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

APPENDIX A.

Bp. Horsley's Sermons, No. xvii. Vol. ii. pp. 73-4.

APPENDIX B.

Bp. Pearson's Oratio Inauguralis, 'Minor Works,' (ed. Churton,) vol. i. pp. 402-5.

APPENDIX C.

Further on, (p. 277,) Butler has the following note:—

APPENDIX D.
(p. 72.)

In a work like the present which purports to deal solely with the grander features of Inspiration and Interpretation, it is clearly impossible to enter systematically into details of any kind. If, here and there, something like minuteness has been attempted[648], it has only been by way of sample of what one would fain have done,—of what one would fain do,—time and place and occasion serving. In the same spirit I will add a few remarks on the famous passage in Acts vii. 15, 16; for, confessedly, to a common eye it seems to contain several erroneous statements. The words, as they stand in our English Bible, are these:—

"So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our Fathers; and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem."

For obvious reasons, it will be convenient to have under our eyes, at the same time, the original of the passage:—

Κατέβη δὲ Ἰακὼβ εἰς Αἴγυπτον, καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν· καὶ μετετέθησαν εἰς Συχὲμ, καὶ ἐτέθησαν ἐν τῷ μνήματι ὃ ὠνήσατο Ἀβραὰμ τιμῆς ἀργυρίου, παρὰ τῶν υἱῶν Ἐμμὸρ τοῦ Συχέμ.

On this, Dr. Alford, Dean of Canterbury, delivers himself as follows:—

"There is certainly, and that not dependent upon any Rabbinical or Jewish views of the subject, an inaccuracy in Stephen's statement: for the burying-place was not at Sychem which Abraham bought, but at Hebron, and it was bought of Ephron the Hittite, as you will find in the 23rd of Genesis from the 7th to the 20th verses. It is not worth while for us now to read the account, but so it is: Abraham bought a field at Hebron of Ephron the Hittite. There is no mention at all made of its being for a burying-place. But it was Jacob who bought a field near Shechem 'of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father.' These two incidents, then, in this case are confused together. And again I say, if it is necessary to say it again, that there is no reason at all for us to be ashamed of such a statement—no reason for us to be afraid of it, or in any way staggered at it. It was not Stephen's purpose to give an accurate history of the children of Israel, but to derive results from that history, which remain irrefragable, whatever the details which he alleged."—Homilies on the former part of the Acts of the Apostles, by Henry Alford, B.D., Dean of Canterbury, London, 1858, p. 219.

A northern Professor, (Patrick Fairbairn, D.D., Principal and Professor of Divinity in the Free Church College, Glasgow,) also writes as follows:—

"Now, there can be no doubt, that viewing the matter critically and historically, there are inaccuracies in this statement; for we know from the records of Old Testament history, that Jacob's body was not laid in a sepulchre at Sychem, but in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron;—we know also that the field, which was bought of the sons of Emmor, or the children of Hamor (as they are called in Gen. xxxiii. 19), the father of Sichem, was bought, not by Abraham, but by Jacob."—Hermeneutical Manual, or Introduction to the Exegetical Study of the Scriptures of the New Testament, &c. Edinburgh, 1858, p. 101.

Now when it is considered that the speaker here was St. Stephen,—a man who is said to have been "full of the Holy Ghost," so that "no one could resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake," (Acts vi. 3, 5, 8, 10.)—there is evidently the greatest primâ facie unreasonableness in so handling his words. But let the adverse criticism be submitted to the test of a searching analysis; and how transparently fallacious is it found to be!

First, we have to ascertain the meaning of the passage. And it is evident to every one having an ordinary acquaintance with Greek, that the words Ἐμμὸρ τοῦ Συχὲμ cannot mean "Emmor the father of Sychem." This is a mere mistranslation, as the invariable usage of the New Testament shews. The genitive denotes dependent relation. The Vulgate rightly supplies the word "filii;" and there can be no doubt whatever that what St. Stephen says, is, that Abraham bought the burial-place "of the sons of Emmor, the son of Sychem."

Next, it is evident that "our Fathers," (οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν,) exclusive of Jacob, form the nominative to the verb "were carried over" (μετετέθησαν.) In English, the place ought to be exhibited as follows:—"he and our Fathers; and they were carried." But, in truth, the idiom of the original is so easy, to one familiar with the manner of the sacred writers[649]; and the historical fact so exceedingly obvious; that it must have been felt by St. Luke, in recording St. Stephen's words, that greater minuteness of statement was quite needless. Who remembers not the affecting details of where Jacob was to be buried, as well as the circumstantial narrative of whither his sons conveyed his bones[650]? Who remembers not also that the bones of Joseph, (and, as we learn from this place, the rest with him,) were carried up out of Egypt by the children of Israel, at the Exode[651]?

Where then is the supposed difficulty? Moses relates (in Gen. xxiii.) that Abraham bought of Ephron the Hittite, the son of Zohar, the field and the cave of Machpelah: and says that Machpelah was before Mamre, otherwise called Kirjath-Arba, and Hebron. St. Stephen further relates that Abraham bought the sepulchre at Sychem in which the Twelve Patriarchs were eventually buried, of the sons of Emmor, (or Hamor.) May not the same man buy two estates?

True enough it is that Jacob, when he came from Padan Aram, "bought a parcel of a field" at "Shalem a city of Shechem," "at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father." But there is no pretence for saying that these last two transactions are identical, and have been here confused together: for the sellers, in the one case, were "the sons of Emmor, the son of Sychem;" and in the other, "the children of Hamor,"—father of that Shechem whose tragic end is related in Gen. xxxiv.: while the buyer was in the one case, Abraham; in the other case, Jacob. Not to be tedious however, let me in a few words, state what was the evident truth of the present History.

It is found that Jacob, in order to build an altar at Shechem with security, judged it expedient to purchase the field whereon it should stand. Who can doubt that the purchase was a measure of necessity also? If, at the present day, one desired to erect a church on some spot in India, where the value of land was fully ascertained[652], and where there were many inhabitants[653],—how would it be possible to set about the work, with the remotest purpose of retaining possession, unless one first bought the ground on which the structure was to stand? I infer that when Abraham first halted at Sichem[654], and built an altar there[655], (the Canaanite being then in the land,) it is very likely that he bought the ground also. But when St. Stephen informs me that the thing which I think only probable, was a matter of fact; am I, (with Dean Alford,) to hesitate about believing him? Abraham then, in the first instance, bought Sichem, Shechem, or Sychar; and there built an altar. To that same spot, long after, his grandson Jacob resorted. What wonder, since the wells of Abraham were stopped during his absence, and had to be recovered by his son, (as related in Gen. xxvi. 17-22,)—what wonder, I say, if Jacob, on coming to Shechem after an interval of nearly 200 years, finds that he also must renew the purchase of the cherished possession? The importance of that locality, and the sacred interest attaching to it, has been explained in a Plain Commentary on the Gospels, on St. John iv. 1-6, and 41. See also a Sermon by the same author,—One Soweth and another Reapeth.

APPENDIX E.

"I am going to offer a few plain remarks on what the Bible professes to be. I say, professes to be, because those whom I speak to will believe that what it professes to be, it is. I mean they will not suspect the writers of any dishonesty or ambitious pretence. But there may be some readers of the Bible, among persons whose profession is the exercise of the intellect, who are impatient at being left behind in the intellectual race; who, when continental critics are going on into theories of inspiration, do not like the imputation (so freely cast upon us by foreign writers) of being unequal to such things, of having no turn for philosophy. So they must have a theory, or go along with one; they must receive the Bible,—for they do receive it,—in some intellectual way; through some lens which they hold up; with a consciousness of some intellectual action in receiving it, something which not every one could practise, something beyond the mere simple apprehension of terms, and simple faith in embracing propositions.

"But in striking contrast with all such views and all such desires, stands the singular character of the sacred volume itself. It manifestly addresses itself to a mind in an attitude of much simplicity; to a mind coming to receive a theory, not to hold up one; coming to be shaped, not holding out a mould to shape a communication made. For it presents itself as a document containing a message from on high; as conveying the Word of God; nor can all that is ever said on the subject get beyond this plain account of its contents, 'the Word of God.' Nor need any one who desires to impress on his own mind and that of others the true character of the sacred page, try to do more than to remind himself that it professes to convey to him the Word of God."—Sermons by the Rev. C. P. Eden, pp. 148-150.

"What I desire to impress upon myself and those who hear me is this, that the words of God are always perfect, always complete; and that the feeling with which a poor cottager sits down to his Bible is the right one, and that the student hath the best hope of successful study who in attitude of mind is most likened to him."—Ibid., p. 192.

"The conclusion, then, is this; that Faith hath not been wrong through these many years, in her simple acceptance of God's Word. To come round to simplicity, is what we have always had to do in the great questions of Divinity. There have been great questions; they have agitated the Church; but, as I said, to come round to simplicity hath ever been her work first or last. When in the fourth century men refined upon the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and Arians and semi-Arians would be telling us how these things could be, the unity of God in three Persons; to come round to the simplicity of the Athanasian doctrine, and to disown the several explanatory statements which, offering to explain, explained away, was the Church's work. I am not sure that since the clays of the Arian dispute, a more important question has arisen than that which seems likely to be ere long forcing itself upon us, of the Inspiration of Holy Writ. I freely permit myself to anticipate that the simplest possible view of the subject, that on which rich and poor may meet together, is the one to which we shall come round."—Ibid., pp. 172-3.

APPENDIX F.

"I suppose we all have learned from the language used by the Evangelist St. John, always to look on each of these two employments of the expression, (the Word of God,) with reference to the other; and to see in each, the other also. I shall not attempt to express more definitely this connexion; I only need to suppose that we all apprehend it as existing. But I shall claim from it thus much to my present purpose;—that as He whom the Evangelist saw riding in the heavenly pomp on high, and who was revealed to him as bearing this title, 'The Word of God[656],' was the same who rode as at this time into Jerusalem; in humiliation here, in glory there; here veiled, there in brightness unveiled:—I would now associate the two, and would regard that sacred volume which the poor cottager knows as the 'Word of God,' as placed under the same dispensation; as veiled here, reserved for Revelation hereafter. I say, as all the other circumstances of our condition are certainly to be regarded in this aspect, viz., as things waiting for development; so ordered by a Divine wisdom as that they shall sustain faith and instruct piety now, but shall shew themselves for what they are, (if ever to a created being, yet) only in a later stage than that to which they were given as its present religious provision: as other things, so the written page (I will assume) which speaks of God. I assume that in this world we are using sounds which mean more than we know. I assume that in our churches we are in the highest sense singing the songs of Sion, of the future and heavenly Sion. If Saints in Heaven shall sing (as we are told they shall) the song of Moses, then the song of Moses is already a song for Heaven; only there we shall know its meaning, or more of it than now we do. And the use which I make of the reflection is, to suggest (as I said) the frame of mind in which we should approach the consideration of the sacred page; such a frame of mind as that no future revelations of the import of that page shall have power to reproach us as having dishonoured it by our interpretations here, and having betrayed an inadequate feeling of what Inspiration was."—Sermons, by the Rev. C. P. Eden, pp. 180-2.