Popular lectures on The essays and reviews ...

Front matter

POPULAE LECTURES

02^

'THE ESSAYS AND REVIEWS.

Contents

LECTURE I. PAGE The Sacred Scriptures . • . . • . 1

LECTURE II.

LECTURE IIL

II. Doctrines Denied

The last Essay we liandled is the second in the volume, written by Dr. ^Tilliams, the Professor of Hebrew in St. David's College, Lampeter, and Vicar of Broad Chalke, Wilts. The next we would analyze is called " The National Church," by Henry Bristow Wilson, B.D., Vicar of Great Staughton, Hunts. Some of his sentiments are not so coarsely stated ; but they are equally, I need not say, unscriptural, they are equally illogical as those of Dr. Williams, his immediate predecessor.

To give some idea of his sentiments, I will turn to the early part of his Essay. He says, at page 154: " First, if our traditions tell us that they ' are in- "'volved in the curse,' that men are involved in "the curse and perdition of Adam, and may justly " be punished hereafter individually for his trans- "gression, not having been extricated from it by " saving faith, we are disposed to think that our " traditions cannot herein fairly declare to us the "words and inferences from Scripture; but if, on *' examination, it should turn out that they have, " we must say that the authors of the scriptural

DOCTRINES DEKIED,

" books have, in those matters, represented to "as " their own inadequate conceptions, and not the " mind of the Spirit of God." Here is a grave statement indeed ; he says, if the transmission of the taint of Adam's guilt be a scriptural statement, and if it can be proved to be stated in God's holy word, his inference is, not what the Protestant would say, that he must accept it ; that what he finds in the Bible he must bow before as an oracle of heaven, even while he cannot comprehend it ; that what he finds in the Bible he accepts, even when science seems, for it only seems, to contradict it. But this writer substantially says. The moment that I find a truth in the Bible unpalatable to my taste, unreasonable in the estimate of my weak judgment, my inference is not — oh ! conceited philosopher — that I, Dr. AVilson, very frail and ignorant, may possibly be in error ; but that the apostles, and prophets, and Moses, have represented to us their own inadequate conceptions, and have not given us the just expression of the mind of God. Such is the reasoning in the commencement of this Essay. Any child could get up and say, I don't believe the Bible. But intellectual giants cannot prove it is not the Word of God. The fact is, Popery is vastly more consistent ; it puts up a man called the Pope, and it says, That man is infallible, what he says is true, is true if everybody contradict it ; and what he says is false, is false, if everybody assert it.

DOCTRINES DENIED.

The Eoman Catholic is most consistent. The Protestant, on the other hand, is most consistent : the Protestant says, This book, called the Bible, is the very reflection of the mind, it is the very unspent echo of the voice of God; what it says I believe, though all men contradict it; what it condemns I condemn, though all men applaud it. But Dr. Wilson is inconsistent and suicidal, he says, If what it says does not suit my taste, if it does not meet my ideas, for my reason is the true Po^oe, my conscience is the true interpreter, I mnst reject it; I will not bring my conscience, my intellect, and my heart, to the Bible, but I will bring the Bible to the tribunal of my heart, head, and conscience ; if the Bible speak not according to it, it is not I that am wrong, says this conceited philosopher ; it is the Bible that must necessarily be so. ' But he proceeds to find out special objections to this blessed book ; and among the earliest he discovers and seems to make much of the following: "From the same source of the " advance of general knowledge respecting the inhabit ancy of the world, issues another inquiry concerning a promise, prophecy, or assertion of Scripture. For the commission of Jesus to his " apostles was to preach the Gospel to ' all nations,' *''to every creature;' and St. Paul says of the "Gentile world, 'But I say, have they not heard? " ' Yes, verily, their sound went unto all the earth,

BOCTEIXES DEXIED.

" ' and tlieir words unto the ends of the world ' "(Eom. X. 18); and speaks of the Gospel 'which *''was preached to every nation nnder heaven' " (Col. i. 23), when it has never yet "been preached

even to the half." The apostle Paul does declai'e that the Gospel was preached to all the world, whereas, says 3Ir. Wilson, it has not been preached to half the world. But now let us look at this fairly ; what does Jesus say ? Go and preach the Gospel

to eveiy creature.'*' What is preach ^ Make known to every creature the glad tidings. The apostle says the Gospel has been preached to every creature : that is, its message is for eveiy creature, its testimony is announced to eveiy creature, and it is designed and meant that every creature should enjoy it. The prescription is for all : and the testimony is to be made known to all. But it cannot reach every unit of the human race in a day. for instance, you proclaim to the heads of a regiment, if a regiment has revolted, there is a pardon ; the jDardon was proclaimed to all : yet it is only the officers that heard it in the fiist instance, not the whole regiment. So in the case of a revolted province, the Crown sends a message of amnesty to that province ; that message of amnesty is j^roclaimed to all : but it is in the first instance sent only to the officers or representatives, but secondarily, thi'ough them to every individual. So the Gospel at this moment is an amnesty pro-

DOCTRINES DEXIEP.

claimed to and available for the T^ hole world ; it has been addressed to the whole world en masse, and by and by every individual in that w^orld will hear it. There is no contradiction, except in the diseased fancy of the commentator npon the passage.

He next speaks of that glorious and precions doctrine, Justification by Taith ; he says, "It is " customary with Lutherans to represent their- doctrine of justification by subjective faith as ha^fing died out shortly after the Apostolic age. In fact, it never was the doctrine of any considerable portion of the Church till the time of the Eeformation. It is not met with in the immediately post-Apostolic " writings, nor in the Apostolic writings he has the good sense to add — for veiy shame must make him add — a very valuable exception, except those ''of St. Paul;" and when we consider that those of St. Paul fill nearly half the Xew Testament, it is a sti^ange way of disproving the scriptural foundation of this doctrine to say it is not found in the New Testament, exce^^t only in one half of it ; that is, in the writings of St. Paul; then he says, not even in " the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is of the Pauline "or Paulo-Johannean school,'*' as he calls it: and therefore, as he thinks, this doctrine of justification by faith is not a Scriptui'al doctrine, ^^'hat is his answer, I wonder, to the question, How shall man be just with God ? ^Yhat would be his prescription

DOCTEINES DENIED.

to tliat weiglity inqniry, what must I do to be saved ? Take the cross from the Bible, and it is denuded of its central light, its harmony, its consistency, its value. Take justification by faith alone in the righteousness of Christ from the heart of the Christian Church, and the anchors of our faith are lifted ; we are at sea in a hurricane; we have no chart; there is not a star in the sky, nor a taper on the shore, that can point to us that haven in which we can find shelter. But the best answer to what he says is our inquiry, What is your proof for that assertion ? He does not condescend to give proof. Three-fourths of his charges against the Bible are pure assertions, and nothing else. But if I were to assert that there are no stars in the sky, and no grass on the earth, my assertion would not prove it; if I were to tell you that St. Paul's Cathedral has fallen down, and is in ruins, you would not believe it, unless I gave authentic evidence, or testimony, or proof of some sort. But these men make bold, I may venture to call them impudent assertions, for which they assign no foundation, which they trace to no original; the whole strength of which is just the force and ferocity with which they assert them. I gave you instances of that in the case of Dr. Williams f he says there was a Bible before our Bible was ever written. One would suppose he must have picked up some relic of it that had been drifted down by the

DOCTRINES DENIED.

flood ; or that lie must have detected some page of it in tlie great geological epochs, and in some of the petrifactions which are constantly exposed to light ; but he does not give one item of proof of his assertion ; he does not condescend to give one single hint of anything discovered that would point to such a monstrous conclusion ; it is a bare assertion, nothing more. Then he asserts there were two Isaiahs ; but we can only find one in the Bible. ^Yhere does he find the second ? He does not tell us. So he tells us there were two Zechariahs ; we find one in the Bible. Where does he find the second ? Xow, can a work be of any weight which consists of ipse dixits, and spurns logic ; and when it touches logic, proves the very opposite of that to which he wants his reasoning to tend ? Dr. Wilson, in another portion of this volume, speaking of the reasoning of the Apostle Paul upon the resurrection, says, First, he represents the rising to life again, not as miraculous or exceptional, but as a law of humanity, or at least of Christian and spiritualised humanity ; and " he treats the resuiTection of Christ, not as a wonder, but as a prerogative instance;" that is, the resurrection of the body, he says, is a natural phenomenon ; and that it is as much natural for the body to rise again as it is for the body to die. But where does he discover this ? Certainly not in the Bible ; for we read that instead of being the law of

DOCTRIXES DEXIED.

onr being, it is the miracle that crowns it, — the trnmpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise ;'' instead of being the ordinary law, we read that all *'that are in their gi^aves shall — " what? rise again as the natnral order of things? Xo ; but shall hear the voice of the Son of Man; and they that ''hear his voice shall rise;" and "we shall all " stand," again it is said, "at the judgment-seat of " Christ." It is supernatural and miraculous. For instance, the grass grows, but no trumpet sounds the approaching footsteps of spring ; the fmit ripens, but no voice from God says, Eipen thou fruit, that there may be plenty for the refi^eshment of man : the harvest comes, when nature sits amid her golden sheaves, like a mother amid her children, rejoicing and praising God : here is the ordinary action of things, it is the general but not the special interposition of Divinity. But in the case of the resm*- rection there is a special and sudden interposition, the trumpet sounds, Christ speaks; and instead of being the law of humanity, the existing law of humanity is death spiritual, death moral, death physical, death for ever ; and the interruption of the continuity of that law is by the direct and supernatural interposition of the Lawgiver; " Eise, "ye dead, and come to judgment." It is therefore a miraculous ; not a natural and ordinary phenomenon.

DOCTRINES DENIED.

After he iias stated some very strong things, he makes a ^ery convenient remark, which I suppose is meant for the bishops of the Church to Tvhich he belongs. He says, " They who caused divisions and

heresies were to be marked and avoided, but not *' expelled that is to say, if we apply it in modem times to men that preach monstrous errors, he would not mind being marked, he would not mind being avoided, but he would not like to lose his living. He adds, " And if any called a brother were

a notoriously immoral person, the rest were en- " joined not to eat with Mm which I suppose he thought was no great disadvantage to himself ; but,*' he says, he was not to be refused the name of

brother, or Christian.'*' AYhy, what is the mark of

Christian ? — Christianity. ^Vhat is the veiy essence of Chiistianity ? — doing justly, loving mercy, walking humbly with God. T\'hat is the command of an apostle ? That they are to cut off, and to excommunicate the depraved and immoral person ; and to plead for the Church of Christ being a congeries of Socinians, of Papists, of Tractarians, of Infidels ; and to expand what he adds of immoral persons also, is to plead for it being a cage of every unclean bird, and so ripe for the judgments of heaven. It is not ours to search the heart : but where a man is openly profligate, notoriously immoral, I say it is the duty of the iTilers of the Church of Christ, whether bishops

DOCTRIXES DENIED.

or presb}i:ers, to remove him, if lie refuse to remove himself ; or if a man subscribe the Articles of a Church — and no Articles are more Protestant than those of the Church of England — and sap and undermine everj' Article of that Church, by the most mischievous and flagrant scepticism; then, I say, the authorities are not doing their duty, if they have the 23ower, when they do not expel such a man. It is not persecution to do so.

He then proceeds to touch upon another point. *' It has been matter of great boast within the Church of England, in common with other Protestant Churches, that it is founded upon the AYord of God;" and it is a noble boast; "a phrase which begs many a question;" now here is the serpent coming in ; "a phrase which begs many a question, when applied to the canonical books of the Old and Isew Testaments, a phrase which is never ap- " plied to them by any of the Scriptural authors." Is that true ? In Jeremiah vii. we read, " The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord." But let me give a few instances of it. In Luke iv. 4, our Blessed Lord says, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God ;" what word is that, luiless the word spoken by him, and written by his inspired seiwants ? But again, in Ephesians vi. 17, what does Paul say? The sword of the Spirit, " which is the word of God." And yet this writer,

DOCTRINES DENIED.

who oiiglit to know liis Bible, says that there is not a single instance of that phrase applied by a single writer in the Xew Testament to the. Holy Scripture. In 1 Peter i. 25, " The word of the Lord endnreth for ever." He has spoken, therefore, most rashly in having made an assertion so broad. Then he proceeds, in the next place, to say, Under the " terms of the sixth Article one may accept literally, or as parable, or poetry, or legend, the story of a serpent tempter ;" that is, the whole story of the Fall yon may accept as a legend, as a parable, as a piece of poetry; in other words, that the Book of Genesis is not a literal, and genuine, and anthentic histor}'. Well, if there be not in Genesis the history and explanation of the Fall, what explanation has Dr. Wilson? We find sin, and death, and sickness, and sorrow in the world ; the Mosaic exposition of it is the record of a fact ; and that fact mnst stand its gronnd till something gi^ander and better supersede it. Bnt then it seems to me that if we are figuratively fallen in the first Adam, our redemption in the second may be a m^'th also ; if the Fall be a legend, the recovery mnst be a legend also ; if the introdnction of sin be a mere piece of poetry, then the regeneration of the heart must be a mere piece of poetry also.

But not satisfied with all this, he says also, "One " may accept as parable, or poetry, or legend, the

D

DOCTRIXES DEXIED.

*' story of an ass speaking with man's voice/' There is nothing at all impossible in that fact, if ascribed to the power of God. The sacred penman states a fact, and we can see it is warranted by the circumstances and the exigencies of the case; and being stated as a fact it must be disproved, or it must be accepted ; it does not occur in a piece of poetry, but in a bare, literal, and naked history. He says also there is parable, or poetry, or legend in the story " of an arresting of the earth's motion." We all remember the record of that incident, when the sun stood still on Gibeon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon ; but he says it was all parable, or poetry, or legend ; and it may be after all but a silly story. But it is stated as a literal fact ; it is stated as ha^4ng occurred for a specific and worthy purpose. If you should answer, AYe know that the sun does not move round the earth — though Archbishop CuUen, the Eoman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, says it does — but the earth round the sun ; then how could the sun be said to stand still? If you will take the almanac that 3'ou carry in your pocket-book, you will fijid there that this very day the sun rises somewhere between four and five in the morning, and sets somewhere between seven and eight in the evening. But the man that wrote this was an astronomer; some of the best almanacs we know are drawTi up by most accomplished astronomers ; yet these astro-

DOCTRINES DENIED.

nomers do not hesitate to nse tlie language of popular conversation : it is of no use using strict technical phrases, that would be unintelligible to the mass of mankind, in describing phenomena such as these, when the phenomena are described not for the information of scientific inquirers, but simply as visible facts that occurred, related to and in order to accomplish certain grand pui-poses of God. Another story that we find in the Bible may be parable, or poetry, or legend, " the waters standing in a solid heap." If anybody will be at the trouble when he goes home to read the account of the Israelites' march thi^ough the Eed Sea, he will find it is distinctly stated that they marched through it dry shod. Mark you, if it had been a mere breath of wind, as these writers hold, that drove the waters of the Eed Sea aside, they could not have passed over dry shod ; because no w^ind would leave the channel literally and strictly dry. But in order that there may be no mistake about it, and that no poetry may be conceived to exist in it, it is said that the sea stood as a wall on each side ; then it is said that the Israelites passed through diy shod ; and that Pharaoh and all his host were drowned in the Eed Sea. It must have been a very lucky arrangement, surely Dr. "Wilson would say, that the Israelites all got through dry shod; it must have been a very unlucky accident that Pharaoh and all his chariots were too late, and

DOCTRINES DENIED.

were buried in tlie Eed Sea. But the language is exact history ; it is the history of the incidents of a people ; it is the history of their progress ; and it must be accepted as the record of literal historic facts. The same reasoning applies to the history of the passage of the J ordan. He says the universality of the Deluge is also a piece of poetry, or a legend, or at least may be accepted as such. If Dr. ^Yilson means the universality of the Deluge, as contradistinguished from the fact of the Deluge, I would not quarrel with him. There are Christian men who think the Flood was not universal : I believe it was universal ; the words in the sacred record are so explict — " overflowed all the earth," are words constantly repeated ; the waters went over all the earth." Yv^e know that the ark floated some 12,000 feet above the level of the sea, for it rested on Ararat ; well then, we say there is every reason for believing that the flood flowed over the whole earth ; and there is scientific proof that a certain increase of the temperature of the ocean by special Divine interposition would make the ocean again to overflow the whole earth to the same height. But there are Christian men, such as the late Dr. Pye Smith, and other?^. who believe that the flood was not universal, but simply coextensive with the existing population of the earth : and there is no difficulty in supposing it so, or at least there is no fatal objection to any Chris-

DOCTIIIXES DENIED.

lian man holding it. If lie means, therefore, to clispute the universality of the Deluge, it may Le a question for discussion. But if he means that the Deluge itself is a myth, then I ask him for the proof. It is stated as a literal fact, it is stated vv'ith a minuteness and an explicitness that indicate the pen of a faithful historian ; it is quoted by our Blessed Lord as a fact ; " As in the days of Xoah men were " eating and drinking;" it is quoted,, by the Apostle reter as a literal fact — " the ark wherein so many " souls were saved." But he says it may be accepted as a myth, as poetry, as a legend. I say it cannot be accepted as such, unless you are prepared to turn all -th.^ -facts of history into myths, and legends, and poetry, refusing all as literal and strict history.

Another myth too is the confusion of tongues. I am glad of the opportunity of meeting such objections, because it enables one to exj)lain many points that we should have missed from not recollecting them, by having them here put down as objections. He says the confusion of tongues belongs to the same category. I answer, the confusion of tongues is also recorded as a literal fact. God, it is expressly said, divided their tongues into dialects, and they spoke different languages, and were unintelligible to each other. And it is most remarkable that the researches of modem ethnologists have clearly demonstrated that ail languages bear the evidences of a common

DOCTRIXES DENIED.

ancestral origin ; while all languages haTe certain disruptions and dislocations that indicate some shock having overtaken them in the course of their transmission. That original language is beyond all dispute the Hebrew, to which you trace the Greek, and to the Greek you trace much of the Latin ; and then Tou trace to the Latin the French, and the Italian, and the Spanish; and when you come to deal with the Eastern languages the Sanskrit, the Hindostanee, the Arabic, the Sj'riac, you find they are pervaded and interpenetrated with Hebre^^' words, and words obviously of Hebrew origin. I do not w^ant a more splendid proof of the common origin of our race from one parent, or of the existence of the tower of Babel, or of the literal fact of the Flood, or of the confusion of tongues, than a thorough acquaintance with the Hebrew, the Greek, and the Latin ; and you will find in these the irresistible proofs that Dr. Wilson dreams, and that God's word is truth. ^ io •'(^iiidkaov Anods

He adds another instance : he says, we may also accept as poetry or legend the story of the corporeal taking up of Elijah into heaven. Here again he finds another myth ; why, this man makes myths of everthing. I should not be surprised if he were to land in the conclusion of the late Bishop Berkeley, a very odd and clever, but more imwise than wise Churchman, who denied the existence of matter, and

DOCTRINES DENIED.

said there was no sueli thing as iron, stone, houses, bricks, timber ; but simply ideas in the mind of the person ; everything was ideal, nothing was real.

With this reverend writer everything is poetry and legend ; and we have no plain prose that we can read, no intelligible fact that we can learn. But the taking up of Elijah is recorded as a strict and literal fact : and what thoroughly authenticates the fact, if authentication were requisite, is the cii^cumstance that when Jesus was transfigured on the mount, Elijah comes from heaven in the body, Closes fi'om his resting-place that no man knew ; and both are present with Christ : Moses, the representative of law ; Elijah, the representative of the prophets, to attest his glory, and to talk with him of the death he should accomplish at Jerusalem. Why should he niake this a piece of poetry, a myth ? There is no reason for it. Is such a thing impossible vrith God ? Grant a literal resurrection of the dead body ; why should you deny the possibility of a literal transformation of the living body ? The Scripture says when Christ comes, the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we which are alive shall all be changed ; we shall not die, we shall all be changed. We have in the case of Enoch, and in the case of Elijah, an instance of what shall take place on those of us that live when Christ comes ; and you have in Moses luised from the o'rave an instance and an illustration

DOCTEIXES DENIED.

of what sliall take place upon the sainted dead, when the trumpet sounds, and when Christ comes ; and instead of these being myths, or legends, or romances, they are facts of precious character, lying at the very foundation of our Christian hope, and shedding light and life on many of those best and blessed hopes which the gospel of Christ teaches us to entertain.

And then he ends with what seems to me must bo in him a very necessary conclusion : that among the other parables, and legends, and myths, may be the personality of Satan ; for surely nothing but either a deceived heart or Satanic influence could have led a Christian man to make the monstrous assertions which are contained in this Essay. But mark what necessarily follows : if Satan be a figure of speech, the Holy Ghost must be a figure of speech also ; for the very same language that describes the personality of the one, describes the personality of the other. But why should all angels be figures and legends ? V{h.Y may there not be hierarchies of creatures ascending near to the very throne of Deity, each rising above the other in sjDlendour, in magnificence, in power ? He is driven to this conclusion, because he has swept away all history before he reaches it ; and retaining one personality in his creed, would be inconsistent with the destructive process to which he has subjected all previous historic facts contained in God's holy word.

DOCTRIXES DENIED,

41^

I turn to anotlier passage in this Essay, equally objectionable and equally unscriptural. He says, " Thus some may consider," and this is almost what you would have expected from what he has come to before; " Thus some may consider the descent of

all mankind from Adam and Eve as an undoubted " historical fact ; others may rather perceive in that " relation a form of narrative, into which in early " ages tradition would easily throw itself spon- " taneously." And then he adds, " And many

narratives of marvels and catastrophes in the Old

Testament are referred to in the Xew as emblems, " without either denying or asserting their literal " truth ; such as the destruction of Sodom and Go- " morrah." If he will go to the Dead Sea, he will find the traces of it. An American traveller maintains — I do not know if he is correct — that he found a pillar standing in the sea, fixed, and of great height ; and he believes that pillar to be the literal monument into which Lot's wife vras turned on that occasion. Whether that traveller be right or wrong I do not pronounce ; but it is fact that the Dead Sea bears the traces of its origin : the valley in the south of Palestine where that sea is found, into which the Jordan continually pours its turbid stream, was once the most fertile, the most beautiful, the richest, in all the land of Palestine. The water of the Dead Sea has a specific gravity even greater than that of