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

Inspiration and Interpretation.

J. N. Darby.

<09004E> file section c.

289 H. The next point is, original sin. Now I have no love for scholastic terms: I prefer scripture ones infinitely. But I do not want to lose things in getting rid of words: mine may be no better. We are all by nature the children of wrath. Mr. Jowett speaks thus of it: "The justice of God who rewardeth every man according to his works, and the christian scheme of redemption, has (have) been staked on two figurative expressions of St. Paul, to which there is no parallel in any other part of scripture." (1 Cor. 15:22; Rom. 5:12.) The first has really nothing, or only in an indirect way, to do with it. The second is an elaborate statement on the subject. But to say that there is no parallel in scripture, if the doctrine and not the form be referred to, is to ignore all vital truth in it. The history of the Bible is the history of original sin; the doctrine of the Bible is the doctrine of God's putting it away for ever.

W. You must explain yourself a little.

H. I will. Does not the history of our race (I do not say our creation) begin with the declaration that Adam, fallen and driven out from God, begat a son in his image after his likeness, the fruit being shewn in sin against his brother, as Adam's sin had been against God, and so death being actually brought into the world, but the death of the pious marking the predominance of evil?

290 W. It does.

H. That is the early history of original sin — sin attached to our origin and so in our nature. Further, when the Flood had swept away the insupportable violence and corruption of the world, and the world began again in Noah, in whom rest was given concerning the work of men's hands, and the curse taken so far off the ground, did he not turn the blessing into drunkenness — he to whom government had been entrusted, and shame and a son's wickedness inaugurate the new career of man?

W. Yes.

H. This is the history of original sin. Did not man then sink — what there is no appearance of his doing before — into idolatry, having built a tower to establish his own will?

W. True.

H. This too is. The form of the world in nations and peoples is founded on it. God then called out Abraham from the midst of this idolatry, and after a lapse of some 400 years, so that a people should be formed, brings them out of Egypt with a high hand, leads them to Sinai to give them His law — the rule of life for a child of Adam. What did they do before they had time to get it graven on stone, though they had heard the voice of God out of the midst of the fire?

W. They made the golden calf.

H. Such then is man according to the history of the Bible; and so you will find it throughout. Before the consecration of Aaron and his sons was over, Nadab and Abihu had offered strange fire and were slain; and Israel, responsible under the priesthood, closed its history by the ark's being taken, and judgment coming on the priesthood itself in Eli: so that the whole system was closed, for without the ark there was no regular association with God at all. God interfered by a prophet; but this was sovereign grace. When the royalty was established, Solomon fell into idolatry. And at last Lo-ammi, Not my people, was written on the chosen people of God; where He had set His name that it might be owned in the midst of the universal corruption and idolatry of the world, and where grace and warning had dealt "till there was no remedy." When God set up a head of Gentile power in Nebuchadnezzar, he sets up an idol and persecutes the saints, and the whole series of these monarchies takes the character of unintelligent ravenous beasts. But, chief and last of all (save special mercy on His intercession), when God declared — "I have yet one Son, it may be they will reverence my Son when they see him;" when they saw Him, what did they do? Matt. 21:37.

291 W. They said, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours."

H. They had then "no cloak for their sin." John 15:22, "They had both seen and hated both him and his Father." There was a reprieve through His intercession on the cross, and the Holy Ghost (that figure of Mr. Jowett's) announced a glorified Christ, and the open door of repentance, but they would not go in. They closed the history of man with this word of judgment — "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Acts 7:51. A judged world, a broken law, persecuted prophets, the slain Just One, a resisted Spirit, sum up the history of man, the history of original sin. Man "must be born again."

W. It is a sad and solemn picture.

H. It is, and ought to be brought home to one's own heart, in which it is all morally true. But it brings this comfort with it, that it shews the new blessing brought in by the second Adam to be itself entirely apart from the corrupt first Adam, though moral intelligence be brought out by their conflict, and the need of God's grace be surely found in it. But Christianity has its basis in resurrection after the work of redemption; that is, a passage into a wholly new state, after God's perfect goodness, and His righteousness too, had been proved as to the old.

W. It is a glorious thing, Christianity: one sees it is divine when once we know it. It is deplorable, this effort to shut us down into the first Adam.

H. In truth it is. And that is what one feels in reading the works of all these rationalists when one has the new man. One finds also one's dependence on God in their reasonings; for the vast and divine largeness of scripture, full of thoughts which can be only divine, is not their field of view at all, nor the richness and fulness which a divine person and a new creature give to it. You might as well talk of a beautiful view to a blind man. The blending of all the richness of lights and shadows, the striking features, and soft distances, and enlivened details, do not exist for their faculties at all, nor faculties to apprehend them. So speaks the Lord Himself, "Why do ye not understand my speech? because ye cannot hear my word." John 8:43. And so the apostle — "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit; they are foolishness to him." 1 Cor. 2:14. One cannot but answer their statements as the Lord — "If he called them gods to whom the word of God came;" John 10:35, he shews them their injustice on their own ground, still by the word.

292 In what we have been searching into, I have deeply felt the absolute impossibility of meeting unbelieving objections by this depth and riches of scripture, which to a believer carries the absolute evidence of their divinity. Paul sums up the great truth in saying "we are [were] all the children of wrath;" Eph. 2:3, 4, and then, "but God who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ;" "we are risen together," "created again in Christ Jesus:" and this makes death and resurrection the great topic of the epistles. "Reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, and alive to God through Jesus Christ." Rom. 6:11. So Peter, though less fully and elaborately, "We are begotten again to a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead;" 1 Peter 1:3, and "as Christ hath suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind." 1 Peter 4:1.

Am I not right in saying that the history of the Bible is the history of original sin — of one who had to confess, if he knew himself, "Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin did my mother conceive me?" Ps. 51:5.

Accompanied by marvellous longsuffering and gracious dealings, but which only brought out the sin, till, the tree having been digged about and dunged, it was proved no care could make a bad tree bring forth good fruit; and the Lord says, "Now is the judgment of this world" John 12:31, . . . . "The world seeth me no more;" John 14:19, but this only to bring in redemption, and set man on a wholly new footing beyond evil and in the glory of God; so that it should be said, "When we were in the flesh," "but ye are not in the flesh." And this true and divine dealing with our nature, according to the revelation of God, is what is fully brought out in the Romans, and hence deserved condemnation, atonement, death, and resurrection. Indeed, in doctrine it goes no farther, not on to the ascension, because it is laying the great moral ground of sin and putting it away, in guilt and power alike; and man's acceptance with God on a new footing. It only once just states the result of ascension as a final fact in the chain. The passages referred to by Mr. Jowett are merely summing up the great universal truth in scripture in the two heads of the respective races, so to speak, of carnal and spiritual life.

But the same truth is insisted on once and again, as in the passages I have quoted. So in experience: "I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." Rom. 7:18, "The flesh is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom. 8:7, "It lusteth against the Spirit." Gal. 5:17, "They that are in the flesh cannot please God." Rom. 8:8, "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." Gal. 2:20. I suppose this is "Oriental" for Mr. Jowett. But if so, his heart is following its own imaginings, and he does not know it. God has not said in vain, "All the imaginations of his heart are only evil, and that continually;" Gen. 6:5, and this said too in grace, "I will no more curse the ground for man's sake, for the imaginations," etc. It was not merely the previous wickedness of the antediluvians. They were gone. It was His motive for dealing with the race no more in that way. So the Lord, "Out of the heart of man proceed evil thoughts, adulteries," etc Mark 7:21. Did you ever see it stated in scripture that good things came out of his heart naturally? God has tried it in every way. It was lawless, broke law, killed His Son, resisted His Spirit.

293 W. I see what you mean by scripture being the history of original sin; and in truth it is so. The dealings of God in patient mercy, which we find there, in truth only brought this out, so that we might have a scriptural delineation, a history which proved that sin; which, after all, is the history (however far that sin may be developed in them) of our own hearts. For self-will, lawbreaking, slighting Christ, resisting the appeals of God, was not confined to antediluvians or Jews.

H. No; it is the picture of my heart brought carefully out. The scripture hath concluded all under sin, that all might come on the ground of pure mercy. And you will see that, developed only in promise in Adam's time, then by prophecy, in figures under the law (in spite of senseless rationalist judgment as to them), in accomplishment in Christ, in testimony to His glory by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, the putting of it away is the great doctrine of scripture. "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin [not the "sins," as often falsely cited] of the world." John 1:29. It is changing the whole principle on which the world, as such, stood, as we saw before. So again, "But now once in the consummation of ages" — these times of testing responsible man from Adam to Christ — "he hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:26 This is morally founded, as to the glory of God, on the death of Christ; and man after Him is introduced by resurrection into the new condition, beyond sin, consequent on that glorifying of God. At the same time there is the bearing of sins for the redeemed; but that is not our subject now.

294 W. I conceive you clearly now, and I think it brings the heart into a most healthy moral atmosphere, because it is not merely feeling safe, but one sees that God is glorified; that all — speaking reverentially — His moral nature is fully displayed, and glorified in that wonderful sacrifice. It gives a depth to Christ's sacrifice which mere salvation, precious as it is to us, could not do, though we come into it so. But I understand better, "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him; and if God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him." John 13:31. And note this wondrous word: it is "The Son of man."

H. Most just. And hence, while, as you say, we must come in as sinners by the cross, or there is no truth in the inward parts, and sin is not judged in ourselves, without which there is no moral deliverance, and by which, if I may so speak, we morally side with God against ourselves as sinners, and against sin; yet, when we have entered in by this new and living way, it is not a standing without, in the hope that by the blessed One's bearing our sins on the cross we may be safe; but that though this has, and where it has, been fully realized in us as the needed and only way (and it is morally necessary it should be), we have now passed within, by the new and living way, and contemplate the cross in peace, so to speak, from the divine side, and see all the absolute beauty of it. And there is nothing like it — nothing in which God is thus morally glorified. "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I might take it again." John 10:17. He does not even say "for the sheep;" it is the thing itself which is so excellent And this makes me so often feel mere evangelical teaching so poor even where true, as I thankfully say it is, as far as it goes. It leaves the Christian outside, hoping and thinking only of himself, instead of on the deep conviction that there is no good thing in himself at all, bringing him in by an accomplished work; and then looking that, as within, he should display the character suited to it.

W. But they dread Antinomianism.

H. They are right to dread every inconsistency, and to distrust themselves. But I suspect that the true secret of putting Christians under the law (which Christianity does not, and that these rationalists see, because their consciences are untroubled by it, clear enough) is, that, having nothing of the discipline of the primitive assembly, they are obliged to modify the gospel, and make the law a schoolmaster after Christ to keep men in order. Then all fall naturally into it. Because man has the keeping of it, it flatters man; if he has a tender conscience, it tortures him, as we often see; if not, he thinks of himself, takes for granted some failure is to be there, judges it perhaps pretty easily — will really sorrow over it, if the new nature be there; but, in any case, he can think of himself, and this the heart likes. A man likes thinking badly of himself, ay, and saying so, better than not thinking of himself at all, and simply displaying Christ's gracious life by thinking on Him only. We have to judge ourselves; but our right state is thinking of the Lord alone.

295 W. You are severe on men.

H. Is it not true? Is not having done with self the really difficult thing? Is it not the aim of Christianity, settling first in a divine way the question of sin righteously with God by atonement? And is not power there to deliver from self or flesh, and give us the victory, though we may fail?

W. I do not deny it. But it is a humbling thought that we are such.

H. It is so. But it is better to know ourselves; and the largest supplies of grace, and divine objects, are there to take us out of ourselves. In the Philippians we have the pattern of it in one of like passions with ourselves. There, in the picture of the Christian normal state, the flesh (save having no confidence in it) and sin are not mentioned. Yet the writer had a thorn in the flesh to keep it down. If we were perfectly humble, we should not need humbling; but we do, all of us, even Paul, as we see in this case. Christ, then, has been manifested to put away sin out of God's sight, out of man's heart, and out of the world. The great work which does it is accomplished, the results not all accomplished in power. He who has not judged original sin has not that estimate of the new nature animated by the Spirit of God which is on God's side against sin. I judge the individual in no way. He may hate what he sees in himself of actual sin. I speak of abstract moral truth. He who does not see the principle and nature and guilt of sin, as it stands in man's self-will, has not the estimate which the knowledge of a holy nature in reconciliation to God gives. We have made a long excursion, but we will return to our Essay. But the subjects lie at the root of the matter.

W. Clearly they do. I was struck, as by a kind of providence, how, in this strange list of subjects in the Essay, these three great vital points which are at the root of the question — inspiration, the Holy Spirit, original sin — are dragged in. And it is of them we have been speaking, and scripture is quite clear as to them.

296 H. We will continue, then, our enquiry into the principles of the Essay. I feel how tedious entering into these details is, but it is impossible to meet the system without doing so in a measure.

W. Do not fear to do so. It is better to meet it fully, because the difficulties are raised, and the doubt thrown on the whole truth and its sources by them, on the spirit in which we are to read scripture, can only be met by taking up the details. One returns to simplicity by it, and the word to its full and simple authority in the soul.

H. Well, we will proceed, then. It is the character of what follows, as in general of the Essay, to mingle a mass of conventional ideas and scriptural precepts or doctrines together, and, by proving the groundlessness of men's comments, to throw like doubt on scriptural statements; and hence the need of some detail.

But there is a deadly principle running through all — making men's present habit of thinking the measure of the fitness of the word of God; and thus gradually leading to the belief that it was the product of the age and country it was written in. True, it may be said it is only its form and expression. But, as we have biblical truth only in that expression, if I change it for what suits the west and the nineteenth century, I shall soon change it for what suits myself, who live there at that epoch, and we might as well not have it at all. It is pretended to save it by great principles; for I cannot but think that the word has power in Mr. Jowett's soul. Yet such is the result of his system. I call your attention with pleasure to such expressions as "But, at any rate, they (the precepts of Christ) are not to be explained away; the standard of Christ is not to be lowered to ordinary Christian life, because ordinary Christian life cannot rise even in good men to the standard of Christ."

W. That is excellent, surely.

H. Undoubtedly. It is the same happy inconsistency with what I quoted before, which we have already noticed; and even here, in the same page, speaking of our Lord's remarks on the danger of riches, and recommendation to sell all, he says, "Precepts like these do not appeal to our own experience of life." "Religious sects or orders who have seized this aspect of Christianity have come to no good." And then it is all melted down in the following words, while lauding some rare stars, to a truth of feeling: "Let not the refinement of society make us forget that it is not the refined only who are received into the kingdom of God," etc. Now, I find scripture owning the rich as such when the gospel had spread: "Charge them that are rich in this world." 1 Tim. 6:17. But that does not weaken in the smallest degree the contrast between Lazarus and Dives, or the extreme danger to true heavenly-mindedness of treasure in this world.

297 At no time, as Peter says to Ananias, was it claimed from any one that they should give their goods to the assembly, nor mentioned to them. It was the free power of the Holy Ghost working in love to others. There was no community of people or goods established at all, but a voluntary giving up of one's own where it could be made available; and most blessed it was, and acting in the spirit of it will be always blessed, though there be no apostles at whose feet I may lay what I have to dispose of. Riches are as dangerous now as then, devotedness as acceptable now as then. There is in principle no great difference in these respects, though in forms of life there may be. All this however is a mere question of worldliness or its degrees. "The friendship of the world is enmity with God, and whosoever will be the friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4.

Mr. Jowett refers to "Swear not at all." Matt. 5:34. As this question comes often into public, I will just refer to this too. The same principle which hinders my swearing of myself, makes me take an oath, as it is called, before a magistrate. I bring in God lightly in one case; I own Him in the magistrate, as I am bound to do, in the other. The Lord and James speak only of voluntary oaths — what comes from self. Whatsoever is more than this comes of evil (i.e., more than yea, yea, and nay, nay, in our conversation). So the Lord speaks of vows, i.e., voluntary swearing to the Lord. But in Leviticus 5 we find adjuring and a man bound to utter it; and, consequently, the Lord answers before the high priest. The oath imposed by a magistrate is adjuring, and I judge a man to be wholly in fault who does not take the oath; he disowns God's authority in the magistrate.

Other details I pass by, only remarking that the instruction contained in the parable of the good Samaritan is grace contrasted with law. In answer to the question, Who is my neighbour whom I am bound to love? we find love acting as a neighbour to need, and this is God's principle. But in all these cases, important no doubt in practice, we have more a pastor's or an expositor's work.

298 But then Mr. Jowett — men's minds being thus thrown into uncertainty — suddenly plunges us into doubts on the fundamental truths of Christianity, such as the divinity of Christ, justification by faith, the state of condemnation in which sinners are lying — the doubt being always applied to the truth. Now this seems to me somewhat disingenuous. He compares the Athanasian Creed, which he must be supposed to have signed and uses, with the words, "Neither the Son," in Mark 13:32. He says we do not readily recall the verse when maintaining the Athanasian Creed. Now as to doctrine (what may seem strange) I like the Athanasian Creed the best of all, though it be far too scholastic in form. But I maintain no creed, but I do maintain the proper divinity of the Lord Jesus. That He was in a personal relationship as Son to Father, every one who believes in His divinity, unless a Sabellian, owns. But it is to me as clear as the sun at noonday, that Christ was the Jehovah of the Old Testament, who could say, "Before Me there was no God: I know not any." All the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Him, and dwells, of course, bodily. He was Immanuel — His name called Jesus (Jah, the Saviour), for He shall save His people from their sins. When Isaiah, in Isaiah 6, saw the thrice holy Jehovah of Hosts, he saw, says John, Christ's glory, and spake of Him. If the Son of man was brought to the Ancient of days, the Ancient of days came (Dan. 7). If the blessed and only Potentate, King of kings, and Lord of lords, showed the appearing of Christ in Timothy, Christ when He appears is King of kings and Lord of lords.

It is to me as evident as possible historically, that the Arian doctrine came direct from Philo, at least from the Alexandrian school of philosophers, or Platonist Jews, who held that the supreme God could not be directly connected with the material creation; and spoke of the λόγος, the Word, as between the supreme God and the creation, begotten perhaps rather than made; yet after all existing as a creature by the will of the Creator, the supreme God. Now, save the dear good old Irenaeus, and a word or two from Polycarp and Ignatius, all the earlier Greek Fathers were of this school. Justin Martyr, a Platonist, taught this doctrine; so Clemens, so Origen. It was Platonism, not Scripture, and deeply infected the assembly. These Fathers are no way to be trusted; they shew it, and this spread west too, in the existence of the words ἐνδιάθετος and προφοριχός: all that is directly and verbally from the Philo school. I accept none of this. I find it met in face by John and Paul, carefully and fully met. I read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1. Wherever my mind can go back to as a beginning as to time, there He was. And that there may be no plea of ἐνδιάθετος that is His inherence as reason without being a person, he adds, "He was in the beginning with God" — always a distinct person. And lest any inferiority should be alleged, Paul tells us, "All the fulness was pleased to dwell in him," for this is the true force of the passage. And so the fact is declared to have been, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Col. 2:9. As a person He emptied Himself, ἑαυτὸν ἐχένωσεν. He could not have done so save as God. A creature who leaves his first estate sins therein. The sovereign Lord can descend in grace. In Him it is love. Then, as in that position, He receives all. All the words He has are given to Him. He is, though unchangeable in nature as God, yet in His path a dependent man. He lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God — is sealed by the Father; the glory He had before the world is now given Him of the Father. Now in this state of obedient servant, with a revelation which God gave to Him, the day and hour of His judicial action was not revealed. "It is not for you," He says to His disciples, "to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power." Acts 1:7. And to this exactly Psalm 110 answers (as has been observed by another), "Sit on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool." When? Sit there in this place of divine glory till; no more is said. Now, I do not pretend to explain — God forbid I should! — how this is.

299 I see in scripture in the full (not θειότης merely, but) θεότης of Christ maintained by the truth — that none can know the Son but the Father; the Father we do: He is simply the adorable God. "No man knoweth the Son but the Father, and no man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal him." The Son's divine nature seemed, so to speak, exposed to danger by His blessed humiliation; not so the Father. It is secured (I mean, of course, as to thought) by His being thereby absolutely unfathomable. Such I believe He is. I know He is the Son; I know He is a true proper man. I know He is "I AM," "the true God." How to put this together I do not know, though I see and know they are together — am glad I do not as a creature. Did I know, I should have lost that divine fulness, which, if capable of being fathomed when in manhood, was not truly then divine. God, through grace, I know; man too, I know, in a certain sense; but God become a man is beyond all — even my spiritual thoughts. Be it so; it is infinite grace, and I can adore. I am sure for my soul's blessing He is both; and the Son of the Father too — for the persons are as distinct as the nature is clear. Say to a Christian, The Son sent the Father, he would instinctively revolt at once. That the Father sent the Son is the deepest joy of his soul. All heresies are met by scripture — Sabellian, Arian, or others: but the Son is not known but of the Father. The Father He declares. I accept no creeds, but I do bow to the perfect divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ; the fulness of the θεότητος is in Him.

300 It is painful to see Mr. Jowett (not say what he believes, but in the midst of questions of practice) throw a doubt, and more than a doubt, on the Lord's divinity — hold his mind in a Pyrrhonic balance as to everything.

Into the Calvinistic controversy it is hardly necessary to enter here. I believe scripture precise, and should shock partisans, I suppose, on either side. I believe Christ died for all. I believe in an elect people.

Article XVII gives a very nice statement of the doctrine. It is equally painful but common with this class to see a lift given to Popery over the stile. I believe the assembly is founded on the Rock — the Rock, Christ, as Augustine even says, and that the gates of hell will never prevail against it. I believe Peter had the keys, not of heaven, nor of the assembly — men do not build with keys, there are no keys of the assembly at all thought of in scripture — but the keys of the kingdom. I believe Peter used them. It was a common expression for administrative power, and he had and exercised it, as we see in the Acts. I believe moreover, according to Matthew 18:18, that what the apostles bound on earth in the exercise of their ministry was sanctioned by heaven; and, further, that what is told to the assembly, and in which the assembly so acts, will be sanctioned; and that wherever two or three are gathered in Christ's name, Christ is; but what the pope has to do with two or three gathered thus, I know not. This may suffice here.

There is not a tittle of ground for the corruptest system that ever was on earth to stand upon. The word "Church" may deceive; but say first, Go yourself, then two or three, then tell it to the assembly (which is what is said), and all popish reasonings and rationalists' objections dissolve in air. This is not freedom from, but bondage to, conventional teaching in Mr. Jowett.

301 I know not to what he refers in 1 Corinthians 3:15, unless it be purgatory, a notoriously modern doctrine. The early Fathers' doctrine of a middle state had nothing whatever to do with purgatory. Augustine vaguely hints at it; but his doctrine is as loose as can be. He speaks of the judgment-day being a purgatorial fire. Gregory the Great first propounds it as possible for any very little sins. That is, it was invented some 600 years after Christ; and the plainest historical proofs exist of its modern character. Tertullian is treated as unsound by Romanists themselves on it. But the doctrine of 1 Corinthians 3 applies to labourers, not simply to Christians; their work is tried and burnt. And, further, it is admitted by present writers among them, that this cannot be applied to purgatory (though they do so where men are ignorant), because here all are to go through it, and this is not their doctrine; for the saints do not in their system.

The prayers for the dead, on which dishonest Roman Catholics found their doctrine, included, in the earlier ages, even the Virgin Mary, as Epiphanius says, "to distinguish all from Christ."

But what is the result of all these doubts? "Nor is it, indeed, easy to say what is the meaning of proving a doctrine from scripture." It is easy enough. It is finding it there, learning it there, and shewing where you have learned it. Those who have creeds, and dogmas, and articles to prove at all costs, are naturally embarrassed. They have to adapt scripture to the formularies of men — to what scholasticism, or partial knowledge, has laid down. But what I have really learned from scripture I can, with God's help, easily prove from it. And that is the secret of their embarrassment. They have not learnt their doctrine from scripture, and they do not know how to prove anything by it. And then see where you are landed. "Nay, more, it is a book written in the east, which is in some degree liable to be misunderstood" [I read, "Then opened he their understanding to understand the scriptures" Luke 24:45], "because it speaks the language and has the feeling of eastern lands. Nor can we readily determine, in speaking the words of our Lord or St. Paul, how much even of the passages just quoted is to be attributed to oriental style."

I will just quote you another passage from Mr. Jowett's commentaries, which will lead us somewhat farther in this path, only to Africa instead of Asia. After speaking of the tendencies of the Jewish mind, he says, "We cannot doubt that the entrance of Christianity into the world was not sudden or abrupt; that is an illusion which arises in the mind from our slender acquaintance with contemporary opinions. Better, and higher, and holier as it was, it was not absolutely distinct from the teaching of the doctors of the law, either in form or substance; it was not unconnected with, but gave life and truth to, the mystic fancies of Alexandrian philosophy. Even in the counsels of perfection of the sermon on the mount, there is probably nothing which might not be found, either in letter or spirit, in Philo or some other Jewish or eastern writer. The peculiarity of the gospel is, not that it teaches what is wholly new, but that it draws out of the treasure-house of the human heart things new and old, gathering together in one dispersed fragments of truth." I wish I could quote what follows, but it would lead me too far.

302 Mr. Jowett turns round and says there remains what eludes criticism — processes of life, about which we know nothing; the figure which St. Paul applies to the resurrection of the body (except it die), "is true, also, of the renewal of the soul, especially in the first ages, of which we know so little, and in which the gospel seems to have acted with far greater power than among ourselves."

W. How singular! Mr. Jowett puts me in mind of a person who, having lived blind and among blind people all his life, has just got his eyes open, and is telling us astonishing news — the first impressions he receives — as if never before discovered, yet reckons all distances wrong, and judges about all objects falsely; yet is no longer blind, but refers all things to his state of blindness, as he naturally must. It is so new that the poor man judges rightly of nothing. All is inconsistent, his head full of his old ideas mingled with new conceptions. Men are trees walking. What he would have known by touch, he does not yet by sight: as a dead orthodoxy may be truth, and is gone when the heart wants truth for itself.

H. I believe it is really the truth of his state. But it is a pity, in such a state, a man should set up to teach. Deeper wants in his own heart would have kept him from it. He would have wanted to have learned — I do not mean from man, but of Christ. He had the habit of teaching, I suppose. And then there is another thing: he got into the hands of others, inferior in this respect to himself — men still blind. He has got into this wretched system where there is no truth, and the most offensive pretensions and copying from one another. And thus his Essay is a treatise of contradictions. I pursue his system only, for others are injured by it. For himself, I would hope the best.

303 But see what his system comes to — his eastern rhetoric. The revelation of God is composed of Alexandrian philosophy and the scattered fragments of truth in the human heart. All is doubt. What is rhetoric in it, what truth? What comes from Philo? How can the human heart, in which masses of error are mixed with scraps of truth; while the scraps of truth only make the error more powerful, judge of the elements of truth gathered up here? Can error judge of truth? All is confusion. Now, I admit that there were dregs of traditional truth worked up by Satan (who can use truth in man's mind, but not the truth as it is in God's) into idolatry on the one hand, and philosophy on the other. I admit that the cravings of the human mind after God, and the knowledge of good and evil acquired at the fall, produced some apprehensions of partial truths. It was like the Achamoth of Sophia's cravings after Bythos, in the Valentinian system, which probably was an effort of "eastern lands" to describe these atoms of truth in the sea of confusion, and was most poetical — a world formed of the sighs and tears, and I forget what else, of Achamoth, outside the Pleroma.

In the Alexandrian system, as we have it in Philo, and perhaps the Book of Wisdom, much had been borrowed from scripture, much from Plato, who, I cannot doubt, had got his notions from the Feroohers of Zoroaster, and which, except the Feroohers, is reproduced in Hegel and Schelling. Gentiles had traditions; Alexandrian philosophy had shreds of Judaism; but God was lost. Now God, who had compassion on man, took up every link where He could connect Himself in grace with man, while positively confirming His own revelation given in the Old Testament. He could take up the unknown God in Athens, the λόγος in Alexandria, the Paraclete itself as a term. But what does He do? The unknown God is fully revealed with positive facts and divine truth. The λόγος was introduced by Platonic Jews in Alexandria, because God could have nothing to say to the mere creature; and the λόγος might form others, but remained alone in His own nature. For John the λόγος is God, who Himself becomes flesh. The cravings which philosophy had made a false system out of, not knowing God, are met (not a system made out of them) by the revelation of God Himself, the truth of all they sought, and the perfect grace they needed. It put down the philosophy, while it met all the seekings of man in it. It took up the old thoughts thus far; but to say it did not so much bring in what was new is utterly false. All it brought in was new (save as the Old Testament revelation had spoken of it). But it did meet the hungerings of the human soul, which philosophy was wasting by ideas, and told the truth about the traditions which had been perverted into monstrous, idolatrous, and absurd legends.

304 It is impossible to go through the discussion of some childish and some useful, though perhaps imaginative, adaptations of scripture. But some points claim our attention. "It is admitted scripture has only one meaning." We have partly spoken of this; but there are new points connected with it here. We are not now to decide whether scripture is wise in having one or more, but whether it has. Now, in the use made of it here, the proposition — that it has only one meaning — is wholly false. Mystical and allegorical interpretations of the Fathers I throw overboard at once. Scripture is not answerable for them; but our friend Philo and the Alexandrians mainly. But prophecy and symbolism of the gospel in the law are referred to. Prophecy we have spoken of; but symbolism means types of the Old Testament applicable to things in the New. Now I affirm that Old and New Testament concur in stating this to be so. Moses was commanded to make the tabernacle according to the pattern he had seen in the mount; nay, if God made such a system, we ought to expect some meaning in it more than gowns, and dresses, and curtains. When I read through the scripture, I find the whole form of language framed on such a symbolical use, and the great facts of the New the plain counterpart to the symbols of the Old. You must crush the whole structure of scripture in its most vital essences, tear the warp out of it so that it ceases to be a texture, before you undo this. Altars, tabernacles, the dwelling-place of God, sacrifices, priesthood, the rock, the water, the anointing, the holy place, the mercy-seat, the blood-shedding — I should go through every element of what constitutes its whole texture of thought, before I had closed the list of symbolical facts and objects presented in the Old Testament and taken up in the New, and which have entered, and that according to scripture, into the whole conception and framework of our religious thought. It is not a way of interpreting scripture, it is scripture itself. Christ is the Lamb of God. He is a great High Priest entered into the holiest. And Paul goes farther; he tells us as to the history itself, "All these things happened unto them for types, and they are written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world are come." 1 Cor. 10:11. One, and only one, true meaning therefore is not the fact in this case.

305 Say Moses was foolish, and Paul foolish; but if you so interpret scripture, you interpret it contrary to its nature and positive directions. That is, you do not interpret it, you correct it. I have the facts — important, very important, in the history of the people — important as a history of God's dealings with the people; and I get them avowedly pattern facts. Keep the imagination in check — all quite right. Look for doctrines in doctrinal passages, and here for details and illustrations — all right. But do not pretend you are teaching us to interpret scripture rightly when you are directly contradicting it, and saying to it, You are wrong. It is not the Fathers who have said that Sarah and Hagar were an allegory. We do not follow them in such a point as saying, Does God take care for oxen?

W. On this point I do not think you need go farther. If I use scripture at all, and on the weightiest subjects, Mr. Jowett's principle becomes impossible. It breaks down, as you say, the whole structure of scripture itself. And I see that he does not merely check the indulgence of imagination in it, which is quite right, but rejects the idea of more or less. He declares, that "in whatever degree it is practised, it is equally incapable of being reduced to any rule." I do not know whether he rejects the Epistle to the Hebrews; but evidently that book is gone wholly if his principle be true, and countless passages throughout the whole New Testament.

H. Temporal and spiritual Israel, as commonly used, I give him freely up. It is a mere abuse of words. I say, as commonly used; because in the common adaptation of prophecies, prophecies explicitly referring to Israel are applied to the assembly, where the subject-matter and principles are completely opposed. Ordained forms, and facts of history, may have a symbolical application, but moral addresses refer to the objects and moral state of those addressed, and do not give us objects to interpret, but persons addressed. Zion means Zion when she is prophesied about. The prophecy concerns her because it speaks to her on the moral ground she is on, and the arbitrary application to the assembly is entirely false, because the principle of relationship with God is different. A general principle, as that God is faithful or good, may be of course applied, with just care to see how it is used; but the people addressed are not symbolical objects, but moral persons, and the facts to happen real. If we are to speak of the Lord's prophecy as to Jerusalem, I apply the same principle, but I deny wholly that in Matthew, Titus, &c., are spoken of at all. There may have been something analogous; but its only direct application is to dealings yet to come, immediately after which the Lord will appear. I believe this because it says so. In Luke I have the siege of Jerusalem, and the language is carefully altered. I believe what is said in both passages. In Luke, whose gospel always looks out to Gentiles, the times of the Gentiles after the siege are distinctly spoken of before the signs that are to come.

306 Remark here how doubt is thrown on all. It is asked, Is the application of types "to be regarded as the meaning of the original text, or an accommodation of it to the thoughts of later times?" Now, note that the Lord instituted the Last Supper as taking the place of the Passover. The apostles apply in every passage these figures, so that the question is not if we are interpreting right; it extends to this — if the Lord and the apostles are merely accommodating these figures or not? What does Mr. Jowett think? He says, "Our object is, not to attempt here the determination of these questions, but to point out that they must be determined before any real progress can be made." The answer is, for every Christian the matter is determined. They believe in the Lord's and the apostles' use of them — man's uses now they judge by scripture to see if they are just.

W. I see no difficulty in the question. The use of any given type now is, of course, to be judged of when it is used. I find them most instructive, and, fitting in with positive doctrines which warrant what is drawn from them, they become living pictures and illustrations of what otherwise would escape you. They may not, in our hands, serve to found a doctrine as a first revelation of it; but as a vivid illustration and suggestion of truth they are invaluable.

H. Mr. Jowett insists on this because "The Old Testament will receive a different meaning accordingly as it is explained from itself or from the New. In the first case, a careful and conscientious study of each one for itself is all that is required; in the second case, the types and ceremonies of the law, perhaps the very facts and persons of the history, will be assumed to be predestined or made after a pattern corresponding to the things that were to be in the latter days." Now, all this is confusion from beginning to end. It ignores the positive statements of the volume pretended to be interpreted. And further, if the book be inspired, one Mind has formed it from beginning to end, and we must look for a co-ordinated system. If it be not, we find there is an end of predestinating facts or even statements. But we have seen that, if it is a true history, the whole system of the tabernacle was made after a pattern, which the Epistle to the Hebrews largely and specifically declares to be a heavenly one, and the tabernacle a pattern of things in the heavens. But we have this even more specifically defined. The law was a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image. There were sacrifices: so Jesus was a sacrifice. But the Jewish were repeated, proving that sin was not for ever put away for him who came by them; Jesus' was not repeated, because it was. There were many priests, because they died; for us but one, because He ever lives. There was a veil, and no one could go into the holiest; now the veil is rent, and we have boldness to enter. The high priest stood, because his work was never finished; Jesus is set down at the right hand of God, because His work is finished for ever, and so on. These were the outlines of this vast exhibition of God's ways to be a key, so to speak, near the eye. But neither Testament is simply to be explained by the other. In some points there is contrast, as law and gospel; in others analogies; in others common principles; in others prophetic announcements. The only point we learn to have been hidden was the assembly. This could not be revealed because it was based on the casting down of the middle wall of partition, and the Jewish system on its being strictly kept up.

307 But if God be the Author of the sacred volume, it is monstrous to suppose there was not a preparatory leading on to the full revelation of God Himself, or that He revealed something which was wholly unconnected with and no way introductory to what followed. It was necessary to make distinct the difference between man's standing on the ground of his own responsibility, and grace — between requiring, however justly, and giving. And this, though prophets point to the giving, there is. But promises came before law; and even under law (a ministration of condemnation and death) there were ordinances which prefigured the way of grace, while the exacting of righteousness, which man had not, led him to the sense of the need which grace met. The understanding of all this rests on this: "They shall be all taught of God." John 6:45. Each part, as to its statements, is to be understood in itself; but, when simply understood, the correspondences and differences will appear, and rich instruction for man's soul be acquired out of them.

All this division of Mr. Jowett's, and its consequences, is in the air, and written without any kind of reference to the facts of the case. We do not assume anything about it. We take what is said in the book itself about itself, and find it verified in the richest and most instructive manner. One would think Mr. Jowett had never read St. Paul's Epistles, or the Hebrews, or indeed any part of the New Testament; for, as I said, he does not reason on its interpretation here, but against its contents. And man's fancies, and scriptural (that is, divine) expositions, are thrown together as of equal weight.

308 There is another interesting question which he touches on — the origin of the first three gospels; but his conclusions — for he is one of the most illogical persons I ever met with — are in no way the consequence of his premises. He is constantly making a false division, and the true conclusion is outside all he says. There is a difficulty as to the forms of recital of the first three or synoptical gospels. Marsh, who was educated in Germany, introduced into this country a modification of Eichhorn's German theories. Eichhorn afterwards changed his somewhat in consequence, if I remember right. The singular fact is, that tantamount statements are found in these gospels, often verbally the same, and yet sometimes different, and the facts placed in different connection. The only difficulty, and that which all are really entirely ignorant of, is, how to account for it. It affords no difficulty in reading, but great help. The difficulty is, for critics, simply how it should have happened. Mr. Jowett supposes the main facts were preserved orally.

Now, till the gospels were written, that seems to me a matter of fact, not "a probable solution," whatever use we may make of the fact. Only we have to remember that Christ told the apostles they should be witnesses, because they had been with Him from the beginning. That they were kept, according to the promise, to bring all things to their remembrance, as Jesus had said, I believe; and that they were graciously secured in their memory and use of facts; still they spoke of what they had seen. But this, while very simple, does not at all account for the phenomena, because one evangelist, even an apostle, recounts facts where he was not present, and another who was present does not recount them — as Matthew and John as to what passed in the garden of Gethsemane. The motive of the histories, and these had had their source in some motive, is not in the casualty of memory, nor in the documents possessed. The theory is, the writers had the same tradition to use. Now if there were no governing motive, which gave a form to the gospels, writers would have put the facts together according to the document men have imagined, or the current tradition. But they do not. The order is distinct. The allegation that they are not distinct witnesses is unfounded. They may, in particular parts, have used what all knew; but they are wholly in their accounts independent of one another. But I attach no importance to independent witnesses, because I believe all was inspired. But I find clear proof of distinct objects in the gospels, objects pursued in each, from one end to the other; which rationalists, who always rest. on the surface, have never found a trace of, and which gives the clearest proof of the absurdity of their theories of the structure of the gospels.

309 But as to the question raised, the facts of the case prove the contrary to what is pretended. If all the evangelists simply used a common tradition, how comes it that the connection, order, and development of facts are so different, if there was not in each (as inspired, I believe) independent design? Men have a common tradition (it is only true of a part), and yet produce very different books. They are not memoranda thrown together unconnected, but a set of facts used in a definite, but diverse connection, so as to produce a different picture altogether of the Saviour's life, and large portions wholly omitted, and large portions introduced, all in connection with this design. Yet, all together, they make up the full character of the Saviour seen on earth. It is declared, moreover, that there was a mass of other facts which they do not record, because these suit the purposes.

Again, whole scenes of labour and miracles are told in a few verses, where it met the point sought for; large details are given of single ones, when it revealed some trait of Christ's life or principle of God's dealings.

Let me, before I enter on this, a little notice Mr. Jowett's conclusions from the statement I have quoted above: — (1.) There is no necessity to reconcile inconsistent narratives — the harmony of the gospels only means the parallelism of words. Now I object totally to all harmonies, as such; but the remark is unfounded. A certain number of passages are parallel in words; but, as to a vast quantity of the materials, it is not the case. A harmony is merely an attempt at chronological order.

W. But why do you object to harmonies?

H. Because they are the confusion of accounts which are each written with a distinct divine object. The facts are put together by the Holy Ghost, for I may speak as a believer with you, with an evident purpose, each gospel presenting both Christ and the ways of God in a different light. To throw them all together is to destroy this purpose, and obscure the intelligence of the gospels.

310 W. I understand: if there be such purpose in each, it must, of course, do so. Proceed.

H. The second conclusion of Mr. Jowett is, "There is no necessity to enforce anywhere the connection of successive verses, for the same words will be found in different connections in different gospels." Now, the true conclusion is exactly the contrary. The Evangelists had some leading facts in common, containing, for they do so, important principles, and many other facts each to himself. They do not combine them alike, but form a picture different one from another, though combining into a whole; for no one who has examined the gospels carefully can deny this. Now, the difference of connection is one great mark of this design. And the different connections in which the statements occur are one great clue to the design, though by no means its only evidence.

Supposing I had this phrase: The Jews crucified the Son of God, the Lord of glory, at Jerusalem. And one writer went on" — Think of the wickedness of this people, this was their crowning sin. There, in the beloved city, whose children He would so often have gathered under His wings, these very children put their Messiah and Lord to death." As far as this goes, I should conclude this writer is bringing out the guilt of this people in Christ's death. And if I saw him going on afterwards to relate discoveries as to something else coming in, instead of Israel — as the assembly or kingdom — the bearing of his narrative would gradually open clearly to me. Supposing another gave the same words, and said — "See the Son of God Himself crucified; how deep is His love, how sad the guilt of man! and of those, too, who were nearest to Him, who had the best opportunity of seeing that He was indeed the Lord of glory, whom none of the princes of this world have known." I should gather that this writer is bringing out man's guilt in general, and that no evidence will correct the evil of the heart. If I found afterwards the most touching doctrinal and parabolic illustration of man's evil and God's love, and not the assembly or the kingdom, but heaven and another world, I should get hold (of course by study and divine help, and gradually) of the bearing and design of this writing also. Patient investigation and waiting on divine help, of course, are called for; but the difference of the connection in which the same words are found is so far a special guiding trace to the discovery of the spirit and aim of the particular gospel.

311 W. It is as evident as evident can be.

H. And what shall we say to Mr. Jowett's conclusion — that there is no need to notice the connections because they are different?

W. We had better leave it.

H. Be it so. But you cannot be surprised if rationalists' reasonings have no great weight with me.

He adds, (3.) "Nor can the designs attributed to their authors be regarded as the free handling of the same subject on different plans; the difference consisting chiefly in the occurrence or absence of local or verbal explanations, or the addition or omission of certain passages." After what we have already seen, we cannot be surprised at this remark. I have only added just now to my example certain passages. But what can possibly be more absurd than this? It depends wholly on what is added or omitted, or what the local explanation is. I do not see how an explanation in this case can be anything but local (for we are talking of connection of passages), or than verbal (for we are talking of words, and additions or omissions complete the list). So it is only saying no connection can explain the design, which is simply absurd; for the addition or verbal explanation might be even a statement of the design, so that the conclusion is utterly foolish. But it is not the fact. The order of the facts is constantly different, so as to give a totally different colour to them. Save in a brief early part, when this is the main point, the choice of facts is totally distinct, though you see the same scenes.

And then the different order and the whole structure of each gospel mark clearly its object. The parables afford the strongest proof of the design of the gospels, and vary largely and abundantly; and in the last solemn scenes, while certain facts must be the same, the special adaptation to the character and design of the gospels is as evident as possible. But I go further. Certain leading facts are common to all, at least to the three; but even these prove design, not a tradition gathered up, as it might be, from memory. They are significant facts, characteristic facts, connected with the immense change that was taking place by the rejection of Christ, and leading to this change. We are assured that they had an immense mass of other facts; yet he who had them does not recount them, but declares what his design is in what he does recount. But the facts were there, remembered but not recounted; and those that are characteristic and common to all, differently connected with one another. I see then evidently design, I have no doubt divine design, but certainly design; a selection of facts for all. By whom? Yet (and here we see independency) these facts so differently used, and in such different connections, that they could not have joined in arranging them, nor could there have been collusion. They would have avoided the differences reproached to them. We have a vast number of facts known, not used — a choice of facts, to a certain degree common to all, hence brought together by some one; but not by the different writers together, for they use them all differently, and to different purposes, though all to present the Lord to us. And they have besides such a large number of other facts and discourses, which they introduce in the midst of the former, or all together — for both are true — completing evidently the specific design of each. Now I get here distinct instruments, distinct objects, each instrument following his own, but, at the same time, a common Mind which has guided and overruled it all.

312 As regards the traditions of the Fathers as to Mark and Luke, they may be true; between Luke and Paul there is certainly spiritual and historical connection; but they are of no sort of consequence. As they stand, they are vague and contradictory, and founded on an utterly false principle — namely, to trace each gospel to an apostle. At the very best they are curiosities of history, which, if a person believes the book divine, are of an entirely secondary interest.

W. But you must go through the gospels in this view a little.

H. It is a long task, but, to my mind at least, full of interest — an inlet into the mind and grace of our God, and not merely dry antagonism with rationalism.

W. Quite so. I desire it the rather for that reason; for though we may be called upon to occupy ourselves with these Essays, still, by going effectually into scripture, we get, with the arguments against them by the positive proof of what is good, food, divine food, for our own souls, which brings a conviction of a higher order.

H. Well, I will run through, then, as most strongly characteristic, the Gospels of John and Matthew, so as to mark their character; just referring to Luke — and Mark too, which, as you know, is a shorter one, and rapid in its course as to facts — to confirm the general principle.

313 I will begin with John, because it is perhaps the most easy to seize. John's great doctrine is the Son of God on earth, and eternal life in Him, and the revelation of God in and by Him. In his epistle he goes on to the manifestation of this same life in the disciple. He is the eternal life which was with the Father, and has been manifested unto us. Then, "He that hath the Son hath life," 1 John 5:12, and so "which thing is true in him and in you." 1 John 2:8. The details are the traits of this life, the knowledge of the love of God in it through the Spirit, and fellowship with the Father and the Son. In the gospel, to which I will now confine myself, it is His person and the gift of the Comforter when He is gone.

I will run through the chapters of this Gospel, to see if there be not a leading idea running all through, to which the peculiar facts recorded are subservient. That idea is the Son of God, outside of and above all dispensational dealings, in the blessedness of His own person, though, as a man, and taking fully a man's place. But it is, as I think I have remarked, not man taken up to heaven, but a divine person come down to earth.

In John 1 there are three parts: John 1:1-18, John 1:19-34, and thence to the end; but this continued in John 2:1-22. The first is the abstract glory of His nature. He is God, but a distinct person with God, and that in eternity, life, light: John was His witness. There was this singular phenomenon — light shining in darkness, and the darkness remaining what it was; and then the Word made flesh and dwelling among us — the only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father — who makes God known. Next we have what Christ does, His work, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and the baptism with the Holy Ghost. We then find Christ the centre and gatherer of the remnant of Israel. In the first of the two days, John the Baptist's work to this end is spoken of; in the second, Christ's. This last, I doubt not (like Matthew 10), goes down, in principle, to His return.

I would note, in passing, that we have here Christ as a divine centre, for none can be such truly but God; next the one only path through a world in which there is none for man, for there can be none for children who have wilfully abandoned their Father's house till they turn back to it; and then the heaven open, and man (in Christ) the object of divine favour, and the mighty ones, the most exalted of creatures, His servants. Nathanael owned Him, according to Psalm 2. He takes His place according to Psalm 8. Here note, that the Jews and world, as such, are wholly outside, verses 10, 11 (the Jews are always treated as reprobates in this gospel), and those born of God alone owned, verses 12, 13. In a word, we have, not dispensational dealings, but the deep realities of the divine nature in relationship to men and the world, though it is fully owned that the Jews were God's people.

314 John 2, called the third day, I have no doubt intimates the double aspect of Christ's reunion with His earthly people — the marriage and the judgment. I can quite accept that such a figure (though to me, from the connection, undoubted) may not be admitted. I do not complain of this, but, as I am saying what I think, I would not omit it.

In John 2:23 — John 3:21 we have the great foundations of the new state of things — born of God, and the cross; the latter in the double aspect of the Son of man must be lifted up; the love of God has given His Son. The condemnation is, the coming in of light. (Ver. 22-36.) In the full aspect of the new state of things, and the absolutely heavenly character of the witness, are gone into.

After this introduction, for such it is (John was not yet cast into prison, and Christ had not yet presented himself), He leaves Judea (John 4), practically driven out by the Jews, and in Samaria, where no promise was (salvation, He declares in the chapter, was of the Jews), unfolds the living power of the Holy Ghost, which He could give as God — for God was giving, not requiring — and which He was humbled, so as to be the weary One craving a drink of water, that man might have; and then finds the way to man's unintelligent heart, as it ever must be, by the conscience. Nothing more lovely than this whole picture — the rejected and weary One finding His meat in shewing grace to this wearied but guilty heart; but I must not dwell on it here. It opened to His view the fields white for harvest at the moment He was cast out.

In John 5 we have the Son of God giving life to whom He will. The general picture is man's incompetency to get healed by strength in himself; and Christ, in contrast, bringing life, and that eternal life, so as to escape judgment. The end of the chapter shews life in Him, with every evidence; and man would not come to have it. This is man's responsibility as to Christ.

In John 5 He is the life-giving Son of God. In John 6 He is the Son of man, the object of faith come into the world, and dying, so that faith feeds on Him. The general picture is Christ satisfying the poor with bread, according to Psalm 132; owned Prophet, refusing then to be King, going up on high alone, while His disciples were tossed and toiling in His absence; He rejoins them, and they are at land: a Christ, the true manna (vv. 2-9), incarnate, and dying (understood in spirit), their true food.

315 In John 7, He cannot shew Himself at the feast of Tabernacles. The feast of Passover is fulfilled in Him; the Pentecost, on the day so called. But the Tabernacles, where Israel celebrated their rest after the harvest and vintage (known figures of judgment), are not even yet. He promises the Spirit meanwhile, as Israel had the water out of the rock in the desert; only now it should be in him who came to Him to drink, and flow forth as rivers in this desert world. Thus we have the triple fruition of the Holy Ghost giving life as born of Him, the spiritual power of life in us rising up to its full blessing as eternal life, and flowing forth in blessing from us as a river. This closed the direct communication of Christ as to His position on earth.

In John 8 His word is rejected; there He is light.

In John 9 His works; here He gives eyes to see. He gives eyes to a poor sheep cast out, who, having owned Him as a prophet, finds He is the Son of God. Then comes all He is for His sheep, from His entering in Himself by the door as a subject man, then laying down His life for them (of infinite value in itself also), to His being one with the Father.

In John 11 and John 12, being thus rejected, He receives just testimony, in spite of men, to His being Son of God (resurrection and life), in Lazarus' resurrection; to His being Son of David, in riding on the ass; to His being Son of man, by the Greeks coming up. But He declares that, to take this place, He must die or abide alone. He must be lifted up to draw (not Israel as a living Messiah, but) all men. The evangelist then unfolds how it stood with Israel, and Christ how it stood with the world at large in respect of Himself.

He is now owned, so to speak, as crucified — i.e., His teaching takes up what is beyond it. He was come from God and went to God. The Father had delivered all into His hand. And now, if He could not abide with His disciples as a companion upon earth, He would make them fit to be with Him in heaven — to have a part with Him. They were washed, as completely regenerated by the word; but, as priests connected with the sanctuary and holy service, they must have their feet washed as to daily conversation: this He was their servant still to do. He then refers to His betrayal and Peter's denial of Him — the perfect wickedness of flesh and its weakness; He declares the value Godward of the death of the Son of man and its fruit in His then entering into divine glory, and being no more (bodily) for any in the world.

316 In John 14 He unfolds His disciples' position in consequence. He was not going to be alone on high, He was going to prepare a place for them; but, having revealed the Father in Himself, they knew where He was going, for He was going to the Father, and they had seen Him in Him; and they knew the way, for they had come to the Father in coming to Him. That was as already there; but on going away He would obtain another Comforter for them. In spirit He would come to them, manifest Himself to them, and the Father and Himself make Their abode with them. The path of obedience and responsibility on Christian (not on Adam) ground is in this and the following chapter fully set out. He left what He could only give in leaving — for He made it by the cross — peace; He gave them His own peace; but He was truly a man, cared for their love; if they loved Elim, they would be glad He was going to His Father, to rest and glory.

But there was a difficulty. What about the vine that God brought out of Egypt and planted? This He meets in the following chapter, John 15. Israel was not the vine, though as a people it were so. He Himself was the true Vine, they were the branches. He was not, as they thought of Messiah, the best branch of the old vine; He was the Vine, and they the branches. He then enlarges upon the way of bearing due fruit, dependence and obedience, and, if His words abode in them, asking what they would; most important instructions, which I regret passing over so rapidly, only that I must confine myself to my present object — the general idea. As He has returned to this rejection of the old provisional vine, so to speak, He shews that to be without excuse, and as really having seen and hated (not Messiah, though He was such, but) Him and His Father. It is laid on its intrinsic moral grounds. Hence, when the Comforter was come before, He had spoken of the Father's sending Him, now of His sending Him from the Father to testify of Him glorified (as before, to bring to remembrance what He had said upon earth), they also having to bear testimony as with Him from the beginning.

In John 16, when the Comforter was come, He would bear witness in the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, in connection with His rejection and going away to His Father; and guide the disciples into all truth, shew them things to come, and glorify Christ (all that the Father had being His); and then places them in immediate confident relationship with the Father. For the moment they were to be in sorrow, and scattered.

317 In John 17, addressing His Father (wonderful thought that we should be admitted to hear!) He looks to taking His own place as Son on high, to glorify Him in virtue of His work which He had finished; the one our place, the other our title to it. He puts them in it, having manifested His Father's name to them, and gives to them all the communications made to Him in it on earth, and prays for them, on the ground of their being the Father's, and on the ground of His being glorified in them. He prays they may be kept in the name of the Holy Father; and divine names are the power of the thing named. Holiness, His holiness, and children; these are our place. This, that Christ's own joy might be fulfilled in them. Then He gives, not the words, but the word, the testimony, and the world hates them. They are completely put in Christ's place on earth in every respect, sanctified by the truth, and He Himself set apart, away from men, on high, to be the source of this their setting apart, by the revelation of what He was to their hearts. Next, He gives them the glory the Father had given Him, but, beyond all, will have them with Himself where He is; and, as partaking of His glory hereafter, He will prove to the world they were loved as He was; so that He manifests the Father's name now, that the Father's love to Him may be in them on earth, and He in them.

Having thus completed His disciples' place in His absence, and even to their heavenly rest — of which John speaks little, barely in the beginning of John 14 and at the end of John 17, and this only in the full result — in John 18. He enters on the final history of the Lord's days on earth. But this, even more than any other part, shews the divine person who is above all circumstances. John was one of the three present — as near as any could be — in the agony in Gethsemane. He gives not a word of it; while Matthew, who was present at what John recounts, tells nothing of that, but does of the agony.

Now if these contrasted circumstances were not characteristic they might not prove much, but they are most strikingly characteristic. I will briefly recall to you those mentioned by St. John. All point out the Son of God wholly above circumstances; the free offering up of Himself. Judas comes; the Lord advances and names Himself. They all go backward and fall to the ground. Had He sought escape, He had only to go away; but He asks again, and then says, "If ye seek me, let these go their way" — the blessed sign, as the apostle witnesses, how He stood in the gap, and, however poor and weak, the disciples escaped untouched. With this love we have perfect love to His Father, and perfect obedience. "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" John 18:11 — and no more. The miracle of healing, even, is not noticed by John, though he can give the servant's name. So all His answers to the chief priest are in the calm superiority of one above all that surrounded Him, while the full guilt and madness of the Jews are fully brought out, as they are seen in all the gospel; and in rejecting Him they deny their own place: "We have no king but Caesar." John 19:15. Christ's answers before Pilate bear the same stamp as one above all. As we had no agony in the garden, so no "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" on the cross. Finally, Jesus, knowing now all was finished a single passage remaining to be fulfilled, says, "I thirst," and having drunk the vinegar says, "It is finished." John 19:30. He then bows His head, and gives up His own spirit. Meanwhile, in perfect calmness, He committed His mother to John, and charged John with the care of her. No bone is broken, but Joseph and Nicodemus make Him to be with the rich in His death. Now, in all this — and John, mark, was with Him, as near as any could be in His agony, and standing by at the cross; all that marked the anguished Man is omitted, and all that presents the Son of God is introduced — I find design; that is, a blessed and beautiful appearing, as a true, lowly, and obedient man, no doubt, but an appearing of the Son of God as such, for faith on earth; revealing His Father all His life, and even in the circumstances of His death, Son of God still.

318 W. Though the whole synoptic analysis of the gospel is important to our purpose, yet the character of the last facts referred to, in connection with the blessed Lord's death, is to me even more striking still. I do not see how it is possible to avoid seeing a divine design in connection with the purpose of the whole gospel, and the aspect in which the Lord is viewed throughout it; His person as the new foundation of all when He had been offered up in sacrifice, the Jews being wholly rejected. It is striking, too, that he does not mention what he alone of the evangelists might have been, in some measure, an eyewitness

H. Two chapters remain to consider, relating His history after the resurrection. They are throughout, I do not doubt, significative as to the dispensational dealings consequent on the truths already brought out. Such applications are not like doctrines: we must leave them to the judgments of others. But I will state them to you. Their orderly completeness, I have no doubt, proves the truth of the view I suggest. The fact of Christ's resurrection known only by sight, without the testimony of God in the word that He must rise, produces no effect. They go home. But Mary, out of whom seven devils had been cast, wants Jesus Himself — in ignorance, no doubt, but in true affection. When this had been fully and most beautifully brought out — the world had nothing for her but Him — Jesus reveals Himself to her, and makes her the messenger of the witness of the believers' position. He was not come back to be corporeally present for the kingdom, and reign over Israel. He could, through redemption, call His disciples brethren, and they were in the same relationship to His God and Father as He was. This gathers them, and He is in their midst, and pronounces peace — for He had now made it: then sends them forth, breathing into them the living power of the Holy Ghost. Afterwards Thomas believes on seeing; but full blessing arose from believing now without seeing. Now, I have no doubt, while this put the disciples historically in their true place and relationship to God, yet we have a picture of the whole period from Christ's resurrection to the time of His return: first, the remnant who had known Him before; then the assembly formed without seeing Him, and in possession of peace with God, and His presence, as assembled, then sent forth in the power of the Holy Ghost with remission of sins for others; then the remnant of Israel in the latter days, who will believe by seeing. This introduces the millennium. The last chapter has avowedly in it that which is mysterious, and evidently intentionally so. I have no doubt myself that it follows on consecutively after the Lord's return. Seen on earth, seen in resurrection, seen now the third time, i.e., when He returns. He puts Himself on the original ground of His associations with Israel only in power. The nets do not break, the ships do not sink. He has already gathered fish, but the great haul is then taken, and without the ensuing failure as it was in previous service.

319 Remark, too, we are in Galilee, and there is no ascension. This suits John; it is divine manifestation on earth, not man's going to heaven; hence, it links on to the future display of power, not to Christ's coming to receive the assembly which is united to Him while in heaven. Peter follows Christ, and is to be cut off, and, I believe, the whole Jewish church system with him. John is left in testimony to connect it with that which is to come, so that the disciples thought he was not to die, but this was not said. Now these last points I leave to the Christian perception of every one who examines the gospel with care; but the facts prove the co-ordinated character of the history, from one end of the Gospel to the other, completing one distinct and clear exhibition of Christ outside legal Judaism, in every chapter up to His taking His sheep, which closed all recognition of the fold, being Christ in contrast with that Judaism, and presenting the setting up of a new thing in Him. Peter's ministry, who served in the circumcision, like Jesus, would end like His. But John's, who represented ministry outside it, but not heavenly though leading individuals there, would go on till Christ came.

320 W. All this requires study to verify the consistency of details, and the general character you give to it, where it is mysterious, which it evidently purposely is; but the fact of a definite character and design in the Gospel is evident.

H. There is another point I would note here on occasion of John 15. The notion of the application of the words in Hosea, "I have called my Son out of Egypt" Hosea 11:1, to Christ, is ridiculed by rationalists. Now, I affirm distinctly that it is according to the tenor of scripture testimony and perfectly rightly applied. It is a great leading truth. If you look at Isaiah 49, you will see Messiah distinctly presented as taking the place of Israel. I think we have spoken, when on the pseudo-Isaiah of infidels, of the elect servant of Israel — Christ the elect servant, and the remnant the elect servant of the last days. But this chapter 49 is more definite. Israel is first presented as Jehovah's witness in the earth, as the polished shaft in His quiver. "Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. Then I said," says Messiah, "I have laboured in vain, and spent my strength for nought and in vain." And so it was with Christ on earth. "But now, saith Jehovah, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, and to be my salvation to the end of the earth." That is, Israel is presented as the servant of the Lord; but when Christ comes, if it were so, His labour was in vain, and then Christ, though to restore the remnant in due time, is Himself God's servant, and light goes forth to the Gentiles. This is the passage Paul so strikingly quotes as justifying his turning from the Jews to the Gentiles, when the former rejected his message. Christ takes the place of Israel under the law, Israel after the flesh. This He does all through John, though in a higher way, as revealed Son of God. Hence, in John 15, He proclaims Himself as the true vine. Israel was the well-known vine, and, as remarked before, Messiah was to be the best branch, the topmost bough. But Israel is set aside. The true vine, as the true servant, is Christ. Israel was Jehovah's son, His first born; but Christ was the Son, the true first born of every creature. Hence, as rejected by Israel, He begins Israel's whole history afresh, and, as not deriving His position from the people, He is called out of Egypt to begin their history according to God.

321 Now, remark here, dear W., I am not saying whether scripture be wise or foolish; I believe it divinely wise; but that is not my question now. What I say is, it is the system of scripture to substitute Christ for Israel, the second Adam for the first, and, that what wholly failed as founded on the responsibility of man was taken up afresh in the perfect and unfailing Son of God. Indeed, this is true, as we have seen, as to every principle of God's dealings with men, but I now speak only of Israel. And hence Matthew and the New Testament, using the Old Testament scripture, use it rightly according to the intended use of scripture. People may quarrel with scripture, but they cannot say that Matthew quotes, "Out of Egypt have I called my son," in a way not according to the intention of scripture. It is the system and plan of scripture, of the Old Testament itself, to transfer passages from Israel the provisional son to Christ the true Son thus.

W. Well, this is a new view of the matter. It is taking the bull by the horns.

H. I believe it to be the simple matter of fact. I think the real weakness of the defenders of scripture is, that they do not really believe in its perfection: they yield something to their adversaries. If it be divine, I cannot yield what is divine; if it be not divine, I have lost all scripture. If I believe it divine, I seek the divine meaning, and I shall be helped to discover it, and wait till I do. The moment you compromise, you are off the ground on which the Bible is of any value; or that contending for it is of any consequence whatever.

W. There I agree with you, and I think that, for Christians, these attacks will be of great value in this respect. For even orthodox persons were very loose in their estimate of God's word, and of inspiration. The divine authority of God's word, and the present action of the Holy Ghost were not really believed in.

322 H. An unconverted man cannot spiritually recognize either. He may be brought up with respect for the word of God, and it is a very great mercy. But his own thoughts, when he thinks, must be human as to it when he comes to the point, and he has none else. When he "has set to his seal that God is true," John 3:33, all this is changed.

But we will now take up Matthew.

W. If you please. What is the aspect in which Christ is presented in this Gospel, as you suppose? What the ways and dealings of God as presented in it?

H. The Emmanuel, Jehovah-Messiah, promised and prophesied of, presented to Israel but rejected, and thus rejected Israel making way for the assembly and the kingdom; but all in earthly or Jewish connection, from that point of view. Hence, as in John, the final scene is in Galilee, and there is no ascension.

Let us now go through its general structure as the evidence of special design — of a design which has divine largeness of view and object. It begins with the roots of promise to come to the promised Seed, — Abraham, David, Christ. There are none of the lovely details of the state of the poor and godly remnant in Israel which we find in Luke, but simply the accomplishment of prophecy in the miraculous birth of Jesus, whose name was to be the expression of the coming of Jehovah to save His people.

Next we have the false king seeking to thrust Him out, the Gentiles having come to own Him, God's wondrous testimony according to prophecy, and God providing, when once Jesus was thus owned, for the non-fulfilment of the blessing in legal Israel then, but a recommencing their history in His Son called out of Egypt. All this in Bethlehem, according to prophecy. The result is, that He is cast out into Galilee among the poor of the flock, to be brought up as the separated one from among His people.

Next comes the voice foretold in the wilderness to announce the coming of Jehovah calling for repentance to meet Him, disowning right by birth from Abraham as sufficient. They must meet God. The fan was there to cleanse His floor (Israel), the axe already at the root of the trees. John recognizes the glory of the person of Jesus, but Jesus takes His place according to Psalm 16 among the poor in spirit, and godly ones among the people, the excellent of the earth. There He is owned as Son of God, and anointed and sealed with the Holy Ghost for His service in the earth. Then He is tempted and put to the test, and answers by passages from Deuteronomy, the book which contemplated Israel, not in legal order but under a divine claim of obedience. John is cast into prison, and Jesus begins His ministry and carries it on on the same footing among the people as John, and begins to gather disciples to Himself. The last three verses give a general account of all His service in Galilee, preaching the glad tidings of the kingdom, and, by a display of power in goodness, drawing the attention of the whole country.

323 Thereupon, that there might be no mistake, He sits down and declares to His disciples, but in the audience of the crowd, who they were that would enter into the kingdom, and on what principles. This is the sermon on the mount. Israel was in the way with Jehovah to judgment. If he did not come to agreement, he would as to earthly government be cast into prison and remain till all was paid. Note, that rejection is supposed for the disciples. (Matt. 5:10, 11) It is "the kingdom of heaven," an expression peculiar to Matthew: that is, the rule of the kingdom is not on earth but in heaven, enlarged, when the full result is seen (Matt. 13), into the Father's kingdom and the kingdom of the Son of man, a name which Christ takes on His rejection as the Christ, and always gives Himself, and which is the passage from the prophecy of Him in Psalm 2, in which character He was rejected and the kingdom not now set up, to His character in Psalm 8, in which He is Head over all things.

The special characteristics of the sermon on the mount are what is called the spirituality of the law, the claim of a sanctifying view and obedience, and the revelation of the Father's name. In a certain sense this part of the gospel gives His whole position in Israel. After the sermon on the mount we have details fully bringing out the display of Emmanuel, and the effect on Israel, and the opening the door to Gentiles. These we will go briefly through. We shall see that it passes withal directly on to dealing with the people in the last days in connection with what was then going on.

In cleansing the leper He shews Himself as exercising Jehovah's power in Israel, and yet subject to the law of Moses. In healing the centurion's servant with a word we find Him owned as the divine disposer of all things; and He takes occasion by this faith, not found in Israel, to declare the bringing in of Gentiles to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the children of the kingdom of Israel after the flesh being shut out.

324 These great principles being established, we have His present condition the blessed fulfiller of Isaiah 53, and an outcast in Israel — the Son of man, but one for whom all must be given up.

Next, a picture of the result of being with Him — to man's eye, a storm which left no hope, at any rate they were in the same ship with Jesus; but He who seemed asleep (and was undisturbed by all), with a word commands all the elements, thus graciously rebuking their want of faith.

In the country of the Gergesenes His word dispels all the power of Satan; but occasion is given to display this power in the unclean, the swine (a figure, I have no doubt, of Israel's subsequent history). At any rate those who have seen this power in Him, when fully informed, got rid of Him. Thus all His power, and Israel's and the Gentiles' history in connection with it, have been displayed.

Note herein the beautiful perfect display of the truth in the first case — Jehovah alone cleansed the leprosy. The leper saw His power, but doubted at least His goodness — could not reckon on it. Jesus, in words which God alone has a right to use, declares His grace, "I will." Now if one touched a leper, he was unclean. But His holiness and nature were such that He could exercise His love to the uttermost in the midst of evil, undefiled and undefilable. And He touches him and says, "I will" — Jehovah (whom none could defile) — a man, to bring perfect love in power to the vilest.

W. How a few words, a single act, in these divine records carry a volume of truth! How they prove their divine character by it! It has, we cannot doubt an instant, a divine Author and a divine subject. Much as your explanation interests me, the simple fact in the history you speak of says more than volumes of any explanation.

H. In truth it does. The soul taught of God is in contact with divine power in the word. We may, by God's grace, serve as finger posts to it. He makes us, and it is gracious, helpful to one another; but all must be learnt with God. We will proceed.

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