Inspiration and Interpretation.
J. N. Darby.
<09004E> file section b.
259 But all this leads us to the second point, in these days an all important one: is there inspiration, and what is it?
W. It is an important question, and is even more embarrassing as to the New than as to the Old; because the New pronounces on the Old. But I see plainly, as to the question of the inspiration of the Old Testament — of the prophets at least (and, indeed, the Lord cites the whole volume), they must be inspired, or impostors giving as the Lord's words what were not so. But then the Lord's statements are insurmountable. "The scriptures cannot be broken," John 10:35, for instance; for He must have known it if they were impostors, yet cites them as true prophets, and declares they must be fulfilled, that they spoke of Him. But if the prophets were inspired, we have direct inspiration, and the mind of God as far as given to them. And this, and this only, is what we have to seek, and the only question is, as you say: Is Christianity founded on a less explicit revelation from God than Judaism? You cannot say it was founded on Christ, and this is sufficient; for He wrote nothing, and I do not know what He was, with any divine faith, if the writings of the New Testament were not inspired. I see the question is a most grave one; while it is of the utmost weight to see that the Old Testament is certainly inspired, because the fundamental question is settled, and the casting the New Testament out of the limits of inspired communications is a poor idea altogether then. To say that an imperfect revelation is inspired, a perfect one not, is somewhat hard to believe: still we must see from scripture itself.
H. Surely that is the way as to enquiry; for it really proves itself its divine power in the conscience. And this last is the only true knowledge of inspiration. I know rationalists try and put off with an air of superiority, as rejected by enlightened people (that is, themselves), what they have not got, and therefore cannot feel the force of; but I am not afraid of avowing, in the fullest extent, the doctrine of the Reformation, which is necessarily the doctrine of every believer, that scripture proves itself by its own power. I go further — it never proves itself, never can prove itself, if it be true, in any other way. And so, moreover, it declares: "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Rom. 10:17, "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself." 1 John 5:10, "The law of Jehovah is perfect, converting the soul. The entrance of thy word giveth light, it giveth understanding to the simple." Ps. 19:7. If what is called light requires something to shew it, it is a proof that it is not really light. In the nature of things light shews itself and all else. It is not what we mean by light, what a man who has eyes knows it to be by having eyes, if it has to be shewn. It does require eyes to see it. If a man has not eyes, he cannot of course see it or know what it is at all. Nor can any one tell him what it is, or make himself understood in speaking of it. He wants the faculty of what is to be proved. If a man does not see the word of God to be such, it is a proof that he has no moral eyes, no faith. A man asks me how I can prove honey to be sweet. I say, if you cannot taste it, you must remain ignorant. And note, if there be a word of God, it must be moral light and perfect light, divine light — cannot be otherwise. If what is presented to me be not such, I say at once, then it is not God's word. It may be dawn, or shine through clouds, or be noon-day, but it is in its nature light, or it is not God's word. Hence, in the nature of things it must reveal itself. If it do not, it is not God's word. Whether a man has eyes to see is another question: but one who has knows he sees the light.
260 Hence I am not afraid of the language of another of our Essays. "Calvin did not shrink from saying that scripture shone sufficiently by its own light. As long as this could be kept to, the Protestant theory of belief was whole and sound — at least it was as sound as the Catholic. In both, reason, aided by spiritual illumination, performs the subordinate function of recognizing the supreme authority of the Church and of the Bible respectively. But learned controversy and abatement of zeal drove the Protestants generally from the hardy but irrational assertion of Calvin." I dare say they did. That is, as men lost faith, they lost conviction of the divine authority of the word. How could they do otherwise? It is stating the same thing in other terms. But Calvin, as every believer, could not say otherwise, because it had shone thus in his own soul and in no other way. The Church was against it, nature was against it, interest was against it. God's word was too mighty. But I say more: if the scriptures be not thus received, they are never received at all. It professes to be the word and testimony of God. If a witness has to be accredited, and proved to be true, the witness is not believed at all on his own testimony. Hence, as long as scripture has to be proved by reason, or accredited by the Church, God is not believed because He has spoken, that is, there is no real faith. Such reasoning or accrediting may lead me to believe it afterwards, so far as leading me to examine the testimony, which thus may acquire force over my soul as true. But, as long as reasoning or accrediting is the reason why I believe it, I do not receive it as the word of God. I do not believe God in it. I do not receive it as His word. If I believe Thomas because James has said that what he has said is true, I do not believe Thomas at all.
261 W. Yes; but if James has said that Thomas was truthful, not that what he said was true?
H. I do not want any one to tell me God is truthful. What is wanting is to know that it is His testimony. And, mark, if I cannot without James's testimony know that Thomas's word is to be trusted, it is a proof that I do not know Thomas, and that I am incapable of myself of discovering the truthfulness of his statements. He is true, but I cannot find it out. So with the rationalist. He cannot find it out if it be God's word, if the testimony is truthful. It is his incapacity. He may be an open infidel. But, if not, all his state means is, that he is incapable of discerning the word of God. He has the will to make difficulties, because he does not like to have a word directly from God; but he cannot say it is not — he cannot help me in judging if it be. And, indeed, if I believe Thomas only because James says he is truthful, I still do not know Thomas myself; and if this be true in the case we are speaking of, I do not know God still, and my believing His word is of no real use whatever; for the knowledge of God is its true value. But more than this — if God has spoken, either He has not so spoken as to bind my conscience, that is, He has spoken to no purpose at all, and badly, or He has spoken so as to bind my conscience, and it is not according to the rationalist bound. I therefore am guilty and blind; for I do not receive and bow to what ought to bind my conscience. If revelation be not therefore wholly denied, either God has spoken incompetently and badly, or I am bound to receive and bow to it.
W. That is true; and it is easy to decide which is the case. But do you mean sound reasonings cannot be a means of convincing the mind that the scriptures are the word of God?
H. They cannot give faith in it. They may lead to it in this way, namely, in that they prove the absurdity of what is said to deny it, and prove thus the absurdity of denying it, so that the mind bows to it, and the word is left to its own force; but there is never faith till it has exercised this force.
W. I see, it may open all the way to the Bible, but the Bible must do its own work.
262 H. Exactly.
W. Well, it is true if you did not believe me till what I said was accredited by another, it would not be believing me.
H. And note, in passing, how this applies to the Romanist ground. The word or testimony of God may of course act on souls there as elsewhere by its own power; but as to faith — real divine faith — in the soul, as long as I believe on the Church's warrant, I do not believe God at all; that is, I do not believe anything divine. I believe in the Church, but not yet on God or His word. The Roman Catholic ground of faith is total unbelief. They say I cannot believe the word of God till the Church accredits it. Now I hold it a great mercy to be brought up to receive the Bible to be the word of God, because I go to it as a little child, and it is free to exercise its power over me. But I have not faith till it does.
We will now turn to Mr. Jowett's statements as to inspiration. The greater part is utter fallacy, or fancies of men which are only to be left to their own worthlessness. He gives various views of inspiration as contradictory, in order to shew the uncertainty of men on the subject, when, in fact, all are compatible and true, so that there is no dilemma at all, unless what is said of the kind of inspiration of particular books. All this is throwing dust in people's eyes. What the upright soul wants to know when it takes up a Bible, is, I can trust this; I will sit down to know what God will say to me, what He has said, what His mind is. As to the manner of inspiration, he knows nothing about it. What he reads must be the word of God for him. He must trust it, bow to it as such, and looks for the aid of the Spirit which indited it. And the doctors in theology know no more about it than he does, nor can they; because they are not inspired, and can have no consciousness of the manner of the Spirit's action. The apostle could not explain it. Mr. Jowett says it is held by some that there is an inspiration of superintendence, and by others an inspiration of suggestion. Now I believe both fully. If the evangelists, as eye-witnesses, had facts to record which they remembered, the Spirit had only to take care they were rightly used, Himself so to use the memory, and not permit the narrator to narrate them otherwise than according to His mind. There is an inspiration of suggestion, as the history of creation or prophecy. And Christ expressly promises both: "The Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but what he shall hear that shall he speak, and he will shew you things to come." John 16:13. And again: "He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance." John 14:26. Of course the Essayists know better about it than the scriptures. But Mr. Jowett tells us we are to take scripture's account of itself.
263 Next we have opposed an inspiration in which the inspired person is passive, and an inspiration which acts through the character of the sacred writer. But here there is no opposition. If God has formed the character as a vessel, He can use it so that the will should be in no exercise, and what sets the character in activity should be simply the Holy Ghost moving it, and it remaining as an instrument what it was, as I have no doubt was usually the case. There are different kinds of inspiration as to form recognized in scripture, closely connected with this remark. I may speak the words willed by God, and not understand them, or I may understand and speak them. This last, though a less apparently inspired and glorious form, the apostle prefers. But both were inspired. An example of one was tongues, or Old Testament prophecy; the other was prophecy under the New. So when the communication of the facts and ordinary knowledge of facts are contrasted, the contrast has no ground. The Spirit brought to their remembrance. It was the memory of things known when they had taken place, but recalled in the perfection proper to the mind of God to the memory of the inspired person, or, if needed, revealed if unknown. What I look for in inspiration is, that the words should be so ordered by the Spirit as to convey perfectly what it was the intention of the Spirit to communicate.
Again, when an apostle spoke he was as inspired, when it was the intention of God he should be so, in speaking as in writing. When not, he was like another man speaking or writing — perhaps more spiritual — not necessarily so; but his words had no inspired authority. The writing was different in this — it was to abide, and hence had a permanent character of inspiration. Although, as to this also, Paul might have written uninspired, though spiritual letters, or not inspired for permanent use. But I shall shew that the apostles do pretend to inspiration, and affirm it of all scriptures; that they distinguish between personal spirituality and inspired communications having the authority of the Lord.
After making all kinds of false logical divisions and confusions, so as to puzzle the reader, Mr. Jowett comes plainly to the point, and asserts — "Nor for any of the higher or supernatural views of inspiration is there any foundation in the gospels and epistles." Now this is simply, totally, and entirely false — an incredible statement, and slurs over the question of inspiration in a way I must call disingenuous; because, by saying gospels and epistles, the Old Testament is passed over in silence. And does it mean the gospels and epistles do not pretend to it themselves, or do not affirm it of scripture? But it is false in any case. We read thus, "No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation; for prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20. Paul says, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly [here we are in the New Testament] that in the last times some shall depart from the faith." 1 Tim. 4:1. He declares that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God;" it is proper to make the man of God perfect. The Old Testament writers are positive — "Thus saith Jehovah," they say. And David, "The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was in my tongue;" and Christ, in spite of rationalists, declares they testify of Him, and that all must be fulfilled. He appeals to scripture as an irrefragable and divine testimony, and declares, in Luke 16, that it bound the consciences of its readers as much as His own resurrection did. But St. Paul is more precise. He ascribes, in New Testament communication, first the revelation. next the communication, thirdly the reception of divine truth, exclusively and absolutely to the direct operation of the Spirit: thus only can it be, he says. "What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a man that is in him? Even so knoweth no one the things of God, but the Spirit of God." Next, "Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, communicating [such is the force] spiritual things by a spiritual medium." 1 Cor. 2:13-14. Then they are only so received. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit … for they are spiritually discerned."
264 He distinguishes between his experience, in which he had the Spirit acting in himself, and the revelation which made his communications the commandments of the Lord. "But I speak this by permission, not of commandment. Unto the married I command; yet not I, but the Lord … But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; I give my judgment as one that has obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of the Lord." 1 Cor. 7:40. Here then he distinguishes between his judgment, as to which he could yet appeal to them as having the Spirit to form and guide his experience, and a revelation from the Lord which constituted a commandment. Hence he says as to the body of his epistle not thus formally excepted, "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." 1 Cor. 14:37. Some would allege, from his saying "I have no commandment," that all is not inspired. Yes, he was inspired; and modern attempts prove the immense importance of the precision of the God of grace pointing out the difference between the expression of his experience by the Spirit, and a revelation by the Spirit which had the direct force of a commandment.
265 But as to the gospels, Mr. Jowett pleads that their declaring the record to be true, inasmuch as the writer saw that of which he spoke, is a proof that there is no inspiration. This is a mistake; the Lord had said the Spirit should bear witness of what they could not see — the heavenly glory of Christ; the disciples of His life, as they had been with Him; but for this last, that all might be according to the perfection of the Holy Spirit, He would bring to their remembrance what Christ had said. That is, the Holy Ghost reveals the heavenly glory of Christ and doctrine flowing from it, and calls to remembrance the earthly teaching of Christ, which they had already heard. The fitting the vessel in every way is no proof of the Lord's not using it Himself. When the Lord is tempted by Satan, He quotes the scriptures as absolute authority against him, and Satan can make no reply to it at all.
There cannot be a more unfounded or false assertion than that the gospels or epistles do not present the Old Testament and themselves as inspired. They formally claim inspiration both for Old and New. Πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος does not simply apply to the Old Testament. It is the assertion of the character of πᾶσα γραφὴ And in Romans 16:26 prophetic writings (for this is the true force) are said to be means used for propagating the truth; and Peter, in his second epistle, refers to Paul's epistles as scriptures. Scripture is not an essay on inspiration. Nor does it in every epistle or book set about to say "I am inspired." It would be a proof that it was not, and feared people should say so; but there are the most distinct testimonies, when the occasion occurs, that it is so. What can be stronger than saying — "The scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen by faith?" It is treating the scripture as if it were God Himself, because it is God's own expression of His mind which scripture gives. The Lord Himself gives testimony to inspiration, and to the inspiration of scripture, which is what rationalists deny. The referring merely to the New Testament is a subterfuge; and the New Testament gives the plainest declaration of the inspiration of the testimony by which Christianity was founded, and that the New Testament, as other scriptures, is inspired.
266 W. I do not think it possible for any one reading the New Testament to call in question its inspiration.
H. Impossible. Where it does not speak of inspiration it gives its contents as definite revelation. I refer now to the epistles. They speak of mysteries, that is, things known only to the initiated by revelation; and speak of them avowedly as so given. Where Paul gives only his experience by the Holy Ghost, he states it to be different, as we have seen. A large part of it is avowedly prophecy. And the Apocalypse is revealed or an imposture. Some is said to be by the "word of the Lord," where it is a then given revelation; and the most ordinary directions are said to be "the Lord's commandments." The Apostle Paul consequently took the greatest care, adding a salutation as a testimony that all was right. However our present object is to consider Mr. Jowett's Essay, not to give a treatise on inspiration.
W. But how do you account for the details of human life, and difference of style, and special occasions of writing the epistles?
H. It is just the perfection of the New Testament. The very essence of Christianity is God manifest in flesh; what is divine clothed in all the details and entering into all the circumstances of human life. Of course the revelation partakes, and must partake, if it be a true one, of the nature and character of what it reveals. And this is what we find: first the connection of man with what is heavenly in Christ, which could be only known by revelation; and thus the introduction of divine principles into every part of human life. Under the old covenant God was hidden behind the veil, and sent out messages with "Thus saith the Lord:" there could not be the familiarity there is under the new.
But though Christianity is infinitely higher, yet God is revealed. It has introduced God into this world in man, and man into heaven in Christ. This is unfolded in doctrine; the former specially by John, the latter by Paul; and while the latter makes the believer capable of drawing his principles from above, the former stamps its character on all his ways, and is given as the model of all our walk. Thus, in Philippians 2, also you get Christ coming down, a pattern of our subjective state — our mind; in Philippians 3, of our activity and giving up all, through the objective power of the glory seen in Him. For the former no circumstance is too minute, for Christ was perfect in all, from childhood to the cross; the latter makes every sacrifice light. All is dross and dung compared to it. The supposition of a promise given to the apostles of guidance by the Holy Ghost in every respect for their service, and that what they most deliberately gave to the churches was without it, is in itself a moral absurdity. Impossible that they should do so; impossible that God should allow it. This promise of the Comforter as their guide, and as managing all, is the characteristic feature of what Christ told them on going away. His last injunction was, they should not stir in their work till He was come and they were endued with power from on high. Yet we are told that what was to guide the Church in all ages, and to be its sure safeguard in perilous times, was not given under this power!
267 W. It is utterly incredible. And while direct testimonies from scripture prove the assertion of Mr. Jowett to be utterly false, it is well to see that it is as unnatural as it is untrue, and contrary to the whole method of scripture.
H. Paul too, remember, positively declares, in speaking of the mystery, that it was made known to him by revelation. We have seen he communicated it by words taught of the Holy Ghost.
We will pass to other points of objection. Mr. Jowett declares that Paul was corrected by the course of events in his expectation of the coming of Christ. For this there is not the smallest possible ground. At the extreme close of his career, he urges Timothy to keep the commandment unrebukably till Christ's appearing, which the only Potentate was to shew in its own time; that is, he uses exactly the same language then as in his earliest epistle. (1 Thess.) It was a time the Father had put in His own power. Of that day knew no one; but they were commanded to be always expecting the return of the Master. Paul never knew — for it was not revealed; he always expected, for Christ had told men to do so, and made it the difference of the faithful and unfaithful servant; and the Spirit kept it alive in his soul. Christ had marked the Church's unfaithfulness, by the servants saying, "My lord delayeth his coming." Into this Paul did not fall. The Lord at the same time prophetically declared that, while the bridegroom tarried (no man knew how long), the virgins would slumber and sleep. He has tarried, and the early expectation of the Church has been lost. It went to sleep. Its worldliness and corruption and the loss of this expectation went on together. The midnight cry which awakes her is recalling her to this expectation. Mr. Jowett has not the expectation which brightened and animated the labours of Paul, and the course of events has more power over his mind than the words of Christ. The Second Epistle of Peter tells us the blessed motive of the delay: God is not slack concerning His promise, but is long-suffering, not willing that any should perish. His long-suffering is salvation.
268 W. I see no ground at all for this assertion. It is a mere human comment imposed on scripture, and evidently not drawn in any way from its contents. It has always seemed to me (for I have heard it elsewhere) mere ignorance of the word and its principles, be those principles true or false. And it is quite evident that this expectation stamped its character on Paul's labours, and gave them an unworldliness wholly lost now, but which was no loss to him. The virgins got in somewhere to rest, and had to be called out again when the bridegroom was really coming.
H. Another objection to inspiration is drawn from the introduction to Luke. The statement of the fact, though not peculiar to Mr. Jowett, as little advanced by these Essayists is, is entirely unfounded. Luke does not say a word of setting forth in order a declaration of what eye-witnesses delivered. Others (Luke states) had done this according to what eye-witnesses had delivered. As they had done this, he says that he who had παρηχολουθηχότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀχριβῶς, had followed up accurately — had an intimate knowledge of — everything from the very beginning, thought good to write to Theophilus that he might have certainty about them. That is, because the others were insufficient, he did it so as to give certainty. This remark, simple as it is, is as old as Origen, who refers to "taken in hand" as a mere human undertaking in contrast with Luke. This is not a question in itself of inspiration, but of a suited instrument. But the statements made on this subject are the exact opposite of the truth.
How Mr. Jowett can say that Matthew supposes Bethlehem to have been the dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary, I cannot tell. It is a pure fable. There is not a word of their dwelling-place, good or bad, nor allusion to it, nor a supposition of it.
As regards other objections. In Luke we have a full account of the state of the godly remnant in Israel, a most perfect and lovely picture, the dominion of the Gentiles over Israel, but God's providential ordering of their political movements to bring about His own designs announced in prophecy — the movement being arrested as soon as ever the design was accomplished. The genealogies are in perfect accordance with the design of each gospel. Luke, after the first two chapters, unfolds the character of Christ as Son of man, and grace towards men, Matthew, the presentation of the Messiah Emmanuel to Israel, and His rejection, and the substitution of the Church and the kingdom for that people in their then standing before God. Hence Luke traces the genealogy to Adam; Matthew, from David and Abraham. That men cannot explain them is very true. This may prove man's ignorance, but nothing as to the genealogies. They were available to those of that day directly; for us they rest on the authority of His word. Matthew does mention, in the most general way, the thieves blaspheming, because he is giving the extent of Christ's sufferings. The very thieves insulted Him, as I might say a mob attacked the queen and outraged her, though only two used insulting language: Luke, as is constantly the case with him, gives a full moral detail on a particular point (so he does as to the two at Emmaus; so as to Legion); it is possible that both thieves did; but not the least necessary to the account in Matthew. As to the narration of the woman's anointing the Lord's feet, it is a mistake. Mary's anointing at Bethany was evidently a wholly different occurrence.
269 Mr. Jowett speaks of a cycle of traditions, beyond which the tradition of the early fathers never travels, "though the world could not contain the books if all were written." And in these short narratives we ought to estimate the "accumulative weight" of the discrepancies. So of prophecy how far "the details were minutely fulfilled."
Now the fact that the early fathers never travelled beyond these narratives proves this, that beyond a written revelation they knew nothing about the matter; that all knowledge of the life of Jesus was confined to a written revelation — a very important point in its nature, as proving, at the least, that the positive revelation about it was from the first so absolutely owned, to the exclusion of all else, that every other tradition dropped into oblivion at once. A pretended oral tradition really falls to the ground. This alone was owned and trusted from the beginning. These alleged traditions had no place at all in what was known; and I think we may fairly say that this could not have been the case without the divine will and power. A divine account was to, and did, supersede all human accounts. There must have been such; and Papias tells us there were, and that his delight was to listen to eye-witnesses telling of them; yet none appear. The apocryphal gospels are not worth referring to. The gospels were written apart from one another, probably at different epochs, yet with much of the same matter, and there is nothing at all outside them.
270 W. This is a striking fact, and, alleged as it is by Mr. Jowett, of weight in the enquiry as to discrepancies; but I should be glad that you would say a little more on this point. The objections seem to me to have very little weight, and to prove, by their futility, rather the will to attack than the difficulty of defence. But I should like a little more on this point in principle.
H. The details as to the gospels we will speak of in a moment. I will speak now of general principles. If a man write a book, he must have some design in doing it; and if a consistent man, he follows out that design. If God inspires one, He must have a design, and He must follow it out perfectly: and this is stamped on every page of scripture. In this perfectness all details will come in; not that every detail has the same importance.
If God is shewing the whole relationship of God with man, and His dealings with man, I must get man as he is; and I may get special dealings, not in the measure, or on the ground, of eternal truth, while I shall get the true light too. All this, as I have previously remarked, we have. It is only the stupidity of the objectors to suppose that all the things related or said are inspired. The wickedness and unbelief of man is largely set forth; this was not inspired by God. But the writers were inspired to give it, as it really was in truth, that I might have a true divinely given account of this state for my own heart and conscience. God may deal and has dealt specially with man in all patience. To know the real state of things I must have these dealings, or I shall know most superficially the human heart, and God's ways, and His love, and how the heart has been tested, and what it is under these tests. My moral knowledge will else be shallow. Now I have all this in scripture, and the full light in the New Testament on them. Mr. Jowett is ignorant enough of the purport of scripture thus to describe all this. "It [inspiration] is reconcilable with the mixed good and evil of the characters of the Old Testament, which nevertheless does not exclude them from the favour of God, with attribution to the divine Being of actions at variance with that higher revelation which. He has given of Himself in the gospel."
W. But I do not exactly see what that has to do with inspiration. Those of whom an inspired account speaks may be good or evil.
H. Of course they might. It has no more to do with it than the man in the moon. Nay, prophecy would, as to the greater part of it (we may indeed say all), have had no opportunity for its exercise if evil had not been there. It was the sustaining witness of God when evil was there. And just see the "nevertheless does not exclude them from the favour of God." What has that to do with inspiration? Supposing God sends an inspired message to one on whom His favour rests, but who is at the moment going astray: — it shews patient grace, and no allowance of evil. But what is there in that which has to do with inspiration? It is utter blundering, and nothing more. The path which led to it is evident. It is this: he would shew that, if evil be there, there cannot be inspiration. It is an attempt to discredit scripture by the fact of evil being there. But that is confounding the inspired word given about the evil, which rebukes it even, with the evil itself. What shews the animus of the passage is that the evil does not, according to the inspired book, exclude from God's favour. But if a mixed state of good and evil is to exclude from God's favour, every man in the world must be excluded from it. But the whole argument is a mere blunder, and a very stupid one. Inspired history is true history, and gives the evil as well as the good. A mere panegyric history would prove itself not inspired, like the legends of the saints, or a human biography. As to prophecy, I may say, it is constant invective against evil. That the patience of God went on rising up early and sending them, till there was no remedy, Mr. Jowett, I regret to say, casts in God's teeth; I adore Him for it, as for all His goodness.
271 W. I really begin to think Mr. Jowett has one of the most inexact and illogical minds I ever saw.
H. I thoroughly agree with you; I can hardly say I begin to think so. But this is a very excusable infirmity. But it seems more specious to say actions are attributed to God "at variance with that higher revelation which He has given of Himself in the gospel."
First, note the way christian language is used; God has given a higher revelation of Himself in the gospel. Is there a revelation without any inspiration? Don't let us dispute about the word. I prefer revelation — it is plainer. Is there a revelation without direct or inspired communications from God? If so, what is a revelation? Now God, in patient grace, did deal with men on lower grounds than the gospel — put them under the schoolmaster up to Christ. But there was no contradiction in it. It took the ground of man's responsibility to God; and God dealt in partial temporal judgments, and even in cutting off the people, as shewing the true result of being on this ground, which the gospel fully confirms; though this way of dealing be not the gospel. The former history was promise or law; the gospel is neither, but perfectly consistent with and illustrating the excellency of both, while putting man on another ground (and that is redemption), where the true light can fully shine, grace and heavenly blessing reign through righteousness. God's way of meeting man under promise, and, still more, His way of meeting man under law, must be different from His relationship with them under redemption; but promise told the redemption would come, and law made the need of the redemption felt, by putting man on the ground of responsibility to God, so as to make redemption a far clearer and more felt thing, and God's goodness far more distinct and intelligible. But Mr. Jowett, who judges of all as one system by his own thoughts and views, insists on the variance as if it were a contradiction, and hence all could not be divine. It is about as much sense as if I should insist on the contradiction of a man's bringing seed, and putting it into a field, and then reaping it, and taking it all out.
272 The truth is, I think I never met with a person who had bewildered himself in attempting to deal with divine questions as Mr. Jowett has, and proved his entire ignorance of all God's ways by the judgment which, in his own strength, he has passed upon them. Think of a man writing an elaborate commentary or essay on the Romans (I say essay, for even in the notes it is the expression of his own thoughts, explaining how the apostle was governed in his expressions by local prejudices and habits of thought of his day; from which, of course, Mr. Jowett is quite free); but think of his coming to this result — "Sin is not simply evil, but intermediate between evil and good, implying always the presence of God within."
W. What!
H. Ay, that is it totidem verbis.
W. Well, but what can he mean?
H. Well, it is the result of a man's reasoning from his own ideas to St. Paul's epistles (of course, believing that this higher revelation is not inspired), instead of learning from it, or even expounding it. He continues, "If we are surprised at St. Paul regarding the law — holy, just, and good as it was — as almost sin, we must remember that sin itself, if the expression may be excused, as a spiritual state, has an element of good in it." You know how indignantly the apostle rejects the thought of law being so. But what shall we say of one coming to such a conclusion presenting himself as an interpreter of Paul, and an instructor of men how to interpret scripture? "It was the nature of the law," he tells us, "to be good and evil at once."
273 W. But there must be some peculiar explanation of this.
H. He takes sin to mean the consciousness of sin (without this there can be no sin), and sin as the transgression of the law. But all this is blunder on blunder. He takes sin as guilt: hence sin is the consciousness of sin, i.e., sense of guilt. But sin is a very different thing from the sense of guilt; were it not, a perfectly hardened sinner could have no sin at all. But, besides, when he says sin is intermediate between good and evil, he is making the faculty which judges the sin the same thing as the sin it judges; that is, conscience, and not merely the actual consciousness of sin, but the sin we are conscious of, to be the same thing! In the next place, he confounds παράβασις νόμου and ἀνομία as equivalent, a mere acceptance of traditional mistake about which he is so loud. Sin is the principle of self-will or lawlessness, which does not own God, and leads a man to gratify his own lusts without acknowledging any rein upon them.
Mr. Jowett too makes all these blunders, referring specially to a chapter in which the apostle speaks entirely otherwise of sin, namely, that it took occasion by the commandment to work lusts and become exceeding sinful. It was an active principle, as elsewhere a law of our nature. And again, having made the blunder of saying that sin is transgression of law, he makes the apostle correct himself, as if he had said it was, and then contradict himself by saying that sin was in the world without law, by declaring (softening it down) that he meant it was not imputed. There can be no transgression when there is no law. What is there to transgress? But self-will and lust, lawlessness, there may be. It is the state of fallen man: only the law makes sin exceeding sinful.
Every word in all he says is a blunder, not only as to Paul's meaning, but as to intellectual apprehension of moral truths. He has no idea of any such thing as truth. Hence Anselm has one set of ideas, the Schoolmen another, the Fathers another, Paul another, arising from his age, from which ours is different; so that our views of truth, i.e., what is truth for us must be different from what was truth for Paul, and Mr. Jowett clears it all up thus: "We acknowledge that there is a difference between the meaning of justification by faith to St. Paul and to ourselves. Eighteen hundred years cannot have passed away, leaving the world and the mind of man, or the use of language, the same it was." And the truth of God — the truth of this matter itself, if you please? It does not even occur to him there is or can be such a thing. The ideas of the day are really, for Mr. Jowett, the Christianity of the day. They are all that he can see. Not that he does not admit that other ages have clothed it in their own garb, but that he holds he is entitled to think Paul, in every respect, did so too. And this age? and these philosophical men, are capable of divesting it of mediaeval and scholastic forms, and Pauline forms arising from his habits of thinking and apostolic conflicts with Judaism, and give It to us purified by modern philosophy.
274 Such he declares is the task of modern interpretation. I cannot, of course, now pursue a critique of Mr. Jowett's volume on the Romans; but so entire a misconception of Paul's meaning and all moral truth, and all justness of thought, I could hardly have supposed possible in an intelligent person, as Mr. Jowett surely is. There is just activity of mind enough to make him blunder largely and livelily. "Who would speak," he asks, "of the unregenerate heart of Caesar and Achilles?" … "Those who never heard the name of Christ, who never admit the thought of Christ, cannot be brought within the circle of Christian feelings and associations. Now, I do not touch on the doctrinal force of unregenerate, which is true of every one till he is regenerate. It is the excessive blundering of Mr. Jowett's mind. What have Christian feelings and associations to do with unregenerate? Cannot Christianity pronounce on the state of men outside its pale? Does it not do so? Is not a salvation sent into the world because of that state, to the consciousness of which, where effectual, it brings them? Is not the Epistle to the Romans an elaborate discussion of the state of the heathen and of the Jew, leading to the conclusion of the need of Christianity, of justification by faith, because of that state? Does it not declare that they that have sinned without law shall perish without law, and they that have sinned under law shall be judged by the law? Regeneration is not the aspect of Paul's doctrine as much as justification. But "except a man be born again" applies to Caesar as it does to others. But the notion of Caesar not being in the circle of christian feelings, and hence not to be called unregenerate, involving as it does a denial of Christianity's pronouncing on his state, whatever it is, according to its feelings, is, especially in a Commentary on the Romans, as great a blunder as can well be conceived. It has no sense, because if he speaks of a heathen's not having Christian feeling, it is an absurdity; if he means that Christianity does not pronounce on the heathen state according to its feelings, it is, in commenting on the Romans, a greater absurdity Still. It is founded on the proposition of Mr. Jowett's, that "the guilt of sin is inseparable from the knowledge of sin." But what even has that to do with holding a heathen to be unregenerate? All are un-regenerate that are not regenerate. The question of guilt follows. I must say, he is the most inaccurate writer, morally and logically, I ever met with. That he should be ignorant of the communication of divine life, so as to assert the impossibility of such contrasts, is too evident in the whole book to cause any surprise here.
275 W. It is a singular absence of all we moral apprehensions, and forces itself on one's notice in a commentary on a book which goes into all the depths of these apprehensions in the conscience.
H. You have a specimen of his way of judging of truth in the following on Romans 5:12: "[ἁμαρτία] Neither original sin, nor actual, nor the guilt of sin as distinguished from sin itself (for such differences had no existence in the apostle's age), nor like ἁμάρτημα confined to the act of sin." Think of a revelation being given of God in order to give us the notions of the apostle's age, obscured by receiving the colour of each successive age for the last 1800 years, and then only brought to light by what is the task of philosophy! I will add the explanation this philosophy gives: "ἁμαρτία describes sin rather as a mental state or in relation to the mind." [Do you understand?] "It is often the power of sin, or sin collectively; sometimes, as here, a personification." That gives the meaning of "sin entered into the world."
W. He is a singular person to write an essay on the interpretation of scripture.
H. Yet it seems the bent of his mind. We will return to the Essays.
Of scripture testimony to its own inspiration, and of the force of prophecy, we have spoken, and of imperfect presentations of truth. Presentations of moral relationship with God according to the responsibility of man, and the actual results of the fall, or the search after happiness "under the sun," and of discipline when grace is not fully known, nor redemption revealed as accomplished, we do find in scripture. But this is most gracious of God, and full of the deepest instruction. As to any opposition between that and Christianity, such a thought is only a confusion between man's standing on his own responsibility, man in flesh as scripture speaks, and grace meeting the consequences of all this by redemption, and so man in Christ. As to reconciling science and scripture, Mr. Jowett's next topic, I have spoken of it already. Let God be true and every man a liar. I deny the contradiction and abhor the principle of policy. Let us have the truth at all events.
276 As to infidel theologians' facts, admitted facts, I have learned to distrust them all. Of the long existence of the earth I have little doubt; of man upon it, I most certainly have. Mr. Jowett would give all up in fear, before it is proved, to have his own ideas of inspiration; I am not afraid. I see infidels repeating the notions and hypotheses of enemies of the truth as certain; and because they all take it for granted, declaring it is an admitted fact. They are the most unhistorical class I know, searching the least of all into facts. Strauss himself has declared that their objections to the gospels are utterly untenable, and therefore made a myth of it all (about as absurd as the other system, if once it is examined: indeed, it has died out). One proves that the second of Luke, if by the same author as the first, must have also had lyric poems in it, as the disciples praised God; the first therefore is certainly a poetical morsel tacked on, being written by another. And this is by no means to be counted an extreme example.
W. This habit of making their assumption that prophecies, miracles? etc., cannot be true, and judging of all according to their own notions to prove they are not true, is too constant and of too gross a character to need your saying much more about it. None can have read any of these statements without noticing this. Daniel's prophesying of Antiochus Epiphanes is the proof, as we have seen, that his prophecy is spurious; because there cannot be a prophecy, and the writer must have lived then. Then he becomes in their language the Maccabean Daniel, and all is settled. And the English come, and (credulous as our nation is, and apt to think others wiser than itself) all passes for gospel with them.
277 H. But Mr. Jowett, inconsistent as he is, adopts this petitio principii, which, starting from the assumption that prophecy is impossible, proves thereby that those that pretend to be prophets are not. He complains that Isaiah's mentioning Cyrus is not taken, as it would be in another book, as a proof that it must have been written after his time, which is simply the à priori argument that there cannot be a prophecy. We must continue a little with some further details, as they harass the mind when passed over.
Mr. Jowett quietly takes for granted — leaves it to be supposed — that if Schleiermacher has spoken of discrepancies in the narrative of the infancy, it is all true, and we must turn to what is called setting free by the truth to escape it, but let inspiration down to a nullity. And this is what is done, but nothing said about it. Now I deny altogether these discrepancies. If I admit traditions as to the infancy as told by Matthew, there may be. But in the gospels there are none — only the account in Matthew is so brief, or rather, there being no account of Jesus's birth at all, the circumstances narrated by Luke have no chronological place in Matthew.
Mr. Jowett refers to the natural meaning of "Why are they then baptized for the dead?" 1 Cor. 15:29. Now, the natural way of knowing what a person means is to pay attention to what he says. You may remark that verses 20-28 form (what Paul is singularly fond of, and what Mr. Jowett more singularly objects to in his commentary — one would say really with the object of making all obscure — that is) a parenthesis, and 29 refers to 18, and 30, etc., to 19. Baptizing is, in the nature of Christianity, baptizing unto death; and the case of those filling up the ranks, as has been said, when some were actually dead, is referred to as shewing the folly of the whole Christian course, if there was no resurrection. The dead had perished; the living were the most miserable of all men. What ever should men become Christians for, or jeopard their lives, if it were thus? At any rate, Mr. Jowett leaves us to divine what true interpretation would afford us. If he refer to a subsequent superstition of baptizing over dead bodies, it is a gross anachronism, and unworthy of Christianity; but that is no matter for a rationalist. It is an objection, and that is everything, though they are as much in the dark as others.
The difficulty as to "this generation shall not pass away" Luke 21:32, is a prejudice flowing from the English use of the word "generation. It is quite as much used for a moral class in scripture, as for the period marked by human life; and if Deuteronomy 32:5, 20 (where this very subject is treated of) be referred to, the sense is plain. And here we have a minute and most striking fulfilment: — the generation is not passed away; the Jews remain a perpetual witness that there are other thoughts in scripture than those of rationalists — an objective fact witnessing to God's government of the world according to the words of the prophet and of the Lord.
278 As to "Upon this rock I will build my church," Matt. 16:18, you will ever find rationalists favouring popery, because they are indifferent to truth and dislike scripture. Christ does not declare He will build His Church on Peter, but gives that name to him, "a stone" — for so it is; because in his confession he had a part in the power of that truth on which He would build it — not that He was only the Messiah, nor Son of God, King of Israel, but what Simon had confessed, and the Father had revealed to him, that Jesus was the Son of the living God. This, proved in resurrection, was the basis of the Church of God. All this side of Christ's grave was, save Christ Himself, in death's power; and He willingly put Himself there; but, as Son of the living God, He could not be holden of it. And he who had his seat in the gates of Hades had no power over what was passed beyond his realm and dominion. Resurrection of Christ's person, in whom the power of it (and righteousness of it too) was, was the overthrow of and beyond the power of Satan, and laid the foundation of the Church — Christ's person as Son of the living God. That could not be held by death. Hence Peter clings to this word in his epistle: "He hath begotten us again to a living hope. Christ is the living stone to whom we come, and come as living stones.
As to Philippians 2:6, I believe it to be a contrast with the first Adam, and a magnificent one. I do not desire to rest the argument on "thinking it no robbery." The word is a very difficult one indeed — never used, I believe, elsewhere; its form may be active, and not the object or thing done. The force I believe to be, He did not do as Adam (who, when in the form of man, sought as a robbery, a booty to be acquired, to be equal with God), but, being in the form of God, emptied Himself of the glory He had. It does suppose Christ to be in the state of Godhead, as Adam in the state of a man; but the special force of the proof does not rest in the word "robbery," as contrasted with "booty," or object of robbery — for that is the only question in the passage, because it is ἁρπαγμὸν, not ἃρπαγμα.
As to Romans 3:25, Mr. Jowett rests on his statement in his own commentary, in which he follows De Wette and Meyer, and still more Winzer, and translates "through faith by his blood." I do not see what he gains by it. He grounds the translation on "faith in" not being used, which is a simple mistake, which a concordance would have rectified. If a man is justified by faith, by His blood, I suppose the blood of Christ must be efficacious to justify him — as, indeed, is expressly said — and his faith in it is right. But faith "in" is used. The words "faith in his blood" are not found elsewhere; but "justified by his blood," "redemption through his blood," so as to present its efficacy as the subject-matter of faith, is often found. His gloss on Galatians 3:26, seems to me an utterly false interpretation. His allegation is, that "faith, like all other Christian states, is often spoken of as existing in Christ." I am not quite sure what this lucid phrase means — whether it is that Christ had faith, or whether Mr. Jowett refers to the general expression "in Christ" as a position in which anything was realized. At all events Galatians 3:26 cannot be interpreted in either way. "We are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus" seems to me as plain as possible. 2 Timothy 1:13 may be taken as characteristic as a position: "Faith and love which are in Christ Jesus." Chapter 3:15 is clearly faith in Christ Jesus; so is, beyond all question, Ephesians 1:15, and Colossians 1:4; and, if Tischendorf is to be believed, John 1:15, which however may be doubted. Fritzsche, whose commentary has been called a Greek grammar, insists that, on grammatical grounds, there is no foundation for the assertion. Doctrinally I could have no objection; the words "his own" would incline me to connect ἐν τῶ αὐτοῦ ἁἵματι with ἱλαστήριον. Αὐτοῦ is emphatic, and a propitiation in [the power of] His own blood, [and that] through faith, is perhaps clearer than faith in His own blood. Were αὐτοῦ after αἴματι I should be disposed to take it as in our English translation. But the ground Mr. Jowett takes is untenable, and the use of it here, as any perversion, quite unfounded. There is nothing to struggle for; nor in Romans 15:6. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the well-known expression of scripture, as putting us so blessedly in the same place with Himself in John 20, and Ephesians 1, where the blessings to be referred to each name are distinguished in verses 4 and 5. And the prayer of Ephesians 1 is founded on one name; of Ephesians 3 on the other. I do not think these complaints quite free from being disingenuous.
279 As to 1 John 5:7, it needs no remark; and as to 1 Timothy 3:16, it is a question of criticism, which orthodox and rationalists have alike discussed, perhaps both with prejudices.
280 As to Romans 9:5, it is certain all the Fathers took it as said of Christ, all the Reformers, and the vast majority of moderns; and, as far as I am aware, Erasmus first proposed the change. The moderns, who wish it otherwise, do so on doctrinal grounds. So Meyer, Fritzsche, Tischendorf, Wetstein, and others. De Wette declares nothing satisfactory. Holding the deity of the Lord Jesus as the foundation of all my faith, the usual punctuation of a full stop after κατὰ σάρχα seems to me to have no sense. And if all do not refer to Christ, I should set the stop after "over all," "Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, He who is over all things, God [be] blessed for ever. Amen." I rather think Erasmus spoke of this too, but cannot exactly say. This stopping leaves the question undecided. It depends on the insertion of [be]. All these attempts to throw discredit on ordinary interpretation have an evident animus. And Mr. Jowett and his companions have not left it to nice criticism on passages admitted to be difficult to have their orthodoxy called in question. This part of Mr. Jowett's argument I leave. No one wishes to hinder sound critical enquiry into the reading or interpretation of the text.
W. He who believes it to be inspired would be the first to desire it.
H. Clearly so. I turn briefly to another point. These interpreters have created an immense difficulty for themselves, partly incident to their position, but more connected still with their doctrine. Denying the distinction of the regenerate, of the Church, of what scripture calls saints, this being for them only a forced and unnatural position of Christianity, and then all the world being, by an effort of imagination, christianized, they seek to apply the precepts of Christianity to civil society. Hence I read "the frame of civilization, that is to say, institutions and laws, the usages of business, the customs of society; these are for the most part mechanical, capable only in a certain degree of a higher and spiritual life. Christian motives have never existed in such strength as to make it possible to entrust them with the preservation of social order." Moral light Christianity has, I admit, brought in; it has, I admit, acted beneficially on society. Men do not do in the light what they do in the dark. But what the "spiritual life," "of usages of business" is would be hard to tell.
But what is the result? Christianity is taken as a kind of essence, an infusion, which is to influence men; and followers of Christ disappear. "Are its maxims to be modified by experience, or acted on in defiance of experience? Are the accidental circumstances of the first believers to become a rule for us? … That can hardly be, consistently with the changes of human things." Now that you cannot frame politics on Christianity I do not deny. It is felt to be impossible; but Mr. Jowett concludes, not that the Christian is to abide by what is properly christian, but "our Lord Himself has left behind Him words which contain a principle large enough to admit all the forms of society or life. My kingdom is not of this world" — a singular proof of it, that because it is not of it at all, it admits them all. What means "admit them?" Does it mean, has common principles with them all? This cannot be. Is exclusively one? That it is not. It directs obedience to human authorities as of God. Or is it, that it has its own directions for its true followers, not the letter perhaps, but its own guidance for those who follow Christ as pilgrims and strangers, gives a divine path through the world, guiding in all real common duties, but giving a heavenly path through them? "If ye live in the Spirit, walk in the Spirit." Gal. 5:25, "If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be." John 12:26, "Whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." Col. 3:17. Is it spiritual direction for those who are strangers and pilgrims, declaring plainly that they seek a country; or an arrangement to have an inward life, and do at Rome as they do at Rome?
281 W. I cannot doubt for a moment that Christ has left us an example that we should follow His steps, and that the precepts of the New Testament form and guide our path — that he who loves God keeps His commandments, and that they are not grievous, for he that is born of God overcometh the world; and all that is in the world is not of the Father. Alas! I feel I come very short; but I cannot doubt an instant that the principles you refer to, if I have rightly understood them (and in reading the Essays this part struck me as giving a keynote to much, I mean the mingling Christianity with the world, swamping it in it), are destructive of all that is heavenly, of all that is Christian, of all that lifts the whole spirit of a man out of the wretched motives of self and the world into Christ's motives. I am persuaded that it is that which has destroyed the testimony of Christianity in the world. Men, alas! thinking of self too, have put out almost the light under the pretext of winning men to look at it. But we have lost our own joys and dimmed the witness to Christ by it.
H. I am glad to hear you say so. We are, alas! short, very short; but it is well in such a matter to have a fixed principle of conduct. Mr. Jowett, having shewn the impossibility of framing society on Christian principles (Christ's kingdom being not of this world), then lets down individual Christianity in this way — "It is a counsel of perfection, and has its dwelling-place in the heart of man …" "That is the answer to a doubt which is also raised respecting the obligation of the letter of the gospel on individual Christians. But this inwardness of the words of Christ is what few are able to receive." So, in result, you have the words of Christ inward in the heart, and all forms of society and of life admitted, because Christ's kingdom is not of this world, so we are not to bring it into it. It is a comfortable mysticism which, by professing to have the words inwardly, can have any form of life and worldliness outwardly. Now I admit the letter kills. We have the spirit of power, of love, and of a sound mind. But this is merely the denial of the authority of scripture in the largest sense — "be not conformed to this world." Rom. 12:2.
282 I would arrest your attention a moment on another passage here, as very deeply characteristic of the low ground on which all these reasonings rest. Mr. Jowett complains of the "extraordinary and unreasonable importance attached to single words … divorce, marriage with a wife's sister, inspiration, the personality of the Holy Spirit, infant baptism, episcopacy, divine right of kings, original sin. Now really a person must have been in a very singular school to give such a list. Lightness in divorce is an abomination in the sight of God; and in my judgment marriage with a wife's sister is the destruction of the free happiness of families. Episcopacy and infant baptism have their importance through their connection with more general truths. Kings have a divine right as long as God keeps them on the throne; that is, they have, however they get there, their power from God. But to mix up these subjects with inspiration, the personality of the Holy Ghost, and original sin, shews an absence of the spiritual element truly remarkable. If there be no inspiration, I have no communication from God — the greatest privilege I can have on earth — the only thing that puts me, in a sure and divine way, in relationship and intercourse with God. The personality of the Spirit is perhaps the most practically important truth, the most characteristic of Christianity, not as foundation, but, as to state and power, of all in scripture; and original sin, whatever view we may have of it, the foundation question of all man's relationship with God. And these Mr. Jowett casts in with episcopacy, and questions, serious no doubt in detail, but some of mere forms of thought. Instead of rising above his age, he is immersed, and, as to his mind, the divinest truths with him, in the comparatively petty questions which absorb the attention of the narrow circle in which he moves. I do not charge him with design in it, but singular narrowness. If he had said, See what they have reduced Christianity to — questions of forms of church government, and divorce, and ordinances, I should have understood him, though he would have found assailants; but he reduces Christianity to this level, for he puts that on which as a present thing Christianity rests (for redemption is the foundation), questions as to our alienation in nature from God, the reality of blessed communications from God Himself, and His living personal presence with us, on the same footing, in the same category of importance, as episcopacy and the marriage of a wife's sister.
283 W. It is surprising. But I think it shews he does not believe himself in any of these things; he could not class them thus if he did.
H. Surely, he does not. We have already heard what he says as to inspiration, and we will look at what he says as to the others. But let us note for ourselves: if there be no inspiration, there is no communication from God which is from Himself which is the communication of God's mind from and by God, which gives to man's intelligence divine thoughts — to his heart the witness that God delights to give them to him; all that has enlarged the intelligence, fed the heart, sustained the faith of all that have trusted God in all ages, and in all forms of church government; what has marked the spiritual tone of every divinely taught and spiritually elevated mind is gone. And they know, the poorest and most ignorant believer (I do not say Mr. Jowett) knows, what he means by inspiration. He could not define it perhaps, does not know what "define" means, but he knows that he has communications from God in which his soul drinks of living water, a word of God, sharper than any two-edged sword, discerning the thoughts and intents of the heart; he eats the words of God, as Jeremiah says, and they are the joy and rejoicing of his heart. They have an authority over him which he delights to obey; reproofs, if needed, his heart bows to; promises his faith leans on; a Saviour revealed whom his soul loves; and all this because he receives it with a divine faith as inspired, as God's word, as God's having condescended (taken pains, shall I say?) to speak to him for every want here, and the brightness of heavenly hopes hereafter. He has seen his Saviour quoting them as authority, using them to repel Satan — the apostles proving the truth by them, or declaring that their own words were God's commands. He takes them as all this, and there is constant intercourse between God and his soul.
284 Mr. Jowett will quibble on θεόπνευστος, and quibble wrongly. I deny that 2 Timothy 3:16 is spoken of the Old Testament. It is carefully worded so as to leave no pretence for such a statement — πᾶσα γραφὴ Θεόπνευστος. Whatever comes under the title γραφὴ it applies to, is meant to apply to. The scriptures were held then to be a character of writing which had irrefragable authority, could not be broken. Holy men had spoken as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. They had not come of the will of man. Whatever was that, had divine authority. Before Christ there was only the Old Testament, of course. Mr. Jowett, at least, has owned the New Testament to have this character, has owned that the Lord has caused all holy scripture to be written for our learning. St. Paul speaks of the comfort of the scriptures. Our enquiry here is, not what books belong to it, but, whether prophetic scriptures are a blessed communication from God Himself to men. Does Christ treat them so Himself, use them so, declaring from them, and for Himself, that men live of every word that comes out of the mouth of God? Does He obey them, fulfil them, declare that they must be fulfilled, all that is written in them concerning Him? Was it what man had invented or God had revealed that was to be fulfilled? Have words proceeding out of the mouth of God no hold on Mr. Jowett's heart? Does he mean to say that the New Testament is not holy scripture, which God has caused to be written for our learning? If it be πᾶσα γραφὴ Θεόπνευστος, it is inspired. He has declared, more than once I believe, that the New Testament is holy scripture. I know in the estimation of Essayists subscriptions are elastic things, and conscience as to them still more so. However this may be, those who have found words out of the mouth of God full of grace and truth to their souls cling to them as the tokens, and precious and profitable tokens, of God's love.
They have seen the apostle carefully distinguishing his own spiritual experience and his authoritative communication of the divine mind. And they believe, as Mr. Jowett professes to believe, that the New Testament is scripture, and hence, that it is θεόπνευστος, divinely inspired, and they have no doubt what that really means for them. They have the words that came out of the mouth of God. They believe St. Paul when they hear him saying, that what he had been taught by the Holy Ghost he has communicated "not by words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth," and they bless God for so infinite a treasure. If Mr. Jowett has it not — does not believe it, they pity him. He has lost what is the greatest treasure — communications of God Himself to their souls.
285 W. Oh! how I agree with you. One feels one has to do with God; and whether it be for comfort, the strength flowing from feeling such a One's mind guiding you when weak and beset, or the joy it gives when the mind is free; the way it suits our weakest, aye, our worst moments, and yet in our most elevated reaches out beyond all our thoughts with divine fulness; one learns daily more it is the word of God. It makes me think of the words of the apostle as the revelation of what he is there speaking of the fulness of, "That being rooted and grounded in love, we may be able to comprehend with all saints, the breadth and length, and depth and height, and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that we may be filled with all the fulness of God." Eph. 3:17. A largeness which he cannot go out into, a nearness of that love, known, and yet which passes knowledge, leading the heart, rooted and grounded in love, into all the fulness of God. Surely he is speaking of the things themselves; but what reveals it but the word? Can man do it?
H. Well, we will leave this, to use it through grace as our own resource in daily life; and turn to the second point, which Mr. Jowett seeks to sink as far as possible.
W. The personality of the Spirit?
H. Yes. Here, as wherever there is spirituality, our Essayists are utterly at a loss. Surely we are all most poor in these things, without any false modesty in saying it. But I do not mean that. They have not the thing to be poor in. "In the fourth example the words are mysterious (John 14:26; John 16:15), and seem to come out of the depth of a divine consciousness." Now what does this mean?
W. Well, I really do not know. All Christ's words came out of the depths of a divine consciousness.
H. Surely they did; but, coupled with "mysterious," it intimates, I apprehend, that they are unintelligible. It is added, remark, "They have sometimes, however, received a more exact meaning than they could truly bear. What is spoken in a figure is construed with the severity of a logical statement." It is thus "mysterious," not of the supposed "exact" meaning, cannot "bear" it, and "spoken in a figure." Thus the immense and all-important fact of the presence of a divine person, who is sent, wills, distributes, comes, guides, teaches, is God, who is lied against — is all a figure. And this is the more pointed, because in the quoted passage He was another Paraclete, who was to take the place of the Son of God personally with them on earth. Now that, if a divine person dwell in us, so that our bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost, He should work in a power and influence difficult to express in a single form of words; that He will be a source of thoughts and feelings which are ours and yet His, so that expressions necessarily vary to get the whole of the truth, I fully admit. It must be so. That this effect will be spoken of as the Spirit, and the divine person who produces it as the Spirit apart from the effect, is the natural consequence of His working in us when present. And scripture so speaks; but it unfolds, develops, and does not weaken the truth of the divine presence. It makes power, but not a figure of it. Thus I find, "He who searcheth the hearts [that is, me] knows what is the mind of the Spirit;" Rom. 8:27, there it is the effect that is wrought by it; "for he maketh intercession for the saints according to God;" there it is the Spirit personally. This scripture largely teaches, but it does not make a figure of so great a truth. These, for Mr. Jowett, are passages "of an opposite tenor."
286 Now John 14, 15, 16 are specially occupied with the truth of the Comforter's coming when Christ went away. It is after unfolding what Christ was in the world, to the end of John 7, and the rejection of His word in John 8, and of His work in John 9; the witness given to His being Son of God, Son of David, Son of man, in John 11, John 12, and the washer of His people's feet whom He had cleansed, that they might have a part with Him on high, in John 13 (the great subject which follows on His going away). After declaring, in the beginning of John 14, that there was place for them on high, and He would come again and fetch them there; that they knew where He was going — for He was going to the Father; and they had seen the Father in Him, and they knew the way, for in coming to Him they came to the Father; He proceeds to tell them the great blessing of their position while He was away — and this was His obtaining another Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom His Father would send on His going away, and who would bring to their remembrance what He had said when living; and then, in John 15, whom He would send from the Father, so that He would bear witness as well as themselves; and thus His heavenly glory, which they did not know, would be known. In John 16 He unfolds all the Comforter would do when He came; first, as to the world, and then as to them.
287 Now in this we have the plain, however momentous, declaration, that as He, the Son, had been with them bodily, so another Comforter, the Holy Ghost, would be with them when He went they would not be left alone. And the difference is distinctly put as to how He could be known in the world. The world did not see Him or know Him, and hence could not receive Him. The world ought at least to have received Christ; but there was no question of its receiving the Holy Ghost. He was given to them that believe (John ever speaks individually, not of the assembly); with the disciples He could abide (which Christ as He then was could not), and would dwell in them (Christ had only dwelt with them). And thus they would know Him. Now this does confine the true knowledge of the Holy Ghost to those in whom He dwells. That He wrought in special service, to render the disciples competent witnesses, is most precious but no figure. It makes us know what inspiration is, and how, while eyewitnesses, they were divinely competent to be so. They were human witnesses, but their record divine, and witnesses by the Holy Ghost. This is what a person, who denies anything supernatural in inspiration, of course must make "a figure" of, "not take exactly!" All that we understand — understand it well; but it is because it is too plain that, by those who deny inspiration, it is said to be mysterious and a figure (just as Strauss, because he saw the folly of rationalism, but would not believe, made the whole history of the gospels a myth) — not because it is not plain. Of course one verse does not exhaust the subject; but we are speaking of the verse referred to by Mr. Jowett.
Can anything be plainer, however solemn and blessed, than this — "But the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you;" John 14:26, that is, all divine truth and needed remembrance of Christ's living words? I have only to believe it, and all is plain. I do believe it. I believe, when Christ went up on high, the Father did send the Holy Ghost in Christ's name, that He did teach the apostles, and bring what Christ had said to their remembrance, and that they acted and taught and witnessed of Christ by this power. What means a figure here? Did not Christianity spread by this means? Is not, in the Acts, the presence of this Comforter the salient fact which stamps its character on all their proceedings? That the Spirit wrought in a new life, was a Spirit of adoption, made men to abound in hope, shed the love of God abroad in believers' hearts, and ministered a thousand other blessings, is most true. A Christian's career is designated by walking in the Spirit. But the passage we are considering is plain enough to those that understand, to those that believe.
288 In John 16:15, it is another side of the Holy Ghost's work, but the same truth. The Holy Ghost reveals to believers (His work in the world had been spoken of) the glory and riches of Christ — not merely recalling what He had said on earth, or leading unto truth. All things the Father has are Christ's (it was not as if Christ, or the Father, had some independent things); hence the Holy Ghost takes of what is His, and shews it. And, as the Father was known in the Son on earth, so the fulness of all that belongs to the Father is known as the Son's, now He is in heaven, by the Holy Ghost's teaching. Depth surely there is; but the passage is plain enough. You may remark how the blessed Persons in the Trinity are associated in both cases — i.e., of Christ on earth and Christ in heaven. The Holy Ghost comes, and "My Father and I will come and make our abode with him." John 14:23. When Christ, as Son, was working miracles on earth, the Father that was in Him did the works, and He cast out devils by the Spirit of God. They are distinct, yet cannot be separated. Now that on such subjects we are in divine depths is most true; but the passages we are referring to are most simple and plain. They affirm the coming of the Comforter, and what He was to do; and He came and did it, and He abides in true Christians who thus know Him, and with the true assembly for ever.
W. It is simple. What we want is to believe it more. There is very little faith in the presence of the Holy Ghost.
H. Alas! there is not: yet it is appealed to so distinctly as a known thing in scripture, as to make us ashamed. The apostle, in speaking of such a thing as fornication, says, Know ye not that your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost, which ye have of God? So to the Galatians, who were in a sad state, he asks, "How did you get the Holy Ghost?" Gal. 3:2. On that there was no obscurity. So as a motive to avoid evil and the measure of it, "Grieve not that Holy Spirit of promise with which ye are sealed for the day of redemption." Eph. 4:30. So "Hereby know we that we dwell in him (God) and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." 1 John 4:13. It ought to be an elementary point of faith, that the Holy Ghost dwells in the assembly and in the true Christian. These two truths, on which Mr. Jowett casts all the slur and dimness he can, are the hinges of the whole condition of the assembly and of the individual saint the word of God and the Spirit of God. In the first alone we have the mind of God; in the second alone spiritual understanding and power; and so, as John tells us, fellowship — wondrous word! — with the Father and the Son, the living objects of daily faith. May we be found here simple and dependent, "as newborn babes!"
289 W. It is very hard to be simple.
H. It is in itself perfection; true simplicity is forgetfulness of self. And there is only one way to arrive at it, for it is, as all spiritual life, a matter of overcoming; and that way is, being much with God, and God known in grace, because then self, which is the opposite of simplicity, dies down, so to speak.
W. I am sure it is the way. Nothing replaces that communion; and then there is a perception of divine power and enlargement which is not found anywhere else. Our eyes see, as Peter (negatively) expresses it, afar off. We are not μυωπάζοντες. But pursue your subject.