John William Burgon · 12 of 36

VII. Examination of the Contribution of Rev. Professor Jowett, M.A. · Part 3

How did Christianity originate? how did it first establish a footing in the world? “The answer is, By the preaching of living men, who said they were commissioned by God to proclaim it. That was the origin and first establishment of Christianity. There is indeed a vague and unreasoning notion prevalent that Christianity was taken from the New Testament. The notion is historically untrue. Christianity was widely extended through the civilized world before the New Testament was written and its several books were successively addressed to various bodies of Christian believers; to bodies, that is, who already possessed the faith of Christ in its integrity. When, indeed, God ceased to inspire persons to write these books, and when they were all collected together into what we call the New Testament, the existing Faith of the Church, derived from oral teaching, was tested by comparison with this Inspired Record. And it henceforth became the standing law of the Church that nothing should be received as necessary to Salvation, which could not stand that test. But still, though thus tested, (every article being proved by the New Testament,) Christianity is not taken from it; for it existed before it.

“What, then, was the Christianity which was thus established? Have we any record of it as it existed before the New Testament became the sole authoritative standard? I answer, we have. The Creeds of the Christian Church are the record of it. That is precisely what they purport to be: not documents taken from the New Testament, but documents transmitting to us the Faith as it was held from the beginning; the Faith as it was preached by inspired men, before the inspired men put forth any writings; the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints. Accordingly you will find that our Church in her viiith Article does not ground her affirmation that the Creeds ought to be ‘thoroughly received and believed,’ on the fact that they were taken from the New Testament, (which they were not;) but on the fact that ‘they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.’”

It follows therefore from what has been said, that even if bad men could succeed in destroying the authority of the Bible as the Word of God, all could not be up with Christianity. There would still remain to be dealt with the Faith as it exists in the world; the Faith held from the beginning; the Faith once delivered to the Saints. None of the assaults on Holy Scripture can touch that; for it traces itself to an independent origin. The evil work, therefore, would have to be begun all over again. The special doctrines which are impugned in ‘Essays and Reviews’ do not stand or fall with the Inspiration or Interpretation of Scripture; but are stereotyped in the Faith of Christendom. “The Fall of Man, Original Sin, the Atonement, the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, all have their place in the Faith held from the beginning. They are imbedded in the Creeds, and in that general scheme of Doctrine which circles round the Creeds, and is involved in them. Nay, curiously enough,—or rather I should say providentially,—the very point against which the attacks of this book are principally directed, namely the Inspiration of the Old Testament, is in express terms asserted there:—the Holy Ghost ’ spake by the Prophets.’”

It remains to shew the bearing of these remarks on Mr. Jowett’s Essay.—With infinite perseverance, he dwells upon “the nude Scripture, the merest letter of the Sacred Volume, as if in it and in it alone, resided the entire Revelation of Christ, and all possible means of judging what that Revelation consists of: whereas this is very far indeed from being the case. Every single Book of the New Testament was written, as we have seen, to persons already in possession of Christian Truth. It is quite erroneous therefore, historically and notoriously erroneous, to suppose either that the Divine Institution of the Church, or that its Doctrines, were literally founded upon the written words of Holy Scripture or that they can impart no illustration nor help in the Interpretation of those written words. . . . . The of the saving Truth belonged to the Christian Church not by degrees, nor in lapse of time, but from the first. Of that saving truth, thus taught and thus possessed, the Apostles’ Creed, growing up as it did on every side of Christendom as the faithful record of the uniform oral teaching of the Apostles, is the trite and precious historical monument; and I venture to say that if any person claims to reject the Apostles’ Creed as an auxiliary, a great and invaluable auxiliary, in interpreting the writings of the Apostles, he shews himself to be very wanting indeed in appreciation of the comparative value of Historical Evidence, and of the true principles of historical Philosophy.—And not the Apostles’ Creed only; but the whole history and tradition of the universal Church,—needing, no doubt, skill and discretion in its application,—supply, when applied with requisite skill and discretion, very valuable and real aid in interpreting Holy Scripture.”

When therefore Mr. Jowett speaks contemptuously of “the attempt to adapt the truths of Scripture to the doctrines of the Creeds,” (p. 353,) the kindest thing which can be said is that he writes like an ignorant, or at least an unlearned man. “The Creeds” (he says) “are acknowledged to be a part of Christianity . . . . Yet it does not follow that they should be pressed into the service of the Interpreter.” Why not? we ask. “The growth of ideas,” (he replies,) “in the interval which separated the first century from the fourth or sixth makes it impossible to apply the language of the one to the explanation of the other. Between Scripture and the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds, a world of the understanding comes in; and mankind are no longer at the same point as when the whole of Christianity was contained in the words ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou mayest be saved;’ when the Gospel centred in the attachment to a living and recently departed friend and Lord.” (p. 353.)

But there is a fallacy or a falsity at every step of this argument. For when did the Gospel ever “centre in attachment?” or when was “the whole of Christianity contained” in one short sentence? Supposing too that “a world of the understanding” does come in between the first century and the sixth; how does it follow that it is “impossible” to apply the language of the Creeds to the interpretation of Holy Scripture? Explain to me how that “world of understanding” affects the Nicene Creed? Even in the case of that most precious Creed called the Athanasian,—why need we assume that “the growth of ideas” has been a spurious growth? What if it should prove, on the contrary, that the development had been that of the plant from the seed? Above all, why talk of “the fourth or sixth century,”—as if the Creeds were not essentially much older; nay, co-eval with Christianity itself? . . . . Such writing shews nothing so much as a confused mind,—a weak, ill-informed, and illogical thinker.

Indeed Mr. Jowett seems to be altogether in the dark on the subject of the Creeds: for he speaks of them as “the result of three or four centuries of reflection and controversy,” (p. 353,)—which is by no means true of all of them; nor, except in a certain sense, of ally. But when he inquires,—“If the occurrence of the phraseology of the Nicene age in a verse of the Epistles would detect the spuriousness of the verse in which it was found,—how can the Nicene or Athanasian Creed be a suitable instrument for the interpretation of Scripture?” (p. 354.)—he simply asks a fool’s question. The cases are not only not parallel, but there is not even any analogy between them. Let us hear him a little further:—

“Absorbed as St. Paul was in the person of Christ, . . . . he does not speak of Him as ‘equal to the Father,’ or of one substance with the Father.’ Much of the language of the Epistles, (passages for example such as Romans i. 2: Philippians ii. 6,) would lose their meaning if distributed in alternate clauses between our Lord’s Humanity and Divinity. Still greater difficulties would be introduced into the Gospels by the attempt to identify them with the Creeds. We should have to suppose that He was and was not tempted; that when He prayed to His Father He prayed also to Himself; that He knew and did not know ‘of that hour’ of which He as well as the angels were ignorant. how could He have said ‘My God, My God, why halt Thou forsaken Me?’ or ‘Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from Me.’ How could He have doubted whether ‘when the Son of Man cometh He shall find faith upon the earth?’ These simple and touching words,” (p. 355,)—pah!

Now if what precedes means anything at all,—(I am by no means certain however that it does!)—it means that the writer does not believe in the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Unless the sentence which is without a reference to the foot of the page be not a denial of the fundamental Doctrine of the Faith,—I do not understand it. But look at all which precedes; and then say if those are the remarks of a man entitled to dogmatize “On the Interpretation of Scripture.” . . . . If Mr. Jowett really means that the Creeds cannot be reconciled with the Bible,—how can he himself subscribe to the VIIIth Article? If he means nothing of the kind,—why does he write in such a weak, cloudy, illogical way?

But the whole of the case has not even yet been stated. Down from the remote period of which we have been hitherto speaking,—the age of primitive Creeds, and œcumenical Councils, and ancient Fathers,—in every country of the civilized world to which the Gospel has spread,—the loftiest Intellect, the profoundest Learning, the sincerest Piety, have invariably endorsed the ancient and original method of interpretation. I am not implying that such corroboration was in any sense required; but the circumstance that it has been obtained, at least deserves attention.. Modes of thought are dependent on times and countries. There is a fashion in all things. Great advances in Science,—grand epochs in civilization,—vicissitudes of opinion,—difference of institutions, national traditions, and the like,—might be supposed to have wrought a permanent change even in this department of Sacred Science. But it is not so. The storm has raged from one quarter or other of the heavens, but has ever spent its violence in vain. Still has the Church Catholic retained her own unbroken tradition. To keep to the history of that Church to which we, by God’s mercy, belong:—The constant appeal, at the time of our own great Reformation, was to the Fathers of the first four centuries. Ever since, the temper and spirit of our Commentators has been to revert to the same standard, to reproduce the same teaching. The most powerful minds and the most holy spirits,—English Divines of the deepest thought and largest reading,—let me add, of the soundest judgment and severest discrimination,—have, in every age, down to the present, gratefully accepted not only the method, but even the very details of primitive Patristic Interpretation. But “the acceptance of a hundred generations and the growing authority arising from it,”—like “the institutions based upon such ancient writings, and the history into which they have entwined themselves indissolubly for many centuries,”—all conspire to “constitute a perpetually increasing and strengthening” body of evidence on the subject of Sacred Interpretation.

Now, to oppose (1) to the learning, and piety, and wisdom, of every age of the English Church,—(2) to the unbroken testimony of the Church Universal,—(3) to the torrent of Patristic Antiquity,—(4) to the decision of early Councils, and (5) the ’still small voice’ of primitive Creeds,—yet more, (6) to the constant practice of the Apostles,—and, above all, (7) to the indisputable method of our Divine Lord Himself—to oppose to all this mighty accumulation of evidence, the simple à priori convictions of—Mr. Jowett! savours so strongly of the ridiculous, that it really seems superfluous to linger over the antithesis for a single moment.

4. Our task might now be looked upon as completed.—It only remains, in justice to the gentleman whose method we have been considering, to ascertain by what considerations he is induced to reject that method of Interpretation which, as we have seen, enjoys such overwhelming sanction.

(i) In opposition to what goes before, then, he throws out a suggestion, that “nothing would be more likely to restore a natural feeling on this subject than a History of the Interpretation of Scripture. It would take us back to the beginning it would present in one view the causes which have darkened the meaning of words in the course of ages.” (p. 338-9.) “Such a work would enable us to separate the elements of Doctrine and Tradition with which the meaning of Scripture is encumbered in our own day.” (p. 339.)

Let us here be well understood with our author. The advantage of a good “History of Interpretation” would indeed be incalculably great. But Mr. Jowett, (like most other writers of his class,) assumes the point he has to prove, when he insinuates that the result of such a contribution to our Theological Literature would be to shew that all the world has been in error for 1700 years, and that he alone is right. That ‘erring fancy’ has often been at work in the fields of sacred criticism,—who ever doubted? That there have been epochs of Interpretation,—different Schools,—and varying tastes, in the long course of so many centuries of mingled light and darkness, learning and barbarism;—what need to declare? A faithful history of Interpretation would of course establish these facts on a sure foundation.

But the Reverend Author forgets his Logic when he goes on from these undoubted generalities to imply that all has been confusion and utter uncertainty until now. Above all, common regard for the facts of the case ought to have preserved him from putting forth so monstrous a falsehood as the following:—“Among German Commentators there is for the first time in the history of the world, an approach to agreement and certainty.” (p. 340.)

Let us however,—passing by the many crooked remarks and unsound inferences with which the Reverend writer, (more suo,) delights to perplex a plain question,—invite him to abide by the test which he himself proposes. For 1700 years, (he says,) the Interpretation of Scripture has been obscured and encumbered by successive Schools of Interpretation. The Interpreter’s concern (he says) is with the Bible itself. “The simple words of that book he tries to preserve absolutely pure from the refinements of later times. . . . The greater part of his learning is a knowledge of the text itself.” [He is evidently the very man who sweeps the house to discover the pearl of great price. (p. 414.)] “He has no delight in the voluminous literature which has overgrown it. He has no theory of Interpretation. A few rules guarding against common errors are enough for him. He wants to be able to open his eyes, and see or imagine things as they truly are.” (p. 338.) [How crooked by the way is all this! “He has no theory of Interpretation?” Why, no; for the best of all reasons. He denies Inspiration altogether! His “theory” is that the Bible is an uninspired Book! . . . . How peculiar too, and how plaintive is the “want” of the supposed Interpreter, “to be able to open his eyes;”—glued up, as they no doubt are, by the superstitious tendencies of the nineteenth century, and the tyranny of an intolerant age!]

But we may perhaps state the matter more intelligibly and simply, thus:—In order to ascertain the true principle of Scriptural Interpretation, let us,—divesting ourselves of the complicated and voluminous lore of 1700 years,—resort to the Bible itself. Let us go for our views to the fountain-head; and abide by what we shall discover there.

A fairer proposal (as I think) never was made. It exactly describes the method which I have humbly endeavoured myself to pursue in the ensuing Sermons. The inquiry will be found elaborated from p. 141 to p. 160 of the present volume; and the result is to be read on the last-named page, in the following words:—“that it may be regarded as a fundamental rule, that the Bible is not to be interpreted like a common book. This I gather infallibly from the plain fact, that the inspired writers themselves habitually interpret it as no other book either is, or can be interpreted.—Next, I assert without fear of contradiction that inspired Interpretation, whatever varieties of method it may exhibit, is yet uniform and unequivocal in this one result; namely, that it proves Holy Scripture to be of far deeper significancy than at first sight appears. By no imaginable artifice of Rhetoric or sophistry of evasion,—by no possible vehemence of denial or plausibility of counter assertion,—can it be rendered probable that Scripture has invariably one only meaning; and that meaning, the most obvious and easy.”

Now, the reader is requested to observe that what precedes is the direct contradictory of the position which Mr. Jowett has written his Essay in order to establish. And thus we keep for ever coming back to his πρῶτον ψεῦδος,—the fundamental falsity which underlies the whole of what he has written.

(ii) But although we have eagerly resorted to Scripture itself in order to ascertain on what principle Scripture ought to be interpreted, we cannot for a moment allow some of the sophistries which which the Reverend Author has encumbered the question, to escape without castigation. He may not first court an appeal to the School of Apostolical Interpretation; and then, before the result of that appeal has been ascertained, go off in praise of the illumination of the present age; and claim to represent the Theological mind of Europe in his own person. “Educated persons,” (he has the impertinence to assert,) “are beginning to ask (!), not what Scripture may be made to mean, but what it does. And it is no exaggeration to say that he who in the present state of knowledge will confine himself to the plain meaning of words, and the study of their context, may know more of the original spirit and intention of the authors of the New Testament than all the controversial writers of former ages put together.” (pp. 340-1.) This might be tolerated per-Imps, in the self-constituted oracle of a Mechanics’ Institute; but as proceeding from a Divinity Lecturer in one of the first Colleges in Oxford, I hesitate not to declare that such an opinion is simply disgraceful.

Very much of a piece with this, in point of flippancy,—(though barely consistent with his frequent assertions that the entire subject is hemmed in by grave difficulties,)—are the Regius Professor of Greek’s remarks on the value of learning as a help to the Interpretation of Holy Writ. “Learning obscures as well as illustrates.” (p. 337.)—“There seem to be reasons for doubting whether any considerable light can be thrown on the New Testament from inquiry into the language.” (p. 393.)—“Minute corrections of tenses or particles are no good.” (p. 393.)—“Discussions respecting the chronology of St. Paul’s life and his second imprisonment; or about the identity of James, the brother of the Lord; or, in another department, respecting the use of the Greek article,—have gone far beyond the line of utility.” (p. 393.) “The minuteness of the study of Greek in our own day has also a tendency to introduce into the text associations which are not really found there.” (p. 391.)—Lastly, he complains of “the error of interpreting every particle, as though it were a link in the argument instead of being, as is often the case, an excrescence of style.” (p. 391.)

So then, in brief, the Fathers are in a conspiracy to mislead: Creeds and Councils encumber the sense: Modern Commentators are not to be trusted: the comparison of Scripture with Scripture, except it be “of the same age and the same authors,” “will tend rather to confuse than to elucidate:” (p. 383:) “Learning obscures,” and an accurate appreciation of the meaning of the text is “no good!”—“When the meaning of Greek words is once known, the young student has almost all the real materials which are possessed by the greatest Biblical scholar, in the book itself.” (p. 384.) In a word, (as Dr. Moberly has had the manliness to remark,)—“It simply comes to this: A little Greek, (not too much,) and a strong self-relying imagination, and you may interpret Holy Scripture as well as—Mr. Jowett!” (p. lxii.) . . . Benighted himself, the unhappy author of this Essay is so apprehensive lest a ray of light from Heaven shall break in upon one of his disciples,—even sideways, as it were, from the margin of the Bible,—that he carefully prohibits “the indiscriminate use of parallel passages” as “useless and uncritical.” . . . Yet may one not with discrimination refer to the margin?—Better not! “No good!” (p. 393.) replies the Oracle. “Even the critical use of parallel passages is not without danger.” (p. 383.) . . . O shame! And all this from a College Tutor and Lecturer on Divinity! this from one entrusted with the care of educating young men! this from a Regius Professor of Greek!

Mr. Jowett congratulates himself that “Biblical criticism has made two great steps onward,—at the time of the Reformation, and in our own day.” But his notion is amply refuted by the known facts of the case: for when he adds,—“The diffusion of a critical spirit in History and Literature is affecting the criticism of the Bible in our own day in a manner not unlike the burst of intellectual life in the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries;” (p. 340;) he clearly requires to be reminded that the success of the Divinity of the Reformation wag owing to the grand appeal then made to the Patristic writings.

So far then as any of ourselves are resorting to those sources of information, there may be a faint resemblance in kind between the spirit which animates us, and that which wrought so nobly in the Fathers of our spiritual freedom,—Cranmer and Ridley and the other learned and holy men who revised our Offices. But if “German Commentators” and their method be supposed to be the ideals to which the age is tending, then the Theology of the middle of the nineteenth century stands in marked contrast to what prevailed in the middle of the sixteenth , and our spirit is the very reverse of theirs.—But I hasten on.

(iii) “The uncertainty which prevails in the Interpretation of Scripture,” Mr. Jowett proposes to get rid of,—(this is in fact the aim of his entire Essay,)—by denying that there are in Scripture any deeper meanings to interpret. In the meantime, by every device in his power, he seeks from à priori considerations, (as we have seen,) to shew that no such meanings can exist. We allow ourselves to be biassed, to a singular extent, he says, “by certain previous suppositions with which we come to the perusal of Scripture.” (p. 342.) But for this, “no one would interpret Scripture as many do.” (Ibid.) Let us ascertain then what these erroneous “suppositions” are.

(α) “The failure of a prophecy is never admitted, in spite of Scripture and of history, (Jer. xxxvi. 30. Isaiah xxiii. Amos vii. 10-17.)” (p. 343.)

Now this can only mean two things: viz. first, that a Divine Prophecy is not an infallible utterance: and secondly, that the three places quoted from the Old Testament are proofs of the fallibility of Prophecy; proofs which ought to overcome prejudice, and persuade men to renounce their “previous supposition” that Prophecy is infallible.

Certainly the charge is a grave one. For if Prophecy is untrue, then what becomes of Inspiration?

And yet, how stands the case? The writer seems to have expected “that no one would refer to the passages that he has bracketed, or that all would be too ignorant to know the utter groundlessness of his assumption. If there are, in the whole Scripture, two past prophecies which were signally and remarkably fulfilled, they are the first two which he has selected as instances to be dropped down, without a remark, of the failure of Scripture prophecies I And as to the third passage, surely it implies an ‘incuria’ which might be deemed ‘crassa’ to have asserted that it contained an instance of the non-fulfilment of Prophecy for it implies that Mr. Jowett has read the verses to which he refers with so little attention as not to have discovered that the prediction which failed of its fulfilment was no utterance of Amos, but was the message of Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, in which he falsely attributes to Amos words he had not spoken! . . . Surely such slips as these are as discreditable to a scholar as a Divine!”

And this, from a gentleman who has the impertinence to remind us oracularly, that “he who would understand the nature of Prophecy in the Old Testament, should have the courage to examine how far its details were minutely fulfilled!” (p. 347.) Are we then to infer that Mr. Jowett’s courage failed him when he came to Amos vii. 10-17?

(β) “The mention of a name later than the supposed age of the prophet is not allowed, as in other writings, to be taken in evidence of the date. (Isaiah xlv. 1.)” (p. 343.)

But what is the meaning of this complaint when applied to Isaiah’s well known prophecy concerning Cyrus? In the words of the excellent critic last quoted,—“We know not that we could point to such an instance as this in the writings of any other author of credit. Of course, Mr. Jowett knows as well as we do the distinction between History and Prophecy; and that the mention in any document of the name of one who was unborn at the time fixed as the date of the writing, would be at once a complete disproof of its accuracy as a history of the past, and a proof of its accuracy as a prediction of the future. Of course he also remembers that the point he has to prove is that this passage is History and not Prediction; and his mode of proving is this; he assumes that it is a history of the past,—advancing as a charge against the believers of Revelation, that they do not, (as they would in any other history,) reject the genuineness of the passage because it embalms a future name in a past history! . . . This audacious, (for we cannot use a weaker word,) assumption of what he has to prove, pervades his Essay.”

And thus, into whatever department of speculation we follow this writer, the tortuous path is still found to conduct us back to the same underlying fallacious assumption,—viz. that the Bible is like any other Book; in other words, is not inspired.

(γ) Persons in Mr. Jowett’s position, “find themselves met by a sort of presupposition that ‘God speaks not as Man speaks.’”—(p. 343.)

“A sort of presupposition,” indeed! . . . . Does the Reverend gentleman really expect that we will stoop so low as argue this point also with him? It shall suffice to have branded him with his own words.

“The suspicion of Deism, or perhaps of Atheism, awaits inquiry. By such fears, a good man (!) refuses to be influenced: a philosophical mind (!) is apt to cast them aside with too much bitterness. It is better to close the book, than to read it under conditions of thought which are imposed from without.” (p. 343.)

Well surely, the proximity to Balliol College of the scene of Crammer and Ridley’s martyrdom, must have turned the brain of the Regius Professor of Greek!—Let him be well assured however that not rational “Inquiry,” but irrational assumption; not the modest cogitations of “a philosophical mind,” but the arrogant dreams of a weak and confused intellect, are what have excited such general indignation of late, among “good men,” from one end of the Kingdom to the other. Nor could anything probably of equal pretensions be readily appealed to, which is nevertheless more truly unphilosophical, fallacious, and foolish, than the Essay now under consideration.

(iv) Subsequently, (p. 344,) Mr. Jowett professes to grapple with the phenomenon of Inspiration. His method is instructive. He begins by inadvertently advancing a direct untruth: for he asserts that for none “of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration is there any foundation in the Gospels or Epistles.” (p. 345.)—Had he then forgotten St. Paul’s statements in Gal. i. 1, 11-17: ii. 2, 7-9. 1 Cor. xv. 3. Ephes. iii. 3, &c., &c.? But I have established the contradictory of the Professor’s position in the ensuing Sermons, p. 53 to p. 57, to which the reader must be referred.—This done, he proceeds to assert that,

(α) Inspiration does not preserve a writer from inaccuracy. And the charge is substantiated by the following ridiculous enumeration:—“One [Evangelist] supposes the original dwelling-place of our Lord’s Parents to have been Bethlehem, another Nazareth.” (This from a Lecturer on Divinity! Does Mr. Jewett then suppose that his readers have never opened the Gospels, and do not know better? Why, both his statements are simply false!)—“They trace His genealogy in different ways.” (Yes. In two. And why not in twenty? Is Mr. Jewett not aware that a genealogy may be differently traced through different ancestors?)—“One mentions the thieves blaspheming: another has preserved to after ages the record of the penitent thief:” (And why should he not?)—“They appear to differ about the day and hour of the Crucifixion.” (Yes, they appear to differ: but they do not differ!)—“The narrative of the woman who anointed our Lord’s feet with ointment is told in all four, each narrative having more or less considerable variations.” (There is no conceivable reason why this should not have been as Mr. Jowett relates; but, as a matter of fact, we have here another of this Gentleman’s private blunders,—shewing what an uncritical reader he must be, of that book concerning which he presumes to dogmatize so freely.)—“These are a few instances of the differences which arose in the traditions of the earliest ages respecting the history of our Lord.” (Nay, but this is to beg the whole question!)—“He who wishes to investigate the character of the sacred writings should not be afraid to make a catalogue of them all, with the view of estimating their cumulative weight.” (p. 346.) (Truly, it would be well for Mr. Jewett if he had as little to fear from such “investigations” as the Evangelists!)