But there is a fallacy or a falsity at every step of this argument. For when did the Gospel ever "centre in attachment?" or when was "the whole of Christianity contained" in one short sentence? Supposing too that "a world of the understanding" does come in between the first century and the sixth; how does it follow that it is "impossible" to apply the language of the Creeds to the interpretation of Holy Scripture? Explain to me how that "world of understanding" affects the Nicene Creed? Even in the case of that most precious Creed called the Athanasian,—why need we assume that "the growth of ideas" has been a spurious growth? What if it should prove, on the contrary, that the development has been that of the plant from the seed[211]? Above all, why talk of "the fourth or sixth century,"—as if the Creeds were not essentially much older; nay, co-eval with Christianity itself?... Such writing shews nothing so much as a confused mind,—a weak, ill-informed, and illogical thinker.
Indeed Mr. Jowett seems to be altogether in the dark on the subject of the Creeds: for he speaks of them as "the result of three or four centuries of reflection and controversy," (p. 353,)—which is by no means true of all of them; nor, except in a certain sense, of any. But when he inquires,—"If the occurrence of the phraseology of the Nicene age in a verse of the Epistles would detect the spuriousness of the verse in which it was found,—how can the Nicene or Athanasian Creed be a suitable instrument for the interpretation of Scripture?" (p. 354.)—he simply asks a fool's question. The cases are not only not parallel, but there is not even any analogy between them. Let us hear him a little further:—
"Absorbed as St. Paul was in the person of Christ, ... he does not speak of Him as 'equal to the Father,' or 'of one substance with the Father[212].' Much of the language of the Epistles, (passages for example such as Romans i. 2: Philippians ii. 6,) would lose their meaning if distributed in alternate clauses between our Lord's Humanity and Divinity[213]. Still greater difficulties would be introduced into the Gospels by the attempt to identify them with the Creeds[214]. We should have to suppose that He was and was not tempted[215]; that when He prayed to His Father He prayed also to Himself[216]; that He knew and did not know 'of that hour' of which He as well as the angels were ignorant[217]. How could He have said 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' or 'Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from Me.' How could He have doubted whether 'when the Son of Man cometh He shall find faith upon the earth[218]?' These simple and touching words," (p. 355,)—pah!
Now if what precedes means anything at all,—(I am by no means certain however that it does!)—it means that the writer does not believe in the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Unless the sentence which is without a reference to the foot of the page be not a denial of the fundamental Doctrine of the Faith[219],—I do not understand it. But look at all which precedes; and then say if those are the remarks of a man entitled to dogmatize "On the Interpretation of Scripture." ... If Mr. Jowett really means that the Creeds cannot be reconciled with the Bible,—how can he himself subscribe to the VIIIth Article? If he means nothing of the kind,—why does he write in such a weak, cloudy, illogical way?
But the whole of the case has not even yet been stated. Down from the remote period of which we have been hitherto speaking,—the age of primitive Creeds, and [oe]cumenical Councils, and ancient Fathers,—in every country of the civilized world to which the Gospel has spread,—the loftiest Intellect, the profoundest Learning, the sincerest Piety, have invariably endorsed the ancient and original method of interpretation. I am not implying that such corroboration was in any sense required; but the circumstance that it has been obtained, at least deserves attention. Modes of thought are dependent on times and countries. There is a fashion in all things. Great advances in Science,—grand epochs in civilization,—vicissitudes of opinion,—difference of institutions, national traditions, and the like,—might be supposed to have wrought a permanent change even in this department of Sacred Science. But it is not so. The storm has raged from one quarter or other of the heavens, but has ever spent its violence in vain. Still has the Church Catholic retained her own unbroken tradition. To keep to the history of that Church to which we, by God's mercy, belong:—The constant appeal, at the time of our own great Reformation, was to the Fathers of the first four centuries. Ever since, the temper and spirit of our Commentators has been to revert to the same standard, to reproduce the same teaching. The most powerful minds and the most holy spirits,—English Divines of the deepest thought and largest reading,—let me add, of the soundest judgment and severest discrimination,—have, in every age, down to the present, gratefully accepted not only the method, but even the very details of primitive Patristic Interpretation. But "the acceptance of a hundred generations and the growing authority arising from it,"—like "the institutions based upon such ancient writings, and the history into which they have entwined themselves indissolubly for many centuries,"—all conspire to "constitute a perpetually increasing and strengthening[220]" body of evidence on the subject of Sacred Interpretation.
Now, to oppose to the learning, and piety, and wisdom, of every age of the English Church,—to the unbroken testimony of the Church Universal,—(3) to the torrent of Patristic Antiquity,—(4) the decision of early Councils, and (5) the 'still small voice' of primitive Creeds,—yet more, (6) to the constant practice of the Apostles,—and, above all, (7) to the indisputable method of our Divine Lord Himself;—to oppose to all this mighty accumulation of evidence, the simple à priori convictions of—Mr. Jowett! savours so strongly of the ridiculous, that it really seems superfluous to linger over the antithesis for a single moment.
4. Our task might now be looked upon as completed.—It only remains, in justice to the gentleman whose method we have been considering, to ascertain by what considerations he is induced to reject that method of Interpretation which, as we have seen, enjoys such overwhelming sanction.
(i) In opposition to what goes before, then, he throws out a suggestion, that "nothing would be more likely to restore a natural feeling on this subject than a History of the Interpretation of Scripture. It would take us back to the beginning; it would present in one view the causes which have darkened the meaning of words in the course of ages." (p. 338-9.) "Such a work would enable us to separate the elements of Doctrine and Tradition with which the meaning of Scripture is encumbered in our own day." (p. 339.)
Let us here be well understood with our author. The advantage of a good "History of Interpretation" would indeed be incalculably great. But Mr. Jowett, (like most other writers of his class,) assumes the point he has to prove, when he insinuates that the result of such a contribution to our Theological Literature would be to shew that all the world has been in error for 1700 years, and that he alone is right. That 'erring fancy' has often been at work in the fields of sacred criticism,—who ever doubted? That there have been epochs of Interpretation,—different Schools,—and varying tastes, in the long course of so many centuries of mingled light and darkness, learning and barbarism;—what need to declare? A faithful history of Interpretation would of course establish these facts on a sure foundation.
But the Reverend Author forgets his Logic when he goes on from these undoubted generalities to imply that all has been confusion and utter uncertainty until now. Above all, common regard for the facts of the case ought to have preserved him from putting forth so monstrous a falsehood as the following:—"Among German Commentators there is for the first time in the history of the world, an approach to agreement and certainty." (p. 340.)