13. THE THIRD CHAPTER OF GENESIS:

FIFTH SOME REMARKS UPON THE THIRD PREFACE TO DR. LEE'S WORK ON INSPIRATION.

FORMERLY OF KENTUS COLLEGE, OXFORD.

No. VII.

"It has been matter of great dispute among learned men in all ages, wherein translated the precise notion of the Inspiration of Scripture."—Sermons of Dr. Samuel Harke, Rector of St. James's. Sermon 129.

"The Divine Inspiration of Scripture consists in its internal sense; and the internal sense is the Word of the Lord in the heavens."—Swedenborg's Arcana Colossia, 2007, 1897.

RIVINGTONS,

OXFORD AND LONDON.

1864.

In the first number of this Series,* published in the year 1861, it was asked,—"Can the preacher maintain the principles of Inspiration and Interpretation which he has maintained, and the Canon as it now stands? We predict he will find that he cannot, or that others will do so. Either he must lower his ideas of Inspiration in order to include all the Canonical books, or he must exclude from the Canon certain books in order that it may answer to his ideas of Inspiration. Let him succeed, as we hope he will, in establishing the general principles he advocates, and immediately a controversy with regard to the Canon will be the result."

Accordingly in the year 1864, a Select Preacher,‡ in a Sermon preached from the pulpit of the same University, and published by request, thus addresses the University:—

"As long as the enquiring spirit and the desire for truth subsist in the mind, uncertainties within wider or narrower limits must call for a solution. Men will discuss the claims of this or that book or chapter, for example, to a place in the sacred Canon; and it is all important not that the question should be stifled, and the difficulty thrust aside as though it

* Page 41. † Rev. J. W. Burgon.

‡ J. W. Kitchin, M.A., Junior Proctor, etc., p. 21.

iv were a sin, but that each point should be treated reverently calmly, fairly."

We thus see that a discussion has been raised with respect to the Canon—a discussion which is but the fulfilment of a prediction uttered in the year 183 in the Oxford Tracts for the Times, that a battle for the Canon was then impending. Nor need we wonder at the prediction; for in a work on the Canon, printed at the Clarendon Press at Oxford, A.D. 1798, that is, upwards of sixty years ago, it was stated,— "It is not so easy a matter as is commonly imagined, rightly to settle the Canon of the New Testament. For my own part I declare with many learned men, that in the whole compass of learning I know no question involved with more intricacies and perplexing difficulties than this."

Indeed, a discussion concerning the Canon is only the natural result of the Reformation. Writers in the Roman Communion have always been aware of this; for as the Canon had been founded on the authority of the Church, so to call in question that authority was, in their opinion, to undermine the Canon: hence Dr. Milner, in his End of Controversy, asks his opponent—"By what† means have you learned what is the Canon of Scripture, that is to say, which are the books written by Divine inspiration, or indeed that any books at all have been so written?"

The Canon of Scripture is here regarded as consisting of certain books written by Divine inspiration: but what shall we say concerning this Divine Inspiration?

* By the Rev. J. Jones.

† Letter 13.

V

The following are the answers to this question:—

"I was in nowise called upon to attempt any definition of Inspiration," says the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Pastoral Letter, "seeing that the Church has not thought fit to prescribe one."

"The Church has laid down," says the Archbishop of York in his Pastoral Letter, "no theory of Inspiration; she has always had in her bosom teachers of at least two different theories."

"We heartily concur with the majority of our opponents," says the Aids to Faith,* "in rejecting all theories of Inspiration."

"Let us beware," says Mr. Burgon,† "how we commit ourselves to any theories of Inspiration whatever."

"Our‡ Church," says the Bishop of St. David's, "has never attempted to determine the nature of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture."

"If§ you ask me," says the present Bishop of Calcutta, "for a precise theory of inspiration, I confess that I can only urge you to repudiate all theories, to apply to theology the maxim which guided Newton in philosophy, hypotheses non fingo, and to rest your teaching upon the facts which God has made known to us."

"It|| must be borne in mind," says the Quarterly Review, "that the Church Universal has never given any definition of Inspiration."

How then does the case stand? The Church is unable to give any definition of Inspiration, or to determine its nature; and all theories of Inspiration

* Page 404. † Pastoral Office, p. 58.

‡ See his Charge for 1863. Page 107.

§ Charge of the Bishop of Calcutta, 1863. Page 69.

|| April, 1864. Page 560.

vi are to be rejected. If the matter had rested here the Church would have been consistent; but says the Oxford Declaration, the Catholic Church "maintains without reserve or qualification, the Inspiration and Divine authority of the whole Canonical Scriptures. Have we not here an apt illustration of Locke's marks* upon the abuse of words?—

"Men take the words they find in use among their neighbors; and that they may not seem ignorant what they stand for, use them confidently without much troubling their heads about a certain fixed meaning; whereby, besides the ease of it, they obtain this advantage, that as in such discourses they seldom are in the right, so they are as seldom to be convinced that they are in the wrong; it being all one to go about to draw men out of their mistakes, who have no settled notions, as to dispossess a vagrant of his habitation, who has no settled abode."

If we cannot say what Inspiration is, how can we say that this or that book of the Canon, or this or that passage, is inspired? The answer may be, We know it on the authority, or on the testimony of the Church. But the question is further asked, On what grounds was this testimony given? The Catholic Church is saying to itself, 'It is true that I formerly ruled that such and such writings should form part of the Canon, but what are the grounds upon which I did so?' In answer to this question it has been thought by some, that the Church received them not on the ground of their inspiration, but on that of their Divine authority; so that if the Divine authority of certain books be established, their inspiration becomes

* Essay on the Human Understanding, book ii., chap. x., 4.

vii a secondary question; for then their Inspiration will rest upon their authority, and not their authority upon their Inspiration. Indeed, it has been doubted whether, in this case, we might not dispense with the vexed question of Inspiration altogether; the Canon being said to be founded on the testimony of the sacred writers themselves, and the testimony of the Church; for the extent of the Canon is stated to have been virtually settled by common usage, whence the testimony of Christians became that of the Church.

Suppose now that the Epistles of St. Paul be acknowledged by the Church as being, apart from the question of Inspiration, writings of Divine authority, and thus as forming part of the Canon; on this very ground the question of Divine inspiration becomes one of supreme importance; for now on Divine authority it is stated that,—"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." It is, then, the Divine Inspiration of Scripture which makes it profitable for these ends: and hence the Apostle inseparably unites the inspiration of the writings with religious truth; as, first, with the truths of the Christian faith; secondly, with the refutation of errors contrary to it; thirdly, with the correction of morals; fourthly, with instruction in righteousness. Now can all this be done without any reference to religious truth? Surely in this case, if there are whole books, or parts of books, in our present Canon, which have no relation to any religious truth, how can viii we say that they are inspired by God, unless we contradict the Apostle and say, that all Scripture which is given by inspiration of God, is not necessarily related to religious truth? For the Apostle does not say that the Sacred writers were inspired by God with a view to guarantee the truth of the historical fact; but that the very writing, the historical fact itself as forming a part of inspired Scripture, has a distinct relation to religious truth. Nor are we justified in these cases in transferring the inspiration from the writing to the writer, and saying that the writer was inspired and the writing not; or, as the Quarterly Review* has recently affirmed, that "it was, properly speaking, the writers who were inspired and not the Book;" for St. Paul distinctly predicates inspiration of the Scripture or the writing itself, and hence Bengel observes,—"Scriptura Divinitus inspirata est, non solum dum scripta est, Deo spirante per scriptores; sed etiam dum legitur, Deo spirante per scripturam, et scriptura ipsum spirante?"

It is in vain to say then that certain Books or parts of Books may be of Divine authority, although they possess no Divine Inspiration; for unquestionably the Apostle connects Divine authority with Divine Inspiration, and Divine inspiration with religious truth. It is in vain, moreover, to speak of historical records as of Divine authority, but having no relation to religious truth; and equally in vain to speak of Divine Inspiration giving rise to a Divine authority which teaches no religious truth whatever. Historical facts, therefore, if they are of Divine authority, must

* April, 1864, page 551. This notion is by no means uncommon.

ix have Divine Inspiration; and if they have a Divine Inspiration, they must teach religious truth. Consequently, whatever books or parts of books have no relation to religious truth, are without Divine Inspiration.

This is clearly admitted by the Quarterly Review:*—

"It may," says the Reviewer, "without any violation of the great dictum that God is the author of Scripture, be affirmed that there may be parts of the Canonical books, which, on subjects unconnected with religious faith or moral duty, were not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but were left of God's special purpose to the natural acting of the writer's powers,"—in which passage it is clearly implied, that where there is no religious truth, there is no inspiration, and if there be no Divine Inspiration, there can be no Divine authority.

Accordingly it was stated at the trial of Dr. Colenso, that the result of the operation of the Holy Ghost upon the mind of the author of the Pentateuch, which is called inspiration, was this—"A† writing of Divine authority, revealing all religious truth with certainty, free from all error." It is obvious that, in this passage, the authority is the result of inspiration, and the inspiration is connected with religious truth.

Have then ALL the Canonical books, and all parts of those books a relation to religious truth? We are told that they have not; and not only that they have not, but that there are parts of books, with which‡ religious truth, if connected, would be degraded.

* Page 552.

† Page 308.

‡ Charge of the Bishop of St. David's, 1863, p. 124.

X

Shall we say, then, that those parts of books with which it would be a degradation to religious truth to be united, are inspired? Shall we say, that those passages in which it would be a degradation of religious truth to be united, are nevertheless profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness? Who does not perceive that this cannot be; and that we must regard certain parts of the Scriptures either as uninspired, or else as containing a spiritual sense?

So in regard to ordinary historical facts in Scripture,—do they contain within them religious truth? If they do not, where is the inspiration? Divine Truth comes from God out of heaven: is this the case with mere historical fact? The mere circumstance that the Spirit of Truth, operating upon the writer, leads him to state an historical fact as it took place, does not raise it above the level of historical facts, or change the nature of the fact itself. It still remains just what it was, the very same which it would have been if stated correctly by the unassisted memory, viz., absolutely uninspired. If, on the other hand, the fact has any religious truth, i. e., any internal meaning contained within it, to what can it be owing but to Divine inspiration?

Of course it is open to any one to proceed upon the principles of Bishop Marsh, and to deny any internal sense to Scripture in general; but it is obvious that in so doing he is denying also the existence of Divine inspiration: and it is of no use to plead the Divine authority of passages which are not Divinely inspired, if the authority arises out of the inspiration.

TO THE BLADDER.

XI

What then is this Divine Inspiration? It is the same with Divine breathing. "Not* only are the writers of Holy Scripture moved by the Holy Ghost, but the writing itself, every part of the whole writing, is filled with the breath of God." What is this breath? Not a speechless but a speaking breath: a breath that is articulated into mental words, or thoughts, thus into truths from the Spirit of Truth. The consequence is, that every Scripture inspired by God, conveys the thoughts of God accommodated to the thoughts of man. As such God speaks to man through inspired Scriptures, and hence these Scriptures are pre-eminently THE WORD OF GOD. There will be no peace to the Church till it returns to this first principle. I say, return; because at one time the Church adopted it.

"From the fact," says a celebrated Commentator,† "that the Sacred Scriptures are inspired by God, Chrysostom concludes that they have profound and divine meanings, and consequently are not plain and clear to every one, but contain many arcana. Like the stream whose outer surface alone is patent, but under which lies hidden an inner and far greater abundance of waters, in which a lamb may swim, and an elephant be drowned."

It is as arising out of this Divine inspiration that a recent Bampton Lecturer observes:—

"The‡ doctrine of the spiritual sense then rests on the

* Lectures on the Inspiration of the Bible, p. 10, by Dr. Wordsworth, Canon of Westminster.

† Cornelius a Lapide on 2 Timothy iii. 16.

‡ Dr. Hannah, Warden of Trinity College, Glenalmond, etc., p. 113.

xii belief, 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 intelligence and position prompted. The reality of the Divine element in Scripture is the truth on which the possibility of such senses must depend; for it implies that the res beneath the voces shall be significant as well as they."

This was the origin of the saying, Dum narrat gestum, prodit mysterium. Now the Church upon earth subsists from the Church in heaven. There is but one and the same Lord for both; one wisdom of God for both; and hence one Word of God for both. The medium, therefore, of the connection of the Church on earth with the Church in heaven, is the Word of God. But what does the Church in heaven know about Jews, and Jewish rituals? What about the new moons, the blood of bulls and of goats, the dishes, spoons, candlestick, and bowls of the temple? What does the Church in heaven know about Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and Jericho; the Hivites, Jebusites, and Perizzites; the Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, and other earthly kingdoms? Surely if all these things did not contain within them a religious truth or internal sense, they could be of no concern to the Church in heaven, nor any medium of communication between men on earth and angels in heaven. Consequently, in so far as the Church on earth ignores this spiritual sense, it cuts itself off from the Church in heaven; and, like the Church of Sardis, has a name to live but is dead.

Are we, however, to apply this principle of Inspiraxiii tion to the whole of the Canon? Shall we say that every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High? Certainly not; for the Apostle was alluding to the Canon as it existed in the Jewish Church, and not as it exists in the Christian; and this Canon is alluded to by the Saviour as consisting of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, in all which there existed a spiritual sense as relating primarily to Christ, and in a secondary way to the Christian. But there is no internal sense in the Acts of the Apostles; nor any in the Epistles, though they relate to subjects which concern the internal sense. The Word of God, therefore, is an expression which applies primarily to those books in which there is an internal sense; and only in a secondary way to those which have not the internal sense, but treat of subjects which arise out of it; while those books which have been said to have no relation to any religious truth, cannot be called the Word of God in any sense whatever.

"Take,* for instance, the Book of Esther. This book is not quoted once in the New Testament. It was not considered as Canonical by two considerable Fathers, Melito and Gregory Nazianzen. It contains no prophecy, it has nothing on the surface to distinguish it from a mere ordinary history; nay, it has no mark on the surface of its being a religious history. Not once does it mention the name of God, or Lord, or any other name by which the God of Israel is designated."

From these remarks, then, it will be seen that an

* Oxford Tracts for the Times, vol. v. The Canon and Creed Compared, p. 81. A.D. 1838.

u 2 xiv internal sense of Scripture is essential to its Divinity Inspiration. This we have seen plainly admitted and therefore says a recent Bampton Lecturer:*—

"A spiritual sense then must always have lain hid beneath the letter, and must have been gradually unfolded in proportion to the elevation of the human faculties in their 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 the literal—a signification which is veiled alike under command and precept, type and symbol, history and prophecy, stern denunciation and triumphal psalm."

If this deeper signification exists "throughout the entire range of the Old Testament Scriptures," and if the first Three Chapters of Genesis form a part of those Scriptures, it is high time that we should endeavour to ascertain what this deeper signification is. According to what we have stated, it must be a signification having relation to religious truth; for as a modern writer observes:—

"Its† purpose as inspired writ is in no degree to give us a history of cosmogenesis, a knowledge of which is certainly not material to our spiritual welfare, if it be in any respect related thereto—but solely to communicate religious truth. The religious truth which it embodies, is plainly, according to every interpretation of the record, truth of the very supremest importance."

It is no other than trifling to teach these things

* Dr. Hannah, p. 111.

† Faith and Peace, art. Sacred Record of Creation, p. 65.

XV and yet to deny them. The Church is shut up to the conclusion, not Yes and No, but Yes or No. Are the early Chapters of Genesis inspired? Yes or No. If they are inspired, do they for that reason teach religious truth? Yes or No. If they teach religious truth, what is the religious truth which they teach? What is there in them that is profitable for doctrine, or reproof, or correction, or instruction in righteousness? Shall we say that all that the first Chapter tells us is, that there is a God who made heaven and earth, and that he made them in a certain order of succession? Or shall we say that something more is taught, and that the outward Creation is a type of the inner? This at least is a truth beginning at last to be acknowledged, though but slowly, doubtfully, and timidly.

"If," says a modern divine,* "there is an inward creation which this outward creation typifies, illustrates, and explains; if the same 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 need be at no loss for a clue to understand the first Chapter of Genesis in a manner profitable for our soul's health; profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness."

I need not say that the interpretation of the First Chapter determines the interpretation of the Second and Third; for the interpretation results from the principle of inspiration. The question of inspiration, says a modern writer, cannot be admitted to be of

* Four Sermons on Subjects of the Day, by Dr. Goulburn, Chaplain to the Bishop of Oxford, etc., p. 9.

xvi no importance to the interpreter; for "will* not a clear view of the inspiration of the Scriptures tend to direct and strengthen his conclusions respecting their interpretation?"

It has been well observed in one of the Tracts for the Priests and the People,† that—

"Naturalists who did not care much while we agreed with them about the story of Creation, still less while we argued with them about all the evidences of adaptation which prove an intelligent Creator, may listen to the strange news that by the Divine Word the order was made that in Him was life, and that His life is the light of man; and may find in these mystical utterances the very meaning of Creation, that which contradicts none of their discoveries, but transcends them and harmonizes them—that which shews that Moses could only understand the order of the Universe in reference to man, because he could only understand man in reference to God."

P.S. These remarks had passed through the press when, for the first time, I read the Preface to the third edition of The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, by William Lee, D.D., Archdeacon of Dublin, etc., recently published. As any observations upon the statement there made, respecting the doctrines of Swedenborg in their relation to Inspiration, would be here out of place, I have reserved them for the conclusion of the present Tract, to which therefore I invite the attention of the reader.

* Faith and Peace, Authority of Scripture, by the Rev. J. Pendall, Rector of Harlton, etc., p. 45.

† The Mote and the Beam, by the Rev. F. D. Maurice, Tract II, p. 72.