Lecture 4. Structure of the Bible in matter of fact

{152} 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 {153} 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. {154}


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 {155} 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.

Again, take the following account, in the beginning of the fifth chapter of Genesis, and say whether, if this passage only had come down to us, and not the chapters before it, we should not, with our present notions, have utterly disallowed any traditional account of Eve's {156} creation, the temptation, the fall, and the history of Cain and Abel:—"This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God created He him; male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth." If the contrast between God's likeness and Adam's image be insisted on as intentional, then I would have it observed, how indirect and concealed that allusion is.

Again: I believe I am right in saying that we are nowhere told in Scripture, certainly not in the Old Testament, that the Serpent that tempted Eve was the Devil. The nearest approach to an intimation of it is the last book of the Bible, where the devil is called "that old serpent." Can we be surprised that other truths are but obscurely conveyed in Scripture, when this hardly escapes (as I may say) omission?

Again: we have two accounts of Abraham's denying his wife; also, one instance of Isaac being betrayed into the same weakness. Now supposing we had only one or two of these in Scripture, and the others by tradition, would we not have utterly rejected these others as perversions and untrustworthy? On the one hand, we should have said it was inconceivable that two such passages should occur in Abraham's life; or, on the other, that it was most unlikely that both Abraham and Isaac should have gone to Gerar, in the time of a king of the same name, Abimelech. Yet because St. James says, "Confess your faults one to another," if we read that in the early Church there was an usage of secret confession made to the priest, we are apt to consider this latter practice, which our Communion Service recognizes, as a {157} mere perversion or corruption of the Scripture command, and that the words of St. James are a positive argument against it.

In Deuteronomy we read that Moses fasted for forty days in the Mount, twice; in Exodus only one fast is mentioned. Now supposing Deuteronomy were not Scripture, but merely part of the Prayer Book, should we not say the latter was in this instance evidently mistaken? This is what men do as regards Episcopacy. Deacons are spoken of by St. Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and Bishops; but no third order in direct and express terms. The Church considers that there are two kinds of Bishops, or, as the word signifies, overseers; those who have the oversight of single parishes, or priests, and those who have the oversight of many together, or what are now specially called Bishops. People say, "Here is a contradiction to Scripture, which speaks of two orders, not of three." Yes, just as real a contradiction, as the chapter in Deuteronomy is a contradiction of the chapter in Exodus. But this again is to take far lower ground than we need; for we all contend that the doctrine of Episcopacy, even granting it goes beyond the teaching of some passages of Scripture, yet is in exact accordance with others.

Again: in the history of Balaam we read, "God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up and go with them, but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou speak." [Numb. xxii. 20.] Presently we read, "And God's anger was kindled, because he went; and the Angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him." Now supposing the former circumstance (the permission given him to go) was not in Scripture, but was only the received belief of the Church, {158} would it not be at once rejected by most men as inconsistent with Scripture? And supposing a Churchman were to entreat objectors to consider the strong evidence in Catholic tradition for its truth, would not the answer be, "Do not tell us of evidence; we cannot give you a hearing; your statement is in plain contradiction to the inspired text, which says that God's anger was kindled. How then can He have told Balaam to go with the men? The matter stands to reason; we leave it to the private judgment of any unbiassed person. Sophistry indeed may try to reconcile the tradition with Scripture; but after all you are unscriptural, and we uphold the pure word of truth without glosses and refinements." Now, is not this just what is done in matters of doctrine? Thus, because our Lord represents the Father saying, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, "Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet," [Luke xv. 22.] it is argued that this is inconsistent with the Church's usage (even supposing for argument's sake it has no Scripture sanction) of doing penance for sin.

Again: the book of Deuteronomy, being a recapitulation of the foregoing Books, in an address to the Israelites, is in the position of the Apostolic Epistles. Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, being a very orderly and systematic account of events, are somewhat in the position of Catholic tradition. Now Deuteronomy differs in some minute points from the former books. For example: in Exodus, the fourth commandment contains a reference to the creation of the world on the seventh day, as the reason of the institution of the Sabbath: in Deuteronomy, the same commandment refers it to the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt on that day. Supposing we had {159} only the latter statement in Scripture, and supposing the former to be only the received doctrine of the Church, would not this former, that is, the statement contained in Exodus, that the Sabbatical rest was in memory of God's resting after the Creation, have seemed at once fanciful and unfounded? Would it not have been said, "Why do you have recourse to the mysticism of types? here is a plain intelligible reason for keeping the Sabbath holy, viz., the deliverance from Egypt. Be content with this:—besides, your view is grossly carnal and anthropomorphic. How can Almighty God be said to rest? And it is unscriptural; for Christ says, 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.'" Now is it not a similar procedure to argue, that since the Holy Eucharist is a "communication of the body and blood of Christ," therefore it is not also a mysterious representation of His meritorious Sacrifice in the sight of Almighty God?


Let us proceed to the history of the Monarchy, as contained in the Books of Samuel and Kings, and compare them with the Chronicles. Out of many instances in point, I will select a few. For instance:—

In 2 Kings xv. we read of the reign of Azariah, or Uzziah, king of Judah. It is said, "he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father Amaziah had done;" and then that "the Lord smote the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death;" and we are referred for "the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did," to "the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah." We turn to the Chronicles, and find an account of the cause of the visitation which came upon him. "When he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction; for he transgressed {160} against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him four-score priests of the Lord that were valiant men. And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary, for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead, before the priests in the house of the Lord, from beside the incense altar. And Azariah, the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and behold he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out because the Lord had smitten him. And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper." [2 Chron. xxvi. 16-21.]

Now nothing can be more natural than this joint narrative. The one is brief, but refers to the other for the details; and the other gives them. Suppose, then, a captious mind were to dwell upon the remarkable silence of the former narrative,—magnify it as an objection,—and on the other hand should allude to the tendency of the second narrative to uphold the priesthood, and should attribute it to such a design. Should we think such an argument valid, or merely ingenious, clever, amusing, yet not trustworthy? I suppose the latter; yet this instance is very near a parallel to the case as it stands, between the New Testament and the doctrine of the Church. For instance, after St. Paul {161} has declared some plain truths to the Corinthians, he says, "Be ye followers of me: for this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways, which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every Church." [1 Cor. iv. 17.] He refers them to an authority beyond and beside his epistle,—to Timothy, nay to his doctrine as he had taught in every Church. If then we can ascertain, for that I here assume, what was that doctrine taught everywhere in the Church, we have ascertained that to which St. Paul refers us; and if that doctrine, so ascertained, adds many things in detail to what he has written, develops one thing, and gives a different impression of others, it is no more than such a reference might lead us to expect,—it is the very thing he prepares us for. It as little, therefore, contradicts what is written, as the books of Chronicles contradict the books of Kings; and if it appears to favour the priesthood more than St. Paul does, this is no more than can be objected to the Chronicles compared with the Kings.

Again, after, not teaching, but reminding them about the Lord's Supper, he adds, "the rest will I set in order when I come." When then we find the Church has always considered that Holy Sacrament to be not only a feast or supper, but in its fulness to contain a sacrifice, and to require a certain liturgical form, how does this contradict the inspired text, which plainly signifies that something else is to come besides what it has said itself? So far from its being strange that the Church brings out and fills up St. Paul's outline, it would be very strange if it did not. Yet it is not unusual to ascribe these additional details to priestcraft, and without proof to call them corruptions and innovations, in the very spirit {162} in which freethinkers have before now attributed the books of Chronicles to the Jewish priests, and accused them of bigotry and intolerance.

It is remarkable how frequent are the allusions in the Epistles to other Apostolic teaching beyond themselves, that is, besides the written authority. For instance; in the same chapter, "I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions, as I delivered them to you." Again, "I have also received," or had by tradition, "of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you," that is, which I gave by tradition unto you. This giving and receiving was not in writing. Again, "If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God:" he appeals to the received custom of the Church. Again, "I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand, … for I delivered unto you (gave by tradition) first of all that which I also received" (by tradition). Again, "Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." [1 Cor. xi. 2, 16, 23; xv. 1-3; 1 Thess. ii. 15.] Such passages prove, as all will grant, that at the time there were means of gaining knowledge distinct from Scripture, and sources of information in addition to it. When, then, we actually do find in the existing Church system of those times, as historically recorded, such additional information, that information may be Apostolic or it may be not; but however this is, the mere circumstance that it is in addition, is no proof against its being Apostolic; that it is extra-scriptural is no proof that it is unscriptural, for St. Paul himself tells us in Scripture, that there are truths not in Scripture, and we may as fairly object to the books of Chronicles, that they are an addition {163} to the books of Kings. In saying this, I am not entering into the question which lies between us and the Romanists, whether these further truths are substantive additions or simply developments, whether in faith or in conduct and discipline.

Further: the Chronicles pass over David's great sin, and Solomon's fall; and they insert Manasseh's repentance. The account of Manasseh's reign is given at length in the second book of Kings; it is too long of course to cite, but the following are some of its particulars. Manasseh [2 Kings xxi.] "used enchantments and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards;" he "seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel." "Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another." Afterwards, when Josiah had made his reforms, the sacred writer adds [2 Kings xxiii. 26.], "Notwithstanding the Lord turned from the fierceness of His great wrath, wherewith His anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal." And again in Jehoiakim's time [2 Kings xxiv. 3, 4.], "Surely, at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of His sight for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did; and also for the innocent blood, that he shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the Lord would not pardon." And again in the book of Jeremiah [Jer. xv. 4.], "I will cause them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem." Who would conjecture, with such passages of Scripture before him, that Manasseh repented before his death, and was forgiven? but to complete the illusion (as {164} it may be called), the account of his reign in the book of Kings ends thus [2 Kings xxi.]: "Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah?"—not a word about his repentance. Might it not then be plausibly argued that the books of Kings precisely limited and defined what the Chronicles were to relate, "the sin that he sinned;" that this was to be the theme of the history, its outline and ground plan, and that the absolute silence of the books of Kings about his repentance was a cogent, positive argument that he did not repent? How little do they prepare one for the following most touching record of him: "When he was in affliction, he besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed unto Him. And He was entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord He was God ... And he took away the strange gods, and the idol out of the house of the Lord, and the altars that he had built in the mount of the house of the Lord, and in Jerusalem, and cast them out of the city," etc. ... "Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words of the seers that spake to him in the name of the Lord God of Israel, behold they are written in the book of the kings of Israel ... So Manasseh slept with his fathers." [2 Chron. xxxiii. 12-20.] If then the books of Kings were the only canonical account, and the book of Chronicles part of the Apocrypha, would not the latter be pronounced an unscriptural record, a legend and a tradition of men, not because the evidence for their truth was insufficient, but on the allegation that they contradicted the {165} books of Kings?—at least, is not this what is done as regards the Church system of doctrine, as if it must be at variance with the New Testament, because it views the Gospel from a somewhat distinct point of view, and in a distinct light?

Again; the account given of Jehoash in the Kings is as follows [2 Kings xii.]: "Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days, wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him." And it ends thus: "His servants arose and made a conspiracy, and slew Joash in the house of Millo:" there is no hint of any great defection or miserable ingratitude on his part, though, as it turns out on referring to Chronicles, the words "all his days, wherein," etc., are significant. In the Chronicles we learn that after good Jehoiada's death, whose wife had saved him from Athaliah, and who preserved for him his throne, he went and served groves and idols, and killed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, when he was raised up by the Spirit of God to protest. Judgments followed,—the Syrians, and then "great diseases," and then assassination. Now, if the apparently simple words, "all the days wherein," etc., are emphatic, why may not our Saviour's words, "If thou bring thy gifts to the altar," be emphatic, or "If thou wouldst be perfect," suggest a doctrine which it does not exhibit?


Now let us proceed to the Gospels; a few instances must suffice.

Considering how great a miracle the raising of Lazarus is in itself, and how connected with our Lord's death, how is it that the three first Gospels do not mention it? They speak of the chief priests taking counsel to put Him {166} to death, but they give no reason; rather they seem to assign other reasons,—for instance, the parables He spoke against them [Matt. xxi. 45.]. At length St. John mentions the miracle and its consequences. Things important then may be true, though particular inspired documents do not mention them. As the raising of Lazarus is true, though not contained at all in the first three Gospels, so the gift of consecrating the Eucharist may have been committed by Christ to the priesthood, though this is only indirectly stated in any of the four. Will you say I am arguing against our own Church, which says that Scripture "contains all things necessary to be believed to salvation"? Doubtless, Scripture contains all things necessary to be believed; but there may be things contained in it, which are not on the surface, and things which belong to the ritual and not to belief. Points of faith may lie under the surface, points of observance need not be in Scripture at all. The rule for consecrating is a point of ritual; yet it is indirectly taught in Scripture, though not brought out, when Christ said, "Do this," for He spoke to the Apostles who were priests, not to His disciples generally.

Again: I just now mentioned the apparent repetition in Genesis of the account of Abraham's denying his wife; a remark which applies to the parallel miracles which occur in the histories of Elijah and Elisha, as the raising of the dead child and the multiplication of the oil. Were only the first of these parallel instances in Scripture, and the second in tradition, we should call the second a corruption or distorted account; and not without some plausibility, till other and contrary reasons were brought. And in like manner, as regards the Gospels, did the account of the feeding of the 4,000 {167} with seven loaves rest on the testimony of Antiquity, most of us would have said, "You see how little you can trust the Fathers; it was not 4,000 with seven loaves, but 5,000 with five." Again, should we not have pronounced that the discourses in Luke vi., xi., and xii., if they came to us through the Fathers, were the same, only in a corrupt form, as the Sermon on the Mount in Matt. v.-vii. and as chapter xxiii.? Nay, we should have seized on Luke xi. 41, "But rather give alms of such things as ye have, and behold all things are clean unto you," as a symptom of incipient Popery, a mystery already working. Yes, our Saviour's own sacred words (I fear too truly) would have been seized on by some of us as the signs of the dawn of Antichrist. This is a most miserable thought.

Again: St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke say, that Simon of Cyrene bore Christ's cross; St. John, that Christ Himself bore it. Both might be true, and both of course were true. He bore it part of the way, and Simon part. Yet I conceive, did we find it was the tradition of the Church that Simon bore it, we should decide, without going into the evidence, that this was a gloss upon the pure scriptural statement. So, in like manner, even supposing that, when St. Paul says, "Ye do shew forth the Lord's death till He come," he meant, which I do not grant, by "shew forth," preach, remind each other of, or commemorate among yourselves, and nothing more, (which I repeat I do not grant,) even then it may be that the Holy Eucharist is also a remembrance in God's sight, a pleading before Him the merits of Christ's death, and, so far, a propitiatory offering, even though this view of it were only contained in the immemorial usage of the Church, and were no point of necessary faith contained in Scripture. {168}

Again: Judas is represented as hanging himself in St. Matthew, yet in the Acts as falling headlong, and his bowels gushing out. I do not mean to say, of course, that these accounts are irreconcilable even by us; but they certainly differ from each other: do not they differ as much as the explicit Scripture statement that Confirmation imparts miraculous gifts, differs from the Church view, not clearly brought out in Scripture, that it is also an ordinary rite conferring ordinary gifts?

We know how difficult it is to reconcile the distinct accounts of the occurrences which took place at the Resurrection with each other, and our Lord's appearances to His disciples. For instance:—according to Matt. xxviii., it might seem that Christ did not appear to His disciples, till He met them on the mountain in Galilee; but in St. Luke and St. John His first appearance was on the evening of the day of Resurrection. Again: in the Gospel according to St. Mark and St. Luke, the Ascension seems to follow immediately on the Resurrection; but in the Acts our Lord is declared to have shown Himself to His disciples for forty days. These forty days are a blank in two Gospels. And in like manner, even though Scripture be considered to be altogether silent as to the intermediate state, and to pass from the mention of death to that of the Judgment, there is nothing in this circumstance to disprove the Church's doctrine, (if there be other grounds for it,) that there is an intermediate state, and that it has an important place in the scheme of salvation, that in it the souls of the faithful are purified and grow in grace, that they pray for us, and that our prayers benefit them.

Moreover, there is on the face of the New Testament plain evidence, that often the sacred writers are but referring to the circumstances it relates, as known, and {169} not narrating them. Thus St. Luke, after describing our Lord's consecration of the bread at supper time, adds immediately, "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying," etc. [Luke xxii. 20.]; he does not narrate it in its place; he does but allude to it as a thing well known, in the way of a note or memorandum. Again: St. Mark, in giving an account of St. John Baptist's martyrdom, says, "When his disciples heard of it, they came and took up his corpse and laid it in the tomb." [Mark vi. 29. [Note]] He is evidently speaking of an occurrence, and of a tomb, which were well known to those for whom he wrote. If historical facts be thus merely alluded to, not taught, why may not doctrines also? Here again it will be replied, that Scripture was written to teach doctrine, not history; but such an answer will not hold good for many reasons. First, is it true that the Gospels were not written to teach us the facts of Christ's life? Next, is it true that the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper is a mere abstract historical narrative, and not recorded to direct our practice? Further, where is the proof that Scripture was intended to teach doctrine? This is one of the main points in dispute. But enough in answer to a gratuitous proposition; and enough indeed in exemplification of the characteristic of Scripture, which I proposed to consider.

Top | Contents | Works | Home


[In the revised Version of 1881, it is translated "in a tomb;" but [mnemeion] is more than a tomb, it implies a place of remembrance.]
Return to text

Top | Contents | Works | Home

Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.