## A Fourth Dialogue on the Essays and Reviews, section d.

Inspiration and Interpretation.

J. N. Darby.

<09004E> file section d.

324 In Matthew 9, Christ is the Jehovah of Psalm 103. He forgives and heals at the same time. Next, He abounds in grace and calls the vilest; He comes as a physician to call sinners, not the righteous; nor can He put this new power of grace into the old bottles of Judaism. In the rest of the chapter — a picture I do not doubt for a moment, of God's ways in Israel — He comes to intercept death. When there was individual faith in the crowd of Israel, power went out to heal; but really the object of His compassion was dead before He came. Resurrection must restore Israel. And so it will be with them. Owned as Son of David, He opens the blind eyes and the dumb mouth to praise God.

325 Such was His work in Israel; but the Pharisees, the nation in its legal pride, committed itself fatally, and ascribed the divine power to Satan. Awful word! But patient compassion was not exhausted, and Jesus-Jehovah went healing everywhere, had compassion on the shepherdless multitudes, saw the harvest plenteous and the labourers few, directing His disciples to pray the Lord of the harvest He would send out labourers. This He does in the next chapter, but exclusively in Israel.

The twelve are sent out, but the terms of their mission extend, without taking the assembly into account at all, to the time of Christ's coming again. They are sent out in the midst of a hostile people, seeking the remnant, the worthy in Israel, and forbidden to go to Gentiles or Samaritans. But if rejected, judgment would come. He goes on to the time when the Spirit would be come, and till the time when the Son of man would be come. They had called the Master of the house Beelzebub (shewing His estimate of the character Israel thus took), how much more His servants. But He encourages them by every promise, and especially the Spirit's help, and declares that all done to them would be considered as done to Him. This remarkable chapter shews the Lord, as we have seen the prophets before, passing over here from His first coming unbrokenly to the last days, leaving out wholly the present period — for He forbids any gospel to Gentiles.

The patience of Christ continued to deal with Israel; but, in a certain sense, this was a closing testimony, I mean as to its character and nature. This is supposed to continue, as we have said, or rather not to be completed, till He came.

What follows in the gospel discusses the moral character of His rejection, shewing where rest was to be found, and afterwards what would come in on His rejection. Thus, in Matthew 11, on the enquiry by John, the character of His mission, and their reception of it, and of His own and their reception of that is unfolded, reproaching the cities with their unbelief, but shewing rest in Himself for the weary; and that the truth was, all was given to Him the Son; He alone knew the Father, and could reveal Him; and He was the Son: none at all could know Him but the Father Himself. But He did reveal the Father to those who came to Him.

326 He then shews the triumph of mercy over sacrifice — that a rejected David had eaten the shewbread, and that the priests profaned the Sabbath in the temple; and a greater than the temple was there. The seal of Israel's covenant must give place to the Son of man. The same point is again insisted on with the Jews, and their whole system is judged. This was an all-important point. It was setting the whole system aside for grace. (Matt. 12.)

His silent and unobtrusive character is declared, but when the people own Him Son of David, the Pharisees repeat their blasphemy, and this leads to the formal judgment of the nation, and a prophecy of their last estate: that as the unclean spirit (of idolatry) had gone out, it would come back with seven worse ones to Israel. Then, on His mother and brethren (the links with Israel according to the flesh) coming, He will not own them, but only what is the fruit of His own word. This is fully unfolded in Matthew 13.

There the Lord takes the character of a Sower, one who does not seek fruit from what is already planted, but brings with Him what is to produce fruit. Then, in the six following parables, He propounds the character and forms the kingdom of heaven would take while the King was hidden, and had not taken to Him His great power and reigned: in three its outer aspect to the multitude; in three its inner to the disciples. Its character as kingdom of the Father and of the Son of man is given at the close. They are things new and old, the new unlooked-for character of what had been told of in prophecy, which a scribe would already know.

In what follows we have the signs of the closing scene — John Baptist is beheaded, and the Lord retires. But, followed by the multitude, His compassions still continue. He acts as the Jehovah of promise, and satisfies the poor with bread; but then retires even from His disciples, and, returning to them, shews that He walks as on dry ground where they are tossed about, and can give power to faith to do it. All here depends on keeping the eye fixed on Jesus. Peter could have walked on a smooth sea no better than on a rough one. When they were in the ship the wind ceased. Who with any sense can doubt this was significant? Israel dismissed; Christ alone on high; His disciples tossed about, yet taught to walk on the water to come to Him. When in the ship all is peace, and, come to land (Gennesaret) — that world out of which He had been once expelled, they worship Him there. (Matt. 14)

327 In Matthew 15 we have the principles of the kingdom — truth in the inward parts contrasted with ordinances; man's heart evil, but grace going out to the vilest of an accursed race, where there was faith. The Lord again feeds the multitude, the fact having a distinct character, which for the present I pass by.

In Matthew 16, leaving the adulterous generation, the assembly is revealed, founded on His being the Son of the living God — as such He had never before been owned, it was proved in resurrection; and also the kingdom of heaven, whose administration was entrusted to Peter. This leads to the clear announcement to His disciples that He must be rejected and die. At this moment, consequently, He charges them to say no more that He is the Christ, the character in which He is presented to Israel.

In Matthew 17 the glory of the kingdom is revealed. But the disciples even could not profit by the blessing and power then present, and He was soon to leave that generation. He owns His disciples as with Him sons of the Great King, but, not to offend, submits as yet to the temple's demands.

In Matthew 18 we have the spirit and flesh-judging principles of the kingdom. The meek and lowly, and little children, are on His heart; for now it was, not Christ to Israel, but the Son of man come to save that which was lost: and the assembly, not the synagogue, became the place of which within and without could be said. Forgiveness characterized the kingdom, but judgment when grace was not owned; and so it happened to Israel.

We then get spiritual power, judging and holding flesh as dead, while the relations formed of God are fully maintained — the law, the way of life to the Jew, supposing it to be kept; but the state of the heart spiritually judged and Christ to be followed. (Matt. 19.) All this is shewing the effect of bringing in new power, applied to what the law treated of. In relationships, flesh not being judged, the law had gone below the original order of God, which was restored, but new power brought in to live wholly to God. The truth of life by law, on the other hand, abstractedly owned, but the state of the heart judged in respect of it (not merely outward conduct), and Christ the true test of this. All this is of vast importance at this moment of transition. Riches, instead of being a reward of righteousness in God's earthly government, were a snare to the heart as to its entrance into the kingdom of heaven; while giving up everything for Christ would surely not lose its reward: only man might judge amiss.

328 It was a new thing where (Matt. 20) all was grace, and fleshly claim of reward for so much ran athwart the ways of one giving in grace. The Lord then renews His announcement of His immediate rejection; and, James and John looking for a good place in Messiah's kingdom, the Lord shews them the Son of man was to suffer, giving His life a ransom, and they must take up the cross too: this was all He could give them, save as all was ordained of the Father. He that was least among them would be greatest This closes the instruction.

The closing history commences here with the blind man at Jericho, as in all three gospels — an additional evidence of a common plan, yet unquestionably not formed by the human authors — and Christ in the presence of Israel takes the character of Son of David. He then rides in on the ass, according to prophecy, and is celebrated as Son of David coming in the name of the Lord. (Matt. 21.) The fig-tree, the figure of Israel, is judged. And then, in succession, He judges virtually (each class coming up in succession to tempt Him) the chiefs of the nation, the whole nation being God's vineyard, who were at last rejecting the Son sent for fruit according to the old system. Here the kingdom of heaven according to grace is set forth (Matt. 22), on which He gathers the Gentiles, but judges when they are come in; then the Pharisees and Herodians as to their connection with the Gentile monarchies; then the Sadducees. Then He takes out of the law its divine and eternal essence, and by one question confounds the Pharisees as to how the Son of David could be David's Lord, and be taken up to God's right hand, which was just about to happen. This closes His intercourse with the nation. They had all passed in review before Him.

In Matthew 23 however He recognizes the seat of Moses still, and His disciples' connection with it, owning still existing Judaism; but then judges in the severest way its state, declaring that their last hypocritical excuse would be taken away from them; that prophets and scribes (so He calls the gospel witnesses here, as in connection with the people) would be sent to them, and thus the measure of their guilt be filled up, and their house be left desolate till the last days, when the nation would own Him that came in the name of Jehovah.

In Matthew 24 the disciples are told of the destruction of the temple, and then their ministry on to the last days is spoken of to verse 14; then the last half week of Daniel's seventy weeks is referred to, at the close of which the Son of man would come. The whole history of the Jews in Judea, and the scattered remnant, is given to verse 31; thence to Matthew 25:31, we have practical warnings and parables as to the duty of the Church and saints while He is away; thence to the end of chapter 25 the judgment of the nations in the earth when He shall be returned.

329 The historical close now comes — the attachment of Mary, the treachery of Judas, the closing of Christ's association with them (shewn in not drinking of the wine then with them), till in a new way He drank it in His Father's kingdom, the millennial world to come. Kingdom of heaven and kingdom of my Father (the latter its character when He takes it in heavenly glory) are peculiar to this gospel. Then we have fully the sorrows and sufferings of Gethsemane, but not what we found in John — only He could pray and ask His Father; but the scriptures must be fulfilled. He is in communion with the Father, but the suffering obedient man. So He answers when the high priest adjures Him, according to Leviticus 5, but even here refers to His being, from this out, only known as Son of man sitting at the right hand of power as He is now, or coming again in that character. The people give up Christ, and desire a murderer, and say, His blood be on us and on our children — their true judgment to this day.

We have the details of His humiliation on the cross too, though not stupefying Himself with the offered potion, but obedience to the end. It is marked that it is not by weakness He expires, but crying with a loud voice. But His death closed the whole system publicly; the veil was rent, the very characteristic of the Jewish state, where man had no access to God; and the bodies of saints (Jews) arose. At the close it is only His connection with His disciples in Galilee, where He had connected Himself with the poor of the flock, that is noticed, and there is no ascension. Thus it fits into the renewal of a place with Israel on earth when the time comes. The mission supposes this, and sends the gospel out only to the nations: all power being His in heaven and in earth, they were to make disciples of them.

Now no one can doubt that the whole course of this gospel is marked by a character wholly its own, the revelation of Christ to the Jews as theirs, but rejected by them; and thus the dispensational substitution of other things, the assembly and kingdom; while the connection of His disciples with Jewish things, only on a new footing, is distinctly marked and pursued to the last days, the assembly being overlooked in this part.

330 W. Your review of it makes it very plain, and gives an entireness to it which greatly facilitates the seizing the sense of the different passages.

H. You will see, too, if you examine the passages, that the historical order is neglected to put the events into a just succession with a view to God's dealing with Israel. Where we have the same events in Mark and Luke, these, so far as Luke is chronological, follow the same historical order; but Matthew leaves it, to give a distinct character to Christ's ministry; while in Luke, in the temptation, and from Luke 9 exclusive to the end of Luke 18, we have no chronological order at all, but events morally connected.

I will touch now on the Gospel of Luke. The first two chapters are wholly Jewish (except the heavenly song of the angels, more so than any part of the gospels). We have a most perfect picture of the state of the pious remnant, who knew and spake one to another; the priestly service, and God yet, in patience, blessing in connection with it, and the relationship Israel, or at least Judah, bore to the then Gentile monarchy. John's ministry is brought in in connection with it, and Israel's rejection of Him; but then, after this, Christ is genealogically traced as Son of man to Adam. Hence grace, and His associations with man, with sinners, and the principles on which those associations rested, characterize henceforth all the gospel. He is in the power of the Spirit, the moral temptation coming last in the wilderness. He begins His ministry by shewing sovereign grace and blessing sent outside Israel. (Luke 4.) We find Him often praying. He was so when He received the Holy Spirit like a dove — was so all night before choosing His apostles — was so when He was transfigured. What he gives of the sermon on the mount speaks not of how people could enter, but of His disciples as separated actually to Him. We have not the dispensational change of Matthew 11, but only wisdom is justified of her children; and then (what is not found elsewhere) the touching account, in contrast with the Pharisee, of one of these children of wisdom, the woman in the city that was a sinner.

In the country of the Gadarenes the details of one of the cured men are given, a soul restored desiring to leave the world and be with Jesus, but sent back to tell of Him where He had been rejected; fuller details of the associations of Moses and Elias with Christ in glory, searching judgment of self in all its shapes when He came down; in the mission of the twelve, none of the directions which confined it to Jews, nor those which continued it to the coming of the Son of man. The different, and here historical order, I have alluded to.

331 From hence to Luke 18 there is no chronology, but great moral principles; among the rest the lost sheep, the piece of money, and the prodigal son; the use of riches, and the insight into a moral world unfolding grace and heaven, and a total change, not of dispensation, but of moral system — from earthly government to grace and heavenly hope. The parable of the good Samaritan, to the same purpose — answering to Matthew 13. Before this we have only the sower and the different soils; none of the parables of the kingdom of heaven, nothing dispensational, but a moral closing warning as to how they heard. The prophetic warning as to the revelation of the Son of man is given as a general warning to disciples, not in connection with Antichrist and Jerusalem. The parable of pounds (not of so many talents) rests on individual responsibility, and reward is proportionate: in Matthew, only "enter into the joy of the Lord," for all alike. In the answer to the Pharisees He introduces the life of the souls of all after death.

In the prophecy answering partly to Matthew 24 we have definitely the then coming siege of Jerusalem, consequently no abomination of desolation, but the desolation of Jerusalem, till the end of the times of the Gentiles, and then the coming of the Son of man.

Christ's personal feelings are more brought out as a man in the passover. There is a strife for greatness even then. In Gethsemane there appeared an angel from heaven strengthening Him. The Lord turns and looks on Peter when the cock crows, a touching and deeply interesting circumstance, not elsewhere. Pilate and Herod are made friends, another deep moral trait. Only here the conflict (agony) in Gethsemane is noticed, and His sweating as it were great drops of blood, presenting Him so deeply as the suffering man, more than the rejected Christ.

The remarkable history of the thief's conversion, in which the happiness of a soul before the setting up of the kingdom, which last alone the thief expected, is revealed, and his being with Christ in paradise: the absoluteness of grace and the efficacy of the cross.

Then, while all the history of the women is thrown together in a few words, the history of Emmaus is very largely recounted, and He is known in the sign of death. Lastly, He assures their hearts that it is Himself. Repentance and remission is their gospel, and they were to wait for the power of the Holy Ghost promised; and the gospel, being from heaven, was to begin at Jerusalem — the Jew first, and also the Gentile. Here we find lastly the ascension, where Christ as from heaven blesses them with outstretched hands, and praise became the portion of His saints. Now, though I have gone very rapidly through this gospel, the character and design is as clear as that of Matthew.

332 W. My feeling is, that from its nature it is clear, because, while Matthew is dispensational, the moral character of this is so very evident, Christ's connection with man, grace, the interest of the soul, the prodigal son or Gentile sinner, the praying of Christ, and the touching circumstances found in this gospel alone, give it a character not to be mistaken. But the comparison of them all leaves no cloud upon the fact, and I feel what you say now. What a feeble idea a harmony is, and how utterly senseless the remark of Mr. Jowett is, that the connection of the same facts with others could not be of importance, because they were differently connected in different gospels! Why it is the whole pith of the matter, and one chief thing which prints a special character on them. But what of Mark?

H. I have not much to say of Mark. It presents to us the prophetic service of Christ. Hence we have not His birth, but it begins with the testimony of John, then of Christ. Its order, the historical one, in spite of patristic statement, is, as remarked, the same as St. Luke, where the latter follows any historical order. In the passage answering to Matthew 13, we have only the sower, and no parables of the kingdom, save one in which he shews that Christ took personally part at the commencement, His prophetic service, and, after leaving it seemingly to itself, takes a personal part in the end at the harvest or judgment; and a second, in which the outward form of the kingdom during His absence is shewn. We have the call of the apostles, I do not doubt, coincident with the sermon on the mount, which is not found in Mark, being the principles of the kingdom whose character and dispensations are opened in Matthew. In Matthew we have the twelve only introduced afterwards, in exclusive connection with their mission to Israel, and reaching forward to the time when the kingdom will be set up in power.

I need not go farther into the details of this gospel, which is more rapid in its character, more of testimony than the unfolding of dispensations and dealings of God. But it seems to me that a special design is evident in each gospel, not perhaps of the writer, but of the Spirit which indited them, because all concur to one common end, but each is independent and treats the same subject differently — each pursuing its own object; but inasmuch just as the same facts are differently connected, shewing that each has a different one, yet all, by each pursuing a different one, completing a whole. The Prophet, the Son of David, the Son of man in grace, the Son of God, are respectively brought out, and in a great measure brought out wholly by the same facts.

333 W. It seems to me most striking, and to have a very divine character. For the design proves a designer; yet each independent document has a separate design of its own, and the general design is not from their writers, even if that of each particular document was, which I do not believe. There is a simplicity of relation which forbids me to think of a plan of composition, though I do not doubt the habits of thinking of the vessel were fitted to its task. It makes the gospels a very important part of scripture as to knowledge; though, I confess, the details of the Lord's life are the most attractive and blessed aspect of them.

H. May it ever be so! I have found that, led to occupy myself with the epistles as divine reasonings on Christ's work and place now, to get peace for my soul; when I had it, my heart turned back to the gospels to learn and feed on Him whose every footstep was light and grace. They are our constant food in this respect. I find I read scripture two ways: as study, and as a child to learn in heart and conscience, as God speaking to me that I may be comforted, searched out, and taught, and listen to God. And the last is the most important and every one's; the former is more in the way of gift. Here we are studying it. Mark, too, that it is not each gospel choosing its facts, marking thus the writer's design. Mr. Jowett's own theory, as of others, is that they had a common testimony, and hence the proof that the design came from a higher source is very strong indeed.

W. It requires to study the gospels to have the proof of this, and happily souls enjoy and profit by them who never think of the difficulties presented or the answers to them. But when they are studied, I do not think we can hesitate a moment in seeing the justice of what you say. It brings to my mind your old charge of superficiality. One finds that, when anything is studied, the rationalists have remained wholly on the surface of things, and their crude difficulties disappear.

H. It is the beauty and blessedness of scripture as the word of God to work by its own power, and convey, through grace, its divine contents to the heart. Hence it does work, is blessed to the poor and ignorant, and to every simple mind which has received what is divinely given and found in it a certain proof of its divine nature, without ever perceiving the difficulties. All we do, who look into them, is to discover that they are trashy, and the fruit of minds who do not see beyond the surface. But the enquiry serves to shew that we are looking into depths which prove that all of us are, comparatively speaking, at the surface of that which is of infinite depth, its waters always pure, and all and always ours.

334 But we will return to our Essays. Mr. Jowett, after speaking of the gospels, says, "If words have more than one meaning, they may have any meaning." This may sound wise, but it is most perfect trash. I take an example. When Christ died, it is said the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and then the resurrection of the saints after His resurrection and their appearing in the city is noted. Now this rending of the veil has one meaning. It is the history of the fact, and means only that. Now, I say, such an assertion is as senseless and foolish as it can possibly be. The rending is ascribed to Christ's death, followed by resurrection of dead saints. The veil was the sign that God was hidden and could not be approached; now by Christ's death He could be. The whole mighty change of dispensation was marked in it, and the full power of redemption in Christ's death. These senses are indeed ascribed to it in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10. But they are evident. The talking of one meaning is simple folly, and if I speak of the uncertainty of interpretation, which of course is not infallible, am I to choose the judgment of an interpreter who has proved himself incapable of interpreting anything by embracing an evidently false and inapplicable principle, or of one who has a right one, though of course I must watch his use of it?

W. You may proceed, for the absurdity of their principle here is too evident to need a moment's hesitation. We are too returning to an old ground, that they are attacking scripture, not interpreting

H. I do not think we have much more to examine, as much of the latter part of Mr. Jowett's Essay speaks of general principles which we have discussed already. However we will run through it.

335 The beginning of his Part III is merely that dread of rationalists and their power which makes him anxious to reduce Christianity to the level at which they will not object to it, which is no level at all, and which would make it not Christianity, but a most pitiable and despicable imposture, which every one, but one sufficiently low intellectually and morally to be a rationalist, would repel with scorn. Their incessant occupation to prove it such, and then explain it, only proves their degradedly low moral state, which would accept such a system, and that the fang of divine truth is in their conscience, from which they cannot get themselves free. If Mr. Jowett rejects mere conventional Christianity and traditional interpretation, I have nothing against it. I can use criticism to get a pure text and real Christianity; but to get an imposture, and continue to use it, this I must leave to him. Nor will I use a double tongue to deceive myself, for I really do not suspect him of desiring to deceive others; such language I mean as this: — "They wish to preserve the historical use of scripture as the continuous witness in all ages of the higher things in the heart of man, as the inspired source of truth, and the way to the better life."

Now whence did the higher things in the heart of man come? What does "inspired" mean here — "an inspired source of truth?" Any one would think it meant it had not come of the will of man, but that the Spirit of God had moved holy men of old to speak as they were moved by Him, and hence that it was a source of truth. And note, we cannot take up Old and New Testament inspiration here as distinct. It is a "witness in all ages." Remember, then, we have been told that "not for any of the higher or supernatural views of inspiration is there any foundation in the Gospels or Epistles." If he meant to shirk the Old Testament there, he cannot here. He speaks of the whole of scripture, and we soon find what this ambiguous language means.

I cannot here acquit Mr. Jowett of disingenuousness, though quite ready to admit that it is the influence of a lying system over his mind. We begin with an "inspired source of truth." Here you would think that an inspired source of truth must have its own proper and divine authority. But we find a kind of halfway house of uncertain tones in the following words: "The purer the light in the human heart, the more it will have an expression of itself in the mind of Christ;" the explanation of which, though still in ambiguous language, really reduces the word simply to the higher things in the heart of man. "The individual soul" finds a "sympathy with its own imperfect feelings in the broken utterance of the psalmist, or the prophet, as well as in the fulness of Christ." Now, if it had said that the Psalms provide a divine utterance for feelings imperfect man knew not how, or dared not, to express when redemption was not fully known, I should have accepted it. For the unspeakable grace of God is shewn in this. But for Mr. Jowett it is a pious person, not inspired himself and imperfect, finding broken utterance of his own feelings in the higher things in the heart of man, i.e., in the utterance of others like himself. Sympathy there may be, but the scriptures are worth nothing more than any Christian neighbour; only really that I, when on Christian ground, am to go back to Jewish, and lose wholly "the increasing purpose" of revelation; for I live in the light, and am to go back for the utterance of my feelings to those who had not got it.

336 But we reach the home of this thought a little farther on, what even the fulness of Christ is. "No one can form any notion of the power which Christianity might have, if it were at one with the conscience of man, and not at variance with his intellectual convictions." Here we have the truth. My state of mind is to be the measure of revealed truth. The "inspired source of truth" is to be tampered with till it be brought into harmony with it — nay, Christianity itself is. What the use of having a source of truth or Christianity is, in that case, to me perfectly unintelligible. I should have thought that an inspired source of truth must, by its statements, have judged the state of the conscience; that Christianity was something positive, which could only be itself, and was a divine light, and divine facts for the conscience, and if not that, an imposture and false; that if I am going to make it one with the conscience, it ceases to be it at all. I cannot adapt a revelation to a faculty, because it is not then a revelation at all. It becomes a "gallus in campanili," "ceases to have any meaning at all;" and to whose conscience is it to be conformed? It won't do to talk of conscience (i.e., a faculty of judging of good and evil); because, in fact, I judge it by something, some judgment has been formed, conscience has its measure, unless, it may be, in crimes, and even in that. One had thought the fulness of Christ was a perfect light and measure which judged all in man, and formed the conscience — that it was the rule of it. It appears this is all a mistake. There is a Christianity, but man's conscience, God knows whose (the majority rejected Christ), is to be made the measure, and Christianity is to be adapted to it. A pretty Christianity we should have; but, as I said, the statement is simple nonsense, because, when adapted, or if adaptable, then there is no such thing at all. But we have the system of the Essays. Christianity is no divine or divinely revealed religion.

337 Talk of the fulness of Christ if you will: the hind let loose will give you goodly words. It is the result in the year one of the, till then, higher things of the human heart, which is to be adapted to the conscience of Mr. Jowett and his friends. We may condescend to allow God to give an inspired source of truth: only He must bend and make Himself and His religion one with Mr. Jowett's intellectual convictions. Why his next-door neighbour should not say the same I cannot tell, or an American Indian from a scalping party, or the Chinese (who are very particular in paying their debts the first of January, but have no scruple in robbing to do it, or throwing inconvenient daughters into the river); why not the chief priests, who would not put the price of blood into the treasury, but had no scruple in buying it?

Conscience of man — convenient word! what has it made of the world? If I may give it, thus used, Iapetic interpretation, after Baron Bunsen, it is man's justifying his own thoughts, to please his own will, and subject divine to it.

W. But I can hardly conceive how any one can make such a statement as Jowett's. It is so outrageous, not merely because man's conscience has been so corrupted and hardened, which is, though true, the weaker side of the argument; but that it makes Christianity a mere paste to be suited to intellectual convictions; that is, makes it nothing at all — not a revelation, not divine, not truth (and yet calling it the fulness of Christ). It is a pure and simple absurdity.

H. It is; but we get exactly here what the system is. All previous adaptations of Christianity to other ages, that is corruptions, these writers hold for forms produced by the age, but their intellectual convictions, Christianity is to be made one with. They only deserve the name of man — their conscience is man — their intellectual convictions man. We see plainly too the road that has led them to this modest theory — "No one can form any notion from what we see around us of the power which Christianity might have if it were at one," etc. Now people who feel that "what they see around them" is anything but what Christianity ought to be, which is not very difficult, and complaining and finding fault very easily, jump at this, and, having still faith in Christianity, they say, That is true; oh, if we had it in its purity!

338 I agree largely and heartily with this feeling, and have this thirty years, and more. So when he talks of the Bible's beauty being "freshly seen, as of a picture which is restored after many ages to its original state," it is delightful. But when I hear that it is to be by making Christianity one with the conscience of man, I say, But this is not its original state, it is the state of your conscience, your present intellectual convictions as you call them. That is no rule by which I judge of Christianity; it is denying it and its use altogether. They have by conscience, when the ways of those professing Christianity have sunk below natural conscience, judged that state, and then not gone back to correct their own state by the original revelation, but have assumed their conscience and present intellectual convictions to be competent to judge of revealed Christianity, and the inspired word itself. The reasoning is this: natural conscience has judged the corruption of Christianity around one; therefore it is the right judge of the divine revelation which has been misused. But this is poor logic, and worse morality, in the highest sense of morality.

There is a conscience which is disgusted at the hypocrisy of what bears the name of Christianity, but that does not make man's intellectual convictions the measure of what revelation means. Speaking of a Christianity which can so be made one with the conscience of man is saying there never was any Christianity at all; if Christianity means a revelation from God, ay, a final revelation. If it be not, it is an imposition, and there is nothing to be adapted. But I am only shewing the total fallacy of the ground Mr. Jowett stands on, and how in fact he got on it. We should only go over the ground we have trodden, if I should remark how he urges, that from the fathers till now — till the German rationalists and the seven Essayists — "they read the scriptures in connection with the ideas which were kindling in the mind of their age."

It is singular to say of Luther and the like, "The words of scripture suggest to them their own thoughts and feelings." I thought, "the purer the light in the human heart, the more it will have an expression of itself in the mind of Christ;" so that I should have thought Luther and Calvin must have been perfect, if the words of scripture thus suggest to them their own thoughts and feelings. But then that was their age, this is Mr. Jowett's; so that Christianity must be one with his intellectual convictions. A pretty thing Christianity must be, by way of "the inspired source of truth, and the way to the better life." I certainly never read more incomparable nonsense; and yet flowing from a conscience greatly offended with the inconsistencies of Christendom, but continuing in false self-confidence, and in connection with the lowest and most contemptible system that ever a man drudged through, to find a crambe repetita of infidel stupidity and pretensions, and that is, German rationalists' comments on scripture.

339 W. But is there not research in these German writers?

H. There is. If I seek mere verbal criticism, they are very useful; not to be trusted, because "they read the scriptures in connection with the ideas kindling in the mind of their age," but still, as compiling materials most useful. But if I took a man who bought and hewed my wood to explain the nature of heat, or the tissues even of the wood, I should not get far on: only that the rationalist pretends to do it, as my woodman would not. But I speak of their comments and deductions, not of their research.

We have spoken of the principles of interpretation, and I only remark that, when Mr. Jowett speaks of design, what he says is utterly false — "There is no more design than in Plato or Homer" — "no proof of any artificial design." Now only remark how God is wholly left out here. There is, I am satisfied, unless it be perhaps in the form of the Book of Job, not so much design as in Plato, as regards the writer; artificial, none at all, unless Job. But, supposing there is not more than in Plato, but God be the designer, what an immense fact that would be; how deep and divine the design must be! Now, with the usual superficiality of these writers, Mr. Jowett does not even take this into consideration. I could understand his denying it; but to leave it out is stupidity. As to human design extending beyond a book, or even an epistle, it is out of the question. The authors were mostly different, and of widely different ages; and where one, as, for example, Paul, his writings are chiefly occasional, and a general design equally out of the question. Hence the only real question is, Is there a design in it? Mr. Jowett has not even found out the question. That there is, I do not think any intelligent person who has read the scriptures carefully could doubt an instant. I believe every book of scripture finds its place, like the parts of a dissected map, and gives a whole which proves its own completeness.

His next rule is itself just as superficial and false, and assumes that there is no inspiration. "Each writer, each successive age, has characteristics of its own." That I fully admit, as does every one who has read them. In deigning to use instruments, God did not mean to destroy them. He gave them talents according to their ability. "These differences are not to be lost in the idea of a Spirit from whom they proceed, or by which they were overruled." Even this I do not quarrel with, though its animus be evil. Its effect is to swamp inspiration in the differences of style, but I admit its terms — "The differences are not to be lost." Be it so. But now the conclusion — Mr. Jowett is, I think, the most illogical writer I ever came across" And, therefore, illustration of one part of scripture by another should be confined to writings of the same age and the same authors, except where the writings of different ages or persons offer obvious similarities."

340 Now every one, except Mr. Jowett, knows that the later writers were thoroughly imbued with, their minds wholly formed by, what preceded; the prophets by the law, and the New Testament by the Old — that the New Testament, far the most dissimilar, is yet built in every thought on the basis of the Old; though the truths and state be wholly new, and in a certain sense set aside the whole system of the Old, yet nine-tenths of its language is unintelligible, unless we are versed in the Old. This is the more remarkable indication of the one divine Mind, because it was, as a system, the total setting aside of the Old. The cross made an impassable gulf between the Old and New, yet confirmed and adopted the Old; and the Old predicted and prepared the way of the New, which yet set it aside. As Paul says, "Now the righteousness of God, apart from law [χωρὶς υόμου], being witnessed by the law and the prophets." Now this remarkable phenomenon stands alone. Not that one system cannot borrow from another, but no two systems on earth stand in the same relation as these do to one another.

The principle of Mr. Jowett is the most futile of thoughts, contradictory of all the facts of the case. But his logic is no better. Because the differences, which we admit, are not to be lost in the idea of a Spirit from whom they proceed, or by which they are overruled, therefore they are not to be illustrated from one another. Now, if they proceed from one Spirit, I should, admitting the differences, expect them to throw necessarily light on one another; or even if one Spirit overruled them. Can the Spirit of God — that is, God — make an opening series of divine thoughts, which, communicated by different persons, are to issue in one great culminating fact — the revelation of Himself in Christ? Can there be "increasing purpose of revelation" brought out by these divinely accredited persons, overruled by one Spirit, without one part clearing up another? Be it that I first take each part by itself in its own context, an excellent and important rule which cannot be too strongly enforced; but is not so much as an illustration (I do not like the term), a clearing up of one part by another in the increasing purpose of revelation, to be found, if all proceed from one Spirit?

341 If Mr. Jowett means that it does not so proceed, let him say so honestly, and deny the scriptures as "an inspired source of truth." But to speak of a Spirit from which they proceed, or by which they are overruled, and that with an increasing purpose, and that therefore we are not to illustrate one part by another, because each writer has characteristics of his own, is to say the characteristic is not overruled, and that I am not to look at the one divine power from which all proceeds, but only at the particular forms in which this one mind is conveyed. And this is just the system, and a more illogical and absurd one, upon the face of it, cannot be conceived.

I admit again, that I believe this inconsistency flows from Mr. Jowett's feeling it does come from one Spirit. But a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways, and hence his exception as to obvious similarities. For, if this be of style, the exception hardly exists. After the captivity, the prophets went back to purer Hebrew, and there are a few resemblances of no importance; but if this saving have any meaning, it is as much as to say, Do not say that there is any light during the day, except when the sun is up. This inconsistency of Mr. Jowett is regularly shewn in a subsequent paragraph, "They have also a sort of continuity . . . and at length the idea arises in our minds of a common literature, a pervading life, an everlasting law" — no God, no Spirit, of course, in it.

But to proceed. "It may be compared to the effect of some natural scene, in which we suddenly (!) perceive a harmony, or picture, or to the imperfect appearance of design which suggests itself in looking at the surface of the globe. That is to say, there is nothing miraculous or artificial in the arrangement of the books of scripture; it is the result, not the design, which appears in them when bound in the same volume; or, if we like so to say, there is design, but a natural design which is revealed to after ages." Did you ever in your life read anything like this extraordinary sentence? Were not God shut out so carefully, I should go round and round it, like the suddenly perceived beautiful picture, to admire — I hardly know what, except Professor Jowett's naiveté. You cannot accuse such a man of any dishonesty. You do not like to accuse him of anything; bonum virum facile crederes, magnum libenter. And who knows what he would make if he believed God had something to do with scripture!

342 Here you have him suddenly perceiving what every one else has believed these thousand years, a thought sanctioned by the Lord and His apostles, but combatted by Mr. Jowett till now; but, thank God, felt. And what is the effect it is hard to tell, in the pêle mêle of the phrase. This continuity, this harmony, appears in them when bound in the same volume. That is profound. But then the idea — what is to be done? — arises in our mind (i.e., you cannot help seeing it) of a common literature, a pervading life, an overruling law. I suppose that did not come from being bound in the same volume. Next, "it is the result," I suppose, of something (that Mr. Jowett is silent upon): only it is the result, not the design, which appears in them when bound in the same volume. But the result of what? But, if we like to say so, it is the design; but a natural design which is revealed to after ages. Now, I grant the revelation to after ages, because, between you and me, the design of this harmonious whole could not be seen till the harmonious whole was there. But though revealed to after ages, the design, I suppose, was before it began — ἀρχὴ τῆς θεωρίας τέλος τῆς πράξεως. But then I would suggest, if there is a design, there must be a Designer of the whole; for the design is found in the whole before any of it was there. It proceeded from one Spirit, and was overruled by one. Who was the Designer of this which suggests one overruling law, the harmony of our picture? Ah! here is silence; nay, worse than silence, it was "a natural design." What does that mean?

W. Well, I really don't know. A natural design! I do not see the connection of the ideas.

H. In one sense no human being can. It is a design which has no designer, but has grown up naturally — a mere contradiction of terms, a fortuitous concurrence of atoms to make a tree. It means that, if anything grows naturally, God is to be shut out as the cause. And he would have scripture so considered, lest God should be believed to be in it. He will, (the Lord deliver him from it!) at the cost of nonsense, shut out God. For if "natural" means springing up without a cause, it is a contradiction in terms to say a "natural design;" and it is Atheism. But you have a clue to it: "There is nothing miraculous or artificial," he tells us, "in the arrangement of the books of scripture." Now arrangement of the books is of his usual looseness. Is it of the contents or of the books themselves? But, take it in any way, there is nothing miraculous or artificial — i.e., neither of God or man — in it; it grew up naturally, yet was a design, not of God's, not of man's; of whose? a result which appears when bound in a volume!

343 Did you ever see a man labouring and toiling under a weight upon his spirit, in a labyrinth of his own mind, like this? And let me add, if I see a lovely and harmonious picture in nature, do I say it is a result? Was there no Designer, no Creator, no one who formed and made the lilies of the field, which the blessed One admired? Did God clothe the grass, which today is in the field, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, and not order, and arrange, and form His word, which abideth for ever, and by which, as by the sword out of Christ's mouth, men will be judged in the last day? I see a creation around me, a harmony, ay, "the imperfect appearance of design," in looking at the surface of the globe, perhaps at the starry heavens. I read the apostle telling me that His eternal power and Godhead who has ordained them are clearly seen [νοούμενα χαθορᾶταυ] by the things that are made, so that men are without excuse. To Mr. Jowett it is a result, and he uses the comparison to make out a natural design which grows up where God and man are not. Yet he cannot deny design in a harmonious whole, and, to shut out God from scripture, uses an expression, "a natural design," which is simple nonsense; while the object of it is simple and clear, from the exclusion of "miraculous and artificial," that is, God and man. "Design" means, I cannot help perceiving God. "Natural" means, I will not at any rate have Him.

And see the foolishness of even that comparison. What is the analogy between a picture in nature and thoughts of men, and more, the thoughts of men as to Christ, and all that God has told us in scripture? Do they grow up like a tree whose seed is in itself after its kind? Is there nothing moral in them, nothing but natural consequences, no communications from God at all more than to a tree? Is that Mr. Jowett's idea of "natural?" If not, am I to be guided, as the way to life, by mere human thoughts in dark ages? Who was Christ? Or, if God has revealed His thoughts, am I to have them spoiled, perhaps perverted, by human agency, and only so? Is He to give His Son to work redemption to deliver me, and I only to know it in such an oriental garb, and so mixed up with the ideas of the age, that I cannot tell what this Son or this redemption is? To say even that man, with religious thoughts, conflicting thoughts, divine thoughts, human thoughts, grows up like a tree, which has one unchangeable nature, is rank nonsense. And to call these thoughts a revelation, or the inspired source of truth, if it be not God's own account of this, is trifling with words and things, and with the things of God too. The very breaks Mr. Jowett speaks of prove the folly of his thoughts. The harmony of a picture is a whole. But, as he says, we have centuries of Judaism without a word — nigh 2000 years of Christianity in their turn. If scripture be a harmonious whole, it is then something else than natural growth and development. For the development was interrupted for centuries in Judaism, and has ceased for near 2000 years, so that the harmonious whole must belong to the book in itself. But a design, which harmony denotes, means that there is a designer, and if a designer, a designer of the whole. And this says all. For, let it grow like nature, which is nonsense as to a revelation, or let each word be dictated to a machine, if the design be accomplished, the perfect expression of the mind of the designer is there. Did God (every word being according to His design, or there is not harmony if I look far enough) mean to teach me exactly the truth by His design, or not? Has He formed the scripture so as to do so, supposing I am willing to learn? If so, all this reasoning is the pretension of a candle in sunshine to shew us the sun, and clear up by it what light is.

344 W. But if you look at the details in a picture you lose the harmony.

H. To be sure I do, but I learn what makes it. But only think of the language of this sentence. There is a harmony, an overruling law, but a result, not a design, which appears when bound in one volume, yet a design, but a natural design. Did you ever see such a rocking of the mind, as the hull of a ship with no sail filled, no rudder to guide; every contradictory thought brought together, following each other like the waves; the beating about of the mind sensible of the force of what it is in, but without God, and unwilling to let Him in?

W. Well, I never did.

H. That there is progress in revelation, and in man under revelation, no christian child denies, or is ignorant of. But what has this to do with the authority and source of the revelation so given, and the account it affords of man under it all? Of the true present result in a church, they are wholly ignorant, and choose to ignore the facts. Mr. Jowett says, "But of all mankind, whom He restores to His Father and their Father, to His God and their God." Now that it is for all the world is true, but Christ says this to His disciples only. "Not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before." Of course those that believed came into it; but disciples are there, not mankind. The vagueness of all these men's thoughts is singular. And it is a moral vagueness; for it supposes men to be in a divine position without one divine quality.

345 W. The whole series of the Essays gives me the idea of very unformed minds. Like half-fledged birds got out of their nest, they attempt the air — but it is not flying; neither the safety of the quiet goose, nor the liberty of the fledged wing; they tumble instead of flying, because they attempt to fly.

H. I leave you to your simile, but that is the necessary effect of man's mind pretending to occupy itself with divine things in its own strength.

I will turn now to some passages, in which we have specimens of Mr. Jowett's interpretation, to shew how in every respect, as to the connection of the passages, the force of the statements, and the moral judgment of good and evil, his system has made him utterly incapable and incompetent as an interpreter. First, Romans 3:19, he attacks Paul as false in logic, as arguing from a particular to the universal. The blunder is simply Mr. Jowett's. The apostle had already proved the Gentiles wholly reprobate morally. But he could not deny that, however evil, as he had shewn, the Jews had special privileges, and particularly the oracles of God. They boasted that the law was theirs, and theirs only. All right, says the apostle: what the law says it says to them who are under the law; but it says that there is none righteous, that those it spoke to were together become abominable, but it spoke to Jews, therefore they were such by their own confession, and every mouth was stopped, and all the world become guilty. He had fully proved the Gentile so, and the Jew did not question it — only sought to justify himself and rest on his privileges. You have them, I admit, says the apostle, particularly the oracles of God; they are yours — speak to you: let us hear them, hear what they say to you. You are abominable. There is every mouth stopped. Nothing could be more conclusive with a Jew pleading privilege. Mr. Jowett, not having understood one atom of the argument, which is evident to a child, sees only the apostle applying to all the world what is said avowedly to the few.

Next, he takes Romans 1:16-18, and says, they ("the series of inferences which follow one another,") are for the most part different aspects or statements of the same truth. Now γὰρ with Paul is very frequently no inference from what precedes, but from a principle he has laid down, or which is the ground on which his mind is going in argument. Thus "because" (Rom. 1:19), and "because" (v. 21), are two reasons for the same thing, namely, that the wrath of God was revealed: first, the rejection of the witness of creation; secondly, the abandoning the knowledge of God when they had it. So continually in Paul's writings, though what the "for" refers to is not always so on the surface. But, further, saying that verses 16-18 are different aspects or statements of the same truth has no sense. He is ready to preach the gospel at Rome; for, however proud and great the city and people may be, etc., or whatever it may be, he is not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God to salvation. This is verse 16, and tells why he is not ashamed. Next follows why it is the power of God to salvation; because God's righteousness was revealed in it when man had none; and thus it became available to faith, whether it was of Jew or Gentile, being on the principle of faith.

346 But what made all this necessary? How came it that it was by faith to any, Jew or Gentile, and so to all? There was another great truth that had to be remembered. It was not now a government of God in earthly judgments on the one family God had known, but God's wrath from heaven morally, He being fully revealed, against all inconsistent with His nature, be the guilty ones where they may; and particularly, as in the case of the Jew (and now of the Christian), those who hold the truth, but in unrighteousness. "For the wrath" is not a direct inference from what precedes, but from the whole state of the case. All this, he says, is brought out, and my service and object; for, etc. To say that his not being ashamed of the gospel, the revelation of the righteousness of God, and the revelation of the wrath of God, is a statement of the same truth, could be found, I suppose, in a rationalist alone, and from the enlarged light he alone possesses.

Having referred to these three first instances of proofs of fitness for directing how to interpret, I leave all this part, in which are some just remarks, with evidence of utter immaturity as a whole, but nothing that requires particular notice.

But one statement I would advert to, simply because Mr. Jowett is advancing human experience to overthrow the essential point of all Paul's teaching, which he advances distinctly as divine truth, against the false conclusion which Mr. Jowett draws. Logical "opposition is one of ideas only, which is not realized in fact. Experience shews us, not that there are two classes of men animated by two opposing principles, but an infinite number of classes or individuals, from the lowest depth of misery and sin to the highest perfection of which human nature is capable, the last not wholly good, the worst not entirely evil. But the figure or mode of representation changes these differences of degree into differences of kind." Nor does Mr. Jowett fear to include in this logical opposition even the setting the sheep on His right hand and the goats on His left; so that not even judgment is to separate the evil and the good. Here it is resting on man's judgment of good from outward conduct, in defiance of His who searches the heart. It is defying the sentence of God. It is perfectly clear that the foundation truth of scripture is that man is a sinner; not that men are criminals, but that "or even as this publican" is the proof of a hard heart, not of a good man — that he who thanks God he is not as other men is a Pharisee. It was (Christ's reproach that He was the friend of publicans and sinners; He avowed it — He did not come to call the righteous. The apostle's whole doctrine is, in the most striking way, not as logical opposition, but as laboriously proved doctrine, that there is no difference, that men by nature are children of wrath; that all are gone out of the way, and need redemption and to be justified by blood. The Lord declares that the publicans and harlots were nearer the kingdom of God than those who take the ground Mr. Jowett does. The apostle insists that they that are in the flesh cannot please God. He knew that in him, that is in his flesh, dwelt no good thing. God would not curse the ground any more for man's sake, for all the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart were only evil, and that continually. The true gardener knows a thistle with two leaves over ground, as well as with mischievous ripened seed.

347 There is many and many a person in the depths of misery and sin that has more just thoughts of God and of the truth than Mr. Jowett; many a judge upon the bench with a harder heart than the passionate criminal he is judging; many a Pharisee ready to cast a stone (ay, at Christ Himself morally), till he meets Christ's eye, that goes away to save his character (not his conscience) from His eye, and leaves one undoubtedly guilty to the Lord of mercy. There is no good in sin, that is certain, but less in covering it. But, besides, Mr. Jowett's paragraph destroys all the moral doctrine of scripture. A man, all men, must be converted, must repent, must be born again; he has not life, if he has not the Son of God. All is lost on Mr. Jowett. It is not his experience. And even this is moral blindness. His experience, and nobody else's, in looking at this world, tells the secrets of hearts, the temptations, conflicts of the one in misery, or the cold heartless selfishness of the other decent and respectable moralist. The history of Christianity, the doctrine of Christianity, the path of the Christ of God, are all the formal, express, and careful denial of Mr. Jowett's doctrine; the denial of it, because that doctrine was the ruinous self-deception of men's souls. Mr. Jowett seeks to make words also uncertain; and, in order to avoid admitting that religion shifts with shifting modes of thought and speech (for the existence of truth does not seem to cross his mind, or enter as a possibility into his conception), he makes any fixity of thought immaterial to Christianity.

348 What is Christianity then? The statement that it is life, and not doctrine, while true, rightly used, is of no force — that is a doctrine — nor to say it is a revelation of God, because the revelation when stated is what is meant by a doctrine. To justify this looseness, he refers to a commentator, who appears willing to peril religion on the literal truth of such an expression as, "We shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air;" and asks, Would he be equally ready to stake Christianity on the literal meaning of the words, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched?" On the truth, certainly; on the literal meaning not; because not being as careless and loose as Mr. Jowett, he would know that one was a positive distinct revelation by the word of the Lord how certain things should happen, when some confusion had arisen in the minds of the saints, and the other is an avowed figure, taken from the end of Isaiah.

But rationalists soar above all the necessities of careful enquiry They doubt of what God says, and pronounce by their own thoughts, and all is settled. They know how to quote and apply the Old Testament better than the Lord and the apostles. "Hardly any" (quotation), "probably none," which they have made, "is based on the original sense or context." It is one who has found out that sin is an intermediate between good and evil, and that sheep on the right hand and goats on the left is only a logical opposition, who can alone quote properly.

But what is the proof that the apostles and the Lord are wrong, and Mr. Jowett right? It is, that the way of quoting is in agreement with the ideas of the age or country in which it was written. That is, if it were so, those formed by the Old Testament and the teaching of the prophets; and here, mark, all superintendence, all care of the Holy Spirit is denied. And what is the conclusion? First, it is a reason for not insisting on the applications which the New Testament makes of passages in the Old, as their original meaning: and, secondly, it gives authority and precedent for the use of "similar applications in our own day," which have thus as much authority and truth. Nor does he deny this last use to be sanctioned by the Lord and His apostles; so that the Lord Himself has sanctioned, according to Mr. Jowett, the total perversion of the Old Testament, though declaring it to be the word of God, and that it must be fulfilled. But how fulfilled, if it was applied wrong? Which was fulfilled — the sense it had, or the sense the Lord (may He forgive me for saying such a thing!) took wrongly out of it? These scriptures witnessed of Him. But, if they were all wrongly quoted and misapplied when cited as witnessing of Him, how could this be?

349 The confidence of these men in their own stupid opinions, in presence of the declarations of the Lord, borders on blasphemy; save that their looseness and carelessness, and the absence of all enquiry and research in what they say, make their emptiness an excuse for what would be otherwise wicked. Where they have lived, I know not; one would think among the traditions of the darkest corners of their land; for their efforts at looseness are only occasioned by traditional applications, exploded by every one who has carefully studied scripture — only that they have given up God and scripture with these traditions, as I have often seen poor Roman Catholics do, who, when they gave up taking a bit of bread for God, for a time had no God at all, believed nothing at all.

And, note, we make this very same use of scripture, and shew it is no perversion at all! And while insisting that scripture has only one meaning, it is curious to see how he would let it loose on his side the country. "Where, for our example, our Saviour says, 'Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free,' it is not likely that these words would have conveyed, to the minds of the Jews who heard Him, any of the perplexities of doubt or enquiry." Nor to anybody else in their senses, I should think; because the context is, "If ye continue in my word, then shall ye be my disciples indeed, and ye shall know," John 8:31 etc. "Yet we cannot suppose that our Saviour, were He to come again on earth, would refuse thus to extend them."

Now the blessed Lord's words seem to me very simple, for His time and every time. Divine truth sets a man, when really received, morally free. He is not a slave as he is when he is a sinner — lost. I suppose I am unfortunate; I avow I do not understand what Mr. Jowett means by "conveying . . . any of the perplexities of doubt or enquiry." Does that mean, that setting free is giving doubt and enquiry, or delivering them from it who are doubting or enquiring?

350 W. Well, I really do not know; I do not understand them either. How knowing the truth can give doubt and enquiry, I do not understand; nor how the words should convey notions of doubt or enquiry: I am as much at sea as you.

H. I suppose he must mean, by what follows, freed from doubt. Of course, knowing the truth does free from doubt; but continuing in Christ's word is not exactly what he speaks of. He says, "The Apostle Paul, when describing the gospel, which is to the Greek foolishness, speaks also of a higher wisdom, which is known to them who are perfect. Neither is it unfair for us to apply this passage to that reconcilement of faith and knowledge which may be termed Christian philosophy as the nearest equivalent to its [what?] language in our own day." Now the Lord's declaration is, "If ye continue in my word, ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." This means, after doubt and perplexity, that reconcilement of faith and knowledge which may be termed Christian philosophy; that is, not continuing in Christ's word, but adding modern science, and so getting free. Again, in the passage referred to, the Apostle Paul declares of the wisdom in question, "Yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world to our glory." This means geology, modern German criticism, and Bunsen's wild Hegelianism. The apostle describes it thus: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things that God hath prepared for them that love him, but God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit;" 1 Cor. 2:9, and then the apostle proceeds to shew how he taught them. This means now the removing doubt and enquiry, and the reconcilement of faith and knowledge termed Christian philosophy.

W. But this is really puerile, as an interpretation of scripture; they cannot have read the passages.

H. Just puerile; but they had the texts running in their minds, and it is what we find everywhere, letting their own minds reason without research. But I do not exactly know where we have got to here, save happily nearly to the end of the Essay. Our master taught us, at the beginning of it, there could be but one meaning to a passage of scripture. Now, though it is inadmissible to accept the apostle's use, because that gives the ideas of their age, passages are become so expansive, so india-rubber like, that "we have [now] only to enlarge the meaning of scripture to apply it even to the novelties and peculiarities of our own times;" "and we cannot suppose" — I almost regret quoting it from its want of reverence — "that our Saviour, were He to come again upon earth, would refuse thus to extend them." And, further, the only meaning was that which would have presented itself to the minds of those who first heard it. Here it is not likely that their words would have conveyed to the minds of the Jews who heard Him any notion of the perplexities, etc.; but "it is not unfair" to apply it now to Jowett's interpretation and modern knowledge termed Christian philosophy.

351 W. I suppose it is to give a full illustration of what I read in p. 372: "If words have more than one meaning, they may have any meaning. Instead of being a rule of life and faith, scripture becomes the expression of the ever-changing aspects of religions. The unchangeable word of God, in the name of which we repose, is changed by each age and each generation, in accordance with its passing fancy. The book in which we believe all religious truth to be contained is the most uncertain of all books, because interpreted by arbitrary and uncertain methods." It is a singular description for a man to give of himself; but I suppose it is like Mahomet. His religion forbad any good Mussulman to have more than four wives, but, as he was the prophet of it, he took eighteen. It is a singular exhibition of the human mind, and of the pretensions and carelessness of these rationalists.

H. Well, dear W., we are happily drawing to a close, and though having had to wade through tedious details, the system is pretty well judged, I think; at any rate, it is for me, and the pretensions too.

W. They have not a feather's weight in my mind, and their weakness only makes the divine word stand out in its simple strength.

H. A few more observations and I have done. We have looked at most of the observations which remain. I will just notice distinctly one or two.

"The original meaning of scripture is beginning to be clearly understood. But the apprehension of the original meaning is inconsistent with the reception of a typical or conventional one." I have gone through the cases alleged to prove this. A conventional one I give him up; but that a typical one is not to be received is simple folly, when half the book is typical, both as to ordinances and facts; and the whole New Testament and Christianity in its foundation based upon its being so. The man who asserts it must be out of his senses, or deny Christianity and the Lord's whole history and place in it; and he refers expressly to these types. "We shall find it impossible to maintain it partially, e.g., in the types of the Mosaic law."

352 Now, I say, either this or all scripture is simple nonsense; for Christ is the Lamb of God, our Passover, and it is impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats could take away sin. But there is an object, a bent of purpose in all this, which I would notice; perhaps I should say an effect rather than an object, for I would not exaggerate, but which is certainly Satan's object. It is this. Having no truth at all they are indifferent to it, and like to be free; and, having nothing which they value as truth, they are content to leave others free too. It looks liberal, but is really caring for nothing as the truth. This you may have seen in their interpretation of the remarkable passage of the blessed Lord, "If ye continue in my word, ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32 — an immense announcement of the love of God giving the promise of deliverance by certain known truth — and, it is added, by the Son — from all immoral influences, all that was not the truth.

This for them means now doubt and enquiry, and a mixture of philosophy and knowledge with faith, that is, with Christ's word, which is the truth. Hence, as they have liberty for themselves, they must have it for others, that is, indifference. Hence, they say, a change is observable in the manner in which doctrines are stated and defended; it is no longer held sufficient to rest them on texts of scripture, one, two, or more, which contain or appear to contain similar words or ideas. That is, this divine standard of truth, "the inspired source of truth," to use their own words, has lost its authority. "They are connected more closely with our moral nature," i.e., we judge for ourselves of their truth and fitness — "extreme consequences are shunned, large allowances are made for the ignorance of mankind." They are wise, they suffer fools gladly.

"It is held there is truth on both sides; about many questions there is a kind of union of opposites." So "is it a mere chimera, that the different questions of Christendom may meet on the common ground of the New Testament" — each believing what he likes, of course, and meeting in -- what? A kind of union of opposites. They will agree in receiving the New Testament; but, like inspiration, "it is one of those theological terms which may be regarded as great peacemakers, but which are also sources of distrust and misunderstanding. For, while we are ready to shake hands with any one who uses the same language as ourselves, a doubt is apt to insinuate itself whether he takes the language in the same sense." (p. 344.) It is a kind of hope, or advice, which, he told us there, came from a bad quarter. "It is placed by Goëthe in the mouth of Mephistopheles. Pascal severely charges the Jesuits with acting in a similar manner."

353 "But this is not the way to heal the wounds of the Church of Christ." To be sure it is not, but it serves for something else, to make men indifferent as to the truth. It is one of the great questions of the day — Is the unity of Christians to be founded on what scripture speaks of — Love for the truth's sake, or indifference to it? And mark the fruit of it here: "Examples of this sturdy orthodoxy in our own generation rather provoke a smile than any serious disapproval."

Again, "But that (the uselessness of a formal scheme of union) is no reason for doubting that the divisions of the Christian world are beginning to pass away. The progress of politics, acquaintance with other countries, the growth of knowledge and material greatness, changes of opinion in the Church of England, the present position of the Roman communion; all these phenomena shew that the ecclesiastical state of the world is not destined to be perpetual."

Again, "The recognition of the fact, that many aspects and stages in religion are found in scripture; that different or even opposite parties existed in the Apostolic Church; that the first teachers of Christianity had a separate and individual mode of regarding the gospel of Christ; that any existing communion is necessarily much more unlike the brotherhood of love in the New Testament than we are willing to suppose — Protestants, in some respects, as much as Catholics; that rival sects in our own day — Calvinists and Arminians; those who maintain and those who deny the final restoration of man — may equally find texts which seem to favour their respective tenets (Mark 9:44-48; Rom. 11:32); the recognition of these and similar facts will make us unwilling to impose any narrow rule of religious opinion on the ever varying conditions of the human mind and Christian society."

354 Now the incontrovertible departure from early devotedness and brotherly love, if we take the display of it in the Church as a whole as a standard, the New Testament has prophetically and even historically made known to us, assuring us that in the last days perilous times should come. That the Holy Ghost employed Peter and Paul, and John, and even James and Jude, and, indeed, the gospels themselves, to give us different aspects of Christ and Christianity, that we who know in part might have a complete and perfect apprehension of both, is full of the deepest interest to the intelligent study of scripture.

Of the extreme ignorance of scripture interpretation shewn in the quotation of Romans 11:32 I say nothing. I notice purely the result of all that Mr. Jowett has observed, the effect of modern thinking and searching. It is simply to arrive at Pilate's question, with the Truth, the eternal Son of God, before Him — What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out, and, though he found no fault in Him, it all ended in, "not this man, but Barabbas." John 18:40.

If we turn to Christian missions, the truth is equally given up. "You may take the purer light or element of religion, of which Christianity is the expression, and make it shine on some principle in human nature, which is the fallen image of it. You cannot give a people, who have no history of their own, a sense of the importance of Christianity as an historical fact." The fact of the incarnation of the eternal Son of God coming into the world is to be dropped. "We want to awaken in them the sense that God is their Father, and they His children; and that is of more importance than anything about the inspiration of scripture. But to teach in this spirit, the missionary should himself be able to separate the accidents from the essence of religion; he should be conscious that the power of the gospel resides, not in the particulars of theology, but in the Christian life." So it was all a mistake to say the truth shall make you free.

Now, you will remark, all this is an effort to make truth immaterial. I am no stickler for conventional or traditional denominations, and, if anything is far from my thoughts, it is that the miserable things called denominations are one or another of them the ἁρος of the πλήρωμα of salvation. Mr. Jowett might take me rather, I suppose, for an Achamoth in the world composed of my sighs and tears, etc., for the state of things. But what I remark is, that having neither Christ nor allegiance to Him, nor the truth — and He is the truth — mentioned nor thought of, "the progress of politics, changes of opinion in the establishment," are the real agents in dissolving "the Christian world."

355 Now I do not dispute this. But for him therefore, as "opposite parties existed in the apostolic Church," Protestants are no better than Roman Catholics; Calvinists, and Arminians, holders of eternal punishments and deniers of it, may equally find texts which seem to favour their respective tenets; truth is all a fancy, and no one "will impose any narrow rule of religious opinion on the ever varying rule of the human mind and Christian society." Now that this is going on no one with his eyes open can deny. But a more absolute negation of truth, indifference to it, or rather unconsciousness that there is a Christ in Christianity, or truth in scripture or anywhere else, it is impossible to believe. It is not indeed astonishing in one who holds that the use of scripture in the New Testament, sanctioned by our Lord and the apostles, is in probably no instance based on the original sense or context, and liable to error and perversion; so that, as to them it is true, that, "if we are permitted to apply scripture under the pretence of interpreting it, the language of scripture becomes only a mode of expressing the public feeling or opinion of our own day;" so that what Christ and the apostles taught is only such a public opinion of their day, for they, Mr. Jowett declares, did so apply scripture; yet declaring that "we have only to enlarge the meaning of scripture to apply it to the novelties and peculiarities of our own times," and that our Saviour would not refuse, if He were to come again now, thus to extend them, and that it is not unfair to use St. Paul's statements thus, and sanction the views of our day — it is not astonishing, I say, that one who blames the Lord and His apostles, so as to make their use of scripture no kind of guide to its meaning or purpose, but assumes full right to get at the truth by giving his own application, and to get freedom promised by Christ through it, that he should put Christ and all truth out of sight in a Christian world, look to politics governing it, and take indifference and no truth as his standard and his hope.

But it is all a delusion. Those who buy the truth and sell it not will hold to it, and take Christ's word as the revelation and standard of it for their hearts, owning the apostles as ministers of it by the Spirit. Many will take refuge in it too from sorrow and passion's rage on the other side, when the dissolution looked for takes place. But the present working will be this: the philosophical indifference of rationalists will palsy sturdy Protestant orthodoxy, which till now held its ground against Popery. Popery (which does not rest on truth a bit more, but on authority, and in its nature is essentially infidel) does not know what it wants and what it wills, and will pursue it constantly, cleverly, and energetically, and all hold of truth will be gone in the country. This state of things the Dissenters will help on, and then find how weak they are. The main effect of this rationalism will be giving power for a time to what knows its own mind, that is, to Popery. Rationalism itself has no future at all. Of what would it be the future? Of enquiring and waiting till the pope and infidels take the New Testament for a common ground? They can destroy perhaps faith in the truth (where it is not in the heart), but produce nothing.

356 W. You are somewhat a sombre prophet, though I see the truth of what you say in principle.

H. No; I believe the word of God abides for ever. I believe Christ, our blessed Lord, has all power in heaven and in earth; and for the soul who loves the truth, I believe it is a very bright and blessed time. I admit that what old associations may attach men to is disappearing. Every one sees it, though how much we have to thank God that in this country it is peacefully; though I doubt that Christian or religious liberty will last very long as it is now the revival will help to destroy it: but as outward props tumble and disappear, for those who have Christ in their hearts, and to whom the truth is precious, He will be more and more all, and the truth have infinitely more power and price. They will live more in Christianity, and less in the Christian world formed by phases of the αἰῶνος τούτου. I feel thoroughly that they are times most simple for those who love the truth, and blessed ones; soon I trust to be replaced by heavenly and better ones still. Only Christ and the truth must be of course all.

W. But it requires faith thus to see things.

H. Of course it does. Did you ever find the Lord propose our being happy without it? Can anything live above sight and sense, and its influences, but faith? No doubt we are all imperfect in this heavenly temperament that associates us livingly with what is divine and unseen; and therefore in being separated from earth in spirit, we may have trials and discipline where the flesh clings; even, it may be, what the Lord calls cutting off a right hand or plucking out a right eye. But for faith I read, "In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." John 16:33.

357 It is a remarkable thing that the two things which the Lord refers to as setting us free, are both of them wholly out of sight, unmentioned, and unthought of by Mr. Jowett: "The truth shall make you free," John 8:32, and "the Son shall make you free;" John 8:36, though he quotes this passage to make Christian philosophy of it. But they do make us free, much as we may have to seek to know their power better. But it is a touchstone of their whole system, the total leaving out of the two things which the Lord Himself says make us free. But it could not be otherwise. Their system is doubt and enquiry (love of truth they call it), but never the truth loved or known.

I think we have pretty thoroughly gone through the system. The narrower fields of tendencies of religious thought in England and national churches, (which they say the heathen had too: such is their exclusion of Christ and the truth) I do not feel there is much need that we should enter upon.

I would only remark how singular the darkness as to the power of Christianity was a century or more ago, and thereby note the limit of proofs of Christianity. Butler's "Analogy," a standard book known to all, and not only first-rate for its age, but (to use the new word of the Germanizers) on its standpoint incomparable, when the author shews negatively the folly of those who, believing in a God of nature, would question revealed religion, breaks down in the most singular manner when he enters on positive Christian ground. He shews that deists have no proof of anything; but he does venture a little on to positive ground. He reasons, however, from Aristotelian to Christian principles. For happiness we must have virtue, for virtue victory and a formed habit. Then he says that this supposes that these propensions (lusts) must exist in heaven; "and for my part," he adds, "I do not see how it could be otherwise."

W. Is it possible?

H. It is a fact. It only shews what a different thing faith and the proof of Christianity are. A child that had faith (in any age since Adam, to say nothing of a Christian) would have rejected such a thought. But what? Except the kingdom of God be received as a little child, we shall in no case enter therein. But you and I, through grace — and, thank God, thousands more — have been given to believe in the truth, to know the Lord, and, feeble as it may be in us, to love Christ. May His grace keep us stedfast in faith, and in its fruits! The question for a soul now is Christ, that blessed person who reveals the Father; the truth of a living acting Spirit, the Comforter, given; and the revealed written word of God, the only source and the standard of truth; and that that which we are called on to confess is the truth, known by the Spirit from that word, known in the heart with God; and, while acknowledging we may be mistaken in a hundred points, knowing that we have the truth for which martyrs have died, and that we had rather give up our lives than lose or deny it. The Lord Jesus is at the right hand of God the Father. He may suffer us to be tried, but He is above all and will prevail; He watches over us always as the good Shepherd, and will, in the Father's own time, come and receive us to Himself, that where He is we may be also.

358 W. I do heartily believe it, and thank God it is so; but I am sure Christians in these days ought to give a more distinct witness to whom they belong — I mean practically, as devoted to Him — by their profession, and the fruits which make it good. "Shew us thy faith" James 2:18, has all its force now.

H. In truth it has. If I contend for the truth, because Christ is the truth, I had rather one did not profess it than deny it in works. We are in serious, most serious, times; and there must be reality. Only the Lord keep us from pretended love of the truth, which destroys the truth we love; which has nothing to keep, and hence has nothing to lose, and can be always seeking. When conventional systems are crumbling around, and evil raises up its head, may men be seen who can walk peacefully because they possess what can never crumble, till God makes all things new according to the truth He has revealed.

W. I am glad we met; it has done me good: holding fast the truth, and feeling one has it (oh, what grace it is!) from God, always does. We may now turn to seek directly, and with humble thankfulness, into the treasure we have in the truth — the unsearchable riches of Christ, which is made over to us. It is yet happier work.

H. Adieu, then, for the present; may we be only found at our watchtower, and, above all, humble and dependent.

I have not, after all, gone into the article in the Edinburgh. It is merely an attempt to justify infidelity, because it has prevailed for many years in Germany, so that even evangelical professors yield more or less to it; and an attempt to defend the Essayists, by proving the superior clergy to be as bad; and I do not really see how this affects the truth or falsehood of the principles themselves. I think many non-infidel professors in Germany have yielded, through want of faith, to the current; and I see the same tone prevalent in the clergy and dissenting ministers in England. They like the credit of being up in the progress of the age. And there is so very little faith in the intrinsic truth and power of scripture, in its being the word of God, that their estimate and defence of it necessarily fails on that side. The clergy must answer for themselves to the charges of the reviewer. They ought to be morally indignant at the article. But I do not see, if he proves the assailants of the Essayists dishonest, and to have been previously abettors of their views, what an upright mind will have gained or lost. It does not affect the question in the smallest degree, but merely the reputation of the clergy. I do not think much of an opponent who, when his friend is charged with being dishonest, declares he will prove the accuser as bad. The whole matter savours of want of principle and personality. Besides, many a mind may be led away from solid ground by new thoughts, which, when their ripe fruit is shewn, honestly discards them all. I think this Review a very poor thing — lowering eternal questions to personal ones, and not worthy therefore of any particular notice.

This document may be found online at the following URL: http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/APOLOGY/09004E_D.html.

You are welcome to freely access and use this material for personal study or sending to other Bible students, compiling extracts for notes etc, but please do not republish without permission.

With the prayerful desire that the Lord Jesus Christ will use this God-given ministry in this form for His glory and the blessing of many in these last days before His coming. © Les Hodgett .