I HAVE above insisted much upon this point,—that if Scripture contains any religious system at all, it must contain it covertly, and teach it obscurely, because it is altogether most immethodical and irregular in its structure; and therefore, that the indirectness of the Scripture proofs of the Catholic system is not an objection to its cogency, except as it is an objection to the Scripture proofs of every other form of Christianity; and accordingly that we must take our choice (Romanism being for the time put aside) between utter Latitudinarianism and what may be called the Method of Inferences. Now this argument depends evidently on the fact, that Scripture is thus unsystematic in its structure—a fact which it would not be necessary to dwell upon, so obvious is it, except that examining into it will be found to give us a much more vivid apprehension of it, and to throw light upon the whole subject of Scripture teaching. Something accordingly, I have just been observing about it from antecedent probability, and now I proceed, at some length, to inquire into the matter of fact.
I shall refer to Scripture as a record both of historical events and of general doctrine, with a view of exhibiting the peculiar character of its structure, the unostentatious, indirect, or covert manner, which it adopts, for whatever reason, in its statements of whatever kind. This, I say, will throw light on the subject in hand; for so it is, as soon as we come to see that anything, which has already attracted our notice in one way, holds good in others, that there is a certain law, according to which it occurs uniformly under various circumstances, we gain a satisfaction from that very coincidence, and seem to find a reason for it in the very circumstance that it does proceed on a rule or law. Even in matters of conduct, with which an external and invariable standard might seem to interfere, the avowal, “It is my way,” “I always do so,” is often given and accepted as a satisfactory account of a person’s mode of acting. Order implies a principle; order in God’s Written Word implies a principle or design in it. If I show that the Bible is written throughout with this absence of method, I seem to find an order in the very disorder, and hence become reconciled to it in particular instances. That it is inartificial and obscure as regards the relation of facts, has the effect of explaining its being obscure in statement of doctrines; that it is so as regards one set of doctrines, seems naturally to account for its being so as regards another. Thus, the argument from analogy, which starts with the profession of being only of a negative character, ends with being positive, when drawn out into details; such being the difference between its abstract pretension and its actual and practical force.
First I propose to mention some instances of the unstudied and therefore perplexed character of Scripture, as regards its relation of facts; and to apply them, as I go, to the point under discussion, viz., the objection brought against the Church doctrines from the mode in which they too are stated in Scripture; and I shall begin without further preface.
1.
An illustration occurs in the very beginning of the Bible. However we account for it, with which I am not concerned, you will find that the narrative of the Creation, commenced in the first chapter, ends at the third verse of the second chapter; and then begins a fresh narrative, carrying on the former, but going back a little way. The difference is marked, as is well known, by the use of the word “God” in the former narrative, and of “Lord God” in the latter. According to the former, God is said to create man “in His own image; male and female created He them” on the sixth day. According to the latter, the Lord God created Adam, and placed him in the garden of Eden, to dress and keep it, and gave him the command about the forbidden fruit, and brought the beasts to him; and afterwards, on his finding the want of a helpmeet, caused him to sleep, and took one of his ribs, and thence made woman. This is an instance of the unsolicitous freedom and want of system of the sacred narrative. The second account, which is an expansion of the first, is in the letter opposed to it. Now supposing the narrative contained in the second chapter was not in Scripture, but was the received Church account of man’s creation, it is plain not only would it not be in, but it could not even be gathered or proved from the first chapter; which makes the argument all the stronger. Evidently not a pretence could be made of proving from the first chapter the account of the dressing the garden, the naming the brutes, the sleep, and the creation of Eve from a rib. And most persons in this day would certainly have disbelieved it. Why? Because it wanted authority? No. There would be some sense in such a line of argument, but they would not go into the question of authority. Whether or not it had Catholic tradition in its favour, whether Catholic tradition were or were not a sufficient guarantee of its truth, would not even enter into their minds; they would not go so far, they would disbelieve it at once on two grounds: first, they would say Scripture was silent about it, nay, that it contradicted it, that it spoke of man and woman being created both together on the sixth day; and, secondly, they would say it was incongruous and highly improbable, and that the account of Adam’s rib sounded like an idle tradition. If (I say) they were to set it aside for want of evidence of its truth, that would be a fair ground; but I repeat, their reason for setting it aside (can it be doubted?) would be, that it was inconsistent with Scripture in actual statement, and unlike it in tone. But it is in Scripture. It seems then that a statement may seem at variance with a certain passage of Scripture, may bear an improbable exterior, and yet come from God. Is it so strange then, so contrary to the Scripture account of the institution, that the Lord’s Supper should also be a Sacrifice, when it is no interference at all with the truth of the first chapter of Genesis, that the second chapter also should be true? No one ever professed to deduce the second chapter from the first: all Anglo-Catholics profess to prove the sacrificial character of the Lord’s Supper from Scripture. Thus the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is not unscriptural, unless the book of Genesis is (what is impossible, God forbid the thought!) self-contradictory.