sary,the bible, he affirmed, was a sealed volume; that he was delivered over to a judicial blindness; that seeing be might see and not perceive; but that to himself, by the power of the Holy Ghost, the eyes of his understanding were enlightened, the mysteries of God were revealed, and the law and will of God, which had been hidden for ages, were re-opened, and brought as it were to life again. Nor did they always stop here. When pressed by testimonies of scripture, too explicit to be evaded, and too insignificant to need or permit the interference of any auxiliary means of interpretation, fired as they were with a furious zeal, and bound together by an engagement, to conquer or to die, they did not dread to take one step further, to decide all controversy at once, and to lay claim to new original revelations; and thus did the scripture become, in comparison of the word and light within, what they did not scruple to call it, a dead letter, a letter that killeth, a carnal teaching. The founders of the sect of quakers, and other enthusiasts, who sprang up amongst us during the times of Charles I. and of the Commonwealth, walked but too faithfully in these footsteps. And though their notions, in this respect, as in many others, have, by time, been much reformed and sobered, yet we read in a work on the principles of religion among friends, printed within the present year, a caution that "there is not only a possibility, but a danger of placing too much dependence upon the scriptures, by preferring them to that divine principle of light and life afforded to man, of which they testify. And we find the same writer, with too much of the ancient hardihood of his sect, in his argument against the sacrament of baptism, venturing to arraign the infallibility of an inspired apostle, St. Feter.† Other Christians, who profess continually to be distin guished above their brethren, by bringing religious subjects more than others do, to the test and hazard of their own reasonings, have proceeded to like, conclusions with regard to the inspiration and divine authority of the scriptures: but with this difference, in the order and method of their proceedings. Enthusiasm does his work speedily; and strikes of the forgeries of his brain at a heat, In process of time, he is wont to become more sober; to grow ashamed of his follies; and his later years are generally spent in a comparative supineness, or in endeavouring to undo his work, to steal back again, if he can, by contrivance and tergiversation, to the common practice, and the ordinary doctrines; or by ambiguous expressions, and interpretations, to preserve a compromise between his own better knowledge and his partial filial sense of the intoxication and the nakedness of his forefathers. On the other hand, the operations and pretensions of cold-blooded reason are cautious at first, and only Uy slow degrees become more hostile, more presuming, and adventurous. Socinianism began her course rather by flattering words to soothe and gratify the ear of human reason, than by hazarding any direct imputations against the autho rity of scripture. But in later times, having interwoven herself in a close and long-continued alliance with the pride and self-sufficiency of a minor philosophy, she has made much further progress, and has ventured into a more extensive and offensive warfare. In our own day, we have seen a controversy which began with an endeavour to ascertain the opinions of primitive Christian antiquity, for the express purpose of applying them to the explanation of what the scriptures contain in reference to an important doctrine, an investigation instituted, therefore, and proceeding upon a mutual acknowledgment of their divine and unquestionable authority; this controversy thus beginning, we, in our own day, have seen ended by the champion of socinianism, with unreserved declarations on his part, that the apostles were, like other men, liable in their writings to mistake and error, and that therefore, their teaching on the point in debate, whatever it might be, was not necessarily final and decisive. Since the time of Dr. Priestley, we have seen the rationaliz ing spirit erect her head yet higher, and vaunt herself against. the powers and possibilities of heaven. We are told of a certain doctrine, not only that it is not true, but that it is impossible, and that no testimony, not even that of an angel from on high, could make it credible.. But even independently of any consideration of the daring efforts of enthusiasm, or of a sceptical philosophy, the question of the inspiration of the scriptures has many other and important claims upon the attention of the theologian. For example, even in the day that is passing over us, the investigations in connexion with Mr. Marsh's inquiry into the origin of three of our four gospels, cannot, it is certain, be adequately pursued, without frequent respect had to the theory of inspiration. There is another reason which would render a well composed work upon this subject, a peculiarly acceptable offering to. wars the service and promotion of sound theology; and that is, thevarious and discordant opinions which have been main tained, not merely respecting the leading principles and grand outline of this doctrine, but also respecting many subordi-nate particulars, the nature of its modifications, and the kind of evidence which is applicable to the proof of its existence. One writer remarks, that there appears to be no intelligible distinction between original revelation and inspiration. Another tells us, that within the last fifty years their limits have been defined by many German writers on this subject.' And a third, almost a century ago, instructs us, Discrimen quod interrevelationem et inspirationem intercedit, haud perfunctorie est observandem. Michaelis affirms, that no protestant can appeal on this subject to the testimony of the church; while Dr. Benson declares, that the inspiration of any book is a fact, with which we have no other way of coming acquainted but by the testimonies of the ancients. Many who avow that they believe the scriptures to be authentic, do yet deny them to be inspired, while with Dr. Doddridge, the authenticity of the scriptures is the main argument of their inspiration. Some affirm that facts and doctrines cannot be inspired, unless the words in which they come handed down to us be also from inspiration; while many more, who maintain the divine infusion of the former, do yet judge, that the sacred writers were left each to his own proper style and language in the conveyance of them. The size of Mr. Dick's book, which is fully competent to the removal or solution of all these difficulties, the zeal and power with which he writes, and the share of publie favour which, it should seem, his performance has already obtained, (for this which lies before us, is, it will be observed, the 'second edition) gave us hopes, that we should find in it, a ful ler and more satisfactory treatise than the literature of our country can yet boast of upon this subject. Notwithstanding these promising appearances, we are sorry to say, that our expectations have been disappointed There is one fundamental mistake, which runs through the whole volume, which destroys its beauty as a work of taste, and its utility as the charitable and well-intended exertion of duty from a Christian minister. If there be any principle agreed upon more than others, by all the best writers upon the subject of inspiration, it is *Powell's Discourses. r. 62. + Marsh's Michae'is. v. i. p. 375. this, that the theory of it is a matter which concerns none but Christians; that the divine origin of our religion is to be. presupposed in the controversy; that the truth and genuineness of the scriptures are taken for granted and that he who questions the received doctrine of their inspiration, is by no means to be coupled straightway, and associated with infidels and unbelievers. The unbeliever has, no doubt, often given to the world his sentiments upon this subject, as well as upon many others, into which he has pleased to intrude himself, and with which he may justly be said to have no manner of business or concern; and yet, in so doing, he has bis own purposes to serve. He does it in the temper of one who assumes a feigned character, with the charitable intention of puzzling the poor Christians whom he despises, or for the no less charitable purpose of setting them together by the ears. But it is the duty of a sound theologian to place the subject again upon its true foundations; to rescue it out of his hands; to remind him that there is a previous question to be settled, before we can consent to become parties with him in a friendly conference, or a bostile, conflict upon this argument. It is the duty, we say, of an able logician, to decline to agitate the divine inspiration of a book with one who has not previously embraced the belief that its contents are valuable and true. He must be remanded to spatiate at large in the wilds of infidelity, and must return to us again, as a Christian, before we will stoop to exchange a word with him respecting, the, influences of the Holy Spirit upon the heart, or the pen of a prophet, evangelist, or apostle. Let him first be brought to acknowledge that they do not deceive the people, and then we may think it the proper time to inquire with him, whether all scripture be given by inspiration of God. Michaelis observes, It is possible therefore to doubt, and even deny the inspiration of the new testament, and yet be fully persuaded of the truth of the Christian religion: and many really entertain these sentiments either publicly or in private, to whom we should render great injustice, if we ranked them in the class of unbelievers.* Accordingly, the learned Commentator on Michaelis reminds us of the words of Erasmus, Non est necesse, ut quicquid fuit in Apostolis, protinus ad miraculum vocemus; and that Grotius, whose treatise De Veritate Christianæ Religionis, is considered as one of the best defences of the truth of Christianity, has the following passage, 4 spiritu sancto dictari historias nihil * Marsh's Michuelis, v. i. p. 7%. fuit opus, satis fuit scriptorem memoria valere. Dr. Powell also, whose remarks on the subject of the inspiration of the scriptures are very justly rated exceedingly bigh by Dr. Hey, is very explicit and clear upon, this head. But (says be) here let it be first observed, that every question concerning the inspiration of scripture, is a question among Christians only, not between them and unbelievers, Till a man is convinced that our religion.came originally from God, he is not concerned to inquire about the conveyance of it to afterages.'† Or, if Mr. Dick be disposed to pay more deference to the judgment of his own countrymen, a respectable professor of that division of the empire, would have taught his ideas to flow in a juster order. To those' (says Dr. Hill who consider the books of the new testament,' (and therefore, by parity of reason, those of the old also) as authentic, genuine records, in which the disciples, of a divine teacher deliver a system of truth, it is an interesting question, whether they are inspired writings." In defiance of (or shall we say from want of considering) these high authorities, and the reasons upon which they are grounded, M. Dick sels out in his preface, andcontinues the same connectionthrough many other parts of his treatise, with uniting to gether infidelity, and the doubt or disbelief of the inspiration of the scriptures. (See P. 2, 74, 168, 217, 288,u.) and yet in other places, he makes mention of Dr. Priestley, as one against whose notions his work is directed, (P. 27, 75.) Indeed we do not remember, that any other modern writers are cited by name, and assailed by Mr. D. excepting that gentleman and Mr. Hume. It will not be supposed, we believe, that we entertain any partiality for the theological romances of Dr. Priestley. But the dread of such an imputation shall not be suffered to withhold us from protesting against the conduct of Mr. D. in associating Dr. P. with professed unbelievers, without any reserve, or the insertion of any caution to his readers to observe that a very small part indeed of his imputations and arguments is applicable to that writer. It becomes therefore, our duty to remark that the very reasonings which are adopted by Mr. D. in this work on inspiration, have been many of them repeatedly, and with great clearness and ability, urged by Dr. Priestley, in his controversies against the unbeliever. It is a very pernicious violation of the practice and temper of * Marsh's Michaelis. P. 378. |
