independent of the laws, and who, therefore, neither obeys them nor disobeys them.

Substitute the will of God for the will of man, and the argument, which in the above instance is limited to the narrow sphere within which man's power can be exercised, becomes applicable to the whole extent of creation, and to all the phenomena which it embraces.

'The fundamental conception which is indispensable to a true apprehension of the nature of a miracle, is that of the distinction of mind from matter, and of the power of the former, as a personal, conscious, and free agent, to influence the phenomena of the latter. We are conscious of this power in ourselves; we experience it in our every-day life; but we experience also its restriction within certain narrow limits, the principal one being, that man's influence upon foreign bodies is only possible through the instrumentality of his own body. Beyond these limits is the region of the miraculous. In at least the great majority of the miracles recorded in Scripture the supernatural element appears, not in the relation of matter, but in that of matter to mind -in the exercise of a personal power transcending the limits of man's will. They are not so much supernatural as superhuman. Miracles, as evidences of religion, are connected with a teacher of that religion; and their evidential character consists in the witness which they bear to him as "a man approved of God by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him." He may make use of natural agents, acting by their own laws, or he may not: on this question various conjectures may be hazarded, more or less plausible. The miracle consists in his making use of them, so far as he does so, under circumstances which no human skill could bring

about.**

We know not where to find a finer specimen of close reasoning and happy iilustration than all this; but well nigh every page of this essay would furnish others like it, nor could we exhaust them without transferring the whole bodily to our pages.

he proceeds to admit frankly the existence How can we in the same breath assert preof diversity of interpretation,' and then asks, vailing unity and yet admit diversity? How do we account for a state of things which in Sophocles or Plato would be pronounced incredible or absurd?' At first sight we might almost suppose that we had got hold of one of Professor Jowett's insinuations of the fallaciousness of the Scriptures; but mark the fulness of the answer, and the wisdom as well as the safety of the most complete admission of everything the adversary can claim will be at once apparent. Our answer,' continues the Dean, 'is of a threefold nature. We account for this by observing: first, that the Bible is different from every other book in the world, and that its interpretation may well be supposed to involve many difficulties and diversities; secondly, that the words of Scripture in many parts have more than one meaning and application; thirdly, that Scripture is inspired, and that, though written by man, it is a revelation from God, and adumbrates His eternal plenitudes and perfections.'

Each of which pregnant propositions of refutation he expands into a crushing demolition of the whole system of the objectors. Nor does this fulness in admitting all that is to be said against his argument ever degenerate with Dean Ellicott into a mawkish tenderness for the enemies of truth. So far is this from being the case, that perhaps the severest treatment of their offences against honesty is to be found in his pages. The following passages well illustrates both of these peculiarities. He is enforcing his third proposition, that Scripture is divinely inspired, and proceeds (p. 403), In the outset let it be said that we heartily concur with the majoriDean Ellicott's contribution, whilst differing ty of our opponents in rejecting all theories in almost every characteristic of style, treat- of inspiration, and in sweeping aside all ment, and illustration from Mr. Mansel's, is those distinctions and definitions which in marked by equal excellence. There is a com- too many cases have been merely called forth pleteness in his treatment of the objection of by emergencies, and drawn up for no other the gainsayer which could be obtained only by purpose than to meet real and supposed diffia fulness of admission of all that is to be urged culties. Hence all such terms as "mechaniagainst the truth, which at first sight is some- cal" and "dynamical" inspiration, and all times positively alarming. This element of his the theories which have grown round these strength is well exhibited in the manner in epithets, &c., &c. . . . may be most profiwhich he deals with the favourite objection tably dismissed from our thoughts. The that Holy Scripture is not treated as other Holy Volume itself shall explain to us the books are, that different interpretations of the nature of that influence by which it is persame passage are equally admitted until all vaded and quickened. Thus far we are perfectreality of meaning is destroyed. Here, hav-ly in accord with our opponents. . . Here, ing first proved that there has been from however, all agreement completely ceases... the first a substantive agreement, not only in. Let us observe that nothing can really be the mode of interpreting Scripture, but in less tenable that the assertion that there is no many of its most important details' (p. 389), foundation in the Gospels or Epistles for any of the higher or supernatural views of inspiration'. . . . which assertion-one of those

*Aids to Faith,' pp. 17, 19, 20.

...

66

6

up

1

more completely fascinating than this intuitional method, none that is more thoroughly wel come to the excessive self-sufficiency in regard to Scriptural interpretation, of which we are now having so much clear and so much melancholy evidence. To sit calmly in our studies, to give force and meaning to the faltering utterances of inspired men, to correct the tottering logic of an Apostle, to clear up the misconcep tions of an Evangelist-and to do this without dust and toil, without expositors and without versions-without anxieties about the meanings of particles, or humiliations at discoveries of lacking scholarship-to do all this thus easily and serenely, is the temptation held out; and the weak, the vain, the ignorant, and the prejudiced are clearly proving unable to resist it.'*

well denominated in the words of Dr. Mo- | tended meaning! No mode of interpretation is berly random scatterings of uneasiness," is then contradicted by a whole pageful of direct quotations summed with the telling conclusion, We pause, not from lack of other statements, but from the feeling that quite enough has been said to lead any fair reader to pronounce the assertion of there being no foundation" in the Gospels or Epistles for any of the higher or supernatural views of inspiration contrary to evidence, and perhaps even to admit that such assertions, where ignorance cannot be pleaded in extenuation, are not to be deemed consistent with fair and creditable argument' (p. 407). And again We are told that the term "inspiration" is but of yesterday. . . . and that the The five rules themselves, worked out in question was not determined by Fathers of a detail of the greatest power and interest, the Church' (p. 408). . . . when again sucwith a refreshing abundance of texts rightly ceeds a pageful of crushing quotations calmly quoted, and subjected to a really scholarlike summed up by the declaration, Again we process of investigation, are so simple and pause. We could continue such quotations complete that we print them as golden canons almost indefinitely we could put our fingers for all who would study the Scriptures aright. positively on hundreds of such passages in They are these: 1. Ascertain as clearly as the writings of the Fathers of the first five it may be possible the literal and grammati or six centuries; we could quote the language cal meaning of the words. 2. Illustrate of early councils; we could point to the wherever possible by reference to history, toplain testimony of early controversies, each pography, and antiquities. 3. Develop and side claiming Scripture to be that from which enunciate the meaning under the limitations there could be no appeal; we could even call assigned by the context; or, in other words, inin heretics, and prove, from their own de- terpret contextually. 4. In every passage elicit fences of their own tenets, from their own the full significance of all details.' Which four admissions, and their own assumptions, that he gathers up into this one; Interpret gramthe inspiration of Scripture was of all sub-matically, historically, contextually, and mijects one that was conceived thoroughly settled and agreed upon.'

We hardly know where to point to a better specimen of controversial writing than this. For fairness of admission, for completeness of reply, and for a just severity in censure, it is thoroughly admirable. Nor are these the writer's only merits; there are occasions when, abandoning this sterner severity, he treats his adversaries with a quiet humour which sometimes tells more than even the most solemn logic. Thus in expounding the first of his five rules for interpreting Scripture, which he paraphrases thus: 'Ascertain first what is the ordinary lexical meaning of the individual words; and next, what, according to the ordinary rules of syntax, is the first and simplest meaning of the sentence which they make up' (p. 427),—' a threadbare rule,' which he tells us it must be clear to every quiet observer that there is a strong desire' evinced in many quarters to evade, and

nutely. From which he ascends through the two minor suggestions- Let the writer interpret himself,' and 'Where possible let Scripture interpret itself; or, in other words, "Interpret according to the analogy of Scripture,to his fifth rule, Interpret according to the analogy of Faith.' We would gladly give instances of the application of each of these rules, but we must content ourselves with one by way of example. It seems to us to rise to the best of those observations of undesigned coincidences which have given such an undying value to the Hora Pauline' of Archdeacon Paley. He is showing the way in which the sense of the Gospels is brought out by a faithful use of his fourth rule of eliciting the full significance of all details' (p. 436):

6

Of what importance, historically considered, is the simple addition of the word 'Iegova in Luke v. 17, as showing the quarter whence the spies came, and marking throughout this portion of the narrative, that most of the char

and machinations came, not from natives of Galilee, but from emissaries from a hostile centre! What a picture does the ἦν προάγων αὐτοὺς of Mark x. 32, present to us of the Lord's

Rectify, by the aid of our own "verifying facul-ges ty," the imperfect utterance of the words of which it is assumed we have caught the real and in

* Preface to 'Sermons on the Beatitudes,' p. 11.

*'Aids to Faith,' p. 428.

!

bearing and attitude in this His last journey, and how fully it explains the Saußouvro which follows! How expressive is the single word xaμɛva (Mat. xxvii. 61) in the narrative of the Lord's burial, as depicting the stupefying grief that left others to do what the sitters-by might in part bave shared in! How full of wonderful significance is the notice of the state of the abandoned grave-clothes in the rock-hewn sepulchre (John xx. 7)! What mystery is there in the recorded position and attitude of the heavenly watchers (ver. 12)! What a real force there is in the simple numeral in the record of the two mites which the widow cast into the treasury! She might have given one (in spite of what Schoettgen says to the contrary); she gave her all. How the frightful a of the demoniac (Luke iv. 34) tells almost pictorially of the horror and recoil which was felt by the spirits of darkness when they came in proximity to our Saviour (compare Matt. viii. 29; Mark i. 23, v. 7; Luke viii. 28); and what light and interest it throws upon the xai idir x. 7. 2. of Mark ix 20, in the case of the demoniac boy! Again, of what real importance is the simple TOPEVSELS both in 1 Peter, iii. 19 and 22! How it bints at a literal and local descent in one case, and how it enables us to cite an Apostle as attesting the literal and local ascent in the other! When we combine the latter with the avεpépeto of Luke xxiv. 51 (a passage undoubtedly genuine), and pause to mark the tense, can we share in any of the modern difficalties that have been felt about the actual, and so to say material, nature of the heavenly mystery of the Lord's Ascension ?'*

We must indulge in one more quotation, in order to show a wholly different vein of thought. How well does the deep philosophic tone of the following remarks kindle at its close into eloquent grandeur!—

holden as to the relations of contemporaneous events to the future, whether of the Church or of the world, we may yet descry certain bold and broad outlines, certain tendencies and developments, which make us wend our way onward, thoughtfully and circumspectly-wayfarers, who gaze with ever-deepening interest on the contour of the distant hills, even though we cannot clearly distinguish the clustered details of the nearer and separating plain.'*

We turn to the next volume on our catalogue, constructed in the main on the same principle of different writers of high reputation undertaking to furnish replies to difficulties raised by the Essayists. For though this volume takes more distinctly the form of replies to the Essays, yet, as it is explained by the Bishop of Oxford in his preface, its purpose is 'not so much to reply directly to error as to establish truth, and so to remove the foundations on which error rests' (Pref. p. iii.). This preface is brief and purely introductory, but it contains a sketch of the whole controversy; and there is one suggestion in it of such gravity that we must place it in the writer's own words before our readers. After having given his reasons for considering it a short-sighted explanation which saw in this movement nothing more than a reaction from some extreme views which have disfigured the great re-awakening of the Church of England, he adds (Prof. v.), 'The movement of the human mind has been far too widespread, and connects itself with far too general conditions, to be capable of so narrow a solution. Much more true is the explanation which sees in it the first stealing over the sky of the lurid lights which shall be "In the case of unfulfilled prophecy, especially, shed profusely around the great Antichrist. the temptation to indulge in unauthorized specu- For these difficulties gather their strength lation is often excessive. Uneducated and un- from a spirit of lawless rejection of all authordisciplined minds are completely carried away ity, from a class of claims for the unassisted by it, and even the more devout and self-restrain-human intellect to be able to discover, meaed frequently give themselves up to sad extrasure, and explain all things.' If this view be vagances in this form of the application of God's true, and we believe that it is, it invests this Word. The result is, only too often, that bettereducated and more logical minds, in recoiling whole controversy with an almost fearful imfrom what they justly deem unlicensed and pre-portance. It is not the paltry and often anposterous, pass over too inuch into the other extreme, and deem Prophecy in every form as a subject far too doubtful and debatable ever to fall within the province of Scripture application. It is, we fear, by no means too much to say, that a great part of the present melancholy scepticisin as to Messianic prophecy is due to the almost indignant reaction which has been brought about by the excesses of apocalyptic interpreta tion. The utmost caution, then, is justly called for: pay, it perhaps would be well if unfulfilled prophecy were never to be applied to any other purposes than those of general encouragement and consolation. We may often be thus made to feel that we are in the midst of a providential dispensation-that though our eyes may

be

swered objections of the Essayists with which we have to deal: they are but the preliminary drops which tell of the coming storm. Rather have we to call upon men to prepare for that last and mighty tempest which shall precede the blessed restoration; for 'the hail and fire mingled with the hail very grievous;' that they who 'fear the word of the Lord may make their servants and their cattle flee into the houses.'

There is throughout this volume a close and distinct dealing with the Essayists themselves, which the more general purpose of the last made impossible. And here accordingly,

* 'Aids to Faith,' pp. 448-449.

as in every other case where these writers | sentations of the most unfair and one-sided have been met by men at once thoroughly character.' With the chief of these he goes honest and learned, there is the complaint on to deal, showing that what Dr. Williams which at the first we raised of the constant asserts concerning the state of opinion as to recurrence of that which it is impossible to the Scriptures amongst the learned men of account for, except on the supposition either Germany is utterly at variance with fact' (p. of extraordinary shallowness or of moral de- 67). Next, that his statements concerning fects, which it is far more painful to predi- the interpretation of prophecy in our country' cate of any man than mere intellectual feeble- and many particular passages of Scripture ness or even than discreditable ignorance. are great misrepresentations.' In how comThus, by way of example, Mr. Rose (Re-plete a manner he establishes his charges we plies,' &c. p. 66) charges Dr. R. Williams with discussing the truth and the interpretation of Scripture in a manner which must leave an impression on the minds of those who have not leisure or opportunity to study deeply such questions, that their faith is founded on ignorance or misapprehension; and thus a general spirit of scepticism is likely to be promoted.' Mr. Rose proceeds further to distinctly charge the writer with endeavouring to create this impression by having recourse to (ibid.) a series of misrepre

may most conveniently show our readers by
quoting one single passage which
under the second of these heads :-

occurs

"Bishop Chandler is said to have thought." Surely this phrase is strange in regard to a book

so well known as Chandler's "Answers to Col

lins"! Why should not Dr. Williams have taken the trouble to ascertain what Bishop Chandler does say, before he made so loose a statement?

'We shall simply place Bishop Chandler's own words in apposition with Dr. Williams's own report of them:

'BISHOP CHANDLER.

"But not to rest in generals, let the disquisition of particular texts determine the truth of this author's assertion. To name them all would carry me into too great length. I shall therefore select some of the principal prophecies, which being proved to regard the Messias immediately and solely, in the obvious and literal sense according to scholastic rules, may serve as a specimen of what the Scriptures have predicted of a Messias that was to come."

solemn, to be treated in a manner like this. On any subject such misrepresentation would be very discreditable, but in treating of the evidence for the truth of Holy Scripture it becomes positively criminal.

But if Paley and Bishop Chandler are thus misrepresented, what shall we say to the insinuation about Bishop Butler? Instead of Bishop Butler having turned aside from a future prospect of probable interpretations, he distinctly grapples with those that have been made on this principle, and denies that they have any weight. So that in the representation of Bishop Chandler, Dr. Paley, and Bishop Butler, the author of this Essay may be said to have misrepresented every one of them, and to have interwoven his misrepresentations together into a statement which it would be difficult to paralfor its contempt of truth."

'It seems very clear that Dr. Williams knows even less of Bishop Chandler than he appears to know of Bishop Butler. But before we pass on to Bishop Butler, let me ask those who read this Essay what faith they can put in any statements it contains after reading these words? The allusion to Paley is even worse. Paley was not writing a book on prophecy, but in treating of the evidences of Christianity he contents himself with quoting only one prophecy, and assigns bis reason for limiting his quotation to that one, viz., "as well because I think it the clearest and strongest of all, as because most of the rest, in order that their value might be represented with any tolerable degree of fidelity, require a discussion unsuitable to the limits and nature of this work." He then refers with approbation to Bishop Chandler's dissertations, and asks the infidel to try the experiment whe-lel ther he could find any other eminent person to the history of whose life so many circunstances can be made to apply. It is not that he "ventures to quote" only this as if he were afraid to meet the question, but he actually refers to the book where these questions, which lie out of his own path, are specially treated. And now, what becomes of the list of prophecies, "fine by degrees and beautifully less" as years roll on, which Dr. Williams would persuade his readers have been given up till a grave divine "ventured to quote" only one? The subject is really too sacred, too

We know not when any reputable divine of the Church of England has received, still less has justified, such charges of direct falsification of facts as are fixed here upon the Essayist in straightforward words.

Not different in fact, though more gently framed, is Mr. Haddan's complaint against the Rector of Lincoln, that he has been tempted' by the Dalilah of a neat historical formula to sacrifice Laud and his school to an

6

given by inspiration of God? And if the ancient Fathers witnessed to the thing, why should we dispute about the word?

With regard also to the Reformers, it is tion of Scripture in the strongest terms in their equally certain that they asserted the inspirapublic confessions of faith. Let the Essayist be requested to look again at the "earlier confessions of the reformed faith."

and others do affirm."

But of all the replies no answer falls so heavily as to the charge of want of accuracy 'The Bohemian Confession of 1535 thus bein stating facts as the blow of Dr. C. Words- gins: "First of all, we all receive with unaniworth (that of a very hæreticorum malleus) mous consent the Holy Scriptures which are conon Professor Jowett. Having shown (Re-tained in the Bible, and were received by our fathers, and accounted canonical, as immovably plies,' p. 427, &c.) the entire want of founda- true and most certain, and to be preferred in all tion for the extraordinary assertions with re-things to all other books, as sacred books ought gard to our own Scriptural literature, to be preferred to profane, and divine books to which the Professor has hazarded,' and human; and to be believed with sincerity and proved that his statements concerning the simplicity of mind; that they were delivered condition of Biblical interpretation in Ger- and inspired by God Himself, as Peter and Paul many are not more accurate; after having dwelt on the strange ignorance or misrepresentation (first noted, we believe, in our own pages) with which, in his eager desire to prove that Prophecy has failed, he pretends to quote as a falsified prediction of Amos the 'message of Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, in which he falsely attributes to Amos words he had not spoken' (Replies,' p. 435); and having shown that in all his laboured catalogue of Scripture errors the Professor has shown an inaccuracy near akin to this, Dr. Wordsworth proceeds to examine Mr. Jowett's general statements touching the great question of inspiration; and amongst other similar misstatements he fixes the following upon him:

'The Reformers also are cited by the Essayist as favouring his own opinions. The word (inspiration)," he says, "is but of yesterday, not found in the earlier confessions of the reformed faith."

Having shown that with this agreed the Helvetic Confession of 1536, the Gallican of 1561, the Scottish and the Belgic, and having quoted the doctrine of the old Lutheran divines, at least from the end of the sixteenth century, in these words:- Inspiration is the act by which God communicated supernaturally to the mind of the writers of Scripture not only the ideas of the things which they were to write, but also the conceptions of the words by which they were to be expressed. The true author of the Holy Scripture is God,'--he sums up his argument in these words:

'Can any language be more explicit? And yet the Essayist suggests that the Reformers laid ittle stress on the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible. What else is the meaning of his language. "The word" inspiration "is but of yesterday, not found in the earlier Confessions of the reformed faith"-taken in connexion with his assertion that Scripture is to be interpreted like "any other book;" and that "the question of inspiration is one with which the interpreter of Scripture has nothing to do"? Is he ready to adopt the language of those confessions to which he appeals? If he is not, why did he refer to them? If he is, must he not retract almost all that he has said in this Essay on the subject of inspiration?'

'The writer lays a heavy tax on the credulity of his readers "The word inspiration is but of yesterday!" Have we not the word "inspiration" in our own authorised version of the Bible, and has it not stood there for two hundred and fifty years? Is not the word inspiration to be found in that place in the Genevan version of 1557, and in Cranmer's version of 1539, and in Tyndale's version of 1534? Is it not as old as St. Cyprian, who wrote in the third century? Surely as a matter of mere literary discreDoes he not say that the Apostles teach us what dit this can scarcely be exceeded; and yet they learnt from the precepts of the Lord, being there is one element of literary shame behind, full of the grace of the inspiration of their Lord? Does not Origen say that "the Holy which we must say that Dr. Wordsworth Ghost inspired every one of the holy Prophets fixes on Professor Jowett; for he shows, so and Apostles in the Old and New Testaments"? far as it is possible to establish such an unNay, is not the word used by St. Justin Martyr acknowledged appropriation of other men's in the second century, who says that the Pro- writings, that in all this the Professor does phets taught us by Divine inspiration? Does not St. Irenæus, the scholar of Polycarp, the disciple not deserve even the poor praise of originatof St. John, say that the Prophets received Di-ing error, but is content; if he can but sow vine inspiration, and does not all Christian antiquity testify that the Scriptures are sónVEVOTOL,

the seeds of sceptical doubtfulness, to stoop to be a plagiarist also. Dr. Wordsworth first points out what we ourselves noted at the outset of this controversy, that it is not the