Inspiration and Interpretation / Seven Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford

by John William Burgon

The objections which have been raised against the Bible, although they have been industriously gleaned from various quarters, will all be most effectually met, I am persuaded, by getting men to acquaint themselves with the contents of the deposit itself. And yet, inasmuch as it is the nature of doubts, when once injected into the mind, to fester and to spread; inasmuch also as the bold confidence of plausible assertion, especially when recommended by men of reputation, and set off with some ability and skill, is apt to impose on youth and inexperience;—we seem reduced to a kind of necessity, to examine; and, as far as the limits of a sermon will allow, to refute; the charges which have been so industriously brought forward against the Bible.

The favourite objections of the day come partly from without,—partly from within. The classification is not exact, but it may serve to assist the memory. One class of objections is, in a manner, destructive,—for it results in entire disbelief of the Bible:—the other class, suggesting imperfections, results in a low and disparaging estimate of its contents. When exception is taken against certain portions of Holy Scripture, on the ground of discoveries in Physical Science,—of the dictates of the Moral Sense,—of the supremacy of mechanical Laws,—and the like,—we consider that the supposed difficulties come from without. As much as we care to say on this class of objections has either been already offered, or must be reserved for a subsequent occasion[391].—When doubts are insinuated, arising out of the subject-matter of the Bible, we consider the difficulties to proceed from within. The apparent contradictions of the Evangelists, are of this nature. Supposed errors or misstatements, come under the same head. Very imperfectly, yet sufficiently for our immediate purpose, we have touched upon both subjects. Those portions of the Old Testament which savour in the highest degree of the marvellous, must be reserved for separate consideration[392]. To-day I propose to speak of another kind of objection; but which arises, like the others, out of the subject-matter of the Bible. Moreover, it is the kind of difficulty which most readily presents itself to any who listened with unwilling ears to my last discourse. Some here present may remember my repeated and unequivocal assertion that Holy Scripture is inspired from the Alpha to the Omega of it;—not some parts more, some parts less, but all equally, and all to overflowing;—that we hold it to be, not generally inspired, but particularly; that we see not how with logical consistency we can avoid believing the words as well as the sentences of it; the syllables as well as the words; the letters as well as the syllables; every "jot" and every "tittle" of it, (to use our Lord's expression,) to be divinely inspired:—and further, that until the contrary has been proved, we shall maintain that no misapprehension or misstatement, no error or blot of any kind, can possibly exist within its pages:—that we hold the Bible to be as much the Word of God, as if God spoke to us therein with human lips;—and that, as the very utterance of the Holy Ghost, we cannot but think that it must be absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme.

I. To this, it has been objected as follows:—

You cannot possibly mean what you say. You will not pretend to assert that the list of the Dukes of Edom[393], is as much inspired,—inspired in the same sense,—as the Gospel of St. John.—To which I make answer, that I believe one to be just as much inspired as the other: and before I leave off, I will endeavour to bring my hearers to the same opinion. In the meantime, it is only fair to the objector, to hear him out: to follow his guidance; and to see whither he would lead us. It will be quite competent for us then to retrace our steps; to point out "a more excellent way;" and to entreat him, with all a brother's earnestness, to reconsider the matter, and to follow us.

The objection may, I believe, be fairly stated as follows.—It is unreasonable to consider any part of Holy Scripture inspired which the author was competent to write without the aid of Inspiration. Just as you would not multiply miracles needlessly, and ascribe to special Divine interference results which might be otherwise accounted for, so neither ought you to call in the aid of Inspiration where it may clearly be dispensed with. A genealogy,—a catalogue of names, whether of places or persons,—whatever may reasonably be suspected to have been an extract from public Archives;—nothing of this sort need you, nor indeed, properly speaking, can you, call "inspired." More than that. All mere narratives of ordinary transactions,—or indeed of transactions extraordinary;—whatever, in short, a writer, having first beheld it with his eyes, appears to have simply described with his pen, it is unreasonable to regard as the work of Inspiration. For it is plain to common sense,—(so at least I have heard it said,) that there is much, both in the Old and in the New Testament, the delivery of which required no other than the ordinary gifts of men:—actual observation, good memory, high intellect, clearness of statement, honesty of purpose. Look at the preface to St. Luke's Gospel. It seems only to convey that the author of it believed himself to be bringing out a superior edition of a narrative which had already been attempted by many. I would apply, (it is said,) to the whole of the Old Testament the same observations which I apply to the New. There are parts which evidently required nothing but opportunity of experience, or research, and the ordinary qualities of a trustworthy historian.—This then is the way the case is put. There is no intentional irreverence on the part of the objector: no conscious hostility to God's Truth. Very much the reverse. But having once assumed that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is not to be regarded as an inspired document, he has logical consistency enough to perceive that he cannot exactly stop there. And so, he carries his speculations a little further. He tries to take (what he calls) a "common sense" view of the question. He says that he thinks it a dangerous proceeding on the part of the preacher to insist on the infallibility of Apostles and Evangelists. Meanwhile, I suspect that he is not by any means without a suspicion that he is on a platform beset with far greater dangers, himself. He has walked a little this way, and that way; and his "common sense" has shewn him that there is an ugly precipice on every side. Nay; he perceives that the ground trembles, and cracks, and shakes,—and even yawns beneath his feet.

For I request you to observe, that there is absolutely no middle state between Inspiration and non-inspiration. If a writing be inspired, it is Divine: if it be not inspired, it is human. It is absurd to shirk the alternative. Some parts of the Bible, it is allowed, are inspired; other parts, it is contended, are not. Let it be conceded then, for the moment, that the catalogue of the Dukes of Edom is not an inspired writing; and let it be ejected from the Bible accordingly. We must by strict parity of reasoning, eject the xth chapter of Genesis, which enumerates the descendants of Japheth, of Ham, and of Shem, with the countries which they severally occupied,—that truly venerable record and outline of the primæval settlement of the nations! The ten Patriarchs before, and the ten after Noah: the many enumerations contained in the Book of Numbers: much of the two Books of Chronicles: together with the Genealogies of our Saviour as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke.

It is clear that the history of the Flood,—very much of it at least,—is of the same nature: a kind of calendar as it were, and record of dates.

But we may go on faster, and use the knife far more freely. Every thing in the Pentateuch of which Moses had been an eye or ear-witness, and which he set down from his own personal knowledge, may be eliminated from the Bible, as not inspired. According to the principle already enunciated by yourself, I call upon you to excise from the Book of God's Law, Exodus, and Leviticus, and Numbers, and Deuteronomy: those passages only excepted which are prophetical,—as the xxxiiird of Deuteronomy. Joshua must go of course: for if the son of Nun did not write the Book which goes under his name,—(as the wise men in Germany say, or used to say, he did not[394],)—of course the narrative is not authentic; and if he did, you say that it ought not to be regarded as inspired. Judges and Ruth cannot hope to stand; for they are mere stories,—narratives of events which any contemporary author who enjoyed "actual observation, good memory, high intellect, clearness of statement, and honesty of purpose," was abundantly qualified—(according to your view of the matter)—to commit to writing. The Books of Samuel and of Kings cannot be claimed as the work of Inspiration, of course. Chronicles we have got rid of already. No imaginable plea can be invented for the Books of Ezra, of Nehemiah, and of Esther; those writings having evidently required nothing (to use your own phrase) but "opportunity of experience or research, and the ordinary qualities of a trustworthy historian." The prophetical books you spare; natural piety suggesting that since "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost[395];"—the writings of Isaiah and the rest, must be retained as inspired. We expunge those portions only which are simply historical and moral; since to these, by the hypothesis, the spirit of Inspiration cannot be thought to have extended.

We come now to the New Testament; and two of the Gospels are found to be mutilated already, by the elimination of one chapter of St. Matthew and one of St. Luke. But on the principle that personal observation, a good memory, honesty of purpose, and so forth, are the only requirements necessary, we may proceed to carry forward the work of excision with spirit, so that we be but careful to use discernment. For example, we may begin with the Call of St. Matthew, and the Feast which he made to our Lord in his own house. Who so competent to relate this, as the Evangelist himself? Whenever, in short, the Twelve were present, St. Matthew, (as one of the Twelve,) may be assumed to have written from personal observation; and that portion of his narrative is to be rejected accordingly as uninspired.

It is painful to anticipate what will be the fate of St. John's Gospel, on this principle,—together with most of the Divine Discourses therein recorded. Not, to be sure, that we shall lose the conversation with Nicodemus, nor that with the woman of Samaria; because St. John was not present when either of those conversations took place: but all, from the xivth to the xviith chapter inclusive; as well as the discourse in the vith chapter, must of course be dismissed. The matter of these discourses, it will be urged,—(with more of logical consistency, alas! than of essential truth,)—might have been faithfully handed down by St. John without any extraordinary gift. He was bound to our Lord by more than ordinary affection. He was ever nearest to Him. Is it not conceivable, (we are asked,) that these two causes, aided by a retentive memory, would at least enable him to give us the record which he has given?