[_Bishop Pearson on Theological Science._]
"Ad publicam Theologiae professionem electus et const.i.tutus sum; cujus c.u.m praestantiam dignitatemque considero, incredibili quadam dulcedine perfundit mirificeque delectat; c.u.m amplitudinem difficultatemque contemplor, perstringit oculos, percellit animum, abigit longe atque deterret.
"c.u.m Artes omnes Scientiaeque Athenis diu floruissent, c.u.m novam sedem Alexandriae occuparent, c.u.m ingenia Romana toto terrarum orbe personarent, etiam tum dixit CHRISTUS ad Apostolos, _Vos estis lux mundi_. Omnes aliae Scientiae, etiam c.u.m maxime clarescerent, tenebris sunt involutae, et quasi nocte quadam sepultae. Tum sol oritur, tum primum lumine perfundimur, c.u.m DEI cognitione ill.u.s.tramur; radii lucis non nisi de coelo feriunt oculos; caetera, quae artes aut scientiae nominantur, non Athenae sed noctuae. Quid enim? nonne animis immortalibus praediti sumus, et ad aeternitatem natis? Quae autem Philosophiae pars perpetuitatem spirat? Quid Astronomicis observationibus fiet, c.u.m coeli ipsi colliquescent? Ubi se ostendet corporis humani peritus, et medicaminum scientia praeclarus, c.u.m _corruptio induet incorruptionem_? Quae Musicae, quae Rhetoricae vires, c.u.m Angelorum choro et Archangelorum coetibus inseremur? Si nihil animus praesentiret in posterum, e coaevis sibi scientiis aliquid solatii carpere fas esset, sec.u.mque perituris delectari: sed in hoc tam exiguo vitae curriculo, et tam brevi, quid est, tam cito periturum, quod impleret animum, in infinita saeculorum spatia duraturum? Sola Theologiae principia, aeternae felicitatis certissima expectatione foeta, aurae divinae particulam, coelestis suae originis consciam, et sempiternae beat.i.tudinis candidatum, satiare possunt.
"Caetera Scientiae exiguum aliquid de mundi opifice delibant, norunt; haec, aquilae invecta pennis, coeli penetralia perrumpit, in ipsum Patrem luminum oculos intendit, et audaci veritate promitt.i.t, _DEUM n.o.bis aliquando videndum sicut et nos videbimur_.
"Quantum igitur moli corporis [anima materiae expers,] quantum operosae conjecturae divina visio, quantum brevi temporis spatio aeternitas, quantum Parna.s.so Paradisus, tantum reliquis disciplinis Theologia praeferenda est.
"Sed hanc severam rebus humanis necessitatem imposuit DEUS, ut quae pulcherrima sunt, sint et difficillima. Si Sacrarum Literarum copiam, si studiorum theologicorum amplitudinem prospicias, crederes promissionem divinam, sicut Ecclesiae, ita doctrinae terminos nullos posuisse.
"Scriptura ipsa, quam copiosa, quam intellectu difficilis! historiae quam intricatae! prophetiae quam obscurae! praecepta quam multa! promissiones quam variae! mysteria quam involuta! interpretes quam infiniti! Linguae, quibus exarata est, et n.o.bis, et toti orbi terrarum peregrinae. Tres in t.i.tulo crucis consecratae sunt; satis illae erant, c.u.m CHRISTUS moreretur; sed pluribus n.o.bis opus est ut intelligatur. Latina parum subsidii praebet, originibus exclusa. Graecae magna est utilitas, nec tamen illa, si pura, multum valet; nam aliam priorem semper aut reddit, aut imitatur.
Hebraea satis per se obscura, nec plene intelligenda, sine suis conterraneis, Chaldaica, Arabica, Syriaca. Non est theologus, nisi qui et Mithridates!
"Jam haec ipsa oracula Ecclesiae DEI sunt commendata, ad illam a CHRISTO ipso amandamur; illa testis, illa columna veritatis. Nec est unius aut aevi, aut regionis, Ecclesia DEI: per totum terrarum orbem, quo disseminata, sequenda est; per Orientis vastissima spatia, per Occidentis regna diversissima: antiquissimorum Patrum sententiae percipiendae, quorum libri pene innumeri prodierunt, et nova tamen monumenta indies e tenebris eruuntur.
"Quid dicam Synodos, diversarum provinciarum foetus? quid Concilia, e toto orbe coacta, et suprema auctoritate praedita? quid canonum decretorumque infinitam mult.i.tudinem? quorum sola not.i.tia insignem scientiam professionemque const.i.tuit; et tamen Theologiae nostrae quantula particula est?
"Quot haereses in Ecclesia pullularunt, quarum nomina, natura, origines detegendae: quae schismata inconsutilem CHRISTI tunicam lacerarunt; quo furore excitata, quibus modis suppressa, quibus machinis sublata!
"Jam vero, scholasticorum quaestiones, quam innumera! Ad haec omnia subtiliter disserenda, acute disputanda, graviter determinanda, quanta Philosophiae, quanta Dialecticae necessitas! quae leges disputandi, quae sophismatum strophae detegendae!
"Haec sunt quae me a professione deterrent, haec quae exclamare cogunt, t??
p??? ta?ta ??a???;"
BP. PEARSON"s _Oratio Inauguralis_, "Minor Works," (ed. Churton,) vol.
i. pp. 402-5.
APPENDIX C.
(p. 71.)
[_The Bible an instrument of Man"s probation._]
"Multa enim _propter exercendas rationales mentes_ figurata et obscure posita."--Aug. _De Unit. Eccl._ c. v.--"Obscuritates Divinarum Scripturarum quas _exercitationis nostrae causa_ DEUS esse voluit."--_Id.
Ep. lix. ad Paulinum_, tom. ii. p. 117.
"The evidence of Religion not appearing obvious, may const.i.tute one particular part of some men"s trial, in the religious sense: as it gives scope, for a virtuous exercise, or vicious neglect of their understanding, in examining or not examining into that evidence. There seems no possible reason to be given, why we may not be in a state of moral probation, with regard to the exercise of our understanding upon the subject of Religion, as we are with regard to our behaviour in common affairs. The former is as much a thing within our power and choice as the latter."
"Nor does there appear any absurdity in supposing, that the speculative difficulties, in which the evidence of Religion is involved, may make even the princ.i.p.al part of some persons" trial. For as the chief temptations of the generality of the world are the ordinary motives to injustice or unrestrained pleasure; or to live in the neglect of Religion from that frame of mind, which renders many persons almost without feeling as to any thing distant, or which is not the object of their senses: so there are other persons without this shallowness of temper, persons of a deeper sense as to what is invisible and future; who not only see, but have a general practical feeling, that what is to come will be present, and that things are not less real for their not being the objects of sense; and who, from their natural const.i.tution of body and of temper, and from their external condition, may have small temptations to behave ill, small difficulty in behaving well, in the common course of life. Now when these latter persons have a distinct full conviction of the truth of Religion, without any possible doubts or difficulties, the practice of it is to them unavoidable, unless they will do a constant violence to their own minds; and religion is scarce any more a discipline to them, than it is to creatures in a state of perfection. Yet these persons may possibly stand in need of moral discipline and exercise in a higher degree, than they would have by such an easy practice of religion. Or it may be requisite for reasons unknown to us, that they should give some further manifestation what is their moral character, to the creation of G.o.d, than such a practice of it would be. Thus in the great variety of religious situations in which men are placed, what const.i.tutes, what chiefly and peculiarly const.i.tutes, the probation, in all senses, of some persons, may be the difficulties in which the evidence of religion is involved: and their princ.i.p.al and distinguished trial may be, how they will behave under and with respect to these difficulties."--BISHOP BUTLER"s _a.n.a.logy_, P. II. ch. vi. (ed.
1833,) p. 266. and pp. 274-5.
Further on, (p. 277,) Butler has the following note:--
"Dan. xii. 10. See also Is. xxix. 13, 14: St. Matth. vi. 23, and xi. 25, and xiii. 11, 12. St. John iii. 19, and v. 44: 1 Cor. ii. 14, and 2 Cor.
iv. 4: 2 Tim. iii. 13; and that affectionate as well as authoritative admonition, so very many times inculcated, "He that hath ears to hear let him hear." Grotius saw so strongly the thing intended in these and other pa.s.sages of Scripture of the like sense, as to say, that the proof given us of Christianity was less than it might have been for this very purpose: "Ut ita sermo Evangelii tanquam lapis esset Lydius ad quem ingenia sanabilia explorarentur." (_De Verit. R. C._ lib. ii. towards the end.)"
APPENDIX D. (p. 72.)
[_St. Stephen"s Statement in Acts vii. 15, 16, explained._]
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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage:--
?at?? d? ?a?? e?? ????pt??, ?a? ?te?e?t?se? a?t?? ?a? ?? pat??e?
???? ?a? etet???sa? e?? S???, ?a? ?t???sa? ?? t? ??at? ?
???sat? ??a? t??? ????????, pa?? t?? ???? ??? t?? S???.
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 Hitt.i.te, 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 Hitt.i.te. 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., Princ.i.p.al 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. x.x.xiii. 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 _prima facie_ unreasonableness in so handling his words. But let the adverse criticism be submitted to the test of a searching a.n.a.lysis; and how transparently fallacious is it found to be!
First, we have to ascertain the _meaning_ of the pa.s.sage. And it is evident to every one having an ordinary acquaintance with Greek, that the words ??? t?? S??? _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," (?? pat??e? ???,) _exclusive of Jacob_, form the nominative to the verb "were carried over"
(etet???sa?.) 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 circ.u.mstantial 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 Hitt.i.te, 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.
x.x.xiv._: 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_.
FOOTNOTES: