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

by John William Burgon

Now, in reply, we have a few words to say. The profession of faithfulness we hail with pleasure: the imputation of imbecility we accept with unconcern. But when gentlemen tell us that the Bible was never meant to teach Science; and that wherever its statements are opposed to the clear inductions of reason, they must give way; and so forth: we take the liberty of retaliating their charge. We inform them that they really mistake the case entirely. When they go on to tell us that they believe in the truth of the Bible as sincerely as ourselves: that its harmonies are complete, but not such as we imagine; and so forth;—we venture to add that they really know not what they assert. In plain language, they talk nonsense. Of a simple unbeliever we know at least what to think. But what is to be thought of persons who disbelieve just whatever they dislike, and yet profess to be just as hearty believers as you or I?

That the Mosaic record of Creation has been thought at variance with certain deductions of modern observation, is not surprising: seeing that the deductions of each fresh period have been at variance with the deductions of that which went before; and seeing that the theory of one existing school is inconsistent with the theory of another.—That the Bible is not, in any sense, a scientific treatise again, is simply a truism: (who ever supposed that it was?). Moses writes "the history of the Human Race as regards Sin and Salvation: not a cosmical survey of all the successive phenomena of the globe[306]." Further, that he employs popular phraseology when speaking of natural phenomena, is a statement altogether undeniable. But such remarks are a gross fallacy, and a mere deceit, if it be meant that the statements in the Bible partake of the imperfection of knowledge incident to a rude and primitive state of society. To revive an old illustration,—Is a philosopher therefore a child, because, in addressing children, he uses language adapted to their age and capacity? God speaks in the First Chapter of Genesis,—hath spoken for three and thirty hundred years,—as unto children: but there is no risk therefore that in what He saith, He either hath deceived, or will deceive mankind.

You are never to forget the great fundamental position, that the Bible claims to be the Word of God; and that God's Word can never contradict or be contradicted by God's works. We therefore reject, in limine, all insinuations about the "unscientific" character of the Bible. A scientific man does not cease to be scientific because he does not choose always to express himself scientifically. Again. A man of universal Science does not forfeit his scientific reputation, if, in the course of a moral or religious argument, his allusions to natural phenomena are expressed in the ordinary language of mankind. Even so, Almighty God, "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge[307],"—speaking to us by the mouth of His holy Prophets, never, that I am aware, teaches them to speak a strictly scientific language,—except when the Science of Theology is being discoursed of. On other occasions, He suffers their language to be like yours or mine. "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon[308]:"—"The clouds drop down the dew[309]:"—"The wind bloweth where it listeth[310]."—Not so when Theology is the subject. Then the language becomes scientific. "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God[311]:"—"Take, eat, This is My Body[312]:"—"Before Abraham was, I am[313]:"—"I and the Father are One[314]."

But there is this great difference between the cases supposed. A man of universal scientific attainment will be less strong in one subject than another: and in the course of his Geological allusions, if Mechanical Science be his forte,—in the course of his Metaphysical allusions, if Mathematical Science be his proper department,—he may easily err. Above all, the limits of the knowledge of unassisted Man must infallibly be those of the age in which he lives. But, with the Ancient of Days, it is not so. He at least cannot err. Nothing that man has ever discovered by laborious induction was not known to Him from the beginning: nothing that He hath ever commissioned His servants to deliver, will be found inconsistent with the anterior facts of History. "He that made the eye, shall He not see[315]?" The records of Creation then cannot be incorrect. The course of Man's history must be that which, speaking by the mouth of His Prophets, God hath described.

"I never said the contrary," is the reply. "All I say is that you interpret the records of Creation wrongly: and that you are disposed to lay greater stress on the historical accuracy of the Bible than the narrative will bear."

O but, sir, whoever you may be who censure me thus, let me in all kindness warn you of the pit, at the very edge whereof you stand!

Far be it from such an one as the preacher to assume that he so apprehends the First Chapter of Genesis, that if an Angel were to turn interpreter, he might not convince me of more than one misapprehension in matters of detail. But of this, at least, I am quite certain; that when I find it recorded that God took counsel about Man's Creation: and made him in "His own image," and "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," whereby man became "a living soul:" and further, when I find it stated that Adam bestowed names upon all creatures: and spake oracularly of his spouse:—I am certain, I say, when I read such things, that God intended me to believe that Man was created with a Godlike understanding, and with the perfect fruition of the primæval speech. Further, I boldly assert that he who could prove the contradictory, would make the Bible, even as a Theological Book, nothing worth, to you and me.

The same must be said of the Bible chronology. And here I will adopt the words of one who is justly entitled to be listened to in this place; and who must at least be allowed to be a competent judge of the matter, for he made Chronology his province. Mr. Clinton says:—"Those who imagine themselves at liberty to enlarge the time [which elapsed from the Creation to the Deluge, and from the Deluge to the Birth of Abraham,] to an indefinite amount,—mistake the nature of the question. The uncertainty here is not an uncertainty arising from want of testimony: (like that which occurs in the early chronology of Greece, and of many other countries; when the times are uncertain because no evidence is preserved.) ... The uncertainty here is of a peculiar character, belonging to this particular case. The evidence exists, but in a double form; and we have to decide which is the authentic and genuine copy. But if the one is rejected, the other is established:" the difference between the two being exactly 1,250 years.—Men are free to reject the evidence, to be sure; but we defy them to explain it away. The chronological details of the Bible are as emphatically set down as anything can be; and,—(with the exception of a few particulars, chiefly in the Book of Kings, which are to the record what misprints are to a printed book,)—they are entirely consistent; and hang perfectly well together. Let us not be told, then, that we entertain groundless apprehensions for the authority of God's Word when we hear it proposed to refer the Creation of Man to a period of unheard-of antiquity. Destroy my confidence in the Bible as an historical record, and you destroy my confidence in it altogether; for by far the largest part of the Bible is an historical record. If the Creation of Man,—the longevity of the Patriarchs,—the account of the Deluge;—if these be not true histories, what is to be said of the lives of Abraham, of Jacob, of Joseph, of Moses, of Joshua, of David,—of our Saviour Christ Himself?

But there is a scornful spirit abroad which is not content to allegorize the earlier pages of the Bible,—to scoff at the story of the Flood, to reject the outlines of Scripture Chronology;—but which would dispute the most emphatic details of Revelation itself. Consistent, this method is, at all events. Let it have the miserable praise which is so richly its due. To logical consistency, it may at least lay claim. It refuses to stop anywhere: as why should it stop? Faith is denied her office, because Reason fails to see the reasonableness of Faith: and accordingly, unbelief enters in with a flood-tide. Miracles, for example, are now to be classed, (we learn,) among "the difficulties" of Christianity[316]. It was to have been expected. (Who foresees not what must be the fate of such "difficulties" as these?) And will you tell me that you may reject the miraculous transactions recorded in the Old and New Testaments, and yet retain the narrative which contains them? That were indeed absurd! Will you then reject one miracle and retain another? Impossible! You can make no reservation, even in favour of the Incarnation of our Lord,—the most adorable of all miracles, as it is the very keystone of our Christian hope. Either, with the best and wisest of all ages, you must believe the whole of Holy Scripture; or, with the narrow-minded infidel, you must disbelieve the whole. There is no middle course open to you.

Do we then undervalue the discoveries of Natural Science; or view with jealousy the progress she has of late been making? God forbid! With unfeigned joy we welcome her honest triumphs, as so many fresh evidences of the wisdom, the power, the goodness of God. "Thou, Lord, hast made me glad through Thy works[317]!" The very guesses of Geology are precious. What are they but noble endeavours to unfold a page anterior to the first page of the Bible; or rather, to discover what secrets are locked up in the first verse of it? But when, instead of being a faithful Servant, Natural Science affects the airs of an imperious Mistress,—what can she hope to incur at the hands of Theology, but displeasure and contempt? She forgets her proper place, and overlooks her lawful function. She prates about the laws of Nature in the presence of Him who, when He created the Universe, invented those very laws, and impressed them on His irrational creatures.—Does it never humble her to reflect that it was but yesterday she detected the fundamental Law of Gravitation? Does she never blush with shame to consider that for well nigh six thousand years men have been inquisitively walking this Earth's surface; and yet, that, one hundred years ago, the provident notions concerning fossil remains, and the Earth's structure, were such as now-a-days would be pronounced incredibly ridiculous and absurd?