DR. HINDS ' S ORDINATION-SERMONS.
THESE sermons, preached on the occasion of ordinations by the Arch- bishop of Dublin, and published at the request of Dr. Whately or the clergy to whom they were addressed, differ from the generality of ser- mons in a twofold sense. The intellectual idiosyneracy of the preacher gives therd a marked character, which the mass of discourses fail in at- taining: the aptness with which the subject is treated imparts a purpose and unity that render them strikingly free from the commonplace air which most sermons are apt to carry. The style of Dr. Hinds is forcible and scholarly, his Biblical and English learning ample, and well kept in hand: but the weight and closeness of his matter is perhaps the most particular feature in the composition of-the sermons.. Their great appropriateness to the occasion, is, however, their most remarkable_ point. They do not deal in generalities for young clergymen about to enter on the duties of the sacred function to which they have just been instituted,--so easy to collect, but so difficult to endow with any thing like force or vitality unless in the case of' remarkable genius. But they set forth a leading principle of duty to ministers of the gospel, which any one may follow, and chalk out a line of useful study and pulpit exposition to the young divine, that might occupy him at intervals for a considerable part of his life. Should he possess learning and ability beyond the average, the suggestions of Dr. Hinds might enable him to produce a series of Scriptural discourses or commentaries that should both extend his own reputation and prove of public utility.
The text of the first sermon (and substantially that of the second) is from the fourth chapter of the second epistle to Timothy, where Paul, describing the various duties of a faithful minister, first exhorts him to " Preach the Word." The leading subject of both discourses is a comparison of particular parts of our authorized version with the exact meaning of the original; and the principal object of Dr. Hinds's argu- ment is to prove that one of the first duties of a minister is to " preach the Word" exactly as it stands in Scripture, so far as it can be ap- prehended by his industry and intelligence. During the Apostolic age, "the Word" was orally delivered by inspired apostles, who could not err in the doctrines they taught ; but when these doctrines were reduced to writing, they had to be interpreted, and (after Christianity spread into districts where the Scriptural language had ceased to be a spoken tongue) translated, by fallible men. Hence, all versions, however excellent, are in reality "not Scripture, but a medium through which Scripture is taught." To use the inspired text as a theme for moral exhortations, rules of life, and doctrinal views, is no doubt a duty, and a very im- portant duty of the Christian minister ; but his primary duty is to "preach the Word,"—to take care, as far as his abilities permit him, that he understands the real meaning of Scripture, and that his people through his exertions understand it too. This leads the author to a con- sideration of the authorized version of Scripture ; and of its various errors, some owing to the infirmity of the human intellect, some of little or no apparent importance, and some arising from unavoidable changes in the meaning of words-
" Our sons their fathers' failing language see"—
but still errors, which it is the duty of the clergyman to discover by all the means in his power, or he cannot fulfil his duty and "preach the Word."
A considerable part of the first sermon, now extended by a revision, is occupied in pointing out the sources of mistake in translations. In all cases this involves some knowledge of the original language, but more in some cases than in others. The arbitrary arrangement of all modern editions, by punctuation, division into chapters, verses, and paragraphs, none of which exist in the original Scripture, require less lingual knowledge than a close inquiry into the meaning of words. Less acuteness, again, is re- quisite to detect the same word differently rendered, or different words rendered by the same word, than to discover mistranslations either in the meaning or the grammatical construction; whilst words that are now altogether obsolete, or obsolete in the sense in which the translators of the Bible used them, require aitacquaintance with the elder English rather than classical learning. Upon all these topic=, and some others, Dr. Hinds gives examples, and indicates the mode of pursuing the study he opens up.
Such is the aversion of the mind to change, and such the disposition to rely upon custom or authority, especially in religious matters, that few readers will go far into these ordination-sermons without some shrinking from the doctrine, as if it were another form of Popery, forbidding the Scriptures to the people : yet in reality, it is themselves who are display- ing the Papal spirit, in assuming infallibility for their own version, and perhaps for their own ignorance. These and other objections are ably combated by Dr. Hinds, in various places,—as in the following sensible remarks on the necessity of human learning to understand what the Scriptures really are.
" In taking this view, we may seem to be abandoning the high ground which our Church assumes as a Scriptural Church, and to be lowering it virtually to a level with the Unreformed Church. For it may be suggested, it what the people at large read, and hear read, is not the Scripture itself; but only an interpretation of it, set forth by Church authority—and it; moreover, it has been thought neces- sary that the clergy should exercise their ministry in declaring what is and what Is not meant by that interpretation—is not this, after all, virtually the principle which we so loudly protest against in the Unreformed Church? Can the people themselves be said to have the Word of God ? What does the Church of Rome more_, in authorizing its clergy to determine for the people what is and what is not Divine revelation?
" There is, nevertheless, an all-important distinction. As for the unlearned depending on the learned, whether minister or others, for religious knowledge, that must be so, and nobody can alter it. It is not an ordinance of man, but of God, and our natural condition. When our Church was first reformed, the greater number of its members could not read the English translation; and if they had been able to read it, the copies were so few and so expensive that they could not have procured one. Must they not have depended on the minister or on others to read it to them, and to inform them what was and what was not in the book? It was not that the Church excluded them from the privilege of reading, but that their natural and accidental disabilities formed an exclusion. Are not those who have never learnt to read now nearly in the same predicament? The case is the same with respect to the use and possession of the very inspired Scriptures, which the mass of our Church are excluded from, not because the Church with- holds them, or denies them any use of them, but because they have not the requisite education for using them. We cannot alter what is a condition of our nature, not an ordinance of man.
" But what we may do, or we may not do, is this. We may impose on those who receive their knowledge of Scripture from version, or from minister, or both, the necessity of acquiescing in whatever the version represents and the authorized teacher teaches • which is, in fact, to transfer to the version, which is man's work, the inspired character of the original, which is God's work through His Spirit, and tolransfer, in like manner, to the clergyman, the inspired character which belonged to the Apostles and others who have been miraculously and infallibly guided teachers. This is what the Unreformed Church does; and this is what our Church does not."
Here is a judicious exposition of the use and value of the authorized version.
" But a scruple the reverse of this may be awakened in some. Is there nothing due to the authorized version? What is there in its authority, if the individual member of the Church, minister or layman, may take on himself to pronounce any portions of it to be mistranslations, and to correct them; to say that this or that does not convey the meaning of Scripture, and to remedy the defect?
" Now, what is due to its authority must depend on that for which it has been authorized. And what is that? It has been authorized for public reading in the congregation, and for general use, for much the same reason as the Common Prayer-Book has been authorized; that is to say, for the sake of uniformity in our use of the Scriptures, as members of one communion; and it would not be allowable, therefore, to substitute any variations from it in the public reading of it in the congregation. But that is all. There is nothing in the nature of its authority which is designed to interfere with our correcting, in the sermon, any of those very passages which have been previously read in the service, provided we are borne out by the original in our comment
" There is, I suspect, some confusion of thought when we speak thus of the authorized version, from our losing sight of the important distinction between a version authorized by our Church and one authorized by the Unreformed Church. Any 'translation of Scripture, whether vernacular or not, authorized by the Church of Rome, would, in accordance with the right assumed by that Church, be equivalent to Scripture itself. The same unquestionable authority which it asserts for its deductions from Scrip ture, and for its dogmas and doctrines from whatever source derived, it asserts, consistently, for that which it pronounces to be the true rendering of Scripture. This is nothing more nor less than part of that Church's claim—a very unwar- rantable claim—to infallibility. Wet on the other hand, are united for commu- nion by certain articles of belief, which we believe, if we believe in accordance with the principle of our Church, not because the Church decides, but because we are satisfied of their agreement with Scripture; and the Scripture, to which appeal is made, is the inspired Word of God—the original writings." * • " There is, no doubt, something that is due from us to the authorized Version of Scripture beyond this; something that is not, however, the claim of Church authority. Associations of reverence and affection have gathered around it, which it would look almost like sacrilege rudely to violate. Nor is it merely the claim of ancient and sacred associations. The work is one of so great intrinsic excellence, that, had it never been recommended by Church authority, it must still have obtained general circulation both among theological students and ordi- nary readers. And, accordingly, it is still recognized and used and referred to by almost all Protestants who speak English, notwithstanding their differences in interpreting Scripture. It is, indeed, a singular testimony to the merits of this translation, that it should be the one link of external union which has sur- vived the separation of sect after sect from us, attended, as it has necessarily been, with more or leas of a desire to shake off all that might indicate dependence on or adherence to the Church whose document it is. It thus in a manner holds together, still, those who have derived from its teaching, as they have received it, the principles on which they differ from us and from one another; and what is a common ground for differing Christians ought to be cherished by all, as valuable on that account, if on that account alone. I can appreciate, therefore, and go along with those who would shrink from doing anything which may tend to lessen either the influence or the use of the authorized version."
Previous page
