 16; Opp., i. 75. ' Ne putemus illam tranquillitatem et
ineffabile lumen Dei de se proferre unde peccata puniantur ; sed
ipsa peccata sic ordinare, ut quse fuerunt delectamenta homini pec-
canti, sint instrumenta Domino punienti.' — Id., Enarr. in Ps. vii. ;
Opp., iv. 37. ' Ista distinctio, aUud fecit et ordinavit : aliud autem
non fecit, sed tamen etiam hoc ordinavit.' — lb., p. 39.
' "Ov deXet uKXripvvei thus becomes equivalent to. He has framed
at His pleasui-e the moral constitution of man, according to which
the rebeUious sinner is at last obdurate.' — Dr. Vaughan, on Rom.
ix. 18. ' Many other of the apparent accidents of Scripture, on
what deep grounds do they rest 1 Thus, for example, in the history
of Pharaoh's trial, that God should ten times be said to have
hardened his heart, and he ten times to have hardened his own or

NOTES TO LECTURE IH. 313
to have had it hardened, without any reference to other than him
self  this exactly equal distribution of either language
is surely most remarkable.' — Trench, Hulsean Lectures, 1845,
pp. 124—5,
With the history of Balaam we may compare the answer of the
oracle at Branchidse to Aristodicus, Hdt., i. 159: ' ApiaroSiKov Se,
oic airopiiaavra, irpos ra£ira e'iwelv ' 'il ' vat, avrog fiev ovru) 7oT<rt
kirriai jiorideeig ' Kvpalovg Se KeXeveig rov iKeTriv cKSiSovai ; Toy Se
avng dpelipairdai rolaSe ' Na't KeXevu), Iva ye dtrefiriaavTeg Gaaaov
airdXjjfffle " i>g pri to Xonrbv irepi iKereuiv ekBoVios eXdrire £7ri ro
j(pi)0'n7ptoj'. Note 11, page 92. Compare the commentators on Eph. iu. 19 ;
where the antithesis is called by Dean Alford ' a paradox ;' by
Bishop ElUcott, ' an oxymoron ;' by Dr. Wordsworth, ' hyperbole.'
The principle maintained is, that Scripture anticipates all objec
tions based on this ground, by speaking as though with an entire
unconsciousness that there is any contradiction, even when the con
trasted terms are brought into the closest union. 'How firmly the '
immutability of God 'was impressed on the IsraeUtish mind, is
testified by the unembarrassed manner in which repentance of a
certain kind is ascribed to God.' — Hengstenberg, Balaam, &c., as
quoted above in Note 9. ' Earnest men, striving for great truths, are
sure to be paradoxical, and to seem to contradict themselves. Their
inspiration only makes them the more fearless in such seeming con
tradictions.' — Davies, in Tracts for Priests and People, xi. 29. See
also above. Note 6.
Note 12, page 93. Mr. Froude has spoken of the Book of Job
as an extraordinary contrast to the rest of the O. T. Canon, ' smiting
through and through the most deeply-seated Jewish prejudices.' —
Book of Job, p. 3. In correction of which view, we may refer to the
argument of an article in Christian Remembrancer, Jan. 1849, p. 196,
sqq. : ' The language of Job toward the Deity is another remarkable
feature of the book. This language is a starthng carrying out even
of that bold ground which he takes about himself; for he positively,
as far as words go, accuses the Deity of injustice.' ' It is obvious at
first sight that this language cannot reaUy mean what it literaUy
means.' ' The holy men speak as if God were hard and unjust
upon them, aU the whUe feeUng the fuUest and most penetrating
conviction of His goodness. Indeed, just as in the case of ordinary
irony, feeling expresses itself by contraries,' &c. ' AU prayer may

314 NOTES TO LECTURE IIL
be said to partake in some measure of this irony.' ' Thus the
piercing tone of prayers in the Psalms,' &c. Compare Mr. Farrar,
B. L., p. 7, note.
In Uke manner, on the controverted subject of the Jewish know
ledge of a future state, ' we cannot but observe, upon reflection,
with what religious humiUty the minds of holy men, under the
elder dispensation, seem to have fitted themselves to that exact
amount of revelation, on this subject, which they had.' ' Amid all
the superior brightness of a more perfect hope, we can stUl aUow its
own peculiar beauty to the faith of the Jewish saint, beUeving 'with
an obedient and resigned vagueness, and prepared in God to go he
knew not and asked not whither.' — Christian Rem., I. I., p. 164.
Compare Stanley, Jewish Church, p. 154, as quoted above. Lecture II.
NoteS; and p. 471. 'The elder Hebrew Prophets were content,
for the most part, with the consciousness of the Divine support in
this Ufe and through the terrors of death, but did not venture
to look further.' Compare also MUman's remarks on Ecclesi
asticus, History of the Jews, ii. 32, note (and above. Lecture IL,
Note 20).
Note 13, page 95. In this, as in so many other cases, the fact
that a principle is brought out more vividly at one time than another,
is constantly made the ground for the assertion, that it is absolutely
excluded from the sphere where it is less conspicuously traced.
See above, p, 19. The doctrine of Ezek. xvUi. is distinctly re
cognised in the Pentateuch. ' Yet now if Thou wilt forgive their
sin — ; and if not, blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book which
Thou hast written. And the Lord said unto Moses, 'Whosoever hath
sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book.' — Ex. xxxii.
32, 33. ' The fathers shall not be put to death for the chUdren,
neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers : every
man shall be put to death for his own sin.' — Deut. xxiv. 16 ; cf
2 Kings xiv. 6 ; 2 Chron. xxv. 4. The subject is fuUy discussed in
most Introductions to the Pentateuch. See also Spinoza, Tract. Theol.
Pol., ii. 49, p. 45 ; Waterland, Works, iv. 222 ; Warburton, Divine
Legation of Moses, V. 5 ; vol. iii. p. 5, &c., ed. 1846, and the
notes ; Mozley, Predestination, p. 36 ; Trench, Sermon on the
Mount, &c., pp, 41-3 ; 45-7 ; 187-8 ; R. P. Smith, On Isaiah,
Introd., p. xvii.
Note 14, page 97. See LyaU, Propcedia Prophetica, P. IIL, ch. ii.,
especiaUy pp. 323-4. Cf Milman, History of the Jews, ii. 364. It
appears that even the most advanced schools are disposed to leave

NOTES TO LECTURE IIL 315
us ' a chapter possibly in Deuteronomy foreshadowing the final faU
of Jerusalem.' — E. and R., p. 70.
Note 15, page 100. Ata ri ovv, (pri^lv, ovSelg eveKaXeae Mwv(re7 rj
ilKtidritre KeXeiiovn Sta Trjv irepiroprjv to crd^^arov XuftrOat ; SriXovon
iig TOV (TaPPaTov 'irepiTOprjg ovarjg Kvpiuirepag, Kairoi oiiK 'ian rov
voaov fl rrepiToprj, dXX' ix tuiv irarepuiv, e^iDdev i-rreiaeveydelaa rji vo/ty.
—Chrys. ap. Caten. G. P., ed. Cramer, iL 264. ' Sententia est
Hebr»orum, Circumcisio pellit Sabbatum .... (Opus Christi)
continetur in naturas prseceptis, quse antiquiora sunt ipsi circum-
cisione, sicut circumcisio est antiquior rigido otio Sabbati per Mosem
imperato ... Si lex ritualis cedit rituaU antiquiori, quanto magis legi
per naturam cordibus inscriptse, ut qu&vis occasione miserosjuvemus?'
— Grotius in Joann. vn. 22-3. Cf Lightfoot, "PForAs, U. 557 ; Morris,
Prize Essay, &c., p. 98.
St. Augustine's explanations of the position of the Law are care
fully summed up by Dean Trench in the work already referred to ;
pp. 67, 185, &c. The typical, and therefore temporary, character of
the Law is often the sole solution offered to account for the strong
language used by St. Paul; 2 Cor. iU. 6 ; Gal. iu. 13, 19, &c. It
was indeed a serious evil to mistake the shadow for the substance ;
but it is not less important to establish the results of the principle,
that, viewed in itself, the Law conveyed knowledge without grace.
It is this which gives point to the apostohc contrast. The Law was
holy; but it became an unendurable burthen (Acts xv. 10), if a
rigid obedience to its dictates was regarded as the sole ground
for justification. In this sense it could kUl ; yet it had been
obeyed, upheld, and reverenced by those who had shone forth
amidst dark ages as bright examples of the power of faith. We
cannot explain this sharp antagonism by proving merely that it
was temporary in its obUgation, unless we can show also, that
throughout its course, it was equally restricted in its power. The
coming of Christ might fulfil, and therefore supersede, a type :
,but how could it change blessings into curses ? How could it tum
earUer good into present evil ? This it could not do. But what it
could and did do was, to drag to the Ught existing evil, as the
preliminaiy for furnishing its cure : on the one hand, by reveaUng
and satisfying the true but forgotten scope of the promise ; on the
other hand, by convicting the Jews of destroying the Law, which
they professed to honour, by turning its letter against its spirit. And
it is throughout this argument, as I have endeavoured to point out,
that the Apostle and his Master are at one.

316 NOTES TO LECTURE IH.
Note 16, page 101. ' To condemn works without faith is surely
quite consistent with condemning faith without works. St. James
says, we are justified by works, not by faith only ; St. Paul impUes,
by faith, not by works only. St. Paul says that works are not
available before faith ; St. James that they are available after faith.' —
Newman, On Justification, p. 330. Compare Neander, Planting, &c.,
p. 358, sqq., ed. Bohn ; Amold, Sermons chiefly on the Interpretation
of Scripture, No. xxxiv. p. 358.
But in truth this contrast is only one instance of a wider charac
teristic, by which Scripture often speaks of each cause in salvation
as the sole cause, leaving it to the enlightened conscience to ascribe
to each its proper weight and province. ' Whereas faith on our part
fitly answers, or is the correlative, as it is caUed, to grace on God's
part, sacraments are but God's acts of grace, and good works are
but our acts of faith ; so that whether we say we are justified by
faith, or by works, or by sacraments, aU these but mean this one
doctrine, that we are justified by grace, given through sacraments,
impetrated by faith, manifested in works.' — Ne-wman, I. I., p. 348.
Compare his Parochial Sermons, iii. 84, on ' Faith and Obedience ; '
and iv. 350, on ' Faith and Love.' ' Various quaUties are stated as
essential to salvation, one in one passage, another in another. Thus
faith is said to save ; "by grace ye are saved ; " a man is justified by
faith ; he is justified by grace ; he is justified by the blood of Christ ;
he is justified by works. In other places love is represented as the
great justifying principle in the sight of God. One quality of the
mind is connected with and impUes another. Faith and love
necessarily go together. Works are connected with both.' — Davidson,
in Home, ii. 478.
A similar principle is needed to explain many portions of the
practical teaching of Scripture; e.g.: — 1. 'He shaU give His
angels charge over thee,' Ps. xci. 11 ; a lesson of trust, which is
not to be turned into a justification of presumption, as Christ Himself
has most distinctly taught us. Matt. iv. 7,
2. ' Woe unto you that are rich ! ' Luke vi. 24 ; a lesson on God's
absolute ownership, and a warning against claiming His gifts as our
own, and using them for selfish ends; which is not to be turned into
refusal of the duties of a ' faithful and wise steward ' (Luke xii. 42),
if God sees fit in any sense to set us over His household, and confide
to us the management of wealth.
3. ' Turn to him the other (cheek) also,' Matt. v. 39 ; a lesson

NOTES TO LECTURE III. 317
of patience and humiUty, which is not to be turned into the sanction
of injustice, in any sense that would offend against the common
good, and against the laws that are needed to protect the weak against
the strong.
Note 17, page 104. On the marveUous unity of Scripture,
compare Trench's Hulsean Lectures for 1845, No. II. ; Bishop
EUicott, in Aids to Faith, p. 442 ; Burgon, Inspiration and Inter
pretation, pp. clUi. 123, 234-5 ; Birks, The Bible and Modern
Thought, pp. 226, 265, 377, 398, 405. ' The series of the Inspired
stands out from aU the generations to which they individually
belonged, one series, by reason of the one light which shines from
them aU, and which by its unity vindicates for itself one source.' —
CampbeU, Thoughts on Revelation, p. 98. Not less noteworthy
is the nature of that unity, veUed beneath such wondrous diversity.
The Jews were to ' be accustomed to regard their Scriptures, not as
men regard other books, but as a sort of mine, in which their learned
men were to dig for the treasures of hidden wisdom which they
contained.' — LyaU, Prop. Proph., p. 301. ' Its contents are Uke a
vast quarry rather than a finished building : we find the rough
materials,' &c. — Stanley, The Bible; its Form and its Substance, p. 34.
A striking passage from Burke has been repeatedly quoted lately on
this subject; National Review, Jan. 1861, p. 159; Stephen, Defence
of Dr. Williams, p. 60 ; PhUUmore, Speech on the other side, p. 22,
&o. Compare Hooker, E. P., I, xiii. 3; and Trench, On St.
Augustine, pp. 3, 5, 9, &c, ' Nimirum idem coelestis Spiritus Isaiam
et Danielem in aula suk movit afflatu, Davidem et Amosum in
pafitorum stabuUs ; semper idoneos voluntatis suse interpretes
dehgens, et interdum ex ore infantium perficiens laudem : aliorum
utitur eloquentia ; aUos eloquentes facit.' — ^Lowth, De Sacr. P. Hebr.,
p. 246, ed, Lips., 1815. Compare below, Lecture V., Note 20.

318

LECTURE IV.
Note 1, page 107. See, for instance, Bauer's continuation of
Glassii PAz'Z. Sacr., iU. 15 : ' Sensus litteralis est unicfe verus. Sensus
mysticus, i. e., allegoricus et typicus, non est admittendus.' His
reasons follow on p. 23. Compare Marsh's Lectures on the Interpreta
tion of the Bible, Nos. x.-xii. ' If we endeavour to find an aUegorical
sense, either in history or in prophecy, we endeavour to find a sense
-with which the Uteral sense is whoUy unconnected. The sense,
therefore, -will be suppUed by mere imagination ; and not only will
different interpreters invent different senses, but even the same
interpreter may invent as many as he pleases. Indeed there have
been Jewish commentators, who have boasted that they could
discover seventy midrashim, or my.stical meanings, in one sentence.
Some limit, therefore, is absolutely necessary ' (on which see below.
Note 13). — lb., p. 459. (From the time of Erasmus and Luther)
' the Greek of the New Testament was interpreted like the Greek
of a classic author ; the tropological and anagogical senses which had
been ascribed to the Latin ViUgate disappeared; and the names
themselves ceased to occupy a place in the nomenclature of a bibUcal
interpreter. It became a maxim among Protestants, that the words
of Scripture had only one sense, and that they who ascribed to
them various senses made the meaning of Scripture altogether
uncertain.' — lb , p. 508. Compare Maitland, Eruvin, p. 27.
A correction to the extreme view of the single sense is suppUed
by the two considerations to which I call attention in the text ;
namely, the very definition of a Revelation, and the teaching of
Christ and His apostles in the New Testament.
On the first of these points, compare Bacon, Advancement of
Learning, Works, iii. 484, ed. Ellis and Spedding : ' The Scriptures,
being given by inspiration and not by human reason, do differ from all
other books in the author,' &c. And p. 487 : (the Scriptures) ' being
written to the thoughts of men, and to the succession of all ages, with a
foresight of all heresies, contradictions, differing estates of the Church,

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 319
yea, and particiUarly of the elect, are not to be interpreted only
according to the latitude of the proper sense of the place, and re
spectively towards that present occasion whereupon the words were
uttered,' &c., 'but have in themselves . . . infinite springs and
streams of doctrine to water the Church in every part ; and therefore,
as the Uteral sense is as it were the main stream or river, so the
moral sense chiefly, and sometimes the aUegorical or typical, are
they whereof the Church hath most use : not that I wish men to be
bold in aUegories, or indulgent or Ught in aUusions ; but that I do
much condemn that interpretation of the Scripture which is only
after the manner as men use to interpret a profane book.' Add
Selden, Table Talk, p. 11, ed. Singer: 'The Scripture may have
more senses beside the Uteral ; because God understands aU things at
once ; but a man's writing has but one true sense, which is that which
the author meant when he writ it.' (Cf. Warburton, D. L., in. 214.)
And Butler, Anal., ii. 7, p. 304 : ' 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.' The argument is that of Augustine and Aquinas : ' Quia
ver6 sensus UtteraUs est quem auctor intendit, auctor autem Sacrce
Scriptures Deus est, qui omnia simul suo intellectu comprehendit,
" non est inconveniens," ut dicit Augustinus, '' si etiam secundum
litteralem sensum in una UtterS, Scripture plures sint sensus." '
— 1™» Qu. i. Art, X.
For the second ground, see Middleton, Doctrine of the Greek
Article, p. 403, ed. Rose : ' else we must assert, that the multitude
of appUcations made by Christ and His apostles are fanciftd and
unauthorised,' &c. And Marsh, Z. Z., p. 455 : ' In whatever case a
passage of the Old Testament, which, according to its strict and
literal sense, relates to some earlier event in the Jewish history,
is yet applied, either by Christ or by an apostle of Christ, to what
happened iu their days ; and moreover is so appUed, as to indicate
that the passage is prophetic ; of such passage we must conclude, on
their authority, that beside its plain and primary' sense, it has also a
remote and secondary sense. The difficulties, which no human
system can remove, are in such cases removed by Divine power.'
It was also a question of fact by which Bishop Horsley was led to
change his opinion, from beUeving ' that every prophecy, were it

320 NOTES TO LECTURE IV.
rightly understood, would be found to carry a precise and single
meaning ; ' the fact, namely, that Noah's prophecy on Japhet
contained ' variety of intent and meaning,' as was proved by its
repeated fulfilments. — Sermons, i. 344.
On the general subject of this Lecture, I may refer to Bishop
Van Mildert's Bampton Lectures, 1814, No. VII. ; Mr. Conybeare's
Bampton Lectures, 1824, ' being an attempt to trace the history and
to ascertain the limits of the secondary and spiritual interpretation
of Scripture ; ' Dr. Neale's Commentary on the Psalms ; Disserta
tion III., ' The Mystical and Literal Interpretation of the Psalms ; '
Tract for the Times, No. 89, ' On the Mysticism attributed to the
Early Fathers of the Church ' (see below, Note 17) ; Mr. Isaac
WiUiams's Commentary on The Beginning of the Book of Genesis,
pp. 22, 37, 55, 236, &c. ; Waterland, Works, iv. 154 ; LyaU,
Propmd. Proph., pp. 193, 245, 296, 299, 300 ; Fairbairn's Typology,
Book I. ; Arnold's Two Sermons on the Interpretation of Prophecy, &c.
The topic also fiUs a large space in the controversy which foUowed
the publication of Essays and Reviews. I am happy to find that
the argument of this discourse is supported by an excellent sermon
of Mr. Mansel's, which I had not seen when my own was preached :
' The Spirit a Divine Person, to be worshipped and glorified ; ' one of
the Oxford Lenten Sermons for 1863.
Note 2, page 110. The cases of Balaam, of Jonah, and of Caiaphas,
have been frequently used to prove that prophets were influenced by
'a power that woiUd not be repressed;' e.g., by Professor H.
Browne, in Aids to Faith, pp. 312, 316. Compare the Bishop of
Oxford's University Sermons, p. 159 (on the other hand, see David
son, Introd. to 0. T., ii. 435). On the whole subject, I may refer to
John Smith's Discourse ' Of Prophecy,' Select Disc, 1673, p. 161.
' Sometimes that light was more strong and vivid, sometimes more
wan and obscure ; which seems to be insinuated in that passage, Heb.
i. 1 : " God who in time past spake unto the fathers by the prophets,
TToXvpepwg Kal TroXvTpoiruig." ' — P. 169. (Few readers wUl need
reminding of Dr. Stanley's three sermons on The Bible ; its Form
and its Substance, and Lectures on the Eastern Church, p. 322.)
' He watch'd tUl knowledge came,' &c. ; Christian Year, Second
Sunday after Easter.
Of the ' nearer foreground of Prophecy,' many iUustrations are
given in Dr. Pusey's Commentary on the Minor Prophets, and else
where. Compare Dr. Stanley's account of Balaam's ' utterances,' —

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 321
' founded, like aU such utterances, on the objects immediately in the
range of the vision of the seer, but including within their sweep a
vast prospect beyond." — Jewish Church, p. 193. See, too, p. 453.
Also, Mr. R. P. Smith's exceUent Introduction to his Messianic Inter
pretation of the Prophecies of Isaiah ; especiaUy pp. vi.— viii. : ' with
aU this they had no conscious purpose or knowledge of the final
tendencies of their works : each had his own present business, and
addressed himself to the immediate wants and needs of his days.'
(So of Moses, of David and Bolomon, of Isaiah, of the later prophets ;)
' yet, notwithstanding so great a change, no note is struck which jars
with the declarations of previous prophets, nor is there a word which
does not fitly belong to Him who is our Prophet, Priest, and King.'
Note 3, page 113. The doctrine of Typology, which has gathered
to itself so large a Uterature, turns mainly on the question of fact ;
the proof from Scripture that this secondary intention did exist ;
that it extended to things as well as words ; that it has received the
highest sanction from the teaching of our Lord ; that it reaches so
closely to the frontier of the actual lessons of Scripture, as to suggest
the possibiUty and propriety of a stiU wider range of analogous inter
pretation. The opposite tendencies may be thought to have reached
their Umits in the schools of Grotius and Cocceius, of which the
judgment has become proverbial : ' Grotium nusquam in sacris Uteris
invenire Christum, Cocceium ubique.' (Cf Waterland, Works, iv.
163.) See Conybeare's 7th Lecture, pp. 259-67. ' No commen
tator ever surpassed S. Augustine in seeing Christ everywhere :
" Him first, Him last, Him midst and -without end."
It has been weU said that where we, after considerable study, are able
to discover some distant reference to our blessed Lord, S. Augustine
begins boldly : " This Psalm breathes altogether of Christ." ' — Neale,
On the Psalms, i. 77. Cf Trench, On St. Augustine, pp. 54, 55.
Note 4, page 114. Compare Waterland, Works, iv. 155 : ' the
words of Scripture in such cases express suoh a thing, and that thing
represents or signifies another thing. The words, properly, bear
but one sense, and that one sense is the Uteral one ; but the thing
expressed by the letter is further expressive of something subUme
or spiritual.' Also Van Mildert, B. L., notes, p. 388. It does
not foUow, however, that we may attempt to discriminate by
ascribing the res solely to God and the voces solely to man ; an
opinion condemned by Dr. Lee, p. 32. This is only one of the
Y

322 NOTES TO LECTURE IV.
many attempts to solve the mystery of inspiration by drawing a
mechanical distinction between the respective provinces of the
divine and human elements.
Note b,page 115. The instance in Hosea is discussed by Dr.
Wordsworth, Onlnterpretation, pp. 79, 87, and in Replies to E. andR.,
p. 482 ; Dr. M'Caul, in Aids to Faith, p. 118 ; Bishop EUicott, ib.,
p. 402 ; Dr. Neale, On the Psalms, i. 384. Cf Dr. Mill, Pantheistic
Principles, U. 408-14. 'When Israel was brought out of Egypt,
the figure took place ; when Christ -was called, the reality was ful
fiUed. The act itself, on the part of God, was prophetic. . . . The
words are prophetic, because the event which they speak of was
prophetic' — Dr. Pusey, in loe. Dr. Stanley speaks of oases where
' a fact of the Mosaic history is resolved into a truth of the new
dispensation.' — On 2 Cor. iii. 17. ' Is it not true that Almighty
God has made even acts and histories to prophesy, mdependently
of any utterance of men's mouths ? ' — Browne, in Aids to Faith,
p. 312. The allusion in Jeremiah xxxi. 15, to the lamentation which was
thought to issue fi-om the tomb of Rachel when her children were
destroyed, — a reference doubtless in the first instance to some occur
rences connected with the captivity, — is worked out by Dr. MiU,
I. L, pp. 402-8 : ' The mass of Christian as weU as Jewish inter
preters expound this prophecy as primarUy respecting the Chaldsean
captivity, though involving higher and more remote events in its
after development.' Dr. Stanley drops all mention of the words of
Jeremiah : ' As late as the Christian era, when the infants of Beth
lehem were slaughtered by Herod, it seemed to the Evangelist as
though the voice of Rachel were heard weeping for her chUdren
from her neighbouring grave.' — Jewish Church, p. 72.
Note 6, page 116. Prophecies are ' of the nature of their Author,
with whom a thousand years are but as one day ; and therefore are
not fulfiUed punctually at once, but have springing and germinant
accomplishment throughout many ages, though the height or fulness
of them may refer to some one age.' — Bacon, Works, iii. 341.
Compare Horsley, Sermons, i. 344 ; Arnold, Sermons, vol. i., notes,
p. 396 (' so that the prophecies, as I believe, wiU go on continuaUy
meeting with a typical and imperfect fulfilment, tiU the time of the
end ') ; 449 ( ' it may be that this great truth may be again partially
and typically fulfilled ; nay, that it may be so fulfilled many times
over, the fulfilment becoming continually more" and more adequate

NOTES TO LECTURE IV, 323
to the prophecy, tUl the last and perfect fulfilment ' ) ; Wordsworth,
On Matt., xvi, 28, and On Interpretation, p. 74.
Note 7, page 119. The older divisions are summed up by S. Thom.
Aq., I™^ Qu. i. Art. x. The foundation of all is the literal (see below.
Note 15); and under this we may arrange what St. Augustine calls
history, setiology, and analogy, as weU as parable. But the res being
significant as well as the voces (see Note 4), there is a spiritual
meaning lying beneath the literal, which may be thus divided :
1. The old law is a figure of the new law; and this is allegory.
2. The life of Christ recorded in the new law is the example for all
Christians; and hence we derive irojfoZoj'za, the moral sense. 3. The
new law is itself a figure of eternal glory, and this is anagoge. The
iUustration of Durandus (Neale, 1. 1., p. 380) precisely corresponds
with this arrangement. The historical Jerusalem is ' that earthly
city whither pilgrims journey,' but it is understood ' allegorically, of
the Church militant ; tropologically, of every faithful soul ; anago-
gically, of the celestial Jerusalem, which is our country.'
The question how far this scheme, in its explanation, as weU as its
terms, can be ascribed to Origen, is examined by Bishop Marsh, 1. 1,
p. 483. That neither of the two great divisions should be sacri
ficed to the other is weU expressed in the quotation from St. Augus
tine, De Genesi ad Lit., viii. 1 ; Opp., iii. 225 : ' Non ignoro de
paradise multos multa dixisse, tres tamen de hac re quasi generales
sunt sententise. Una eorum, qui tantummodo corporaliter paradisum
iritelUgi volunt. AUa eorum, qui spOTtoZjie?- tantum. Tertia eorum,
qui utroque modo paradisum accipiunt, aU&s corporaliter alias autem
spiritaUter. Breviter ergo ut dicam, tertiam mihi fateor placere
sententiam.' Cf S. Thom. Aq., I™^ Qu. cu. Art. i. These early
distinctions afterwards branched out into a complex system, which
may be seen 'in all its grandeur' (says Dr. Maitland, Eruvin,
p. 28) in the early editions of Glassius ; or more succinctly in
Waterland, Works, iv. 165. It is counted by Dr. Maitland among
the ' impediments to the right understanding of Scripture.'
To compare the old division with that which I have suggested :
the tropological sense may be so expanded as, in a wider view, to
answer to the symbolical ; and the allegorical and anagogic are but
two different stages of the typical. The older scheme leaves no
place for the class which I have arranged third, unless we regard it
as a subdivision of the aUegorical. But if the definitions are not
clearly stated, and carefully maintained, there -wiU always be some
y 2

324 NOTES TO LECTURE IV.
discussion whether particular cases are to be arranged under one
head or another.
The distinction drawn between type and symbol, namely, that type
is a prophetic symbol, is now generaUy adopted ; see, e. g., Litton's
B. L., p. 82 ; Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, i. 104 ; Mac
donald, On the Pentateuch, ii. 452. There is more difficulty about
the word allegory, in the ordinary usage of which (' aUud verbis,
aUud sensu ostendit ; ' QuinctU., Inst. Or., viii. 6, § 44) aU hold upon
a primary historical sense is lost. But Bishop Marsh points out that
dXXriyopovpeva is not rendered with precision in our authorised
version : ' It is one thing to say that a history is allegorised ; it is
another thing to say that it is allegory itself. If we only allegorise
an historical narrative, we do not of necessity convert it into
aUegory ' {I. I., p. 356). So also Bishop Van Mildert, I. L, 239-40 :
' some historical facts of the Old Testament appear to be allegorised
in the new (that is, a spiritual application is given to them over and
above their literal meaning), although they cannot strictly be deno
minated types. St. Paul, in applying the history of Sarah and
Hagar to the Jewish and Christian covenants, does not call it a type ;
but only says that in giving it such an appUcation, he had alle
gorised the history.' Again, Dr. Fairbairn (p. 18) recognises two kinds
of allegory: — 1. 'A narrative expressly feigned for the purpose;'
2. 'if describing /fflcis which really took place, describing them only
for the purpose of representing certain higher truths or principles
than ¦ the narrative, in its literal aspect, whether real or fictitious,
could possibly have taught.' This second sense, though less usual,
corresponds more nearly to the application of St. Paul.
Note 8, page 120. Dr. R. WiUiams refers us for ' the origin of
St. PaiU's parable of Hagar' to PhUo {Rational Godliness, p. 167,
note) ; and Mr. Jowett calls it ' neither an argument nor an iUus
tration, but an interpretation of the O. T. Scripture after
the manner of tlie age in which St. Paul lived ; that is, after the
manner of the Jewish and Christian Alexandrian -writers, [in loe).
A writer ' On Kabbalism' in the Christian Remembrancer for April,
1862, p. 358, note, says that it is ' probably an argumentum ad
hominem of irresistible force against the Judaism of his day.' Of
recent commentaries, which appear to me to give a much deeper and
truer meaning, I would especiaUy refer to that of Bishop EUicott.
On the representative character of Abraham and his household, see
Olshausen, in loe, and the passage of Calvin quoted by Dean Alford.

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 325
Noted, page 124. The general law, however, that 'the elder
shaU serve the yoimger ' (Gen. xxv. 23 ; Rom. ix. 12), has an extra
ordinary appUcation through the history ofthe older Church. Setli
was younger than Cain ; Shem than Japhet (cf Gen. x. 21 ; Lee,
p. 532) ; Abraham than his brethren (^see Comm. on Acts vii. 4);
Isaac than Ishmael ; Jacob than Esau ; Judah than Reuben ;
Ephraim than Manasseh ; Moses than Aaron ; Samuel than the sons
of Peninnah ; David than Eliab, &c. Compare also, Abel younger than
Cain ; Joseph younger than his brethren ; Solomon yoimger than
Adonijah (1 Kings ii. 22). Gideon's family was poor in Manasseh,
and he the least in his father's house (Judges vi. 15). Saul was
' a Benjamite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel ;' and his famUy
' the least of aU the families of the tribe of Benjamin' (1 Sam. ix. 21).
See Macaulay's remark on this, H. E., i. 72. The Jewish history
' would rather seem to indicate that younger brothers are under the
especial protection of heaven. Isaac was not the eldest son of
Abraham, nor Jacob of Isaac, nor Judah of Jacob, nor David of
Jesse, nor Solomon of David.' Compare Jowett on Rom. ix. 10 ;
and the Plain Commentary on Matt. xi. 12 and Luke xv. 32.
Against what is said on the same page, 124, that the Law was ' no
bondage ' to the ancient worthies, it might be objected that St. Peter
calls it so ; Acts xv. 10. For an answer, see Neander, Planting, &c.,
i. 117 : ' By " a yoke" St. Peter certainly did not mean the outward
observance of ceremonies simply as such, . . . but he meant the
outward observance of the Law as far as it proceeded from its internal
dominion over the conscience, so as to make justification and salva
tion dependent upon it.' See above, Lecture IIL, Note 15.
Note 10, page 129. ' The occurrence of a commandment to keep
the Sabbath, in a table generally moral, implies that there is amoral
element in that commandment.' . . . ' The Sabbath, as it appears
in the Fourth Commandment, was a development of such moral
element in a manner suited to a particular people, anti being thus
rendered political and ceremonial, does not, in that form, come
under the precepts that are caUed moral.' — Hessey, B. L., pp. 23-4 ;
cf p. 209 : ' The apostles . . . carried out the moral part of
the Fourth Commandment, which demands a periodic devotion of
time to God's service, and inculcates, by the mysterious example of
the Almighty Himself, the alternation of rest with labour.' Compare
above. Lecture IL, Note 11 ; and Lecture V., p. 164. Also, Dr.
Moberly, Law of the Love of God, p. 191 : ' if God surrounded a

326 NOTES TO LECTURE IV.
law with temporary characteristics, such as those which invested the
law of the Sabbath under the Mosaic dispensation, these same
characteristics, when ceasing to form part of the law, must continue
to form a commentary upon the law, and an illustration of its meaning
and intent.'
In Uke manner, the law of circumcision, as it stood, conveyed no
obligation to the GentUe ; but it retamed its value, as at once a
record and a moral rule. It was a record of the forms through
which God's older covenant had been sealed. It was a rule which
embodied in the strictest shape the law of the circumcision of the
heart. It ceased to be obUgatory, because the time was come to
which St. Paul taught that the O. T. itself had pointed, when the
free admission of the Gentile would cancel the old ritual of the Jew.
But what it lost in obUgation it more than recovered in vitaUty.
It rose into fresh dignity in the nobler system, when its earlier
bearing was more distinctly realised ; and we might almost say that
it had never seemed so full of vitaUty, as at the very moment when
it ceased to be obeyed.
Note 11, page 130. The difficulty is well put by Dr. Amold,
Two Sermons on the Interpretation of Prophecy, in Sermons, vol. i.
pp. 367, 388. But indeed it has long claimed and received great
attention ; in such older works as the B//3Xoe KaraXXayjje of Suren-
husius (1713); in such recent pubUcations as Gough's New Testa
ment Quotations collated ivith tlie Scriptures of the Old Testament
(1855); in the lists of Dr. Davidson, ed. of Home's Introduction,
ii. pp. 113-74, and Mr. Ayre, the editor of a different represen
tative of the same volume, pp. 113-78; and in such treatises as
Chapter V. in MichaeUs's Introd. to N.T., i. 200-46, ed. Marsh;
Appendix A. to Mr. Westcott's Introd., &c. ; and Mr. Jowett's
Essay ' On the Quotations from the Old Testament in the New,'
St. Paul's Epistles, i. 353-62, 1st ed. Cf Lee, I. l, p. 334, sqq.
The separate passages are also discussed, and in most cases with
sufficient fiilness, in the Commentaries of EUicott, Alford, Words
worth, and others. On the extent to which these quotations were
anticipated by the Jews, and wherein the usages differ, see Lyall,
Propced. Proph., pp. 184, 191, 193, &c., 301.
The position of the LXX has been thought to add considerably
to the difficulty. But if it be granted that the N. T. -writers were
aUowed to use the language which most naturally occurred to thera,
there is no reason for surprise when we find that, in ordinary cases.

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 327
they were permitted to quote the Holy Scriptures also in the terms
with which both they and their hearers were most familiar ; nor is
this concession in any way inconsistent 'with the belief, that whenever
they were deaUng with the inner mind of Scripture, they were guided
by the Holy Spirit to unfold the deeper meaning of the -words to
which they appealed. Their method, I need scarcely add, is de
fended by the example of our Lord.
Note 12, page 131. The same watchful superintendence wiU
account for many peculiarities of verbal expression. So Bengel of
the Apostles : ' Apostoli interdum tetigere mysteria, quorum decla-
ratio plenior postmodum per ipsos erat exitura : et iis tantisper
tetigere verbis, quse et sermoni V. T. et prsesenti ipsorum, vero, sed
nondum plena sensui, et intentioni divinae per eos ulterius se decla-
raturse mirabiUter congruerent. Hoc loco [Act. ii. 39] Spiritus S.
per Petrum ea locutus est, de gentibus cito, magno numero, citra cir-
cumcisionem adsciscendis, quse Petrus ipse postea non illico percepit ;
et tamen cum Esaia congruebant ; et verba etiam hsec apta sunt
sensui UU, quem postea cepit. Omnia Scripturse verba scientissimi
sunt electa.' Similarly Dean Trench, Star of the Wise Men, p. 88,
says that such analogies as Matt. U. 15, ' ground themselves in the
intentions ef God, and are not merely traced by the ingenuity of
man : we must beUeve that it belonged to His eternal purpose that
the earUer should in manifold ways prefigure the later ; and that
among the other witnesses for a Divine intention running through
the whole history of Israel, He was graciously wiUing that this
should not be wanting.' On Gal. iii. 8, 9, Mr. Jowett comments :
' as in 1 Cor. ix. 8, 9, 10, a providential intention is attributed to
the words ofthe O. T.' On the remarkable instance of Gal. iii. 16,
see the notes of Grotius, BengeUus, and EUicott. On Hebr. v. 6, &c.,
see Birks, The Bible and Modern Thought, p. 272.
Note 13, page 133. The limitation to Scripture authority is put
in its most stringent form by Bishop Marsh, who rests his recogni
tion of a secondary sense on -no other ground ; above, Note 1.
' Since in every instance, where a passage of the Old Testament has
a secondary sense, the existence of that secondary sense depends
entirely on the Di-vine authority, which has ascribed it to the
passage, we must wholly confine the appUcation of a secondary sense
to those particular passages to which a secondary sense has been
ascribed by Divine authority.' — L. I., p. 457 ; cf p. 374. Against
this, see Fairbairn, Typology, i. 37-43, 2nd ed. Compare Mid-

328 NOTES TO LECTURE IV.
dleton. Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 407 : ' It is not for un
authorised applications that I contend ; it is only for those which
have been made by Christ or His apostles' And Olshausen, on
Gal. iv. 26 : ' Our time, therefore, as not being favoured -with so
intense an operation of the Spirit, cannot proceed independently in
the adoption of types, but must adhere to those .expressed and sanc
tioned in the Scriptures.' Dean Alford condemns Macknight's mode
of stating the limitation as a ' shaUow and indolent dictum.' — On
Gal. iv. 24.
The defence of secondary appUcations reaUy rests, as we have
seen (above. Note 1), on both a principle and a fact ; the principle
of the Divine authorship, the fact of the interpretations given in the
New Testament. Now it is not reasonable to aUege, that the prin
ciple is entirely exhausted in the instances by which the fact of its
use is established.
Note 14, page 133. See the lists of instances in Neale, On the
Psalms, i. 379, and EUicott, Aids to Faith, p. 450. Compare
Mr. Medd's University Sermon, On the Christian Meaning of the
Psalms, p. 12 ; Conybeare, I. I., p. 314 (of Joseph and Joshua) ;
Lyall, Propced. Proph., p. 194 (of Isaiah ix. 6), &c. But in some
of these cases, the entire absence of Scriptural authority may be
doubtful : e. g. on Egypt (which is urged by Bishop EUicott), see
Matt. U. 15; Luke ix. 31; and cf Arnold, I.L, and Stanley,
Jewish Ch., p. 127 : on Isaac, see Heb. xi. 19, and cf. Bauer's Glass.,
1. 1., iii. 20, and Pearson, On the Creed, pp. 251, 297 : on Joseph, see
Gen. xUx. 24, and Fairbairn, I. I., 40, note : on Samson, see Judges,
xiii. 5 ; Matt. ii. 23, and Glassius and Fairbairn as above. Dr. Fair
bairn adds, of the instances of Joseph and Samsson, ' Scriptural
warrants of such a kind are out of date now — they can no longer be
regsu-ded as current coin.' For his ' specific principles and direc
tions,' see ib., p. 137, sqq.
Note 15, page 134. ' Et ita etiam nuUa confusio sequitur in
SacrS, Scriptura, cum omnes sensus ftmdentur super unum, sciUcet
litteralem, ex quo solo potest trahi argumentum, non autem ex iis
quse secundum aUegoriam dicuntur, ut dicit Augustinus. Non
tamen ex hoc aliquid deperit Sacras Scripturaj, quia nihil sub
spirituali sensu continetur fidei necessarium, quod Scriptura per
litteralem sensum aUcubi manifest^ non tradat.' — S. Thom. Aq.,
I™" Qu. i. Art. X. Compare Trench, Parables, p. 38 ; Van Mildert,
I. l, pp. 233, 251, 395.

NOTES TO LECTURE IV. 329
On the duty of presen'ing intact the prior rights of the Uteral
meaning, cf S. Thom. Aq., I™* Qu. cii. Art. i. : 'In omnibus
autem quse sic Scriptura tradit, est pro fundamento tenenda Veritas
historise, et desuper spirituales expositiones fabricanda3.' So con
stantly St. Augustine : see the reff. in Trench, pp. 52, 56, 63.
' The Scriptures have infinite mysteries, not violating at all the
truth of the story or letter.' — Bacon, Works, Ui. 297. So also
p. 487 (as quoted above. Note 1) : ' the Uteral sense is, as it were,
the main stream or river.' Cf. Arnold, I. I., p. 397 ; WUUams,
Beginning ofthe Book of Genesis, pp. 74, 138, &c.
Note 16, page 134. On the rules of Tychonius and St. Augustine,
see RosenmiiUer, Hist. Interpr,, iu. 407 ; and for other summaries
of maxims, see Van Mildert, I. I., pp. 251, 395 ; Fairbairn, I. I.,
Book I. ch. V. ; EUicott, Aids to Faith, p. 445 ; Jenkins, Scriptural
Interpretation, p. 20, &c.
Note 17, page 135. See Pearson, On the Creed, notes, p. 162,
ed. Oxon., 1843; Tract 89, p. 17, sqq.; and Dr. Maitland's
criticism, reprinted and enlarged in his Eight Essays, 1852, No. 1.
Note 18, page 135. See, for instance, Alford's Note on John
u. 19, and St. Augustine on John v. 25-9, in Trench, On St. Aug.,
p. 81. See also S. Aug., Enchiridion de Fide, Spe, et Caritate,
ch. Ui. UU. ; Opp., Yi. 215-6, where, commenting on Rom. vi. 2-11,
he says : ' Quidquid igitur gestum est in cruce Christi, in sepulturS,,
in resurrectione tertio die, in adscensione in coelum, in sede ad
dexteram Patris ; ita gestum est, ut his rebus non mysticfe tantum
dictis, sed etiam gestis, configuraretur -nta Christiana qu» hie geritur.'
Bishop EUicott (p. 452) puts the N. T. passages as ' probably under
ten,' and even of these he thinks some 'debateable.' ' Historico-
prophetical (parables) are only a few.' — Trench, Parables, p. 46 ;
cf p. 143. On the Good Samaritan, ib., p. 318. In a more
general sense, however, 'there is scarcely a fact announced but
some great moral truth beams out from beneath it, and Ughts it
up with a deeper significance.' — Birks, I. I., p. 59 ; cf p. 161 : ' the
miracles of our Lord, with scarcely an exception, are parables also.'
' The narratives of the Gospel are parables as weU as histories.' 
Dr. Vaughan, Sermon at St. Peter's School, York, p. 6.

330

LECTURE V.
Note 1, page 141. The words are those of Dr. Tregelles. They
have not unnaturally attracted considerable attention. See Donald-.
son's Christian Orthodoxy, p. 123 ; Tischendorf, Pref. to N. T.,
1849, p. lv. ; Davidson, Facts, Statements, and Explanations, 1857,
p. 14; Bishop EUicott, 'm Aids to Faith, p. 435; Mr. F. Stephen,
Defence of Dr. Williams, p. 52, &c. For the next sentence, see a
quotation in Dr. Lee's Preface to the second ed. of Inspiration, &c.,
p. vU. See also below. Note 4.
Note 2, page 141. The remark is constantly suggested by the
history of the doctrine of inspiration since the time of the Reformers ;
see, e.g., Mr. Westcott, Introd. to Study of Gospels, p. 5; and it
receives some iUustration from the differences pointed out by Mr,
F. Stephen, in his Defence of Dr. Williams, between the Fomularies
of the EngUsh Church and those of other reformed Communions.
For a systematic attempt to trace the pedigree of the Dictation
theory, see Christian Remembrancer for Jan. 1863, p. 54, &c.
Note 3, page 142. This expression of Paley is adopted by
Lyall, Propcedia Prophetica, p. 114; WUUams, Lampeter Theology,
pp. 43, 85 ; Stephen, Defence of Williams, p. 143 ; Dean MUman,
History of tlie Jews, new ed., Pref, p. vi. ; Maurice, Claims of the
Bible and of Science, p. 163 ; and it evidently colours the language
of Professor Jowett, E. and R., pp. 349, 350, 403. For what
may be said to limit or explain it, see Mr. Birks's ed. of Paley's
Evidences, Supplement F, p. 402.
Note 4, page 142. Paley goes on to urge (p. 414) that it is 'an
unwarrantable as weU as unsafe rule to lay down concerning the
Jewish history, what was never laid down concerning any other,
that either every particular of it must be true, or the whole false.'
Formerly, ' any doubt about the inspiration of facts would have
been a startling innovation ; the whole fabric, as then constructed,
would have tottered had a single stone, however smaU, been removed.'
— Pusey, Theology of Germany, ii. 59. ' The supposition that a single

NOTES TO LECTURE V. 331
word occurred in Scripture which was not divinely suggested and
inspired was thought to overthrow the Apostle's assertion of the
inspiration of all Scripture.' — Ih., p. 72. ' "Where am I to stop?
If I pull out one brick," as a young man once said to me, " from
the edifice of my faith, aU falls." WeU, as long as you are in
this frame of mind, you are not fit to judge calmly or wisely.' —
Magee, Scepticism, p. 22. ' All the books of the Bible must stand
or faU together. . . . But remove in thought a single stone, and in
thought that goodly work of lawgivers and judges, kings and
prophets, evangelists and Apostles, coUapses into a shapeless and
unmeaning ruin.' — Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 112.
' Each page of (the O. T.) is committed to the credit of the rest,
and the whole book, or collection of books, is committed to the
credit of each page. . . . The volume stands or faUs, then, together.
. . . K a verse stands, the 0. T. stands.' — Eden, ib., p. 268. 'It
will not allow us to insist on any theory as supplying the principle
of cohesion to Holy Scripture, as if the whole would break into
fragments, like a Rupert's drop, were the minutest portion dis
placed.' — Chretien, Letter and Spirit, p. 75. (It is alleged that)
'if one assertion in those books be doubted, the whole cause of
God and of Christ is in danger ; ' ' if one Unk is unsound, the
chain breaks.' — Davies in Tracts for Priests and People, xi.
pp. 30-2. Compare the controversy between the Bishop of Man
chester and the Bishop of Natal ; Guardian newspaper, April 1,
1863, p. 302 ; Colenso, On the Pentateuch, Preface to Part IIL,
p. xxviii. ; Maurice, Claims ofthe Bible and of Science, p. 138.
My attention has been called to a striking passage in an address
on the Atonement, by one of the writers cited above, Dr. Magee,
Radley Sermons, &c., 1861, p. 49 : ' Rash speculations and un
warrantable dogmatism grow round every truth in process of time,
just as suburbs grow round a fortress in long years of peace. But
all such outlying buildings only endanger the citadel by giving
shelter to the foe ; and he is the wisest defender of the citadel of
truth who, with most unsparing hand, puUs down the long suburbs
of opinion which alike conceal its proportions and imperil its safety.'
Note 5, page 143. ' To make use -of such an argument is, indeed,
to bring the Sacred Ark itself into the battle-field, and to make
belief in Christianity itself depend entirely upon the question,
whether Moses -wrote the Pentateuch or not.' — Colenso, Part. I.,
p. xxx. ' Whatever intermixture (the Bible) may show of human

332 NOTES TO LECTURE V.
elements, of error, infirmity, passion, and ignorance,' &c. — lb.,
p. 13. 'The dark patches of human passion and error,' &c.,
E. and R., p. 177. ' The great truth of the unity of God was
there from the first ; slowly as the morning broke in the heavens,
like some central light, it filled and afterwards dispersed the mists
of human passion in which it was itself enveloped.' — lb., p. 385.
' It may have pleased God that the vehicle of His revelation to man
should not be absolutely pm-e, and free from the stains and in
accuracies which appear to be necessary to everything else which
is in any way mixed up with human nature.' — Stephen, Defence of
Williams, p. 21.
Note 6, page 143. Amongst recent definitions of inspiration in
the strictest sense, besides that of Dr. TregeUes (above. Note 1),
Mr. Burgon's, Inspiration, &c., p. 89, seems to have been the most
commonly quoted ; as by Colenso, Part I. p. 6 ; Part II. p. ix. ;
Dr. Stanley, The Bible, &c., p. 35, note ; Dr. Northcote, On the
Colenso Controversy, p. 39 ; and others. It is this, apparently.
which a writer in the Christian Remembrancer for Jan. 1863,
p. 243, caUs ' a most extreme and entirely indefensible theory of
inspiration.' Of older definitions, one of the best known is that of
the Formula Consensus Helvetica, 1675 ; Niemeyer, Collectio
Confessionum, p. 731 (by Heidegger, ib., p. Ixxxi.). See, e.g., Lee,
Inspiration, p. 447, note ; ThirlwaU, Answer to Williams, p. 39 ;
Stephen, I. I., pp. 124, 182; Heard, New Wine, &c., p. 74;
EUicott, Pref. to Galatians, p. viii. ; Stanley, Bible, &c., p. v., &c.
On the histoi-y of the controversy about the Hebrew vowel-points
which gave rise to it, see Pusey, Theology of Germany, i. 141 ;
U. 71 ; Farrar, B. L., p. 158, note; MoreU, Philosophy of Religion,
p. 188; Tholuck, On Inspiration, Journal of S. L., July 1863,
p. 361.
On the word Dynamical, which has been much used lately, see
MoreU, Philosophy of Religion, p. 151 ; Westcott, Introduction to the
Study of the Gospels, p. 13; and especially Lee, On Inspiration,
p. 25.
Note 7, page 144. See Bentley's Remarks upon a late Discourse
of Free- Thinking, in Works, iii.3i7-3Gl, ed. Dyce; a passage which
on that topic has since formed the storehouse of argument. See
e.g., Kennicott, First Dissertation, 1753, p. 563; TregeUes, On the
Printed Text of the Greek Testament, pp. 49-57 ; Scrivener's Intro
duction to the Criticism of the New Testament, p. 7. Compare Dr.

NOTES TO LECTURE V. 333
Stanley, The Bible, &c. p. 31 : ' The various readings which in the
Koran were suppressed once for aU by the Caliph Othman have
broken out freely by thousands and thousands over the whole face
of the Christian Scriptiu-es — the stumbling-blocks here and there of
faithless disciples, but the delight of Christian scholarsliip, the safe
guards of Christian doctrine, the reUcs of Christian antiquity.'
Note 8, page 145. Compare the oaa ipvripovevaev of John the
Presbyter in Papias, Ap. Euseb., H. E., iU. 39, on which see West
cott, Canon of N. T., p. 80 ; Introd., &c., p. 168; and cf Lee, pp.
27, 324, &c. Fer a general view of recent Literature on the Origin
of the Gospels, see Lee, Appendix 0, pp. 562-5 ; Westcott, Introd.,
ch. iii., especiaUy pp. 182-7 ; and compare Mr. Smith of JordanhiU,
Dissertation on the Origin and Connection of the Gospels, 1853, and
a paper by the same author in the Journal of Sacred Literature for
AprU 1855, pp. 135-56.
Note 9, page 146. ' From one of these (Public Registers) doth
Matthew fetch the latter end of his genealogy, and Luke fi-om another
the beginning of his, having theu the Civil Records to avouch for
them,' &c. — Lightfoot, Works, i. 416. ' It is therefore easy to
guess whence Matthew and Luke,' &c., ' namely, from the genealo
gical scrolls at that time weU enough kno-wn, and laid up in the
public KeipriXia, repositories, and in the private also.' — lb., U. 96.
See Surenhusius's elaborate Dis.sertation, in xxxv. Theses, De Modis
explicandi Genealogias, with the Conciliationes de Geneal. J. C.
which foUow; BifiXog KaraXX. pp. 89, 113. Cf Schoettgen., Horw
Hebr., i. 2; MUl, Pantheistic Principles, ii. 110-23. Lord A.
Hervey, On the Genealogies of our Lord, p. 69. See especiaUy Dr.
MiU's Remarks on p. 119: St. Matthew 'must be considered as
using a Uberty of abridgment weU known to' his original readers,
' and only inviting, as quite sufficient for his own purpose, attention
to the names he retains. Should it be said that abridgments of this
nature, however ju.stifiable in ordinary writers from the lax mode of
criticism characterising their nation or age, are not to be endured in one
laying claim to inspiration, we answer — 1. That such a censure
assumes a kind of a priori acquaintance with what should be ex
pected in a revelation, which we cannot either claim for ourselves
or aUow to be claimed by others. 2. That supposing the apparent
fact to be no more than this, that the inspiration which enabled a
few men of GalUee to regenerate the world, left them under the
influence of their national habits in matters of this nature, we ought

334 NOTES TO LECTURE V.
to be satisfied with that fact, without questioning the reasonableness
of the dispensation. 3. That we do not, however, pronounce a thing
indifferent, or done without reason, merely because we may be
unable to point out the causes of it : being fully persuaded that there
is nothing in revelation, as in nature, without its proper and
adequate reason.'
Note 10, page 146. This is another instance in which Spinoza
caUed attention to the facts on which a one-sided line of argument
has more recently been based. — Tract. Theol. Pol., ch. viii. p. 125,
sqq. The facts, so far as they are con-ectly stated, must be ad
mitted and accounted for, though we judge the inferences to be
altogether erroneous. The Scripture writers ' refer to other documents,
and in all points express themselves as sober minded and veracious
writers under ordinary circumstances are kno'wn to do.' — Coleridge,
Confessions, &c. p. 16. ' They are authors, or compilers, or ar
rangers ; quoters of other books, stringers together of sweet songs by
many hands.' — Chretien, Letter and Spirit, p. 64 : cf. p. 11 1. How
much this admission really amounts to, is the point which I have
endeavoured to state in the text. — For a list of the references in
the Old Testament, see Dr. Lee's Appendix D, pp. 464-72, on
The 'Lost' Books of the Old Testament. The instances, so far
as they faU within his range, are discussed by Dr. Stanley in his
Lectures on the Jewish Church; e. g., pp. xxxiv. 43, 185, 211,
241, 421, 431, 434, 444-5; also in 'The Songs of Israel,' an
article contributed by him to Good Words for Febr. 1863, p. 121.
(On ' The Song of the Bow,' and the Book of Jasher, see Ch. I. in
the Works of Mr. John Gregory, 4th ed. 1684.)
Note 11, page 146. 'Two very considerable writers, Sir John
Marsham and Dr. Spencer, . . . have not only called in question
the prevailing opinion of the ancient apologists [see above. Lecture
II. Note 3], but they have run directly counter to it, pretending
that the Pagans did not borrow fi'om the Jews, but that the Jews
rather copied after the Egyptians or other Pagans in such instances
as both agree in ; a strange way of turning the tables, confounding
history, and inverting the real order of things.' — Waterland, Works,
V. 14. He goes on to urge that the real solution in cases of
parallels between Hebrews and Pagans may rather be, that ' both
had borrowed from the same common fountain of patriarchal tra
dition.' — lb., p. 20; see above. Lecture II. Note 2. See Michaelis,
Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, Art. iii. : ' The Laws of Moses

NOTES TO LECTURE V. 335
confirm, amend, or annul, a more ancient Jus consuetudinarium.'
The point is worked out in Mr. Morris's Essay towards the Con
version of Hindus, pp. 23, 27, 98 : ' Even supposing the whole
amount of Moses' writings to have existed in tradition antecedently
to their existence in ¦writing (a supposition which I by no means
contend for), still there would be room enough for inspiration to
guide him in selection, juxtaposition, order, language, and many
other points. But I merely assert thus much, that there existed
a patriarchal tradition, from which Moses in part drew.' ' Circum
cision, for instance, was of the Fathers ; abstaining from the sinew
which shrank, was ¦ of the Fathers ; the distinction between clean
and unclean animals, was of the Fathers ; as were the sacrifices of
certain animals, the washing of clothes before sacrifice, the anointing
of things in order to consecration, the marriage of brothers' -widows,
the rite relating to it, and other things.' See also above. Lecture III.
Note 15.
Note 12, page 148. Bentley put this point with his usual -vigour
{Works, iii. 360) ; and the Provost of Oriel has lately called attention
to the concurrent testimony of Kennicott and Griesbach. — Sermon on
Liberty of Private Judgment, 1863, p. 41. Dr, TregeUes remarks
that if criticism ' takes away, on the one hand, readings which were
thought to have some dogmatic value, it wiU give on the other quite
as much.' — Printed Text of N. T., p. 234. Bishop EUicott thinks
it necessary, indeed, to guard us against the opposite error, that of
supposing that ' as readings affect no great points of doctrine, the
siibject may be left in abeyance.' 'It is indisputably a fact that but
few pages of the New Testament can be turned over without our
finding points of the greatest interest affected by very trivial
variations of reading.' — Aids to Faith, p. 421. The assertion is not
that the controversy has never turned on texts of profound doctrinal
significance or historical interest, but that no debates on isolated
texts have shaken doctrines which rest rather on continuous trains
of argument.
Note 13, page 148. Pearson's remarks on Acts viii. 37, though
not bearing on the critical question, iUnstrate what is here said on the
possibiUty that such passages were the germs of creeds. It is in the
baptismal profession that he finds ' the first occasion, rise, and original
of the creed itself.' — On the Creed, p. 43. Cf. Bingham, Antiq., X.
iii. § 6. Mr. Scrivener says, ' we cannot question the spuriousness
of this verse, which seems to have been received from the margin.

336 NOTES TO LECTURE V.
where the formula niarevot, k.t.X., had been placed, extracted from
some Church Ordinal.' — Introd., p. 443. With respect to 1 John v. 7,
Mr. Scrivener concludes : ' nor is there much reason to doubt
the testimony of Victor Vitensis, who records that the passage was
insisted on in a confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius, bishop
of Carthage, at the end of the fifth century, and presented to the
Arian Hunneric, king of the Vandals. From that time the clause
became well known in other regions of the West, and was in time
generally accepted throughout the Latin Church.' — lb., p. 460. He
thinks that it was known to Cyprian (p. 461), to whom, indeed, or
to Tertullian, its authorship has been sometimes ascribed. Compare
Bentley, as quoted by Wordsworth, in loe. ; and Person, Letters to
Travis, p. 400 ; Davidson, Bibl. Crit., ii. 414.
Note 14, page 149. Nil mutetur e conjecturd. Cf Marsh, Lectures,
p. 27; Scrivener, Introd., p. 369 ; Davidson, I.L, p. 371. A tempting
instance to the contrary is pointed out by Lord A. Plervey in 1 Chron,
iii. 22, where the obliteration ofa few words, -which have every ap
pearance of a gloss intruded from the margin, is Uke striking off a
fetter which has dra'wn aside and distorted the whole framework of the
pedigree, and permitting it to spring back to an intelligible order. —
On the Genealogies of Our Lord, p. 107. It is part of his argument
to exclude Rhesa, in Luke iii. 27, as ' the title of Zerubbabel
mistaken for ' a 'proper name.' — lb., p. 112. Kennicott quotes with
approbation Walton's remark, ' that the corruptions which are found
in the historical books of the Old Testament appear chiefly (and,
indeed, it is natural to expect they should appear chiefly) in the
several numbers and prvper names.' — First Dissertation, p. 12. The
subject of numbers has been brought into fresh prominence by
Bishop Colenso's arguments. The remark would suggest itself to
many readers of his Part I. that the discrepancies rest ' for the
most part on the basis of a single fundamental number, and (are)
capable, to that extent at least, of reconcUiation, on the supposition
of a single clerical error in a department peculiarly Uable to mistake.'
— Dr. Vaughan, The Book and the Life, p. 106 ; contra, Colenso,
Part H. p. 167. The question has since then received a very
general discussion (e.g. National Review, Jan. 1863, p. 9 ; North
British Review, Jan. 1863, p. 65) ; the most vigorous arguments to
prove inaccuracy on the side of exaggeration being those of Dean
Milman, History of the Jews, 1863, Pref. p. xxx.; and i. 189, note.
For Laborde and Kennicott, cf Stanley, Jewish Church, pp. 122,

NOTES TO LECTURE V. 337
380, 521. But Ewald and Bunsen ' accept these numbers without
hesitation.' And ' A Layman ' confi-onts the proposed reduction
with the unquaUfied principle, ' All mere suppositious emendations
should be rejected unhesitatingly by every one who desires to treat
the Scriptures with fairness and impartiality.' — The Historic Cha
racter of the Pentateuch Vindicated, p. 15, note. Compare, however,
the note on p, 172 : ' Some of these large numbers may very
probably have arisen from errors of transcription. There are several
instances of discrepancies between the books of Chronicles, and
Samuel and Kings, which have doubtless originated in this way . . .
But this cannot well account for all.' What is proposed by ' supposi
tious emendations' but to remove apparent ' errors of transcription? '
Theu' admissibility seems to be reduced in this later note to a question
of degrees of probabUity ; and no one can doubt that this element
must always be taken into most careful consideration.
Note lb, page 150. ' The usual character of human testimony is
substantial truth under circumstantial variety.' — Paley, Evidences,
Part in. ch. i. On the aUeged discrepancies in the Gospels, see
Dr. Lee's Eighth Lecture, pp. 384-398 ; Westcott's Introduction to
the Study ofthe Gospels, p. 367 ; and the mass of materials collected
in the controversy on Essays and Reviews, e. g., in Mr. Birks's
Bible and Modern Thought, pp. 289-306, and by Dr. Wordsworth,
Mr. Burgon, and many others.
Note 16, page 151, Dr. Stanley's Lectures on the Jewish Church
are fiiU of iUustrations, many of which, however, stiU require further
discussion : see pp. xxxviii-xl. 66, 144, 185, 345, 353, 372, 434,
and the references in the next note.
Note 17, page 151. Lightfoot {Works, ii, 669) had suggested
that St. Stephen was possibly referring to a transaction which could
be connected -with Gen. xii. 6 : ' If the word pvfipan did not lay
some obstacle in the way, I should easily conceive that Stephen had
his eye as intent (if not more) upon this place as upon the Cave of
Macpelah,' &c. Dr. Wordsworth has worked out the same expla
nation in detail {Comm. in loe.) : ' It has never been shown, nor
ever can be, that Abraham did not purchase a plot of ground at
Sichem, where Joseph and the Patriarchs were buried. Indeed
(independently of St, Stephen's assertion), it is highly probable that
he did,' So also Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 264.
Dr. Stanley seems to accept the solution, but with some misgivings.
At one time he says : * In and around Shechem arose the first
Z

338 NOTES TO LECTURE V.
national burial place, a counterpoise to the patriarchal sepulchres at
Hebron. Joseph's tomb was ah-eady fixed ; its reputed site is
visible to this day. A tradition {ref. Acts vii. 15, 16) current at the
time of the Christian era ascribed the purchase of this tomb to
Abraham, and included within it,' &c. — Jewish Church, p. 278. So
on p. 70 he gives some countenance to one of Dr. Wordsworth's argu
ments, by saying that the expressions used in Gen. xlviii. 22, 'rather
point to incidents ofthe original settlement not preserved in the regular
narrative.' On pp. 105-7 he gives a general recognition to the fact
that St. Stephen had the command of such traditions ; but, on the
other hand, on p. 485, he caUs it ' a singular variation,' and on
p. 498, a ' perplexing addition' (so in Sermons in the East, pp. 143,
157) ; and he makes no attempt, I think, to work it into the history
of Abraham at Shechem, either in Jewish Chui-ch, p. 29, or Sinai,
&c., p. 235. See also his note in The Bible, &c., p. 35.
Note 18, page 151. If we put together the two passages in which
St. Luke records any reference to a census (Luke ii. 2 ; Acts v. 37),
it wiU appear that the simplest translation of the first passage is also
that which gives the most appropriate meaning : ' this enrolment
was the first which was made when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria.'
The other census is plainly that which was conducted by Quirinius
some years later, viz. in a.d. 6, after the banishment of Archelaus. —
Josephus, Antiq., xviU. 1. Ofthe first there is no other record ; but
we are protected fi-om the suggestion that St. Luke has erroneously
transferred the later census to the earUer date, by the fact that he
shows his knowledge of the later census in the Acts, while the Trpiirj;
seems to have been inserted for the express purpose of distinguish
ing the one from the other. (Cf Winer, RWB., s. v. Quirinius;
Westcott, Introd. to Study of Gospels, p. 370, note ; Browne, Ordo
Saiclorum, p. 47 : ' This Census was Quirinius's first, not to be con
founded with that which, as every one is aware, took place at a later
period under the same person.' See also Euseb., H. E. i. 5, p. 15 :
ETTi Trjg Tore TrpuiTrjg dwoypaipfig, riyepovevovrog Kupijvi'ow Trjg Svpiag.)
The only question therefore is, whether we can find corroborative
evidence that Quirinius held command in Syria near to the time of
our Saviour's birth ; i. e., in B.C. 4, as well as a.d. 6. If so, the
passage ceases to be the difficulty which Strauss and many others
have urged so strongly, and, like the parallel case of the title given
to Sergius Paulus (Conybeare and Howson, i. 156), becomes a proof
of the exactness of the sacred writer's knowledge.

NOTES TO LECTURE V. 339
Such evidence is furnished in A. W. Zumpt's enquiry into the
Roman governors of Syria from Augustus to Vespasian, in his
Commentationes Epigraphicce, ii. 87-104, Berol. 1854. In connec
tion with the weU-known passage in Tacitus {Ann. iii. 48), he shows
that Cilicia, when detached from Cyprus by Augustus, B.C. 22, must
have been connected with some other government; that none -was so
likely for this purpose as Syria ; and that a break occurs precisely
at the necessary crisis in the Syrian Ust. After giving a number
of converging details, he concludes : ' Qua; cum ita .sint, P.
Sulpicium Quirinium eo tempore, quo Homonadensium casteUa
per Ciliciam expugnavit, certum est fldsse legatum Augusti pro
prastore Syrise.' — P. 98. The series, so far as we require it, stands
as foUows (p. 149) : —
P. QuinctUius Varus . . .
P. Sulpicius Quirinius .
M. LoUius 
C. Marcius Censorinus ,
L. Volusius Saturninus . ,
P. Sulpicius Quirinius .
Q. CajcUius Creticus Silanus
It is true that the succession of Quiiinius to Varus must faU a little
later than the Nativity, because it was after the death of Herod
(pp. 87, 104); but if it is brought within so near a limit, there is
no difficulty in supposing that his name might be given to an
' enumeration begun or appointed under his predecessor Varus, and
before the death of Herod,' but ' completed after that event under
Quirinius ; ' which is the form in which Zumpt's conclusion is
accepted by Mr. Merivale. — H. R. E., iv. 457, note.
For the older discussions, see Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel
History, Part I., B. II. i, ; Works, i. 248-329 ; GresweU, Disserta
tions on the Harmony, Diss. XIV, i. 466-549 ; Davidson, in Home's
Introd., ii. 554.
A different series is represented by Mr. Browne, Ordo Sceclorum,
pp. 40-9, and Patritius, De EvangelHs, Lib. IH. Diss. xvui. But
the two inscriptions cited by those writers are set aside by Zumpt,
the one as 'fraus turpis,' p. 107; the other as relating to Saturninus,
p. 125. Zumpt's own arguments are summed up by Davidson, I. I.,
p. 1059 ; Dr. Wordsworth, in loe. ; Dean Alford, in Smith's Dic
tionary of the Bible, s. v, ; and Lee, Inspiration, &c., pp. 578-81.
z2

from B.C.

6

JJ

4

>j

1

in a.d.

3

from A.D.

4

JJ

6

JJ

11

340 NOTES TO LECTURE V.
There is also a pamphlet by Johannes von Gumpach on the subject,
pubUshed early in the present year, but making no reference to
Zumpt's enquiries.
Note 19, page 152. ' The third thing which Ezra did about the
Holy Scriptures in his edition of them was, he added in several
places throughout the books of this edition what appeared necessary
for the Ulustrating, connecting, or completing of them ; wherein he
was assisted by the same Spirit by which they were at first wrote :
of this sort we may reckon the last chapter of Deuteronomy,' &c.
' And such also may we reckon the several interpolations which
occur in many places of the Holy Scriptures; for that there are
such interpolations is undeniable,' &c. — Prideaux, Old and New
Testament Connected, i. 382, ed. 1851. Again, 'he changed the
old names of several places that were grown obsolete, putting instead
of them the new names,' &c. — lb., p. 384, Compare Shuckford,
Sacred and Profane History Connected, ii. 317, ed. 1848 ; and
especiaUy Dean Milman, History of the Jews, 1863, i. 134, note.
For iUustrations of the ' two opposite theories ' which I have
mentioned, we may turn, on the one hand, to the National Review,
No. XXXII., p, 362, &c., which bases a far more advanced com
mentary on the vivid picture drawn by Dr. Stanley, Jewish Church,
p. 445 ; and on the other hand, to the Christian Remembrancer, No.
CXX., 490-7: ' It is worth while . . . to expose the faUacy contained
in the view, that later writers, who added to the text of inspired
documents, could never have ventured so to tamper with them if
they had beUeved them inspired. We ask, why not ? Supposing
a later 'writer had beUeved himself to be inspired for this special
work,' &c. ' Everybody knows that the number of such passages as
these is very great, both in the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua.
Such passages were undoubtedly inserted by a later hand.'
Note 20, page 153. See, for instance, Spinoza, Tract. Theol.
Pol., ii. 19, p. 36 : ' Stylus deinde prophetiae pro eloquentia
cujusque prophetse variabat. Prophetise enim Ezechielis et Amosis
non sunt, ut Ulse Esaise et Nachumi eleganti, sed rudiore stylo
scriptae,' &c. In this case, too, we might accept the fact without the
inference ; but in this particular instance the statement itself,
though it dates from a much earUer period, has been recently
modified. With regard to Amos, for example. Dr. Pusey {Introd.
to Amos, p. 151) and Dr. Davidson {Introd to 0. T., ui. 257) agree
to qualify the judgment of St. Jerome by quoting the criticism of

NOTES TO LECTURE V. 341
Bishop Lowth, De Sacr. P. Hebr., p. 245, ed. Lips. 1815 : ' evolvat
modo scripta ejus sequus judex, de re non de homine qua3siturus;
oensebit, credo, potius pastorem nostrum prjSev varepriKevai t&v
inrepXlav Trpo^TjrtDv, ut sensuum elatione et magnificentia spiritus
prope summis parem, ita etiam dictionis splendore et compositionis
elegantia vix quoquam inferiorem.'
Note 21, page 153. See Dean Lyall's application to Holy Scriptura
of Paley's argument from ' Prospective Contrivances ' {Nat. Theol.,
ch. xiv.), in his Propwdia Prophetica; especially Part II. Ch. v.
p. 199 : ' Prophecies not understood before Christ.' Compare Mr.
E. P. Smith's Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah, p. 21 : ' When
God, therefore, gave (Ahaz) a sign, it was a veiled sign, which not
tUl centuries afterwards would be clearly understood.' See also
above, Lecture IV. Note 12.
Note 22, page 154. See Spinoza, Tract. Theol. Pol, viii. p. 125,
sqq. : ' in quo ostenditur Pentateuchon, et libros Josuse, Judicum,
Rut, SamueUs, et Regum non esse autographa. Deinde inquiritur,
an eorum omnium scriptores plures fuerint, an unus tantum, et
quinam.' Prom this point it is a mere question of degree tiU we
reach the large coUections of difficiUties in the works of Dr.
Davidson and Bishop Colenso. For an intermediate stage, see
Graves's repUes to Le Clerc's series. — Lectures on the Pentateuch,
pp. 439-52. See also above, Note 19.
Note 23, page 157. We have seen above (Lecture III.) that no
exegetical error is more common than to buUd a whole theory on
one expression, or to urge the Uteral sense of an isolated text against
the general drift of other passages. Bishop Coleniso has been unfor
tunately successful in transferring this method to the sphere of
history. Arguing from the words ' this night,' in Ex. xii. 12, he
persists, in the face of both context and philology, in denying that the
Israelites had received a longer and more sufficient warning : Penta
teuch, &c., § 65 : compare the Answers of a Layman, p. 70 ; Dr.
M'Caul, p. 62 ; Mr. GresweU, p. 89 ; Mr. Birks, p. 82 ; and, iu
reply, the Bishop's rejoinder to Dr. M'Caul, § 19. Arguing from
the words ' which came into Egypt,' Gen. xlvi. 8, &c., he maintains
an interpretation of the Ust of families which is equally at variance
with probabiUty and fact. It is at variance with probability, because
his account is far less likely than either the opinion that the narrative
was regulated by ' the sacred number seventy ' (Birks, p. 22), or
the opinion that it gives the eponymous heads of famiUes, arranged,

342 NOTES TO LECTURE V.
as among so many ancient peoples, on a pecuUar national theory of
number ; it being comparatively indifferent whether they were sons
or grandsons of Jacob, and whether they actuaUy traveUed with
him on his journey to Egypt, or were born in Egypt before the
final adjustment of the gentes was completed (Rogers, p. 13). And
it is at variance with fact, because the same expression is con
fessedly used, in the general summary of verse 27, to include the
two Egypt-born sons of Joseph, — ' inaccm-ately,' the Bishop in this
instance teUs us, pp. 22, 27 ; because the plainest interpretation of
the narrative would lead us to believe that two of the four sons of
Reuben, verse 9, were also born in Egypt (Rogers, p. 7); and
because the list often sons assigned to Benjamin, verse 21, is found
to include two grandsons, who certainly could not have been born
in Canaan (Numb. xxvi. 38-40 ; Rogers, p. 10). Though opinions
wiU continue to differ on some of these details, they embody a
sufficient amount of certainty to corroborate the hypothesis that
Hezron and Hamul were bom in Egypt, and were substituted as
heads of families for their uncles, Er and Onan, who died in Canaan
(Birks, pp. 12, 22); nor have the Bishop's arguments done more
than expose the weakness of some careless and indefensible expla
nations, for which the truth cannot be made to suffer. Another
instance ofthe same kind is the Bishop's interpretation of ' the fourth
generation,' in correction of which see the careful analysis of Mr.
Birks, p. 62. Other cases, where he refuses to admit the most
reasonable suggestions, are his positions that all who were summoned
to hear the voice of Moses or of Joshua attended ; that aU the laws
came into immediate operation in the desert ; and that even the most
servile duties fell to the lot of the highest dignitaries. In the Preface
to his Third Part, p. ix., note, an elaborate historical argument in a
Layman's Vindication of the Historic Character of flie Pentateuch,
p. 16, sqq., to prove that the patriarchs must have been attended
by a large foUowing (as in Gen. xiv. 14 ; xxx. 43, &c.), is ' disposed
of as merely ' assuming that Jacob went down to Egypt with a
thousand or more followers.' In some of the above instances.
Bishop Colenso substitutes assumption' for argument ; in this case
he disparages argument by caUing it assumption.
Note 24, page 157. ' Tamdiu non est contra fidem, donee veri
tate certissima refeUatur. Quod si factum fuerit, non hoc habebat
divina Scriptura, sed hoc senserat humana ignorantia.' — St. August.,
De Gen. ad Lit., i. 38 ; Opp., iii. 129. ' Aliud est quid potissimum

NOTES TO LECTURE V. 343
scriptor senserit non dignoscere, aliud autem a regula pietatis
errare.' — lb., 41 ; p. 132. ' Brevitur dicendum est de figura cocli
hoc scisse auctores nostros, quod Veritas habet ; sed Spu-itum Dei,
qui per ipsos loquebatur, noluisse ista docere homines nulU saluti
profutura.' — lb., ii. 20 ; p. 138. Compare WlieweU, History of Scientific
Ideas, ii. p. 308 ; Pratt, Scripture and Science not at Variance,
pp. 14, 17, notes.
Note 25, page 158. ' " After aU," says Bucldand, " it should be
recollected that the .question is not respecting the correctness of the
Mosaic narrative, but of our interpretation of it," a proposition which
can hardly be sufficiently reprobated. Such a doctrine, carried out
unreservedly, strikes at the root of critical morality.' — Goodwin, in
E. ^ R., p. 231. We are here on the track of an older controversy.
' A rule on this subject, propounded by some of the most enlightened
dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church, on the occasion of the
great Copernican controversy begun by Galileo, seems well worthy
of our attention. The followiag was the opinion given by Cardinal
BeUarmine at the time : " When a demonstration shall be found to
establish the earth's motion, it -wiU be proper to interpret the Sacred
Scriptures otherwise than they have hitherto been interpreted in
those passages where mention is made of the stability of the earth
and movement of the heavens." This appears to be a judicious and
reasonable maxim for such cases in general.' — WheweU, l. I., p. 306.
The position as thus stated was assailed by Mr. Kenrick on much
the same grounds as by Mr. Goodwin {Essay on Primceval History,
1846, p. xvii.). The objectors in both cases appear to miss the sense
in which the word ' interpretation ' is used. The question is not
what the actual words of Scripture signify, but whether their
literal meaning conforms to a temporary or permanent conception of
science. So long as science proves nothing to the contrary, we take
the words Uterally. If the Uteral sense is found to rest on a scientific
belief which has now passed away, we simply transfer the passage to
another class, and explain it as language appropriate to the writer,
whose words it was no part of the Divine plan to modify, so as to
meet the future disclosures of scientific doctrines which were then
undiscovered and unknown.
Note 26, page 158. For the word ' phenomenal,' see Trench,
Star of the Wise Men, p. 57, note. For the word ' optical,' see
Hitchcock, Religion of Geology, p. 32, &o. (quoting RosenmiiUer);
Hugh Miller, Testimony of the Rocks, pp. 134, 166-7, 169, &c. ;

344 NOTES TO LECTURE V.
Davidson, m Home, U. 372, and Introd. to 0. T., i. 158 ; BUks,
The Bible and Modern Thought, &c., p. 317, sqq. 'According to
the appearance,' KeU, On Joshua, pp. 257-8 ; Pratt, Scripture and
Science not at Variance, p. 8; ChaUis, Creation in Plan and in
Progress, p. 6 ; Huxtable, Sacred Record of Creation Vindicated
and Explained, p. 25, note. But ' it is a great mistake to conceive
that the language of common Ufe, adopted also in Scripture, is the
expression of simple falsehood, aud not of a most important variety
of scientific truth.'— Bixks, L L, p. 312. The above -writers differ in
some cases on the degree in which this solution of the difficulty is
applicable. Note 27, page 160. The proof of this assertion must be sought^
for by an analysis of any hostUe, but reasonably fair, summary of
the geologicsd difficulty. See, for instance, Kalisch, Genesis, pp.
43-52 ; Colenso, Pentateuch, &c., p. 172 ; Davidson, Introd. to
0. T., i. 151-164, &c.
Note 28, page 161. ' In the delineation ofthe future state, given
in the closing part of the Apocalypse, and given, too, at considerable
length, we are aU aware that it does not, strictly speaking, furnish
any historical statement of the outward conditions of our state as
it wUl then be, but that it simply images forth certain spiritual
characteristics of that future state ; giving, in short, merely religious
truth, and not information about physical facts.' — Huxtable, I. L,
p. 73. ' The account in the first chapter of Genesis having reference
to facts out of the pale of human experience, clearly comes under
the same category as prophecy. It equaUy claims to be Divine
revelation ; to be a communication from the Spirit of the Creator
Himself '—ChaUis, I I., p. 3.
Note 29, page 162. See the table in Kalisch, Genesis, p. 63 ; and
compare Dr. Rorison, in Replies to E. ^ R., p. 284.
Note 30, page 163. Moreover, 'A prophetic vision which reveals
past events is without example or analogy in the whole range of the
Biblical records.' — Kalisch, 1. 1., p. 47, where this theory is examined
more at length.
Note 31, page 163. See Professor ChalUs's Creation in Plan and
in Progress, 1861.
Note 32, page 163. For the one opinion, see Mr. Huxtable's
Sacred Record of Creation; for the other. Dr. Rorison's Essay,
The Creative Week, in Replies to Essays and Reviews.
Note 33, page 166. See Hugh Miller's Old Red Sandstone,

NOTES TO LECTURE V. 345
p. 136, &c. ; and Testimony of the Rocks, Lectures V. and VI. ;
' Geology in its bearings on the two Theologies.' Also Huxtable,
I. I., p. 57, sqq. But the recent controversy on the antiquity of
man is an additional lesson, had one been needed, to teach us the
danger of grasping precipitately at gains which have scarcely yet
become our own. Compare Hardwick's Christ and other Masters,
i. 47 ; a page which could hardly have been written no-w.

346

LECTURE VI.
Note 1, page 172. For the double sense of leaven, as used in
Scriptm-e, see Trench, On the Parables, p. 113 ; Stier, Words ofthe
Lord Jesus, ii. 254, E. T. ¦. ' With this expansion of the small seed
in the field of the world the tares of corruption -wiU mingle aU the
more powerfully (like a leaven), but the good seed wiU notwith
standing choke the thoms ; the mustard-seed wiU gain the victory ;
what is heavenly will also mingle itself with every mixture ; in a
word, will show itself as a subduing anti-leaven.'
' Humanity before Jesus Christ may be divided into two categories;
one, a privUeged minority, placed under the immediate direction
of God. This was the Jewish theocracy. Later on, we shall show
how this privilege was in reaUty in the interest of the whole race.' —
De Pressens^, Religions before Christ, p. 15 ; cf pp. 189, 202, 204,
258 ; and Mr. Goldwin Smith, Rational Religion, &c., p. 57.
' We must consider what was the object of God's dealings with
man recorded in the Bible. If it was to put human society at once
in a state of perfection, without further effort, political, social, or
inteUectual, on the part of man, the inference is irresistible that every
institution enjoined in the Bible is part of a perfect scheme, and that
every institution mentioned in the Bible without condemnation -wiU
be lawful to the end of time. But if the object was to implant in
man's heart a principle, viz. the love of God and man, which should
move him to work (God also working in him) for the improvement
of his own state and that of his fellows, and for the transforming of
his aud their life into the image of their Maker ; in this case it wUl
by no means follow that any social institution recognised in Scrip
ture for the time being, or mentioned by it without condemnation,
is for ever good or lawful in the sight of God.' — Mr. Goldwin Smith,
Does the Bible sanction American Slavery/' pp. 2, 3. ' The religious
system of the Jews was primitive, and therefore gross, compared
with Christian worship. It was spiritual compared with the reli
gious system of the most refined and cultivated heathen nations.' 

NOTES TO LECTURE VI. 347
lb., p. 23. ' If we look at the Mosaic dispensation in itself, we may
regard it as pecuharly ceremonial ; but if we compare it with any
other dispensation except the Christian, we shall probably find that,
instead of being peculiarly ceremonial, it is peculiarly moral.' —
lb., p. 57.
Note 2, page 175. See also above, pp. 99, 100. On the laws of
slaves and chUdren, and some other points of the same kind, compare
Mr. Goldwin Smith, I. L, pp. 12, 37, 50, 54 ; and Rational Religion,
&c., p. 51 ; a Layman's Pentateuch Vindicated, pp. 202, 205, note ;
Stanley, Jewish Church, p. 170 (usages ' assumed and tolerated,'
but 'restrained'); MUman, History ofthe Jeivs, i. 168 ('of all the
ancient lawgivers, Moses alone endeavoured to mitigate ' the evils of
slavery); 171 ('Moses, while he maintained the dignity and salu
tary control, limited the abuse of the parental authority ').
Note 3, page 175. Most of the difficulties which are usuaUy urged
are detaUed and discussed in the Introductions io the Pentateuch of
Hengstenberg, Macdonald, and others, and wiU be found under
their respective places in the recent works of Dr. Davidson, Dr.
Stanley, and Dean Milman, Some points which are generally con
nected with them are discussed above in Lecture III. : e.g. the repent
ance ascribed to God, pp. 84, 91 ; the hardening of Pharaoh's heart,
p. 88 ; and the visiting of the sins of the fathers on the chUdren,
p. 96. On the special difficulty of the apparent commendation of
falsehood in such cases as the midwives of the Hebrews and Rahab,
see the notes to Grotius, De Jure B. et P., Ui. c. i. 16 ; S. Thom.
Aquin., IP^ 11'^^^ Qu. ex. Art. iii. ; and "WheweU, Lectures on
Moral Philosophy, ii. 78, 1862 ; ' Christian morality ; St. Augustine
on Lying.' On the Destruction of the Canaanites, see a sermon by
Dr. MiU, University Sermons, 1845, No. vii. p. 117. On the general
question, compare Mr. Mansel's B. L., pp. 42, 243-4, and the con
troversy to which those passages gave rise.
To a great extent, in truth, the argument falls under the erroneous
behef, against which Art. vii. is directed, that the Old Testament is
contrary to the New. Hence such works as the Christianity without
Judaism, of the late Professor Powell. On the other side, I may
refer to Mr. Macleane's Unity of God's Moral Law as Revealed in
the 0. and N. Testaments, 1847 ; and Mr. Perowne's Essential
Coherence of the 0. and N. Testaments, 1858.
Note i,page 176. ' There are some particular precepts in Scrip
ture, given to particular persons, requiring actions which would be

348 NOTES TO LECTURE VI.
immoral and vicious were it not for such precepts. But it is easy
to .see that aU these are of such a kind as that the precept changes
the whole nature of the case and of the action, and both constitutes
and shows that not to be unjust or immoral which, prior to the
precept, must have appeared and really have been so ; which may
weU be, since none of these precepts are contrary to immutable mo
rality.'— Butler, Anal., ii. 3, p. 220. This last qualification suppUes
the precise protection which I plead for against supposing that God
could utter a command for the purpose of turning wrong into right.
Butler expressly excludes actions that are wrong in themselves, and
expressly confines his argument to acts of a judicial character, by
means of which the command of God deprives the unworthy posses
sor of either property or life.
Compare S. August., Contra Mendacium, 34, Opp., vi. 469 : ' Et
ubi ponimus voluntatem ac potestatem Dei ? ' or, as Dr. WheweU
states it, Z.Z., p. 86 : ' God's Providence can bring about its purposes
without being aided by the false utterances of men.' Almost the
very phrase of a recent -writer of fiction : ' God's omnipotence did
not need our sin.'
Note 5, page 176. On ' the imperfect standard aUowed and
even approved under the old dispensation, as contrasted with the
perfect law of love in the new,' Dr. Stanley cites the judgment of
St. Chrysostom ; — Sermons and Essays on the Apostolical Age, p. 41 ;
also in Jewish Church, p. 250. SimUarly Dr. WheweU quotes from
St. Augustine, I. L, p. 83 : ' That these women were " according to
their degree approved and rewarded of God." Their act was better
than a lie of malice, but it was not absolutely good.' The hypothesis
is put more antagonisticaUy by Dr. Davidson, Introd to 0. T., i. 474 :
' The morality of the Old Testament was progressive, incomplete,
imperfect : it was simply the reflection of the purest existing moraUty.
To say that it was a standard morality for aU time, or even for the
time of its manifestation, is to mistake its character,' &c.
Note 6, page 181. The principle is traced on from Joshua and
Judges to the Psalms and Ezra, and thence to the New Testament,
in Dr. Newman's sermon, ' Jewish zeal a pattern to Christians,'
Parochial Sermons, iii. 197, sqq. On its counterpoise ' Sobriety,'
see Lyra Ap., Ixv.-ix.
Note 7, page 182. For the use which has been made of the death
of Sisera, see Coleridge, Confessions, &c., pp. 34, 44, 54 ; Mr. F. W.
Newman's Phases of Faith, p. 69, 3rd ed. ; Davidson, I. L, p. 475.

NOTES TO LECTURE VL 349
The subjectis discussed, with various results, in almost every treatise
bearing on these questions. Compare Waterland, Works, iv. 254 ;
Arnold, Sermons chiefly on the Interpretation of Scripture, No. viii.,
p. 76 ; R. Williams, Rational Godliness, Sermon vii., p. 89 ; Burgon,
Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 223, sqq. ; Stanley, Jeivish Church,
n. 329, sqq.
Note 8, page 182. ' The solemn religious commencement, the
picturesque description of the state of the country, the mustering of
thc troops from all quarters, the sudden transition to the most con
temptuous sarcasm against the tribes that stood aloof; the life, fire,
and energy of the battle ; the bitter pathos of the close — lyric
poetry has nothing in any language which can surpass the boldness
and animation of this striking production.' — Milman, I. L, i. 246.
' The song of Deborah is a very old specimen of Hebrew poetry,
which may chaUenge comparison in sublimity and beauty with the
lyrics of any other language.' — Davidson, 1. 1., i. 471. ' The song
of Deborah bears in itself the marks of antiquity, and may have
been -written soon after the time of the prophetess herself' — lb.,
p. 465. We may fairly set this opinion against Bishop Colenso's
attempt to bring down the poem to a later date. Pentateuch,
§§ 447-452 ; Answer to Dr. M'Caul, p. 14. See also Dr. Donaldson,
Jashar, pp. 269, 289. For the antiquity of the oldest uninspired
compositions, see Max MiiUer on the Veda, Ancient Sanskrit Liter
ature, p. 65 ; ' the most ancient Uterary work of the Aryan race, a
work more ancient than the Zendavesta and Homer;' the pubUshed
form of the Vedic hymns the same ' in which they existed at least
800 years before the Christian era.'
Note 9, page 183. On the days of the Judges, compare Stanley,
Jeivish Church, pp, 305, 308, 328, 337 ; on Jephthah, p. 358 ; on
Samson, pp. 364, &c. In these and in many simUar cases throughout
these Notes mere reference must not be taken to imply any further
agreement than may be-inferred fi-om the argument of the Lectures.
Note 10, page 184. Compare Dr. Newman's sermon above
referred to, and Milman, Z. Z., i. 187 : ' How wonderfully the event
verified the prediction of the inspired legislator, how invariably
apostasy led to adversity, repentance and reformation to prosperity,
wiU abundantly appear during the course of the foUo-wing history.'
Note 11, page 185. For the geographical and other details, it is
sufficient to refer to Dr. Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, p. 339 ;
Jewish Church, pp. 316, sqq.

350 NOTES TO LECTURE VL
Note 12, page 187. Dr. Milman stUl follows the older version :
'For the noise of plundering archers by the wells of water, now
they meet and sing aloud Jehovah's righteous acts.' — i. 248. So also
Dr. WiUiams, Z. Z., p. 95 : ' The places of drawing water were be.set
by the bow of the oppressor;' and p. 105 : 'Like the archers of
Canaan by the watering-places of Israel.' But Dr. Stanley : ' From
amidst the shouting of the dividers of spoUs, between the water-
troughs, there let them rehearse,' &c., p. 334 ; and Dr. Da-vidson :
' For the rejoicing of those who divide the spoil between the draw-
weUs, there they celebrate,' &c., p. 473. Dr. Donaldson, again, on
a different hypothesis : ' meditaminor, ob jubila Ugnatorum inter
aquarum diluvia.' — Jashar, p. 238; cf. pp. 276-80.
Note 13, page 189. The point is put with earnest force by Dr.
Arnold, Z. L, p. 33, Sermon on the Wars of the Israelites : ' It is
better that the wicked should be destroyed a hundred times over,
yea, destroyed with everlasting destruction, than that they should
tempt those who are as yet innocent to join their company. And
if we are inclined to think that God dealt hardly with the people of
Canaan in commanding them to be so utterly destroyed, let us but
think what might have been our fate, and the fate of every other
nation under heaven at this hour, had the sword of the Israelites
done its work more sparingly. . . . The IsraeUtes' sword, in its
bloodiest executions, wrought a work of mercy for aU the countries
of the earth to the very end of the world.' So also Stanley, Z. I.,
p. 253. See too Lord A. Hervey, Inspiration of Holy Scripture,
p. 68, who discusses, in the. foUowing pages, the kiUing of Eglon and
Sisera, and the question of Deborah's inspiration.
Note 14, page 192. Compare Dr. Pusey's Sermon on the Day
of Judgment, 1839 : ' As He imfolds the fiiUer measures of His
goodness in our redemption, He accompanies them with more a-wful
notices of His -wrath ; He disclosed not to us everlasting joys,
without warning us of everlasting fire.'
Note 15, page 193. ' It is a remarkable circumstance which has
been often observed, that if we look to some of the most eminent
saints of Scripture, we shaU find their recorded errors to have
occurred in those parts of their duty in 'which each had had most
trial, and generaUy showed obedience most perfect. Faithful
Abraham through want of faith denied his wife. Moses, the meekest
of men, was excluded from the land of promise for a passionate
word. The wisdom of Solomon was seduced to bow do-wn to idols.

NOTES TO LECTURE VI. 351
Barnabas, again, the son of consolation, had a sharp contention with
St. Paul.' — Ne-wman, Parochial Sermons, i. 53-4. Compare Lyra
Ap., XX. But I have pointed out that the history appears to prove
the existence of the double strain of temper through aU portions of
the legislator's life. Dr. Stanley says, however, that ' no modern
word seems exactly to correspond to that which our translators
have rendered "the meekest of men," but which rather expresses
"enduring,'' "afflicted," "heedless of self" — Jewish Church,
p. 199.
Note 16, page 193. Compare Arnold, Sermons chiejly on the Inter
pretation of Scripture, pp. 396-9; Stanley, j4postoZ?c ^.^re, pp. 246,
258, 278-80 ;Westcott, Introd. to Study ofN. T., pp. 234, 281. So of
Christ Himself, Newman, 1. 1., iii. 200 : ' There was an occasion when
our Lord is expressly said to have taken upon Him the zeal which
consumed David,' &c. ' Such is the pattern afforded us by our
Lord ; to which add the example of the angels which surround
Him. Surely in Him is mingled " goodness and severity ; " such,
therefore, are aU holy creatures, loving and severe.'

352

LECTURE VII.
Note 1, page 200. See this remarked in Dr. Stanley's Apostolic
Age, pp. 381-2 (partly repeated in Comment, on Corinth., i. p. 46) :
' It is by catching a gUmpse, however partial, of those wild dissen
sions which raged around and beneath the ApostoUc -writings, that
we can best appreciate the sublime unity and repose of those writings
themselves.' Compare p. 298, of St. James : ' It was not, we may
beUeve, without an object that the Divine Providence, which so
carefiUly excluded from the sacred volume those harsher or more
temporary pecuUarities on which the Palestine Jews dwelt with
exclusive pleasure, has admitted into it the great Epistle, where
the same general character, indeed, appears before us, but refined
and purified from the earthly admixture by which the merely
human 'record of him is marred.' And of St. Peter, Neander,
Planting, &c., i. 372, note ; defending ' the old distinction for
securing the idea of inspiration between vitium conversationis and
error doctrince.'
Note 2, page 200. 'Every one has a distinct conception of
St. Peter. . . . Quick in action even to rashness, and bold in word
even to presumption, he is yet the founder of the outward Church.'
' — Eager to realise to the fiUl a blessing of which he only half per
ceived the import, and unable to wait in calm assurance on the wUl
of his Master. This impatient energy, which seems to be ever
striving after the issues of things, made him give expression in many
cases to the thoughts which others cherished, perhaps vaguely.'
' He cannot rest in uncertainty where knowledge might prove the
guide to deeds.' ' We feel at once that the walking on the waters
and the faUing faith are a true figure of his following Christ to the
place of judgment and then denying Him. Then follows the swift
and complete reaction.' — Westcott, Introd., &c., pp. 277-280.
' Peter, over-hasty, as was so often the case.' — Trench, Miracles,
p. 377. ' By the natural constitution of his mind, he was disposed
to surrender himself at the moment entirely to the impression which

NOTES TO LECTURE VIL 353
seized him . . . but he was easily misled by a rash self-confidence
to say more, and to venture more, than he could accomplish.' —
Neander, Planting, &c., i. 368, ed. Bohn : cf pp. 66, note ; 72, &c.
'Boldness and timidity, first boldness, then timidity, were the
characteristics of his nature.' — Jowett, Comment, on Gal. U. 11.
Compare p. 343 (first ed.) : ' He who is the first, and even the
ablest to speak, may be often deficient in firmness of will or grasp of
mind.' Also Stanley, Apostolic Age, pp. 82, 95 ( ' whose character
istic it was, that, with his thoughts ever bounded by time, his spirit
was ever open to the first dawn of things eternal '), 104 (' who took
the first critical step in advance ? ' ' the characters of simple unhesi
tating zeal, which act instead of reflecting, which venture instead of
calculating, which cannot or wiU not see the difficulties with which
the first struggle of an untried reformation is of necessity accom
panied'), &c.
The reverent analysis of the human characteristics of the Scrip
ture saints is a work of deep interest and constant profit ; but only
so long as we recollect that their mission contributed a very diffe
rent element, in the message of pure revelation which was entrusted
to their keeping, and which was received and handed on through
the presence and light of a special inspiration.
Note 3, page 202. Compare Neander, Life of Christ, p. 281,
ed. Bohn ; Moberly, Sayings of the Great Forty Days, pp. 14, 39-42 ;
Stanley, I. L, p. 92 ; EUicott, Historical Lectures, &c., pp. 202, 218,
220. On the steps by which the early Church disengaged itself from
Judaism, cf. Trench, SL Augustine, pp. 61, 71 ; Neander, Planting,
&c., p. 29 ; Baumgarten, Apostolic History, i. 176, Clark. On the
effect of the FaU of Jerusalem in completing the transition, see
LyaU, Proposed. Proph., pp. 316, sqq.
With the reference on p. 203 to Mark vii. 31, we must compare
Matt. xvi. 13, Mark viii. 27 ; our Lord's retirement to Csesarea
Philippi, on which see Dr. Stanley's remarks. Apostolic Age, p. 112,
and Sinai, &c., pp, 399, 419. ' Cesar^e de PhUippe, sa pointe la plus
avanc^e dans le monde des GentUs.' — Renan, Vie de Jesus, p. 28.
Note 4, page 204. ' It is most probable that, in Peter's mind,
when he used this expression (Acts ii. 39), there floated an indistinct
allusion to believers from other nations, though it did not appear of
sufficient importance for him to give it a greater prominence in his
address, as it was his conviction that the converts to Christianity
from heathenism must first become Jews.' — Neander, Planting, &c.,
A A

354 NOTES TO LECTURE VII.
p. 20. Compare Bengelius, in loe, as quoted above, Lecture TV.,
note 12.
Note 5, page 207. Each step of this history has been the subject
of discussion. Without entering into further detaUs of reference, I
must leave the historical views adopted in this and other parts of the
Lecture to .suggest their o-wu evidence, by the degree in which they
seem to harmonise the probabilities of the case with the statements
of Scripture. It might, indeed, be objected that, though the leaving
Titus uncircumcised may be properly described as ' one immediate
result ' of the CouncU (Conybeare and Howson, i. 234), yet St. Paul's
consent to circumcise Timothy appears to Ml later than the rebuke
to Peter {ib., 239, 286), which could not, therefore, have rested on
the ground which I have suggested. But that consent wculd be
merely (as in Acts xxi. 26, and 1 Cor. ix. 20) the ternporary con
cession of a question which had been raised, but not decided ; whUe
St. Peter might have taken alarm at the very fact of its being
mooted, and have withdrawn on that ground from an intercourse
which he had previously and rightly sanctioned.
That it is not easy to adjust the narrative without such an-
explanation, the tone ofthe foUowing _ comments -wiU suffice to
prove : —
1. On Acts X. ' That such fresh revelations should have been
necessary may appear strange,' &c. ; ' but the effect of Pentecost
was not suddenly to dispel all ignorance and wavering.' — Humphry,
in loe ' It appears surprising that the Apostle Peter,' &c. ; but ' it
must not be overlooked that St. Peter was by no means uncertain
about the entrance of the Gentiles into the Church considered in
itself, but only about the point whether they could be admitted
without being circumcised, and taking upon themselves the obliga
tion of the law.' — Olshausen, in loo.
2. On St. Peter at Antioch, Gal. U. 11. ' The conduct of Peter
is not easy to understand,' &c. — Jowett, in loe And again, the
passage is important ' as pourtraying the state of indecision in which
all, except St. Paul, even including Barnabas, were in reference to
the observance of the Jewish law.' ' Peter in their society began to
vaciUate. In weak compliance with their prejudices,' &c., ' we find
him contradicting his own principles, and, " through fear of those who
were of the circumcision," giving all the sanction of his example to
the introduction of casie into the Church of Christ.' — Conybeare and
Howson, i. 239. (It appears to me that the language of verse 16,

NOTES TO LECTURE VIL 355
&c., proves the social question named in verse 12 to have been
merely the symbol of a deeper dift'erence.) Compare Neander,
Planting, &c., i. pp. 67 (and note), 211 ; and Additions and Correc
tions, ii. 81, sqq. ; and fnore generally, on the modes of reconciling
Acts XV. with Gal. ii., cf Conybeare and Howson, i. 244, sqq., and
Ebrard, Gospel History, p. 502, Clark.
Mr. Westcott gives the following as the ' steps by which the
distinction of Jew and Gentile was removed in the Christian
Church :' ' 1. The admission of Gentiles, Acts x., xi. ; 2. The
freedom of Gentile converts from the ceremonial law. Acts xv. ; 3.
The indifference of the ceremonial law /or Jewish converts, Gal. ii.
14-16, Acts xxi. 20-26 ; 4. The incompatibility of Judaism with
Christianity. The first three — that is, the essential — principles
are recognised in Scripture ; the last, which introduces uo new
element, is evolved in the history of the Church.' — Canon of N. T.,
p. 73, note. Mr. Greg caUs the councU at Jerusalem and the
dispute at Antioch ' the same transaction ;' and very naturally
infers that, in that case, there must be ' some mistake on the histo-
-rian's part.' — Creed of Christendom, 1863, p. 164. But he annexes
two footnotes which utterly destroy his text : first, ' The same or
a similar one;' next, 'unless, as has been suggested, Peter after
wards, overpowered by the unanimity of the Judaisers, flinched from
his principles, and so incurred Paul's indignation.'
Note 6, page 208. Compare Stanley, Apostolic Age, p. 90 ; and
for the Epistles, pp. 100-1. His first Epistle ' may well be taken as
the pledge of the last work of St. Peter, in crushing absolutely and
for ever this fatal schism, which would have divided the two great
Fathers of our faith — him who gave it its first outward form, and him
who proclaimed its deep inward spirit.' For a simUar remark on
the second Epistle, see Conybeare and Howson, i. 242. A brief
summary of the relation between the speeches and epistles, and of
the respective characteristics of St. Peter, St. Stephen, St. Luke, and
St. Paul, is given in Ebrard's Gospel History, pp. 499-500. On
the extent to which ' St. Peter's First Epistle derives special
interest from his personal history,' see Dr. Wordsworth's Introduc
tion to it.
Note 7, page 213. For the interpretation of 2 Cor. v. 16, which
IS here examined, see Professor Jowett's Introduction to the First
Epistle to the Thessalonians, pp. 7, sqq.
No rejoinder to what I have urged could be based on any proposal
A A 2

356 NOTES TO LECTURE VIL
to correct the chronology. Mr. Jowett says that ' the series (of
letters) begins with the Epistles to the Thessalonians, identified with
the second apostolical journey by the mention of Timothy and the
sojourn of the Apostle at Athens, after a previous stay at Thessa-
lonica.'— i. 281, 2nd ed. In the same volume he tells us, that ' more
than half the Apostle's ministry had already elapsed ere he set
his hand to this the first of his extant writings.' ' It is a fragment,
the earliest we possess, of the Apostle's Ufe and the history of the
Church.' — i. 6. Now it is surely a most important addition to these
statements, and a correction of the inferences founded upon them,
to note that by the side of the Thessalonian Epistles we have the
discourse at Athens, which gives the most mature view of the
position of the Gentiles ; and that some time before the date of those
Epistles, we have the discom-ses at the Pisidian Ajitioch and at
Lystra ; the former embodying the most complete conception of the
doctrine of justification, and the relation which existed between the
law and the gospel.
Note 8, page 214:. 'The words lead us to infer that something
of this kind had once been his own state of mind, not only in the
time before his conversion (which he would have condemned more
strongly), but since. If so, it is (like Phil. iii. 13-15) a remarkable
confession of former weakness or error, and of conscious progress in
religious knowledge.' — Stanley, on 2 Cor. v. 16; cf. p. 295, first ed.
See another interpretation in Mr. Bright's Notes on XVIII. Sermons
of St. Leo, p. 131. Compare Neander, Planting, &c., i. 82, note,
and pp. 93, 526-9 ; and fi-om a different quarter, Mackay, Tubingen
School, &c., 1863, p. 239, note.
Note 9, page. 217. 'Here in this first sermon which St. Paul
is recorded to have preached in a Jewish synagogue, we have the
germ of his two Epistles to the Galatians and Romans — an internal
evidence of genuineness and veracity.' — Wordsworth, on Acts, xiii.
36. ' His concluding words, as St. Luke relates them, might stand
as a summary, representing in outUne the early chapters of the
Epistle to the Romans.' — Conybeare and Howson, i. 188. It is to
the passage. Acts xiU. 39, that Mr. Davison makes his appeal, for
' the general doctrine of St. Paul, when he explains to the Israelite
the difference between the Legal and the Evangelical systems,' adding
in a note : ' This single sentence, therefore, is decisive of the nature
of the Mosaic dispensation.' — On Sacrifice : Remains, pp. 74-5.
Note 10, page 217. Dr. Wordsworth proceeds, in the passage

NOTES TO LECTURE VII. 357
cited in the last Note : ' It is observable also that St. Paul's address
appears to be formed on the same model as St. Stephen's — another
proof of its influence on him and of the truth of the historj-.' So
also Conybeare and Howson, i. 190, note. ' In short, Stephen was
the forerunner of the great Paul.' — Neander, Planting, &c., i. 50,
52, 97. ' In many particulars St. Stephen was the forerunner of
St. Paul.' — Conybeare and Howson, i. 73, sqq. ; Stanley, Apostolic
Age, p. 61 ; Jewish Church, p. 29 ; Trench, St. Augustine, p. 114;
Humphry, Boyle Lectures for 1858, p. 12.
Note 11, page 21%. 'We have seen elsewhere (chap. iii. 1-8;
V. 12-21 ; vii. 7-11) that in many passages the Apostle wavers
between the opposite sides of a question, before he arrives at a final
and permanent conclusion. The argument in such passages may be
described as a sort of struggle in his O'wn thoughts, an alternation of
natural feelings, a momentary conflict of emotions. The stream of
discourse flows onward in two channels, occasionally mingUng or
contending with each other, which meet at the last.' ' Nowhere
does the logical control over language, that is, the power of aptly
disposing sentences so as to exhibit them in their precise relation to
each other, so fail the Apostle as at the conclusion of the tenth
chapter. We see his meaning, but his emotions prevent him from
expressing it.' — Jowett, on Rom. ix.-xi. ; Z. Z., ii. 269, 271. Compare
Mr. Mozley's Letter to Dr. Stanley on Subscription to the Articles,
p. 15. The principle of interpretation which I have suggested is
illustrated by Bishop EUicott's remark on Rom. -yUi. 20,21, Destiny
of the Creature, p. 3 : 'No text has suffered more from the arbitrai-y
hmitation of the terms in which it is expressed ; and in no case wUl
it be found more advisable to give boldly to every term the most
comprehensive meaning the context wiU warrant, and to every clause
its fuUest and most extended significance.'
The language of Professor Jowett is not in this case framed on
Dr. Arnold's model : ' In " St. Paul " there is not only aU Christian
truth, but it is free from the mixture of human fooUshness and error.
In his Epistles aU is equal ; aU is grave and sober, and wise and
true ; all is fitted to be an authority and a rule.' ' He who amidst
the goodness and the sense of the Fathers is grieved from time to
time at those marks of human infirmity which make it clear that
they are no staff to lean upon, may turn with greater thankfulness
to the Epistles of St. Paid and of the other apostles, and may there
find that which the human heart so eagerly craves for — an authority

358 NOTES TO LECTURE VII.
which it may trust without reserve.' — Sermons chiefly on the Inter
pretation of Scripture, pp. 269-70.
Note 12, page 219. The highest sense of law, within the moral
and spiritual sphere, is that in which God ' is a law both to Himself
and to all other things besides.' — Hooker, E. P., I. ii. § 3. The
purest reflection of that law may be conceived to guide the move
ments of unfallen spirits ; but the introduction of evU introduces
that element of severity which causes law, in its ordinary sense, to
be adjusted to the vicious rather than the virtuous {vopog S', iv olg
dSiKia. — Ar. Eth. N., V. vi. § 4 ; 1 Tim. i. 9). It is according
to this, which in the text I caU the ' third sense,' that ' by the
word Law ' St. Paid ' means " any rule of life which restrains
our natural inclinations, and which we obey through fear and
with an effort.'" — Amold, Sermons, i. 139. 'Laws do not only
teach what is good, but they enjoin it, they have in them a certain con
straining force.' — Hooker, I.L, I. x. § 7. And at this point we meet
with two contrasted statements : on the one hand, that there is no need
of law where there is no risk of' transgression (1 Tim., as above) ;
on the other, that there is no possibUity of transgression where
there is no law (Rom. iv. 15; v. 13 ; vii. 13; 1 Cor. xv. 56). To
reconcUe them we observe that, in this sense, law as well as sin
impUes a state of evil ; a race which is not only imperfect by crea
tion, but deteriorated by actual transgression. And on this basis
we may arrange the order of conceptions thus : 1. There is potential
sin — evil which is not yet developed or made active. Where this
is not present as the groundwork, there is no room for law, as above
defined, anymore than there is room for sin. 2. For the prevention
or removal of this evil, it is necessary to bring in the restraints of
law, which in itself, however, conveys only knowledge, but not grace
(cf above, Lecture IIL, Note 15, and Discourses on the Fall and
its Results, pp. 227-8). Here we reach the first of the above con
trasted statements — that there is no need of law where there is no risk
of transgression. 3. This law may be either obeyed or disobeyed.
If obeyed, it leads to a recovery, in which law conveys the know
ledge whUe grace effects the cure ; if disobeyed, the grace is rejected,
and the law becomes ' the savour of death unto death.' In this
calamity, we trace the operation of the second of the two contrasted
statements, when law becomes ' the strength of sin.' What was
given as a guide now remains only as a witness (cf Blakesley, Cone.
Ac, p. 175); in which character law points the condemnation, which

NOTES TO LECTURE VH. 359
leads through disobedience to death. We may divide it according
to the three stages of the law of conscience, the Old Testament, and
the Gospel ; and in each of these we may confront it with the uniform
ity of evil, which constitutes ' the law of sin and death.' By this
method, therefore, we reach the same four ultimate meanings, which
I have pointed out in the usage of St. Paul.
Note 13, page 220. ' The granite mountains, on whose hard blocks
were written the Ten Commandments of the Mosaic Law.' — Stanley,
Sinai and Palestine, p. 11.

360

LECTURE VIII.
Note 1, page 232. ' Speciatim in sermonibus et actionibus Christi
elucet ejusmodi Decorum, quod ab evangelistis tam bene expressum
argumento est, Ulos a Spiritu S. actos scripsisse ; neque enim id
humani ingenii quamlibet exceUentissimi fuisset ... In rebus
summe humilibus tamen Filius Dei cavet juri majestatis suaj.' — ¦
Bengel., in Matt. iii. 15. ' In omni humiliatione Christi, per decoram
quandam protestationem cautum est glori® ejus divinse. Hoc loco,
per prseconium angeli ; in circumcisione, per nomen Jesu ; in purifi
catione, per testimonium Simeonis ; in baptismo, per exceptionem
Baptistas ; in passione, modis longfe plurimis.' — Id., in Luc. ii. 9.
' Cum decoro divino pulcr^ congruit, quod prassente vitse duce nemo
unquam legitur mortuus.' — Id., m. Joann. xi. 15.
Recent pubUcations on the Life and Opinions of Mr. E. Irving
have recalled to prominent notice the errors on our Saviour's human
nature into which he was betrayed, and another phase of which was
represented in some unhappy speculations of the late Dr. Donaldson.
Compare the strong remonstrances of Dr. MiU, Five Sermons on our
Lords Temptation, pp. 37, 53, 152; and Bishop ElUcott, Historical
Lectures, &c., p. 111. Also see Mr. Mozley, Augustinian Doctrine
of Predestination, p. 97. A firm grasp on the doctrine of Christ's
Divine Personality will save us from embarrassment in connexion
with the collateral error of His alleged human ignorance, as it has
been still more recently maintained. I am thankfiil to be exempted
by the date of the controversy (which faUs later than the delivery of
these Lectures) from entering here upon the painful subject of M.
Renan's Vie de Jesus.
Note 2, page 233. Compare the answer given by Bishop EUicott
to the question whether any inaccuracies are really to be found in
Scripture : ' As, in the case of the Incarnate Word, we fully recog
nise in the Lord's humanity all essentially human limitations and
weaknesses, the hunger, the thirst, and the weariness ou the side ofthe
body, and the gradual development on the side of the human mind

NOTES TO LECTURE VIH. 361
(Luke ii. 40) — in a word, all that belongs to the essential and original
characteristics ofthe pure form ofthe nature He vouchsafed to assume,
but plainly deny the existence therein ofthe faintest trace of sin, or of
moral or mental imperfection, — even so in the case of the written
Word, viewed on its purely human side, and in its reference to matters
previously admitted to have no bearing on Divine Truth, we may admit
therein the existence of such incompleteness, such limitations, and
such imperfections as belong even to the highest forms of purely truth
ful human testimony, but consistently deny the existence of mistaken
views, perversion, misrepresentation, and any form whatever of con
sciously committed error or inaccuracy.' — Aids to Faith, pp. 417-8.
The same course of reasoning is suggested by others of the -writers
cited above, Lecture I., Note 4. '
When it is wished to prove by such catense as those of Dr.
Davidson and Mr. Stephen, that high authorities in the English
Church have gone beyond this position, by teaching, either that the
inspiration of Holy Scripture was only partial, or that it is accom
panied by an acknowledged fringe of definite error, we must submit
the passages cited to a critical examination, and exclude aU those
which fail, for any of the following reasons, to support either of the
above propositions. We must exclude, then : —
1. Those passages which merely teach that the revelation is par
tial ; or which aUege, that no revelation was required for matters
which fell under the personal knowledge of the inspired writers ;
above, pp. 25, 146, and Notes. If the word inspiration is occasionally
used in this connexion, it is simply because the exact difference
between inspiration and revelation (above. Lecture I., Note 5) has not
been always present to the minds of the -writers. The context wiU
generaUy show that what they really mean to limit is not the inspira
tion, but the revelation of Scripture. See, e. g., TiUotson, as referred
to in Lecture I., Note 5 ; Warburton, in Stephen, p. 142 (' it would
be putting the Holy Spirit on an unnecessary employment'); Watson,
Ih., p. 146 ; Tomline, lb., p. 149 (they 'did not upon every occasion
stand in need oi supernatural communication') ; Whately, lb., p. 156,
&c. Some of the passages here cited might be alleged also under
the following head, viz : —
2. Those which distinctly recognise the presence of coUateral
information, the use of common sense in ordinary matters, the
employment of current scientific terms, and other indications that
the human element was complete ; admissions which, as I have urged

362 NOTES TO LECTURE VIII.
(Lecture V., and above, pp. 231, 234), amount to neither an exclusion
of the inspiration nor an acknowledgment of error. To this head
belongs the use of optical or phasnomenal language ; above, p. 158
and Note. Passages of this kind, I repeat, simply carry out the fiiU
recognition of the human element. They do not involve any neces
sary hmitation of what is strictly called inspiration — the special
presence of the Holy Spirit, which raised those human agents to a
loftier power.
3, Those which merely coincide with Butler's warning, above,
pp. 155, 233 (cf Stephen, p. 138 ; and Dr. Mill, cited in Lecture V.,
Note 9), against aU attempts to impose a deductive theory of inspi
ration, and against the disposition to complain if others think that
the facts wiU not support the position which such reasoners had no
right to assume.
4. Those which merely warn us against staking too much on
difficult or questionable positions ; as Paley, above, pp. 141—2.
5. Those which insist on the argument which has been worked out
by several recent writers, on the large share which must be ascribed
to our own ignorance of details, as an explanation of countless
Scripture difficulties. Compare Heber, in Stephen, p. 154. This
position must of course be used with judgment : for it is obviously
inadmissible to argue, as some have done, that we may expect discre
pancies, because a more minute acquauitance with the facts would
cause discrepancies to disappear. What is meant can only be that
this consideration might lead us to expect the appearance, but not
the reality, of discrepancies.
6. Those which cannot be used without an alteration of the
language of the writer quoted, by arguing across from assertions to
negations, or from admissions to exclusions. Compare Lecture IIL,
Note 7. We find a remarkable instance in the use which Mr.
Stephen repeatedly makes of Hooker's words {E. P., I. xiv, § 3,&c.),
that ' the several books of Scripture having had each some several
occasion and particular purpose which caused them to be -written,
the contents thereof are according to the exigence of that special end
whereimto they are intended.' ' The substance of his view is this :
Scripture is perfect /or the end for which it is designed ;' and there
fore, it is argued, for that end only. — Stephen, pp. 96-7, 128,
131-4-7, 146-9, 151, 161, 173. For the real rigour of Hooker's
opinion, see the extract above in Lecture I., Note 20 ; and cf.
Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, pp. 77, 115; PhiUimore

NOTES TO LECTURE VIIL 363
Speech, &c., pp. 92-96 ; M'Caul, Testimonies, &c., pp. 100-8,
'The word of God in itself is absolute, exact, and perfect.' — E.P.
HI. viu. § 4, &c.
Note 3, page 234, Particular attention has been lately caUed to
this point by Dean MUman, History of the Jews, Pref., p. xxix. ;
and i. 65, 98, 120, 122.
Note 4, page 234. See above. Lecture V., Note 14.
Note 5, page 235. See above. Lecture V., Notes 24, 25, and 26.
Note 6, page 240. Compare Van Mildert, B. L., p. 139 ; and
the summary of opinions in the Commentaries of EUicott and
Alford, in loe.
Note 7, page 241. E. and R., p. 377. See Bishop Marsh also,
I.L, pp. 321, 466, 508 ; and above, Lecture IV., Note 1 ; Coleridge,
Confessions, &c., p. 24 (those ' who take up the Bible as they do
other books, and apply to it the same rules of interpretation');
Davidson, ed. of Home's Introduction, U. 207 (' the Bible is to be
explained on the same principles as other books ; ' ' yet we cannot go
aU the length of those who insist on the fact absolutely and unquali
fiedly'). See also above, quotation from Bacon in Lecture IV.,
Note 1, &c. And for Dr. Arnold's feeling on this subject, compare
Mr. B. Price's letter in Stanley's Life of Arnold, p. 167, ed.
1846. Note 8, page 244. ' A doctrine which is based on one text of
Scripture wUl generally be found to rest on no text at all.' —
Wordsworth, Lectures on the Apocalypse, p. 33. In one of Mr. P.
Freeman's papers on the Eucharistic Controversy, he asks : ' Is it not
the case that most of such errors in doctrine as the Irvingite, Mr.
Maurice's as to eternal punishment, the Arian, all rest on single texts
(Eph. iv. 11 ; John xvii. 3; xiv. 28)?' See above. Lecture IIL,
Note 5 ; Lecture V., Note 23. On the other hand, compare Mr.
Jowett's Essay ' On the Imputation ofthe Sin of Adam;' St. Paul's
Epistles, ii. 162, first ed., 'How slender is the foundation,' &c. ;
' two passages in St. Paul at most, and these of uncertain interpre
tation. The little cloud, no bigger than a man's hand, has covered
the heavens,' Also E. and R., p. 358. It is felt in such cases that
an important step has been gained against doctrines which reaUy lie
beneath vast portions of Scripture, if they can be forced back within
the confines of a single text. The fact that the method admits of
a right appUcation as weU as a -wrong one, makes it aU the more
necessary that any aUeged instances should be carefully tested.

364 NOTES TO LECTURE VIH.
Note 9, page 246. On this point I would refer especially to the
valuable work of Wilson, An Illustration ofthe Method of Explain
ing the N. T., &c., chapters ii., iii., &c. Compare LyaU, Propced.
Proph., p. 247 ; H. Browne, Messiah as foretold and expected, p. 77 ;
Trench, On the Parables, p. 11, note. But the details of the argument
are most elaborately examined in Mr. WUson's treatise.

LOIfDON
PRINTED BT 8POTTIS-W0ODE AND CO.
KEW-STEEET BQtJAEE

YALE UNIVERSI-fY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 3016
]  c

"¦¦•¦¦- ft --Wi&jiVB

'i .¦vg^j*wS..

•

¦-• v"-.'''v^'-\>fi^

1 J.
• >'-i. • . - y V*
. ¦ . '
'.,,.'' - "fj ^ .' '-f.^^:'
¦ . ¦;
* . " • ' •¦*".¦»¦ \ . V >.-«««*
.
- ¦".'¦' '-'V ' ¦"*-*¦?£!
^^.1^^ti!^!^U^«I&«^»(^i^»^«^
w
,.:iiJSa'^-ii