Reason and Revelation
THE AUTHORITY AND INSPIRATION 0F THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
The authority and inspiration of Holy Scripture form one
subject. According to its inspiration, so is its authority. And if the Bible is
not inspired, in the full sense of that term,- in the sense of its being
literally the word of God, the whole question as to the degree of weight to be
attached to its statements becomes a matter of discreation and doubt. Reason,
or intuition, or whatever else the faculty in man may be called, is constituted
the ultimate and only judge. And in all that relates to acquaintance and
intercourse with the Supreme, - in the whole vast problem of the settlement of
our peace with God, and the adjustment of the terms on which we be with him for
ever, we have absolutely no distinct and authoritative expression of the Divine
mind at all. We are left entirely to the guidance of the higher instincts of
our own nature, and of such finer particles of the historical Record, - such
flowers of Biblical fact or argument or appeal, - as these instincts may happen
to grasp. In short, we have no external standard or test of religious truth, -
no valid objective revelation, - no "thus saith the Lord" - but only such a
measure of insight as a good and holy man, by the help of what other good and
holy men have written, may attain into the Divine Ideal, which the aching void
and craving want of the human soul either creates and evokes for itself, or
welcomes when presented from whatever quarter, and by whatever means.
This is especially the state of the question with reference to the turn
which modern speculation, in religious matters, has taken.
For a
revolution, as it would seem, has come over the camp and kingdom of the
freethinkers - whether philosophers or divines.
Formerly, the battle of the
Bible was to be fought chiefly on the ground of historical testimony and
documentary evidence. The possibility at least, - if not the desirableness, -
not to say the necessity, - both of an express revelation from above, and of an
infallible record of that revelation, was acknowledged ; - and upon that
acknowledgment the method of procedure was well defined.. Two steps were
required. In the first place, good cause must be shown for connecting the two
volumes which we now call the Old and New Testaments, and these alone, with the
entire body of proof for the supernatural origin of our religion, which
miracles, prophecy, internal matks of credibility, and other branches of the
evidence of a divine revelation, afford. And in the second place, these volumes
being thus attested and accredited by the whole weight of proof that accredits
and attests the religion itself with which they are identified, - it followed
that they must be allowed to speak for themselves, as to the manner in which
they were composed, and the measure of deference to which they were entitled.
Thus the two questions, of the canon of scripture, and the authority of
Scripture, fell to be dicussed in their order, immediately after the evidences
of Revealed Religion.
The divine origin of Christianity being established
by the usual arguments, together with the genuineness and authenticity, as
historical documents, of the books from which we derive our information
concerning it - the way was open for inquiring, ftrst
On what
principle have these books come to be separated all other contemporary
writings, so as to form one entire and select volume - the Holy Bible - held to
possess a peculiar character, as entitled to be considered exclusively and
par exellence divine? And,
secondly, - In what sense, and to what
extent, is the volume thus formed to be regarded as the word of God, - how far
is it. to be received as dictated by his Spirit, and as declared to us
authoritatively his mind and will? This last, supposing the other to have been
satisfactorily adjusted, sought and found its solution within the volume and
whatever it could be fairly proved that the claimed to be, in respect of its
inspiration, - that, admitted, it must be allowed and believed to be. For at
that stage of the Christian argument, the Bible established a right to speak
for itself, and to say what kind and amount of submission it demanded at the
hands of all Christian men.
Such is the method of proof applicable to
this subject, as it used to be discussed formerly, in the Protestant schools
and books of divinity. And such, I venture to think, is the only fair and
legitimate method of proof still; at least, if the sound and cautious
principles of the Baconian logic, or the inductive philosophy, are to have any
weight in the province of religious belief. By a rigid investigation of its
credentials, we ascertain that Christianity is the true religion, - that it is
of supernatural origin, - that it is a divine revelation, divinely attested. On
an examination of written records and documents, we find, that this religion of
Christianity, thus proved to be divine, is identified with a volume entirely
sui generis; - that the whole force of its own divine authority, and of
the divine attestations on which it leans, is transferred to that volume ; -
that the volume, in short, is the religion which has been proved to be divine,
and is therefore itself divine. Thereafter, we consult the volume itself to
discover what it tells us of its own composition and claims: and whatever it
tells us concerning itself, we how implicitly receive as true.
But a new
aspect of the question meets us, as we come in contact with the speculations of
modern times. Not only the antecedent probability, but the very possibility of
an infallible external standard of faith, is doubted at least in some quarters,
and wholly denied in others. A subtle sort of refined mysticism, - offspring of
the transcendental philosophy meeting with a certain vague fervour of
evangelical spirituality, - has entered the field: and the atmosphere has
become dim with the haze and mist of a vapoury and verbose cloud, in which
nothing clear, nothing distinct or defined, but the vast sublime of chaos seems
again to brood over all things.
Among others who have contributed to
this result, Sleiermacher in Germany might be named, and the poet Coleridge
among ourselves; although it is due to great and good countryman to remark,
that many who are indebted to him, - and these not merely among the more openly
sceptical, but even among the schools and circles of far more evangelical
thinkers, - have improved upon his hints, bettered his example, and so out
Coleridged Coleridge that the philosophic bard might with a]most as much
justice protest against being identified with his followers, as Wilkes the
patriot did when he denied that he had ever been a Wilkite.
At the same
time the impulse given by the profound and transcendent genius of Coleridge,
has been one chief cause or occasion of the style and method that has become
fashionable, of late years, in treating of the inspired authority of the Bible.
His famous opprobrium of Bibliolotry - flung in the face of old-school,
Bible-loving, gospel-taught Christians, - has become a by-word and watchword in
the mouths of men, whom to name in the same breath with Coleridge would be to
offend alike against high intellect and pure spirituality. Even some of better
mark, while themselves railing against echoes with which, instead of voices,
they say the orthodox world resounds, have not scrupled to ring the changes on
this poorest of all echoes, - the unintelligent echo of a not very intelligible
conceit, - .filling the air with the cry of Bible-worship, and making it out
that to receive the Bible as the word of God is as gross idolatry and
superstition as to revere the Pope in the character of the Vicar of Christ.
With this modern form of opposition to the infallibility of Holy
Scripture,, it is not very easy to deal. In the first place, it is in itself
very intangible, unfixed, obscure; being negative rather than positive. And it
is apt, moreover, to take shelter in a sort of studied indistinctness; making a
merit of abstaining from plainness of speech, and creating such a vague alarm
as leads timid men to be thankful for any measure of forbearance, and to shrink
from asking explanations, or wishing to have the inquiry carried further home.
A notable instance of this occurs in a tract of Archdeacon Hare, in
which he speaks of himself and those who think with him, as "finding difficulty
in the formation and exposition of their opinions on this mysterious and
delicate subject," - "hesitating to bring forward what they felt to be immature
and imperfect," and "shrinking from the shock it would be to many pious persons
if they were led to doubt the correctness of their notions concerning the
plenary inspiration of every word of the Bible." So far good. This maybe a
reason why "refusing to adopt the popular view on the subject, the Archdeacon
does not straight-way promulgate another view." But might not this hesitancy of
his incline him to speak a little less offensively of the popular view than he
sometimes does, seeing that he has nothing better to put in its place? Might it
not also suggest the suspicion that possibly he does not really understand that
"popular view" itself so well as he evidently thinks he does, above all, does
it never occur to him this sort of bush-fighting is unfair to his opponents,
that they are entitled to demand from him a practical repudiation of the popish
doctrine of reserve - as well e dintinct, articulate, and manly avowal of what
he, and such as he, really hold the Scriptures of the Old and Testaments to
be?
But I must do what I can to thread my way through the misty
labyrinth. And accordingly, passing from preliminaries, I now propose to
indicate rather than discuss - for I can do little more than indicate - four
successive topics as those which, in my opinion, a thorough inquiry the subject
before us should embrace.
I. The conditions of the question should be
ascertained. What previous points of controversy are to be held as settled? And
what meaning is to be attached to the terms employed ?
II. The method of
proof ought to be adjusted. What are the lines of evidence bearing upon the
investigation? And what is their precise amount and value, whether separately
or in combination ?
III. The sources of difficulty are to be candidly and
cautiously weighed. And
IV. The practical value of the doctrine is to be
estimated, with especial reference to the right fixing of the limits between
divine authority and human liberty, and the vindication of our Protestant
submission to the teaching of the Spirit, in and by the word, from the
imputation of its being analogous to, if not virtually identical with, the
popish prostration of the intellect, and heart, and will, beneath the blind
sway of a spiritual monarch or a traditional Church. These, then, are my heads
of discourse.
I. There are several
preliminary matters in regard to which we ought to have a clear and common
understanding, before we enter directly upon the argument we have in hand.
Three of these in particular must be briefly noticed, however imperfectly.
1. A divine revelation of the mind of God is a different thing from a
divine action on the mind of man. To some, this remark may sound like a
self-evident truism; but the turn of modern metaphysical speculation in certain
quarters renders it necessary to make it. According to what is now a favourite
theory of our mental constitution, we are possessed of a twofold reason: the
one, the lower, or logical faculty, which deals with truth in the region of
experimental knowledge, and deals with it mediately, through the processes and
forms of raciocination and language; the other, the higher, or intuitional
faculty, which has for its object the spiritual, transcendental, the infinite,
and which grasps its by a sort of super-sensual instinct, the intervention of
the ordinary means, or of human thought. To the cognisance of this latter
faculty belongs the idea of God, and of whatever his character, government, and
law. Whatever real insight we have into the being and perfections of God is by
the intuitional faculty, or by intuition. Hence it is inferred that the only
way in which God veries of himself to man, is by quickening faculty, and so
giving to his highest reason sight of things divine. In this way all revelation
is resolved into one grand process of subjective illumination, which God has
been carrying on by a great of methods since the world began In short,
according to the theory to which I am now adverting, revelation is not
oracular, but providential. The Scriptures are not in any proper sense the
oracles of God ; - nor do they convey to us direct utterances, or objective
communications, of the divine mind. They merely contain materials fitted to
exercise a wholesome influence by awakening into more intense and lively action
powers, through the contagion of sympathy - the force of example - and whatever
divine impulse leads us to kindle our torch at the divine fire which we see
burning there so brightly.
For that a divine fire does burn in the Bible is
not to be denied. It burns in the wondrous history of the Church as unfolded in
the Bible, from the first germ of that history in the homes of the pilgrim
patriarchs - through all the stirring vicissitudes in the Jewish annals of
captivity, deliverance, wilderness-wanderings, wars, and victories, gorgeous
pomps, and temple services - down to the full development of faith and
fellowship ushered in at Pentecost. It burns also in the heroic lives and
deaths - the words and deeds - of all the holy men of whom the world was not
worthy - the martyrs, prophets, apostles, raised up in succession to receive
the gift of a divine intuition, and spread the savour of a divine unction all
around. Especially it burns in the character and life of the divine Man who
taught in Galilee and Judea, and died on Calvary.
Thus, throughout the
Bible a divine fire burns. The sympathising student may catch the flame of it;
and in this way, imbibing the spirit of the Scriptural narratives, and of the
Scriptural personages whom these narratives, so manifestly show to have been
spiritually moved, - being moreover spiritually moved himself - he may gain an
insight into things divine, otherwise beyond his reach. Thus in a sense he may
come to "see Him who is invisible."
Now this vague and perhaps sublime
recognition of a certain sort of divinity in the Bible, is manifestly
inconsistent with the idea of its being, in any fair meaning of the term, a
revelation of the mind of God. It becomes, in this view, merely one of the
means by which God acts upon the mind of man The Bible is in no respect
different from "Fox's Book of Martyrs," or "The Scottish Worthies" in which
also the divine life is manifested the actions and sufferings of divinely-
gifted and divinely-aided men. There may be a difference in degree teaching us
thus in the Bible, and His teaching us in the same way in these other works.
But there is no difference in kind.
To call this a revelation is an
abuse of language; but a plausible abuse, and one fitted to impose upon the
unwary. The distinction between a real revelation and this counterfeit adroitly
substituted for it, is as broad asit vital . It.may be made clear by a simple
illustration.
It is one thing for a king to leave his subjects to
gather from his mind what they may see of the conduct of his officers and
captains, whom he admits nearest to his person, and who may be presumed to have
the best opportunities of knowing him, and to be most strongly attached to him
by the ties of loyalty and love ; - to be able, therefore, of exhibiting and
acting out, in their whole life and conversation, the true spirit of their
royal master's kingdom. It is quite another thing for the King to make an
express communication of his mind to his subjects and to use the agency of his
officers and captains in making it. That nothing is to be learned of his mind
in the first of these two ways I am far from saying; nay, I admit that the
teaching of the Bible is, in many parts of that indirect nature, in so far at
least as the use we are to make of its inspired narrative is concerned. Still,
revelation, properly so called, is something different. It is not merely a
depository or receptacle of sundry influences fitted to act upon my mind. It is
God himself making known to me, and to all men, His own mind. It is God
speaking to man.
2. Inspiration, as connected with revelation, has
respect, not to the receiving of divinely communicated truth, but to the
communication of it to others. This again might seem so self-evident as
scarcely to need its being stated. But in certain quarters there is great
confusion of ideas upon this very point.
It is admited by all deep
thinkers - it is a great doctrine of Scripture, that spiritual things can only
be spiritually discerned. Let these spiritual things be set forth ever so
clearly, in the plainest forms of speech, so that an intelligent man can have
no difficulty in ascertaining what is meant, and in laying down correct
propositions upon the subjects to which they relate, still the things
themselves cannot be fully grasped by the mere logical faculty or
understanding; the higher reason or intuition, which alone is conversant with
the infinite and the absolute, must be called into exercise; and even it cannot
take in the things of the Spirit of God, to the effect of their becoming
practically and powerfully influential, without an operation of that same
Spirit upon the mind itself - purging, quickening, elevating the mental eye, so
as to make it capable of the divine, the beatific vision.
All this is
true; or, in other words, it is true that no communication of the mind of God
to me from without, even if it were made to me directly and immediately, in
express terms, by God himself, could give me a real spiritual, satisfying, and
saving knowledge of God, if he did not also, by his Holy Spirit, touch and move
me within my inner man, giving me a spiritual tact and spiritual taste to
discern spiritual things.
Now, such an action of the Spirit of God in
and upon my spirit, with a view to my spiritually apprehending spiritual truth,
may be called in a certain sense inspiration. And if there be due warning given
of the unusual sense in which the word is to be employed, no great harm perhaps
may be done.
But such an application of the term ceases to be harmless and
becomes a snare or a juggle, when it is the occasion of confounding the
Spirit's action upon me, for my own enlightenment and edification, with the use
which the Spirit may make of me, for conveying his mind to others. The
inspiration of a disciple is one thing; the inspiration of an apostle is
another.
A little child in the kingdom of God is inspired: he is
breathed upon, - he is breathed into, - by the Holy Spirit; He has imparted to
him a capacity for knowing God and apprehending things divine, higher far than
man's proudest intellect can boast. He has a God-given eye to see, and a
God-given heart to feel, the very eye and heart of the eternal Father, as he
looks down from heaven in love, to embrace all that believe in his Son. Tender
as he may be in age, and but ill-instructed in the schools of human learning,
that little child has in him the Spirit who searcheth all things, even the
"deep things of God" and in respect of all that pertains to his saving
aquaintance of the Most High, he may be greater than the greatest of the
prophets.
Nevertheless, it is an inspiration proper to the prophet, as
a revealer of the will of God, which the little child, as a learner of it, does
not need, and does not possess. This last sort of inspiration may be less
intuitional and spiritual, so far as the immediate recipient of it is
concerned, than the other; aud therefore to him personally, far less valuable.
It would have been better for Balaam personally, if he had been taught as a
little child by the Spirit to know the will of God, for his own salvation,
rather than used as a prophet by the Spirit, almost as involuntarily as his own
dumb beast, for making known the will of God to others. The question here,
however, is not as to the comparative advantages of these two operations of the
Spirit, but as to the essential distinction between them. Our sole concern at
present is not with what the Spirit does when he works faith in the heart, but
with what he does when he employs human instrumentality for communicating those
truths which are the objects of faith.
3. One other remark, under this
head, must be allowed. The fact of inspiration is a different thing altogether
from the manner of it. The fact of inspiration may be proved by divine
testimony, and accepted as an ascertained article of belief, while the manner
of it may be neither revealed from heaven nor within the range of discovery or
conjecture upon earth.
But it may be asked, What are we to understand
the fact of inspiration which is to be proved? And especially, What are we to
understand by the inspiration of the Bible?
To this I answer generally,
that I hold it to be an infallible divine guidance exercised over those who are
to declare the mind of God, so as to secure that in declaring it they do not
err. What they say or write under this guidance, is as truly said and written
through them, as if their instrumentality werenot used at all. God is, in the
fullest sense, responsible for every word of it.
Now, I do not much
care about the definition of the term being more precise than this. It is of
very little consequence whether you call this verbal dictation or not. It is
equivalent to verbal dictation, as regards the reliance placed on the
discourse, or the document, that is the result of it. Only to speak of it under
that name is to raise a question as to the manner of inspiration, a subject
into which I refuse to be dragged. For the same reason, I refuse to discuss a
topic which used to be too much a favourite among religious writers, the
different kinds and degrees of inspiration for different sorts of composition.
The mode of divine action upon the mind of the speaker, or writer, is at issue.
It is enough to maintain such an action as makes the word spoken, and the word
written, throughout, the very word of God.
Oh, but this is a mechanical
theory of inspiration, cry some! We, for our part, prefer the dynamical. The
prophets and apostles were dynamically inspired, not mechanically.
Formidable words! which it would puzzle many who use them most
familiarly to translate into plain English, and plainly distinguish one from
one another.
But if what they mean is this; that God by his Spirit cannot
so superintend and guide a man speaking or writing on his behalf, as to secure
that every word of what the man speaks or writes shall be precisely what God
would have it to be; and that not merely the whole treatise, but, every
sentence and syllable of it, shall be as much to be ascribed to God as its
author as if he had himself written it with his own hand; if they mean that God
cannot do this, without turning the man into a mere machine - if this be what
they mean - then I have to tell them that the onus probandi, the burden
of proof, lies with them. They must give some reason for the limitation which
they would impose upon the divine omnipotence. They must show cause why God may
not employ all or any of his creatures infallibly to do his will and declare
his pleasure, according to their several natures, and in entire consistency
with the natural exercise of all their faculties.
God may speak and
write articulately in human language without the intervention of any created
being, as he did on Sinai. He may cause articulate human speech to issue from
the lips of a brazen trumpet, or a dumb ass. He may constrain a reluctant
prophet to utter the words he puts in his mouth, almost against his will, as in
the case of Balaam: or so order the spontaneous utterance of a persecuting high
priest; as to make it an unconscious prediction, as in the case of Caiaphas.
But is he restricted to these ways of employing intelligent agents infallibly
to declare his mind and will?
Let us see how this matter really stands.
Let us eliminate and adjust the conditions of the problem.
It is an
important part of the divine purpose that, for most part, men should be
employed in declaring his will to their fellow-men; men rather than, for
example, angels. Several good reasons may be assigned for this. Two, in
particular, may be named here.
For the purposes of evidence, this is an
important arrangement. A divine revelation needs not only to be communicated,
but to be authenticated; and the authentication of it must largely depend upon
human testimony. Take for example, the four gospels. These are not the records
of our Lord's ministry, but the proofs of it. It is upon the historical
authority of these documents that we believe Christ to have been a historical
personage, and to have said, and done, and suffered the things ascibed to him.
But the historical authority of the gospels rests very much, not only on the
external evidence in their behalf afforded by the writers of the first and
second centuries, but also on the internal evidence arising out of a comparison
of them among themselves. And here great stress is justly laid upon their
essential agreement, amid minute and incidental differences. There are
variations enough in the accounts which they severally give of Christ, to
preclude the idea of a concerted plan, or of premeditated collusion; while
there is so entire a harmony throughout as to make it manifest that they are
all speaking of a real person, and that person the same in all. In short, we
have fourindependent witnesses to the facts of our Lord's history; proved to be
independent, by the very differences that are found in their depositions;
differences not sufficient to invalidate the testimony of any of them, but only
fitted to enhance the value of the whole, by making it clear that they did not
conspire together to deceive.
Such is the actual result of a fair
collation and comparison of the four gospels as they stand.
Now to
secure that result, it is manifest that the Spirit, in inspiring each
evangelist, must act according to that evangelist's own turn of thought and
gift of memory, and must direct him to the use of expressions such as shall at
once convey the mind of the Spirit in a way for which he can make himself
thoroughly responsible, and shall also at the same time record the bona
fide deposition of the evangelist, as a witness to the transactions which
he narrates.
Nor is there any incompatibility between these two things.
Take an illustration. Let it be supposed that any one - say such an one as
Socrates - has spent three years in teaching, and that he wishes an authentic
and self-authenticating record of his ministry to go down to posterity. Four of
his favourite pupils; or two, perhaps, of these, and two other students writing
upon the immediate and personal information of men who had been pupils, prepare
four separate and independent narratives, all availing themselves more or less
of the reminiscences current in the school. The four narratives are submitted
to the revision of Socrates. He is to correct and verify them, so as to make
each of them a record for which he can become himself out and out responsible.
And yet he is not to prune and pare them into an artificial sameness. Would he
have any difficulty in the task? Could he not each narrative, with such close
attention tothe minutest turn of phraseology as to imply that he sets his seal
lto every word of it, and owns it to be what he is prepared to stand to as an
exact record of his sayings and doings? And would he ever dream of reducing all
four to one flat level of literal uniformity? Would he obliterate all the nice
and delicate traces of truth and character that are to be observed in different
varieties of honestly and correctly testifying, each according to his own
genius, to the same fact, or to the substance of thesame discourse? What, then,
in the case supposed, would be the result? Socrates would have four
memorabilia, of his memorable deeds, for each of which, in his revisal
of them all, he would be as thoroughly responsible, down to the very sentences
and syllables, as had himself written it with his own proper hand; whle each,
again, would preserve the freshness and us of its own separate authorship; and
the whole would carry the full force of four independent testimonies to the
credit of the life which Socrates actually led, and the doctrines which
Socrates taught.
The case is really the same, so far as the
consideration is concerned, whether it be verbal revisal afterwards or verbal
inspiration beforehand. The Spirit is as much at liberty to dictate and direct
the writing of t accounts of Christ's ministry, according to minds and memories
of the compilers whom he employs as Socrates would be to sanction four
different reports of his teaching, taken down by four of his followers of very
various capacities and tastes, and submitted for his imprimatur to
himself. An exact agreement in accounts given by different persons of things
done or said, is not essential to the integrity of the narrators; it would
often be a proof of preconcerted fraud. Neither is it essential to the
integrity of one revising their several accounts ; - even if he do so under the
condition of becoming himself accountable, as much as if he were directly the
author, for every one of them, and for everything that is in every one of them.
It cannot, therefore, be fairly regarded as inconsistent with the integrity of
the Holy Spirit, that, in inspiring the four evangelical narratives, he should
give to each the impression of its own characteristic authorship; so as to make
them severally tell as distinct attestations, upon the faith of independent
witnesses, to the things that were said and done by the Lord Jesus in Galilee
and in Judea.
But again, for the purposes of life, and interest, and
spirit, as well as for the purposes of evidence, the arrangement in question is
important. The Bible would have been comparatively tame and dull, if it had
come to us as the utterance of an angelic voice, or as all at once engraven on
a table of stone. Its power over us largely depends upon its being the voice of
humanity, as well as the voice of Deity; and upon its being the voice,
moreover, of our common humanity, expressing itself in accommodation to all the
varieties of age, language, situation, and modes of thought, by which our
common humanity is modified. A stiff thing, indeed, would the Revelation of God
have been if it had been proclaimed once, or twice, or ever so often, by an
oracular response, from a Sybil's cave, or by a heavenly trumpet pealing
articulate words in the startled ear. God has wisely and graciously ordered it
otherwise. He inspires men to speak to men - he inspires men to write for men.
inspires men of all sorts; living in various times and various countries;
occupying various positions; accustomed to various styles. He inspires them,
moreover, as they are - as he finds them. He does not put them all into one
Procrustes-bed of forced uniformity. He uses them freely, according to their
several peculiarities. They are all his instruments; but they are his
instruments according to their several natures, and the circumstances in which
they are severally placed. Every word they write is His, but he makes it his,
by guiding them to the use of it as their own.
Doubtless there is some
difficulty in our thus conceiving of this divine work. But it is not a
difficulty that need affect either our understanding of the Spirit's meaning or
recognition of his one agency throughout, amid all the diversities of
composition which he may see fit to employ.
Thus, as to the first of
these points, with reference to our understanding the Spirit's meaning when he
thus variously inspires the various writers of the Bible, we must apply the
same sagacity that we would bring to bear upon the miscellaneous writings of a
human author. A mass of papers written or dictated by a friend, or a father,
comes into my hands. They are of a very miscellaneous character,with a great
variety of dates, ranging of time, and almost every clime and country of the
globe. They consist of all manner of compositions, in prose and poetry, -
historical pieces, - letters on all sorts of subjects, and to all sorts of
people, - antiquarian researches, - tales of fiction, - with verses in
abundance, lyric, dramatic, didactic, and devotional. I receive the precious
legacy, and I apply my reason to estimate and arrange so welcome an
"embarrass des richesses" And here there are two distinct questions; the
first, What can I legitimately gather out of the materials before me
as to the real mind of the author on any given subject? and the
second, What weight is due to his opinion or authority? Assuming
this last question to be settled - and it is the fair assumption - what remains
as to the first? There may be very considerable difficulty in dealing with it,
and much room for the exercise, said, let it be added emphatically, for the
trial of my candour, patience, and good faith. There is not a little confusion,
let us say, in the mass of materials to be disposed of; it needs to be
examined, assorted, and classified. There may be room for inquiry, in
particular instances, as to how far, and in what manner, the author means to
express his own views in his narratives and stories, or in his poetical
productions, or even in his abrupt, off-hand, and occasionally rhetorical
reasoning. There may be need of a certain large-minded and large-hearted
shrewdness, far removed from that of the mere word-catcher that lives on
syllables, and able to enter into the genuine earnestness with which the writer
throws himself always into the scenes and the circumstances before him, - nay,
even when he employs an amanuensis, into the habits of thought, and the very
manner of expression, of his scribe. The voluminous and varied papers of more
than one great man might furnish an example of what I mean.
Now, in a sense
quite analogous to this, the Bible may be said to consist of the papers of God
himself. They are very miscellaneous papers: every sort of character is
personated, as it were, in the preparation of them every different style of
writing is employed; every age is represented, and every calling. There are
treatises of all sorts, which must be interpreted according according to the
rules of composition. And yet an intelligent reader can discriminate between
the several discoveries which God makes of himself - in the inspired history of
the Pentateuch, in the inspired drama of Job, and in the inspired reports of
Christ's own teaching, in the inspired reasoning of Paul s epistles, - just as
is he can gather a human author's real sentiments on any point from a
comparison of his different plays, and poems, and tales, and histories, and
sermons, which he may have composed.
His mind is not indicated in the
same way in each and all of these various kinds of writing. It is discovered in
some, and more inferentially in others. Still, they are His writings; he is
responsible for every one of them; and, taken freely and fairly together, they
authentically, and with sufficient clearness declare his views.
Nor, again,
on the other hand, need we have any serious difficulty in recognising the one
divine agency that pervades the various compositions which the Bible
comprehends within itself.
Let it be assumed that God means to compose
a book, such as shall at once bear the stamp of his own infallible authority,
and have enough of human interest to carry our sympathies along with it. He may
accomplish this by a miracle in a moment; the book may drop suddenly complete
from heaven; and sufficient proofs and signs may attest the fact. Even in that
case, unless the miracle is to be perpetual, the book once launched has the
usual hazards of time and chance to run in the world; in the process of endless
copying and printing, it is liable to the usual literary accidents; and in the
course of centuries, sundry points of criticism emerge regarding it. But
instead of thus issuing the volume at once and entire from above, its divine
Author chooses to compile it more gradually on the earth, and he chooses also
to avail himself of the command which he has of the mind and tongue and pen of
every man that lives. - He selects, accordingly, chosen men from age to age.
These not turn into machines; they continue to be men. The; speak and write
according to their individual tastes an temperaments, in all the various
departments of literary composition: the prince, the peasant, the publican, the
learned scribe, the unlettered child of toil, one skilled in all the wisdom of
Egypt, another bred among the herdsmen of Tekoa, - men, too, of all variety of
natural endowments, the rapt poet, the ripe scholar, the keen reasoner, the
rude annalist and bare chronicler of event- the dry and tedious compiler, if
you will, - all are enlisted in the service, and the Divine Spirit undertakes
so to penetrate their minds and hearts, and so to guide them in every utterance
and recording of their sentiments, as to what they say and write, when under
his inspiration, the word of God in a sense not less exact than if, his own
finger, he had graven it on the sides of the everlasting hills.
Many
questions, doubtless, will arise to exercise the skill and tact of readers, and
put their intelligence and faith to the test; for it is to intelligence and
good faith this volume of miscellanies is committed. In the case of any author
writing freely and naturally, it often becomes a nice point of criticism to
determine how and in what way he is to be held as giving any of his own; as,
for example, when he narrates the speeches and actions of others, or when in an
abrupt play of argumentative wit he mixes up the adversary's pleas with his
own, or when he uses parables and figures, he adapts himself to the state of
information and measure of aptitude to learn among those for whom he writes, or
when he writes in different characters and for different ends. On the principle
of plenary inspiration, it is, of course, assumed that the same sagacity and
good sense will be applied to those various works of which God is thus the
author, that we do not grudge in the case of a voluminous and versatile human
authorship; and it is confessed that the whole inquiry regarding the books to
be included in the collected edition of these works, the purity and accuracy of
the text, and the rules of sound literal interpretation, falls within the
province of the uninspired understanding of mankind, and must be disposed of
according to the light which the testimony of the Church, the literary history
of the canon, and other sources of information may afford.
But what
then? Does this detract from the value of our having an infallible
communication from the divine mind, - somewhat fragmentary, if you will, and
manifold, having been made "at sundry times and in divers manners," - but still
conveying to us, on divine authority, and with a divine guarantee for its
perfect accuracy, the knowledge of the character and ways of God, the history
of redemption, the plan of salvation, the message of grace, and the hope of
glory? Or does it hinder the assurance which, under the teaching of the Holy
Ghost, a plain man may have, as the Scriptures enter into his mind, carrying
their own light and evidence along with them, that he has God speaking to him
as unequivocally as one friend speaks to another, - but with an authority all
his own?
I have dwelt so long upon my first topic - which is the
preliminary work of clearing the way - that I must hasten rapidly over the
remainder of the ground. In particular I must dismiss, almost without remark,
the second and third branches of the subject, - the method of proof, and the
sources of difficulty. This I do the more willingly, because they are found
sufficiently discussed in many excellent and easily accessible treatise, and
because the principles upon which they are discussed in these treatises are
really not substantially affected by those transcendental speculations, which
threaten to involve the whole question of a divine test or standard of truth in
hopeless and inextricable confusion.
II. In regard to the method of proof - I may briefly
indicate the line of evidence that seems most simple and satisfactory, only
premising again that we must assume, at this stage, an acquiescence in the
truth of Christianity, as in the genuineness of its books as historical and
literary documents.
1. First, then, I start with the undoubted fact, that
Jesus and his apostles recognised the Old Testament as of divine authority, and
divinely inspired. This is clear from the use which they made of them in their
discourses and writings.
It must be remembered that, in our Lord's day,
the books of the Jews existed, not as miscellaneous works of different authors,
having different claims upon mens' attention and belief, but as one volume, of
which throughout God was held to be the author. The contents of the volume were
well defined. It had its well-known division in three parts. But it was always
freely quoted and referred to as one complete whole; and the words contained in
it anywhere, in any of its parts, were always cited as divine. I do not here
inquire into the formation of the Jewish canon. That is a matter of history
involved in much obscurity. When, how, and by whom, the writings of Moses and
the Prophets were collected, revised and published as one book - by what
authority and under what guidance - we may be unable to ascertain. But that
does not affect the notorious fact that the book did exist, as one book, in our
Lord's day; and that it was so well known as having the character of a peculiar
-a sacred book, that any allusion made to it by him and his apostles could
admit of no misapprehension.
Now, whenever either he, or they, do
allude to that book, or any portion of it, it is in language implying in the
strongest manner its divine authority and inspiration Such phrases as, "It is
written " - " Well spake the Holy Ghost by the mouth of" such a one - " The
Scripture saith ". - " David in the Spirit calleth him Lord " - these and
similar forms of expression will readily occur; together with such exhortations
and testimonies, as "Search the Scriptures " - " Then began he to open up to
them the Scriptures, and to show that Christ must needs have suffered, and have
risen from the dead " - " These were more noble than the men of Thessalonica,
in that they searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so." The
uniform manner of speaking of the Old Testament which we trace in the sayings
and writings of Christ and his apostles in the New - is such as to be wholly
incompatible with any other idea than that of it's full and verbal inspiration:
and cannot but convey to a simple reader the impression that they regarded
every word of that Testament as divine.
2. There are manifest traces,
in the teaching of Christ and his apostles, of the design to have a volume, and
of the actual forming of a volume, under the New Dispensation, corresponding in
respect of authority and inspiration to that existing under the Old, and
equally entitled to the name of the Scriptures, or the word of God. Not to
speak of the presumption that this really would be the case - since surely God
could be expected to provide less security for the gospel infallibly
transmitted among the families of men, than for the law being so transmitted -
and not to dwell the plain intimations which Christ gave of his design to have
his own words perpetuated upon earth, and to endow his apostles with the gift
of the Holy Spirit, for utterance, as well as for the understanding, of all
truth - -it is impossible to read the epistles generally, without perceiving
that we have in them the gradual compiling of books that are to lay just claim
to a place in the New Testament volume. And in particular, it is impossible to
evade the force of the Apostle Peter's testimony, classing the writings of his
brother Apostle Paul. among the well-known Scriptures - as to whose divine
character there could be no doubt.
Here, again, we may be at a loss to
explain, historically, the settlement of the Christian canon. This much,
however, seems plain enough. The early Christians had every reason to believe
and be sure that inspired narratives of gospel history, and treatises on gospel
truth, would be forthcoming. And when called to discriminate between these and
other publications, they were in the best possible circumstances for knowing
and judging what were divine and what were not. That they were, in point of
fact, guided to a wonderfully correct discrimination, must be evident to every
one who considers the cautious pains which they took, and the scrupulous
jealousy which they exercised, in admitting books into the canon ; - especially
when in connection with that, he compares the books actually admitted, with
those of the like kind discarded or rejected. The contrast is so striking
between the most doubtful of the canonical books and the very best of the
apocryphal, or the patristic, in point of doctrine, sentiment, taste, sense,
and judgment - that scarcely any one can hesitate to admit that the early
Christians came to a sound conclusion when they recognised the present set of
works as composing the New Testament Scriptures - which they had already
been led beforehand to expect, and which they had been taught to place upon the
same level, in point of inspiration and authority, with the Old Testament
Scriptures themselves, as the Jews had been wont to accept them.
3. And
now, at this stage, we are fully warranted in applying to the books, both of
the Old and New Testaments, viewed as a whole, whatever testimonies we find
anywhere in the Bible to the plenary character of the inspiration of Scripture.
Among others, including the familiar formulae of quotation already noticed -
two in particular stand out; the first, that of the Apostle Paul (2 Tim. iii.
16) - " All scripture is given by inspiration of God ;" and the second, that of
the Apostle Peter (2 Pet. i. 20, 21) - " No prophecy of the scripture is
private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of
man: but holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
In the
first of these passages, inspiration is plainly ascribed to Scripture or to the
written word ; - not to conception of divine things in the mind, but to the
writing down of divine things with the pen. In so far inspiration can be
predicated of any scripture or writing at all, it must, according to this
testimony, be inspiration reaching to the very words or language, as written
down.
The other passage, again, giving the reason why no prophecy, or
no revelation, of Scripture is of any private interpretation, uses phraseology
singularly explicit and strong: "Holy men of God spake as they were moved the
Holy Ghost." And the argument implied is a striking confirmation of this view.
It is briefly this. No human author should have his meaning judged of by
single, isolated observation or expression, in some portion of his works. You
are not at liberty to fasten upon a single sentence, as if it must needs be
exclusively its own interpreter, and as if out of it alone you were to gather
the author's mind on any point at issue. He is entitled to the benefit of being
allowed to explain himself; and you are bound to ascertain his views, not by
forcing one solitary passage to interpret itself, but by comparing it with
other passages, and from a fair survey of the scope and tenor of his whole
writings, collecting what he really means to teach. The Author of the Bible,
argues the apostle, has a right to the same mode of treatment. If, indeed, each
holy man of God had spoken simply by his own "will," then the Bible would have
many authors, and each author must speak for himself; his teaching, apart from
that of others, must be self interpreting. But if holy men of God spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost, then the Bible has really but one author - the
Holy Ghost. And in dealing with it, you are to deal with it as one whole, - the
product of one mind - the collection of the miscellaneous works of one divine
Author.
4. Finally, to a mind rightly exercised upon them, and above
all, to a heart influenced by the same Holy Spirit who breathes in them, the
Scriptures evidence themselves to be of divine authority and divine
inspiration. This is a great and glorious theme, upon which, however, it is
impossible, in the present lecture, to expatiate or enlarge. One remark only I
would make, in reference to a somewhat unfair objection that has been raised
against this branch of the proof of inspiration. It is admitted that some books
and passages of the Bible do commend themselves to the honest mind and pious
head as divine. But what impress of divinity does any one feel or own in the
genealogies of Matthew and Luke, or in the dry catalogue of names in the tenth
chapter of Nehemiah? The question is almost too absurd to deserve a reply; and
yet very spiritual and transcendental philosophers have condescended to put it.
If it is anything more, in any instance, than a mere trick of argument, a poor
and paltry hit, - if any one is seriously embarrassed by it, - a plain natural
analogy may furnish a satisfactory reply.
My child feels the letter which I
write to him to be from me. He lovingly recognises my spirit breathing in and
prompting all the words of simple fatherly fondness that I address to him. "It
is my father's letter, all through," he cries; - " I trace my father's warm and
loving heart in every syllable of it." My own actual hand-writing may not be on
the page: sickness, or some casualty, may have made an amanuensis necessary.
But my boy knows my letter nevertheless - knows it as all my own - knows it by
the instinct, the intuition of affection, and needs no other proof. And what
would he say to any cold, cynical, hypercritical schoolmates, who might ask, -
But what of your father do you discern in that barren itinery with which the
letter begins - the dry list of places he tells you he has gone through; or in
that matter-of-course message about a cloak and some books with which it ends?
How would he resent the foolish impertinence! How would he grasp the precious
document all the more tightly, and clasp it all the closer to his bosom! "You
may be too knowing to sympathise with me" he will reply ; - " but there is
enough in every line here to make me know my father's voice; and if he has been
at the pains to write down for my satisfaction the names of towns and cities
and men - if he does give me simple notices about common things, I see nothing
in that. I love him all the better for his kindness and condecension; and
whatever you may insinuate, I will believe that this is all throughout his very
letter, and that he has a gracious meaning in all that he writes to me in it,
however frivolous it may seem to you."
III. The sources of difficulty, in connection
with this subject, are many; nor is it wonderful that it should be so, and that
the lapse of time, and the loss of nearly all contemporary information, should
render the solution of some perplexing questions impossible. There is much that
is incomprehensible in the doctrine, or fact, of inspiration itself, and not a
few things in the inspired Scriptures confessedly hard to be understood.
Objectors are fond of multiplying and magnifying these difficulties, - drawing
them out in long and formidable array, and giving them all the pomp and
circumstance of successive numerical enumeration. In point of fact there are
two classes to which they may all be reduced.
1. There are critical
difficulties connected with the canon, the original text, the translations, and
the interpretation of the Scriptures. Several elements of uncertainty are thus
introduced which, it is alleged, go far to neutralise the benefit of an
infallible, plenary inspiration.
Now it is admitted, of course, first
that the question of the canon, - what books are to be received as of divine
authority, or what books do the Scriptures contain, - is mainly a question of
human learning - secondly that the original text of the sacred books has
suffered from successive copyings, that it must be adjusted by a comparison of
manuscripts, and that the best adjustment can furnish only an approximation to
absolute accuracy - thirdly, that all translations, ancient and modern,
are imperfect - and, fourthly, that the ordinary rules of criticism must
be applied to the interpretation of the Bible, and that in applying them there
may be doubt, hesitancy, and error. It is confessed that these circumstances do
imply that a certain measure of uncertainty to the Scriptures as we now have
them; though less than in the case of any other ancient book, as facts prove,
and as there are obvious reasons to explain. at what of that? Because we, at
this distance of time and place, can have but a transcript, somewhat marred and
obscured by the wear and tear of ages, of the inspired volume as it originally,
in its several parts, came directly from God, - does it therefore follow that
there was no inspiration of the original books at all? Or that we would have
been as well off if there had been none?
The strangest perversion of
mind appears among our opponents upon this point. One learned Theban, for
instance, a profound Anglican divine, objects to our view of inspiration, on
the ground that it precludes the application of criticism to the settlement of
the text, or the interpretation of the meaning of the Bible. I would have
imagined it to have an exactly opposite tendency. If the Scriptures have God as
their author, it surely concerns us all the more on that account, to have them
subjected to the most searching critical scrutiny. What pains do critics take
with the remains of a favourite classic! With what zeal will a Bentley apply
himself to the works of Horace; first, to see to it that no spurious production
is allowed to pass under that honoured name; secondly, to make the text, by a
comparison of manuscripts, and the exercise of a sound, critical acumen, as
nearly as possible, immaculately accurate; thirdly, to guard against mistakes
in translation; and, fourthly, to lay down the rules, and catch the spirit,
that may enable him most thoroughly to enter into and draw out his loved
author's meaning! In all these particulars the pains spent upon the works of
Horace may with tenfold more reason be spent upon the word of God.
And
the more thoroughly and completely the Scriptures are held to be the very word
of God, so much the more need will there be for the vocation of the sound
biblical critic. Our worthy scholar and theologian, therefore, may calm his
alarmed soul, and rest assured that the theory of a plenary inspiration will
give him no cause to cry "Othello's occupation s gone !"
2. The other
class of difficulties are of a historical, physical, and moral, rather than of
a critical, kind; consisting of alleged inconsistencies and contradictions,
whether between different passages of the Bible themselves, or between the
Bible and the facts of history, or the laws of nature. These would require to
be dealt with in detail; and this cannot be attempted at the end of so long a
lecture. But one general observation may be suggested. No intelligent defender
of plenary inspiration need be ashamed to own that, in many instances, he
cannot reconcile apparent disagreements. For, after all, the Scriptures are
fragmentary writings: and we would require to have far fuller information on
all the matters which they treat, to enable us to say which of several
explanations may be the right one, or, whether there may not be an explanation
in reserve, such as our knowledge fails to suggest to us.
IV. But I must now close with a brief
reference to my fourth and last topic. I would vindicate, in a few words, this
sacred doctrine of the authority and inspiration of Bible, against the charge
of Bibliolatry, rashly vented, in evil hour, by a man too great for the use of
such a name; and eagerly bandied about by a whole tribe of followers, to the
exposure of their own conceit, as as to the scandal of pious minds.
"Bibliolatry !" "Mechanical Inspiration !" "As of a drawer receiving
what is put in it !" "Cabalistic Ventriloquism !" So the pleasant sarcasm
takes! And ingenuity of sucessive lovers of freedom is taxed, as on improving
on one another! One of the most recent improvements, perhaps, is due to
Professor Sherer, formerly of Geneva - to whom belongs the credit of that happy
hit, "Cabalistic Ventriloquism !"
What profanity, one is inclined to
exclaim! And yet, need we wonder? It is not meant for profanity by the writers.
Nay, they think they are doing God service. my do well to get a convenient
by-word, or term of reproach that may make short work with Christ' - as certain
men of old contrived by such a by-word, - blasphemy and treason, - to make
short work with Christ's person.
But we wrong them. They are the
champions of liberty. They are to emancipate the soul from the Protestant yoke
of subjection to the Bible, as well as from the popish yoke of submission to
the church. Authority, - especially authority claiming to be infallible, - must
be set aside; and man must be absolutely free! The Papist has his church. The
Protestant has his Bible. Both are almost equally bad. For me, I have as the
object of my faith, the person of Jesus Christ! And ask me not to define who,
or what, Jesus Christ is. Far less ask me to define what his work was upon the
earth. All the ills of Christianity come from definition. Let me have the
person of Jesus Christ, as my intuitional consciousness, quickened by a divine
inspiration of it, apprehends him; let me lose myself in him: let me plunge
into the infinite divine love of which he is the impersonation.
But I
cannot pretend to make intelligible the rhapsodies of this new anti-biblical
mysticism. Nor need I dwell on the approaches to it that are but too
discernible in the whole school that would substitute what is called "the
Christian consciousness" for the direct authority of Scripture. Let it suffice
to contrast man's position before God, upon the true Protestant footing of his
owning the Scriptures as authoritative and inspired, with either of the other
two positions which he may be regarded as occupying ; - when, on the one hand,
he rejects, more or less, their inspired authority, or when he substitutes for
them, on the other hand, the authority of church or Pope.
1. Some would
have it that Christianity is purely a subjective influence on the minds of men
- that the gospel operates by assimilating the soul to itself - that Christ it
not a revealer, but a revelation - and that as the central revelation of God,
he becomes the occasion, or the means, through the working of the Spirit, of
our intuitively apprehending God, and being renewed into his likeness.
According to this view, God brings to bear upon you a series and succession of
influences, partly external and partly internal, fitted to emancipate you from
corruption, and elevate you to a participation in the divine nature. It is a
subjective process, - a working in and upon you, at so that, like the plastic
clay, you take the impress and character into which you are moulded; and the
Scriptures, in exhibition of God in Christ, have an important part in the
process.
But in all this, there is nothing like God addressing himself
directly to you, and dealing with , as it were, face to face. There is no real,
objective transaction or negotiation of peace between you and him. This,
however, is the very peculiarity of the gospel, as conceive of it; that God not
merely influences man, but speaks to man. He treats man, not as a creature
merely, but as a subject; not merely as a creature needing to be renovated, but
as a subject to be called to account.
The two systems are directly
conflicting here. And which,think you, best consults in the long-run for the
true dignity and liberty of man?
Tell me that I am brought within the
range of influences and impulses, inward revelations and spiritual operations
of various kinds, to be grasped by my intuisional consciousness, and to be
available, through the exercise of my soul upon them, and their hold over
me,for my regeneration. In one view, my pride may be gratified. These divine
communications are all subject to me: I am their master: I receive them only in
so far as they commend themselves to my acceptance: and I use and wield them
for my own good. But after all, in the whole of this process, am I not passive,
rather than active? It is God acting upon me; according to my intelligent and
self-conscious nature, no doubt; but still very much as if he were acting upon
some sort of substance that is to be sublimated into an ethereal essence, and
is to lose itself ultimately in the surrounding air.
But tell me that
God has something objectively to say to me, - that he summons me as a
responsible, and in a sense, an independent being before him, - that he treats
with me upon terms that recognise my standing at his bar, - that he calls me to
account, - that he reckons with me for my sin, - that he directs me to a
surety, - that he makes proposals of mercy, - that he puts it into my heart to
comply with these proposals, - that I, personally, and face to face, come to an
understanding with him personally, and that he, judicially acquitting me,
receives me as a loyal subject, a son, an heir, and works in me to will and to
do, while I work out my own salvation with fear and trembling. Tell me all
this, and tell me further, that the charter of this real and actual negotiation
of peace is in his word, as the Scriptures infallibly record it And then judge
ye, if I am not really made to occupy a far loftier, nobler, freer position in
the presence of my God, than the highest possible refinement of subjective
illumination and transformation could ever of itself reach?
It is true
in this instance, as it is true universally, that "whosoever humbleth himself
shall be exalted."Refusing to submit yourself to the divine word, you may
affect a superiority over the slaves of mere authority: and you may work
yourself into a state of ideal absorption into Christ, little different in
reality from the pantheistic dream of a rapturous absorption into the great
mundane intelligence. But yield an implicit deference to the word. Let it
absolutely and unreservedly rule you, as a real communication of his mind, by
God, to you. Then you have realities to deal with. You have real sin, and a
real sentence of death ; - a real atonement, a real justification, a real
adoption ; - a real portion in the favour of God now, a real work of
progressive sanctification, and real inheritance in heaven at last.
2.
Nor let us be greatly moved, even if it shall be alleged against us that our
reverence for the Bible is to on the same level with the Romanist's blind
obediance to the Church, and the Church's head upon earth. In point of fact, no
tendency towards the recognition of an infallible human authority can be more
direct and strong than that which the denial of an infallible objective
standard of divine truth implies. Set asidethe Scriptures as not furnishing
such a standard. You are thrown back on either the individual intuition of each
Christian consciousness of each believer, or on the general community of
believers. But neither of these refuges will long satisfy or soothe the earnest
soul. Soon there will come to be felt a sad want of some surer prop. And
whether as relieving the individual from his undefined responsibility, or as
giving shape and power to the indefinite notion of a general Christian
consciousness, - an ecclesiastical voice will be allowed to speak as the
interpreter of the dumb mind of Christendom; and the weary spirit will sink to
rest, and find its home, in the maternal embrace of Rome.
But apart from
this consideration, an emphatic protest must be uttered against the attempt to
represent Scriptures in Protestantism, as occupying a parallel position to that
of the Church in Mediaevalism ; - or to that of Pope in Romanism.
The
real truth is, that the Pope, - and the same may said of the Church, - does not
take the place of the Bible He usurps the throne of Him whom the Bible elevate
as the only High Priest and King in Zion ; - Christ Jesus the Lord. He assumes
the office of Him who interprets authoritatively the Scriptures which he
inspired ; - the Holy Ghost, the Great Teacher of Church. And the glory of
Protestantism is not that it puts the Bible instead of the Pope, but that it
puts Christ instead of the Pope, as the great object of the Bible's testimony,
and the Spirit instead of the Pope as the Bible's only interpreter. The Bible -
the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants; the Bible, not sealed the papal
key, and doled out by the papal ministers ; - but the Bible left freely in the
hands of its Divine Author the Holy Ghost, to be by Him freely opened up to
every devout and serious child of man, that he may know who is the only true
God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent ; - whom to know is life eternal.
Go to Chapter Two?
Home |
Biography | Literature | Letters |
Links | Photo-Wallet