tihravy of Che €heolo0ical ^eminarjp PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY PRESENTED BY Princeton University Library :BS4-S0 1853 THE INSriKATK ]'.m y-' 1942^ SCRIPTURES: A KEYIEW OF THE THEORIES OP THE REV. DANIEL WILSON", EEV. DR. PYE SMITH, AND THE REY. DR. DICK, AND OTHER TREATISES. ^/— BY ALEXAISTDEK CARSON, LL. D. NEW YORK: EDWARD H . F L E^T C H E R 1853. CONTENTS. PAOB Review of Wilson, Smith and Dick on Inspiration, . . 5 Banotification of the First Day of the Week, . . 25a Human certificates of the excellency of the Scriptures, . 279 Difficulties in the Works of God designed to manifest the un- Weliefofmen, 289 Standard of Divine Truth, . . • • .207 Faith the Foundation of the greater part of Human Knowledge, 303 The world by wisdom knew not God, . . • 309 The testimony of the Lord makes wise the simple, . .317 The Great Paradox, . . . . • 325 The Scheme of Salvation by Law and by Grace irreconcilable with itselt; . . . . ♦ .333 The Mahometan Fast of Rliamazan, . . . 339 The general Resurrection, ..... .345 A view of the Day of Judgment, as delineated in the Scrip- tures, ...... 361 Incomprehensibility of God, . . ... 415 INSPIRATION THE SCRIPTURES. Of all tlie subjects that have lately come under discussion among Christians, that of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is doubtless the most impor- tant. The honor of Revelation, the comfort and edification of the believer, and the truth of the express statements of the Scriptures themselves, demand our belief that the Bible, as originally given, is dr^ne in^ every word. That they who deny the distinguishing doctrines of Christianity, should be anxious to free them- selves from the incumbranc^e of the inspiration of the records that contain it, or which comes to the same thing, should modify the doctrine so as to destroy it, while they retain the word, is very natural. Accordingly, such writers, while they nominally acknowledge the inspiration of the Sacred Yolume, have contrived to accompany the admission with so many exceptions, to modify the theory into such a variety of forms, and to load the i) INSPIRATION OF subject with so many distinctions, that, with the utmost facility, they can make every obnoxious passage bend to their purpose. But that any real lover of the word of God, to whom it is sweeter than honey from the comb, and more preciou? than fine gold, and all the treasures of the earth, should in any measure give counte- nance to such profane and impious conduct, is most deei:)ly to be deplored. Surely this is a thing most incongTuous and inexcusable. Little, however, as this could have been anticipated, a number of \\Titers have appeared professing the most evan- gelical sentiments, yet with a more than Socinian zeal, labormg to lower the inspiration of the book of God. Whether they are overawed by German neology, and flatter themselves that by giving up a part, they can more successfull}^ retain the remain- der ; or whether they labor under such an obtuse- ness of intellect as to be unable to penetrate the alleged difficulties, and really to be convinced that the Scriptures themselves require such modifica- tions of their inspiratfon, I shall not pretend to determine. Whatever may be the origin of such a sentmient, it is uncalled for, by, any of the phe- nomena of Scriptm-e, without foundation in the word of God itself, and dii-ectly contrary to its most express statements. The theory of Mr. Wilson, as detailed in the Xnith of his Lectm*es on the Evidences of Chris- THE SCRIFfURES. tianity, is in words less shocking than that some time ago proposed by Dr. P. Smith, and the still mo,ve shocking system of the Electric Review. Warned, no donbt, by the reception of the extra- vagance of those writers, Mr. ^V. has proceeded more cautiously^ and indeed has expressed hnnself so guardedly, and with so little developement of system, that it is difficult to determine exactly what he means. From his many full and explicit recognitions of inspiration, and from the want of detail or illustration in the exposition of the theory itself, it is difficult to convict him. We are rather obliged to interpret his meaning as a consequence, than we are enabled to refer to it in express state- ment. We must bring one part to bear upon another, in order to ascertain the extent of his doctrine. His theory is, that the Scriptures are partly human and partly divine : human in manner, divine in matter. The making of the Bible then has been a partnership business, in which God and man have had their distinct provinces. It is both human and divine, without mixture. Inspiration itself he distinguishes, v/ith many other writers on this subject, into four kinds or degrees: the inspi- ration of suggestion — of du-ection — of elevation — of superintendency. My first observation on this theory of distinct divine and human parts in the Scriptures, is, that it is not demanded by the facts or phenomena on INSPIRATION OF wliicli he gi-onnds its necessity. These phenomena are summed up at page 499. "In order to collect the phenomena on the other side," says the author, "let us open the 'New Testament again.*' Yery well, Mr. Wilson, this is without doubt the only way to settle the controA-ersy. Open then the Kew Testament, and if it teaches your theory T shall submit to it with the most profound respect. What then have you found in the New Testament to support your doctrine? "We see," says the author, " on the very face of the whole, that the wi-iters speak naturally, use the style, language, manner of addi-ess famUiar to them." Demonstra- tion, surely demonstration! The writers of the New Testament speak naturally, therefore their wi-itings are partly human ! So then, in order to have had the Scriptures solely divine, the writers must have spoken unnaturally, or at least have avoided their natural manner. Is it then impossible for God to speak through men in their natural manner, without making the communication partly human ? Could He not use their style and maimer of addresss as well as their mouth, or their pen, while both matter and words were His own ? Even in the use of the peculiar style of each writer there is inspira- tion. The writers are not left, as Mr. Wilson supposes, to use their own style ; it is a part of the divine wisdon to use this style, and the writers are as much under the influence of the Spirit in this as THE SCKIPTLKES. 9 ill tlieii* conception of the most important doctrine. The Sphit of God uses the varied style of the writers. The ^^Titers are not left to themselves ui this. The mould, therefore, is as much divine as the matter. When God speaks to man he puts his thouo-hts and words into the form which is natural to those thi-ough whom he speaks. This serves many important purposes, of which not the least important is, that it serves as a touchstone to the dispositions of men with regard to Kevelation. They w^ho hate the truths revealed have, from this peculiarity of mspiration, a plausible pretence to deny inspiration altogether. They find in the Scriptures a variety of stjde, according to the number of the wi'iters, and therefore ascribe all to man. This peculiarity serves also a valuable pur- pose with respect to Christians themselves. By afibrding a pretence for speculations and theories, it manifests the mournful fact, that even they w^ho have been enlightened in the saving truth, have, in many other things, a large proportion of that worldly wisdom that savors not the thmgs that are of God, but the things that are of men. "There are," contmues our author, "peculiar casts of talents, expressions, modes of reasoning in each author." True, very true. Yet this does not imply that there is one word in the whole volume, as originally written, which is not God's. Is it not God who has given to men this peculiarity of 10 IXSPIKATION OF talents and modes of reasoning, and why could he not employ these in communicating his word ? "The language is that of the country and age where they liye." How does this phenomenon bear upon the theory? "They employ all their facuhies ; they search, examine, weigh, reason, as holy and sincere men, in such a cause, might be supposed to do." Well, and in all these, may they not be inspired? -Is it not possible for the Holy Spirit to convey his own thoughts, and his own words, through the searching^ examining^ weighing^ reasoning of a man as easily as if he sj)oke through a statute ? The only thing that surprises me in all this is, that there should be any intellect to which this peculiarity of inspiration should, upon due consideration, present a difficulty on the suppo- sition of the complete yerbal inspiration of the Scriptm-es. " They use all their natural and acquired know- ledge." They use their knowledge both natural and acquired ; but without doubt they do not use all their own knowledge, whether natural or acquired. Th§ Holy Spirit used as much of their knowledge, both natural and acquired, as was to his j)urpose. The natural and acquired knowledge of the writers of the Scriptures, so for as it is communicated in the divine word, is stamped with the same seal that impresses the discoveries of the character of God. I accent them as being as truly divine as the THE SORirXUKES. 11 Grospel itself. '' Their memoiy furnishes them with facts, or the documents and authentic records of the time are consulted by them for information." Yer J true ; but they do not relate every fact that they retained in their memory, or that they knew from documents. I^or were they left to their own discretion as to the facts to be related. The Holy Spirit gave them their selection of facts and the words to record them. They were as truly inspired in relating what they saw or in copying a genealo- gical table, if ever they coj^ied one, as in revealing the way of salvation. " They plead with those to whom they are sent, they address the heart, they exj)Ostulate, they warn, they invite." Is there any thing in all this inconsistent with the complete verbal insj)iration of the Scriptures? Does this imply that the Scrip- tures are partly human ? What is there to prevent the belief that these pleadings^ these addresses to the hearty these ex^ostidation^^ these warnings^ these invitations^ are all inspired fully in matter and words ? Was it impossible for the Holy Spirit to convey his pleadings, his addresses to the heart, his expostulations, his warnings, his invitations, by those of the insj^ired writers ? What inconsistency is there in supposing that the Holy Spirit would convey his own exhortations, in the words of an exhortation from an Apostle, as inspired by him ? The only thing for which I am at a loss, is 12 LN'SPIBATIOX OF to conceive how a difficulty can be felt in this matter. "The mind of man is working every where." Very true; the Holy Spirit speaks through man, not as he did thi'ough Balaam's ass, or as he might do through a statue, but as a rational instrument. But in all this working of the mind of man, there is nothing that is not truly God's. "In the historical books the Evangelists follow their own trains of recollection ; they relate inci- dents as they observe them, or were reported to them." In whatever way they were put in pos- session of the matter related, they relate every thing as given them by the Holy Ghost. " In the devotional and epistolary books, again natural talent, appropriate feelings and judgment, the peculiarities of the individual are manifest." "Who ever doubted this ? Such a peculiarity by no means implies that such compositions are partly human. It is quite consistent with the fact that both matter and words are from God. " Once more," says our author, " St. Luke pre- serves his characteristic manner in the Gospel and the Acts ; St. Paul is always the same ; St. John may be known in his several productions. Lastly, the prophetical parts are more elevated, and yet breathe the spirit and retain the particulai- phi-ase- ology of the writers. These are the phenomena on the other side ; these are the parts of man." THE SCKIPTUKES. 13 Now, that I might do the writer and my readers justice, I have quoted every line, and even every word of the account of the second class of pheno- mena. And what is the whole but one fact, one phenomenon, namely, that each of the inspired writers exhibits his own characteristic style and mode of reasoning, and makes use of knowledge which could have been possessed ^Wthout inspiration ! This fact might, no doubt be illustrated from Luke and Paul and John, and by a thousand references. Still it is but one fact, and a fact by no means even apparently contradictory to the passages asserting fidl inspu-ation. Mr. "Wilson then imj)oses on his careless reader, when he gives to the illustration of one phenomenon the appearance of a collection of phenomena ; and he grossly misinterprets that part which exhibits it as in any way contradictory to the entire inspiration of the Scriptures. My second observation is, that Mr. Wilson's two classes of phenomena, must either be reconciled on my plan, or they are not reconcilable at all. If there is any thing in the Scriptures merely human, if man has one part in such a sense that the same thing cannot be ascribed to God, then such a part is not inspired, and cannot in any sense be called God's word. If the Bible is a book partly human ans'sruiATiuN Of as to reveal the Gospel itself. II* all Scripture is given by inspiration, the reference to Paul's cloak reqnu-es as much inspiration as those passages that declare the way of salvation. The question is not, whether many things in Scripture might have been Imo^vn without inspiration, as there are unques- tionably others that could not at all have been otherwise known ; but the question is whether the^ most trivial thing said to be inspired can be inspired in any other sense than things of utmost moment. As long as it stands recorded, "AU Scripture is given by inspiration of God," so long the honor of revelation is as much concerned in the inspiration of an incidental allusion, as in that of the most fundamental truth. In the following extract the author gives us a specification of difPerent thmgs that require a diflerent extent of inspiration, but which have no reference to the subject at all. " Sometimes," says he, " we read of divine messages by visions, dreams, angelic voices ; at other times the Almighty appears to have revealed truth immediately to the minds of the Apostles." iSTow, had the author proposed to point out the different ways in which revelation was given, this vrould have been to his j3urpose; but it has no relation to the extent of inspii-ation. Whether a thing were revealed by a vision, dream or angelic voice ; or without any intervention the degree of inspiration is the TiiE SCIiirTUREri. 25 Banie. " Soinetiines," lie continues, '' the sacred writers were vaapt in ihe overpowering commu- nications of the Spirit. At other times, and as the matter varied, their memory was fortified to recal the Saviour's life, doctrines, miracles, parables, discourses." Had Paul been permitted to relate wdiat he saw in the third heavens, the extent of the inspiration of his account of tliG matter would not have been greater than when he relates his own history. If his account of the latter be a part of the Scriptures, it is given by the inspiration of God; and therefore is God's both in matter and vrords. AYho told Mr, Wilson that hi the account of the Saviour's life, doctrines, miracles, parables, discourses, the memory of the Apostles was merely fortified? Has he c:ot anv new messai2:e from heaven ? Perhaps it will be said, this was all that vvas necessary; this would be arrogance in an angel, and would deliver liim into chains of dark- ness to be reserved for the judgment of the great day. Yain men vdll be wise ! ^dio can tell what is necessary on such a subject but God only? Who dare make distinctions where God has made none ? God has said, " All Scripture is given by inspira- tion of God," without any hint of difi^erent degrees of inspiration. "Who tlien dare say that one part of Scripture is less inspired than another ? besides, a man's memory might be so fortified that he could remember every fact and circmnstance with the 26 DsSPIKATION OF utmost exactness, lie miglit be able to relate every thing that ever he heard, vath every word in its proper place ; and after all be unfit for writing any of tlie Gospels. Were an illiterate man to be put in possession of every fact in Gibbons' History, would he be fit to T\a'ite the decline and fall of the Koman Empii-e? Such a man will have full as much need of words as of ideas. Much more m the history of Christ must q^n inspired writer have all the matter and all the words. 'None, but the Holy Spirit can judge what is to be expressed and what is to be omitted, and in what phraseology it can be most suitably exhibited. When an inspired 's^Titer gives us an account of his own feelings, we depend not on either his knowledge or expression. Though he speaks concerning what is most inti- mately Imo^TL to him, he speaks the things of God in the vrords of God. "In a different matter," continues Mr. Wilson " an author accompanies St. Paul and records what he saw and heard. Again, an Apostle hears of dissentions in the churches, and is moved by the blessed Spirit to ^Tite to them, to denounce judgments, to prescribe a course of conduct. At other times, he enters upon a series of divine argument, delivers in order the truths of the Gospel, or expounds the figurative economy of Moses." Yery true, very true. But in all these things there is but one kmd of inspiration. All this is called the word of God, and is said to be THE SOJaiPTUKES. 27 given by inspiration ; and therefore in matter and words must be God's. Do the Scriptures any where speak of these things as being differently inspired ? Isot one word of all this is in the least to the purpose. The author does not pretend to determine the extent of inspiration in each of these cases, but he says, '' we infer from the uniform language of the Kew Testament, that in each case such assistance, and only such assistance was afforded, as the emer- gencies of it required." ISTow, as I set as much value upon a legitimate inference from the word of God as I do an express declaration, I have a great curiosity to hear what is this uniform language of the JSTew Testament, from which such a limitation and distinction of inspiration are inferred. In no copy of the ]^ew Testament that ever happened to fall into my hands, is there the slightest hint on the subject. But after declaring that it is neither needful nor possible to determine the extent of inspiration in each case, the author gives us a most edifying j)age, in an attemj^t to draw that line which it is neither needful nor possible to draw. I have heard of a divine who in one head of discourse proposed to speak of the revealed glories of heaven, and in another, the imrevealed glories of heaven. Surely Mr. Wilson's intrepid attempt to do what is neither needful nor possible, manifests equal theological heroism. " The prophetical pai*ts, the doctrines of 28 I^'iPIEATIOX OF pure revelation, the historical tacts bevond the reach of Imman Imowledge, all the great outlines of Christianity, both as to doctrine and practice, were probably of the inspiration of suggestion, both as to .the matter and the words, (for we think in words.) Where the usual means of information, or the efforts of memory yrere enough, a# m most of the Gospels and Acts, the inspiration of direc- tion may be supposed to have sufficed. "Where the exposition of duty, or the rebuke of error, or exhor- tation to growth in grace, was the subject, the inspiration of eleyation and strength may be con- sidered as aiforded. When matters more incidental occm', the mspiration, still lessening with the neces- sity, was probably that of superintendency only, preserving from all improprieties which might diminish the effect of the whole, and providing for inferior, but not unimportant points of instruction. Even the slightest allusions to proverbial sapngs, to the works of nature, to history, were possibly not entu-ely out of the range of the watchful guardian- ship of the Holy Spirit." Here is a lamentable specimen of the f ^lly and arrogance of the wisdom of man in the things of God. This grave evan- gelical divine parcels out the Scriptures according as he fancies that they are more or less the word of God, and pronounces his opinions on subjects which he himself confesses are nntaup'ht in the Scriptures. This is the worst species of novel- THE SORTPTUKES. 29 writing ; for it substitutes tlie baseless probiibilities and visionary suppositions of man for the dictate^} of the Holy Spirit. ^ It pretends to give us infor- mation on a point of which it is admitted we are not informed by the word of God. What sort of instruction then can this be ? What sort of a mind is it that can derive edification from it ? Just that sort of mind that receives for doctrines the co^n- mandments of men. Li the things of God, tlie Christian should Imow nothing but what God has revealed. To sav that this is a foolish and untauii^lit question would not be enough, because it is con- trary to what is expressly taught ; namely, that all Scrij)ture is given by inspiration of God. Mr. Yv^il- son has here given us an apocrypha to the ]^ev/ Testament; and like the apocrypha added to the Old Testament, it contradicts the inspired records. How could we say that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God if it is merely possible that some things in them are not entirely out of the range of tlie watchful guardianship of the Holy Spirit ? Is the Christian then to be sent to his Bible to decide how iiW each of its parts is inspired ? If he is set loose from the authority of the divine declaration that asserts the inspiration of the vrhole equally, will Mr. Wilson's possibly be an anchor to him when his passions or his interests urge him ? If Mr. Wilson, by his own authority, decides that inspiration ^6»55'i'J^7/ extends so far, others, by a like 30 INSPIEATION OF autliority, may decide that possibly it does not go so far. "^Thougli I sliould displease all the evangeli- cal ministers of London and of Europe, I will express my ntter abhorrence of sentiments so dis-. honorable to the word of my Lord, so injurious to the edification of Christians, so destructive to the souls of men. My fifth observation is, that this distinction ot inspiration is an ungodly attempt to explain away the thing and retain the word. In fact, not one of the divisions is inspiration but the fii'st. Direction is not inspiration, elevation is not inspiration, super- intendency is not inspiration. Do not all the evangelical ministers of London claim these three ? Do they not constantly pray for them ? Do they not ask direction from God in their teaching ? i\j'e they not sometimes elevated above the power of nature ? Do they not speak of divine superinten- dency in their places of worship ? Eut were I to assert from this that Mr. Wilson pretends to be inspired, I would represent him as a fanatic ; and my representation would be a calumny, not justified by his pretensions to divine direction^ elevation and sicjyerintendency. If then, the Scriptures are in many things the work of man, merely directed^ ele- 'oated and sujpcrhitended by God, it is a fidsehood to say that they are all inspired. Since, then, the Scrip- tures assert that they are all given by inspiration, he who asserts that much of them is only the work THi: SCEIPTIJEES. 31 of men, dwected^ elevated and snjyerintended by God, gives the lie to tlie Holy Spirit, and calumni- ates the Scriptures. This is a serious charge, and I charge it on Mr. Wilson, and those ^Titers who have used this wicked theory of inspiration. By this Jesuitical artifice, we may both admit and deny any thing. "We have nothing to do but in our explanation to subject the word to an analysis, not directed by its use, but by our o^\tl fancies, or the neoessities of our system, and the vv^ork is accom- plished. My sixth observation is, that if this distinction of inspiration is true, the greatest part of the Bible is not the word of God at all. When a pupil writes a theme by the direction of his teacher, with every help usually afforded, and when it is so corrected by the latter that nothing remains but what is pro- per in his estimation, is it not still the pupil's production ? Could it be said to be the composi- tion or the vrork of the teacher ? I^o more can the Scriptures be called the word of God according to this mischeivous theory. A book might all be true, and good, and important, yet not be the book of God. To be God's book, it must be His m mat- ter and m words, in substance and in form. My seventh observation is, that the author seems to admit the dangerous position that some things delivered by the insj^ired writers may not belong to the revelation : and that speaking on subjects 32 IXSPIEATION OF not of a religions nature, tliey may have erred. This blasj)liemy lias been openlv avowed by some ^vl•iters, and Mr. AYilson certainly avows it, as a last resource, in case of necessity, but does not actually in any instance avail himself of its aid. To show that I am justified in ascribing this sentiment to hun, I will quote his language, on which I found my charge. " How far the inspiration of the Scrip- tures extends to the most casual and remote allusions of an historical and philosophical kind, which affect m no way the doctrines or duties of religion, it is not, perhaps, difiicult to determine." Does not this seem to betray a fear that history and philosoj^hy may detect something false in the Scriptures, for which the author good naturedly provides, by sup- posing that such things do not aifect the doctrines and duties of religion ? God asserts most exj^ressly that '' all Scriptm'e is given by inspiration ;*' but history and philosophy may find some falsehoods in it. Mr. Wilson, in this critical situation, most generously steps forward and excuses them, by alleging that they do not affect the doctrhies or the duties of religion. Would Mr. Wilson take it kindly if any one should attempt a like apology for himself? Would a jury look on it as no invali- dation of evidence that the v^'itness is proved to have uttered many falsehoods oji his oath, thouii'li not bearing on the question at issue ? Would they not utterly discredit his whole testimony, if they THE SCFJrTUKES. found a known falsehood in Lis evidence, even on tlie most nncomiected matters tliat are usnaliy broiiglit forward in cross-examination? K God avows tlie whole Scriptures as His word, a Mse- hood as to any thing will affect the revelation. The Bible must not utter a philosophical lie, nor an his- torical lie, more than a religious lie. If it lies on one subject, who will believe it. on another ? If it lies as to earthly things, who will believe it about heavenly things? But Mr. "^Yiison asserts that ^' the claims of the sacred penmen to an unerring guidance are, without exception, confined to the revelation itself" God's assertion of insph-ation extends to every thing that can be called Scripture. ''All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.'' Even the sayings of wicked men and of devils are recorded by inspiration, as truly as the sayings of Christ himself. There is nothing in Scripture that does not belong to the revelation. What an infidel iuvention is this that suggests a distinction in the book of God, between things that belong to the revelation and things that do not belong to it ! Il even our evangelical divines will except from inspi- ration some things under the denomination of historv and philosophy, not aflecting the religion, what may not be expected irom the darmg pro- faneness of those who hate the gospel and are wiUing to carry the theory to its utmost hmits ? If MrrAVilson is allowed to charge an historical, or 3-i ixsrmATiON of a philosopliical falsehood on the penmen of Scrip- ture, may not Dr. Priestley be allowed to charge inconclusive reasoning on an epistle ? The Bible, then, it seems is not all the word of God : only so much of it deserves that title as affects the doctrines and the duties of religion. This accounts very obvi- ously for the conduct of some evangelical divines with resjDect to the circulation of the Apocrj^ha intermingled with the Scrij)tures. If they have found that all the Scriptures do not themselves belong to the revelation of God, it is not surprising if they add a little more to them, to make them more palatable to the world. But observes Mr. Wilson, "the Bible was not given us to make us poets, or orators, or historians, or natm*al j)hilo3ophers." Yery true, very true, but very silly. We must overlook the bad poetry and bad oratory of the Bible, if we find any of this description in it ; and we have no reason to expect a complete history of human affairs, nor a system of natural philosophy. But, verily, if the Scrip- tures contamed one rule of poetry or oratory, that rule must be a legitimate, one, or the Bible is a forgery. And if it tells one historical untruth it must forfeit its pretensions in every thing, seeing its pretensions extend to every thing in the book. The inspired wi'iters may have been as ignorant of natural philosophy, as the most ignorant of British peasants, without affecting their inspiration. But, THE GCKTPTURTv'i. 35 verilv, if tliey have delivered one pliilosopMcal dogma, it must eitlier be true or the Scriptures as a whole are false. For my part, I am convinced that to look into the Scriptures for a system of philosophy is utterly to degrade them ; but it would degrade them much more, it v\'Ould utterly blast their pretensions, to allege that they have attempted and failed. I must have the inspired writers cleared of the accusation of pledging themselves to a philo- sophical untruth as well as to a religious untruth. If the Scriptures are not designed to command our faith on points of philosophy, they do not teach any thing on the subject. How very dero- gatory then, to the honor of inspiration, is the following conclusion :— " Many things which such persons," (namely, poets, orators, historians and natural philosophers,) "might think inaccurate, may consist wdth a complete religious inspiration." How can this be the case, Mr. Wilson, when it is said, " All Scripture is given by inspiration ?" Tliis pledges God equally for every thing in the Bible. Mr. Wilson's assertion gives the lie to God's decla- ration. God says " All Scypture is given by mspi- ration ;" Mr. Wilson says it is false,— only so much of the Scripture is given by inspiration as belongs to the revelation. This blasphemous doctrine teaches Christians to go through the Scriptures, separating what belongs to revelation from vrhat does not belono' to revelation, to distinguish wliat is true 36 TxspiRATiON or from ^vliat may be false. Could Satan broacli a ■worse doctrine in tlie scliool of Clirist ? Impossible. It wonld not be so miscliievons if, in the boldness of infidelity, lie were to assert tlirongli his agents that the Scriptures arc not at all inspired. This would be too shocking. From this all Chi-istians ■would start back with horror. But when, as an angel of light, he asserts through the pen of an evangelical mmister that some falsehoods in Scrip- ture are not only consistent with the most complete religious insphation, but that this is the strongest ground on which it is possible to vindicate inspira- tion, he is likely to inftise his pcdson into the soul of many simple and unwary disciples of Christ. But in the very phraseology of this exceptionable sentiment there is a management which, to say the least, does not savor of godly sincerity. Such persons onigJit tJdnJc inaccurate. Was the author ashamed in plain language to make the wicked assertion ? His meaning must be that such things are really inaccurate. Tliis is the only point of view in which the assertion is to his purpose. Why then does he falter ? Does he thmk that this soft way of charging God with falsehood will excuse the daringness of the crime ? Was it caution, or was it conscience, that mduced him to utter the horrible blasphemy as the sentiment of others ? And what artifice appears in the association of falsehood in history and philosophy, vritli critical THE SCEirTFKES. 37 faults in poetry and oratory ! Are errors in fact to be ranged with errors in rhetoric ? Is it tlie same tiling in morals to be a liar and a bad poet ? Is the poetry, to wbicli jnst taste has never made an exception, to be brought into question merely for the sake of softening delinquencies as to truth ? The author next gives us a quotation from Bishop Horsely, that shows that this truly great scholar did not know w^pll what to say on this subject. He admits, yet is unwilling to make the supposition. As usual, when a writer is in a cloud, he has parenthesis upon parenthesis, and says more than enough on things nothing to the purpose ; while he still leaves the question as he found it. I shaU give the extract : " It is most certain,^' says Horsely, "that a divine revelation — in other words, a dis- covery of some part of God's own knowledge made by God himself — must be perfectly free from ail ^mixture of human ignorance and error, m the particular subject in which the discovery is made." Well then, my good bishop, must not this apply to the motion or rest of the earth, if it is really taught, as well as to the character of God ? '* Tlie discovery may," he continues, "and unless the powers of the human mind v/ere mfinite, it camiot but be limited and partial, but as far as it extends, it must be accurate." All true, but all away from the mark. • ISlo man ever felt a difficulty on this point. This is not debated by either infidel or 88 itnSpikation of Christian ; by eitlier tlie friends of plenary inspi- ration, or tlic abettors of partial inspiration. " In whatever relates, therefore," he continnes, "to religion, either in theory or j^ractice, the knowledge of the sacred writers was infallible, or their inspi- ration was a mere pretence." And mnst not their inspiration be a mere pretence, if there is any thing delivered by them which is not inspired, since they assert of all Scriptures that it is given by inspiration? Where is the distinction to be fomid between religion and things supposed not to be religious ? "Though I admit," continues the bishop, "the possibility of an inspired teacher's error of opinion i7i subjects which he is not sent to teach." But is ne not sent to teach every thing that he has taught ? K he gives us a bad lesson in philosophy it will condemn him as well as if he had given us bad morality. If he was not sent to teach us philosophyf let him keep his philosophy to himself. There must be none of it in the Scriptures. But he in a parenthesis, gives us an irrefragable reason for this ; " (because inspiration is not omniscience, and some things there must be which it will leave untaught.)" This might be very much to the purpose, if the opponent was so very unreasonable as to insist that the Bible, to be an inspired book, must teach. philosophy, yea, that a divine teacher must be omniscient, and leave nothing imtaught. But of THE SCEIPTURES. 89 what use is it, with resj^ect to the man who cliarges false philosophical dogmas, as taught by the Scrip- tures ? Tliere is a mighty difference between refus- ing to speak and speaking a falsehood. It is, however, ^s^dth great reluctance, that this learned bishop goes so far. For he adds, " yet I confess it appears to me no very probable supposition (and it is, as I conceive, a mere supposition, not yet confirmed by any one clear instance,) that an inspired writer should be permitted, in his religious discourses, to affirm a false proposition on any snbject, or in a/iy history to misrepresent a fact." Here the bishop is almost, though not altogether, such as he should be. This indeed is a very important thing. But if the learned writer had considered the matter in the view of the direct assertion of the insj^iration of all Scripture, there can be no doubt-, that he would have taken higher ground. If it is only a supposition, a supposition not demanded by any one clear instance, why should the wicked supposition be made ? Especially since it is true, as the bishop adds, "Tlieir language, too, notwithstanding the accommodation of it that might be expected for the sake of the vulgar, to the notions of the vulgar, is, I believe, far more accurate, more philosophically accurate in its allu- sions than is generally imagined." Indeed the lan- guage referred to can scarcely be called an accom- modation to the prejudices of the vulgar, but is 40 INSPIRATION OF rather a speaking in the usual way of men, vvdthont excepting philosophers themselves. If the smi and the moon are said to have stood still in the time of Joshna, there is no philosophical sentiment expressed, more than when the philosopher himself now speaks of the rising and the setting of the sun. There is not the smallest difficnltj tlirov%m on the subject from this quarter. It is only foolish divines who wish to have empfoyment for their learning and ingenuity, that contrive difficulties to be resolved by theoretical explanations. Mr. Wilson himself, after quoting the bishop's words, seems to feel a little contrition for his previous language, and makes a strong eftbrt to reconcile his views vritli those of this Imninary of his church. " Perhaps,'' says he, " it is therefore better, and more consistent with all the Scripture language to say, that the inspiration of superintendence reached even to the least circumstances and most casual allusions of the sacred writers, in the proportion which each bare to the revelation itself" Tliere is a happy obscurity in this qualification which, if it prevents us fi-om using it to advantage, also serves to screen it from exposure. But if certain errors in Scrip- ture are reconcilable with the doctrine of complete religious inspiration, how is it better to say the con- trary? Ai-e we on this subject to say and suppose whatever fits our theories ? My way is to endeavor to find what the Scriptm-es say, and to this I make THE SCinriTEES. 41 every liuman dogma to bend. I mil not allov/ plillo- sopliy herself to prate on tlie tilings of God. She is august hi her own territories, but let her die should she dare to invade the territories of revela- tion. On this holy ground her profline foot must not tread. But after our author doubtfully consents that inspiration may extend to the least circumstances, which, in his estimation is more than is necessary, he gives two reasons for his opinion, vrhich are almost as little satisfactory to me as unbelief itself. Why does Mr. Wilson believe that inspiration is thus extensive ? Is it because the Scriptures them- selves say so, which are the only authority on the subject? JSTo, truly, this is not the ground on vrhich he rests the matter. His two reasons are, that philosophy has no objection to this view, and that practical uses may be derived from the slightest details, and most apparently indifferent circum- stances. 'Now there can be no doubt that divine truth must be perfectly consistent with true laiow- ledge of every kind, and must have some use ; but it is equally true, that this is not a proper criterion for judging of the contents of Scripture. A thing- may be consistent with all other knowledge, and may have practical uses, yet not be a part of divine revelation. Had I, then, no other reason for the inspiration of the passages referred to, I v/ould not believe it. That Paul was inspired in directing 42 INSPIRATION OF Timotliy to bring his cloak, I believe, because this is a part of Scripture, and the Scriptures inform me that " all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Mr. Wilson believes Paul to be inspired in this dii-ection, because he fancies it is not destitute of practical use. I believe it to have practical use, because it is the words of inspiration. If it is not inspired because it is a part of Scripture, it is im- possible to know that it is inspired, and it is mere fanaticism to deduce instruction from it. Even then, when Mi*. Wilson holds the truth on this sub- ject, he does not hold it on its proper evidence, and, therefore, does not truly hold it at all. This to some may appear a trifling consideration; but it is a thing, on every part of divine truth, of primary importance. AYe must believe God without a voucher. On hearing a traveller relate some won- derful fact, if we should hesitate to believe him till some other gentleman should interpose the authori- ty of his experience, would the narrator be satisfied with our credence ? "Would he not consider him- self most grossly insulted ? And is it not perfectly the same thing, when we believe the inspiration of the direction about the cloak and parchments, and the prescription to Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach's sake, not because these are parts of Scripture, and that " all Scripture is given by inspi- ration of God," but because some evangelical divine can extract edification for us from these portions of TIIE SCRIPTUEE3. 43 the word of God ? A passage may contain instruc- tion, yet we may be unable to see it. Ai^e we then to hesitate about its inspiration till we can find the looked for edification ? Does not this warrant the denial of the most important truths of the Gospel, when individuals camiot perceive their advantage ? Does not this justify the ^eologian in explaining away all the miracles of Christ ? To rest the foun- dation of the inspii'ation of particular passages of Scripture upon any other foundation than that they are a part of Scrij^ture, is in effect to overturn the inspiration of the whole Bible. I am glad, however, that Mr. Wilson can perceive several important instructions in those passages of Scripture which have been perfectly barren in the estimation of some other evanojelical theologians, strutting in awkward dignity with the staff and gown of the philosopher. Yes, some of these ora- cles of orthodoxy, to whom the religious world are accustomed to look up as almost the mouth of heaven, have not been ashamed to avow the opin- ions that such passages as the above are not the words of God. Such things as these are too unim- portant, too destitute of interest, too little of a religious nature, to be the dictation of inspiration. Hence the theory that makes a distinction in the Scriptures between the things that belong to religion and the things of another nature. Wretched inge- nuity ! if thou must be employed, go to the schools 4i IX.?PTIlATION OF of pliiloso])liY, Tvliere tlioii wilt find kindred mad- men ; leave the word of God in an nnadnlterated state to tlie Cliristian. How daring, liovv^ diaboli- cally daring, to erect a standard to displace some parts of Scriptnre from the word of God ! Who bnt God has a riglit to saj what is worthy of reve- lation? Mr. TTilson, like many other divines, assigns to philosophy a dignity and an anthority on this sub- ject which I cannot recognise. In lier own province she is an instructor most interesting and useful ; but on the subject of revealed religion, her prerogatives are very limited. 'No philosophical doctrine, or discovery in philosophy, can be admitted as testi- mony with respect to the claims of a religion pretending to an establishment on miracles, but that which is either self-evident, or is legitimately deduced from self-evident principles. Such a philo- sophy has a right to speak, and must be heard, on all subjects. But little, indeed, of that which is called philosophy is of this description. Romances, assuming the name of philosophy, have spoken as mnpires on the truth of the doctrines of revelation, and unwary Christians, either not knowing the limits of philosophical interference, or from an undue deference to tlie dignity of science, have tamely acquiesced hi the assumed claims. As a matter of fact, no mfidmen have been so extrava- gant as pretended philosophers. The inmates of THE SCFJrTUKKS. 45 Bedlam are quite sane in comparison with the metaphysical lunatics, who, in the building of inge- nious systems, have trampled upon all the laws of evidence, and all the fundamental principles of the human mind. And if the geological maniacs, who have indicated their paroxysms in the eifusion of systems of ^the formation of the ^ earth, are at all to be paralleled, it is in the ingenious but frantic labors of those divines, who have emplo^^ed them- selves in theories about the manner of the formation of the v%^ord of God. ' Ah ! foolish sago, lie could not trust the word of heaven, The light which from the Bible blazed — that lamp "Which God throw from His palace down to earth, To guide his wandering children homo — yet learned His cautious faith on speculations wild. And visionary theories absurd. Compared with which the most croncous flight That poet ever took when warmed with wine Was moderate conjecturing." POLLOK. The phases of philosophy have been as changea- ble as those of the moon; yet, in every age, the j^ulpit has generally conformed to the reigning systems of science, and has been made the echo of tlie schools. Speculation assumes the place of axioms, and the Apostles of Jesus must bow to the successors of the Stagirite. 46 IKSPIBATION OF Eveu the real discoyeries of science are not founded on evidence that will warrant them to dictate to the sense of revelation, even on the points in which they relate to the same subject. I am convmced, that the glorj of God has been much displayed by the glasses of the astronomers. But if Moses and the telescope were at issue, I would tramj^le on the glasses of the philosophers. I have more evidence that the Scriptures are the word of God than ever can be produced for the truth even of the ]S"ewtonian system. Tliis, I say, not from any opinion of mterference, for I am persuaded there is none. The Scriptures are not pledged for or against this system. But the usual vray of speaking on this subject, discovers too little respect for the word of God, and too much deference to the authority of philosophy. Mr. Wilson does not seem free of this charge. "There is," says he, " nothing in them (the Scriptures) inconsistent with the facts and discoveries of history and philoso- phy." Yery true, and so much the better for his- tory and philosophy. But is there any fact in history so well established as the history of Jesus ? Wq woidd not be justified in condemning the Scrip- tures, though many things were found in history contrary to their accounts. "Who has given to pro- fane history the prerogative of credence, as often as it might differ from sacred history ? It is much better that there is no such difference ; but it is not TIIE SCKIPITIIKS. 47 right to acknowledge, even in theory, that in a con- tested matter, the preference is to be given to the word of man. If the king and his prime minister make a contradictory assertion, I will believe his majesty. Shall I then give less deference to my God ? I shall never consent that the Scriptures shall give the way in passing, to the arrogant systems of human philosophy. There are, no doubt, errors on both sides. If some are willing to hold the Scripture from philo- sophy as their liege lord, others set too small a value on the testimony of that light which belongs to man by his constitution. Whatever is self-evident, ought to be accounted as a revelation from God ; and con- sequently a revelation prior to that of the Scriptures. Any thing, therefore, that contradicts any of the fundamental principles of human nature, must be rejected, whatever its claims may be. A dogma at variance with any sel:&evident truth, cannot be con- tained in the Bible. Tlie light of nature is a divine revelation, and no succeeding revelation can con- tradict it. My eighth observation is, that little as this theory may profess to deduct from the full inspiration of Scripture; though in some instances the author reduces the distinction to a mere shadow ; yet if there is really any thing in Scripture which is human in such a sense, that it is not also divine, the scheme as truly contradicts these passages of 4S ixsrir.ATiox oi-' Scripture wliich assert inspiration, as the most lax system on tliis subject. If man had a part to per- form in such a sense, that in it God had no share, which is the only sense in which the distinction is to the author's purpose, so far the Scri];)tiire3 are not the inspired word of God. They are not whol- ly by insj^iration, which as ti'uly contradicts the assertion that " all Scripture is given by inspira- tion," as the doctrine that inspiration extends to a few general objects only. "Why do we believe that the Scriptures are inspired ? Because they assert this. If then we are justified in making any excep- tion fi-om this, we are ecpially justified in making any number of exceptions. Tliis theory, then, though it makes a distinction which the author' sometimes represents to be so fine that it is difficult or impossible to perceive it, in reality subverts inspiration. My ninth observation is, that this theory is desti- tute of foundation, even according to the author's own explanations. He teaches, that though the writers of Scripture made use of theii' o^vn know- ledge, their own information, (fcc, &c., yet, that in the use of those they were directed or superin- tended by God, so that the thing written may in his view be said to be inspii-ed. 'Now admitting this, for the sake of argTiment, why may not the human manner be equally directed, and superin- tended, and elevated ; so that it may also be said THE bCiiIPTUr.ES. 49 to be diviiie ? Is the manner more Iiimian than, according to the author, much of the matter ? If then the human matter may he called the word of God, because of God's direction or superinten- dency, why may not the human manner be called God's in a like sense? May not the form be inspired m the sense of direction or superinten- dence, as "well as the things which are said to have this kind of inspiration? If so, why is the man- ner said to be exclusively human, more than much of the matter, which according to the author him- self, is equally human ? The author himself then has taken away the foundation from his own theory. My tenth observation is that this theory has not the redeeming circumstance in it, that the most lax system of inspiration possess, namely, an adaptation to answer objections. It does not remove a single difficulty, that is supposed to press on complete verbal inspiration. It cannot be of the smallest service in forming a harmony of the Gospels. K all the matter of the Scriptures is God's, the humanity of the mere mamier caimot reconcile the smallest seeming contradiction. Some theorists may plead that their systems are demanded by the necessities of the case, but this theory sins without this temptation. Its advantages are merely in the fancy of its author. But the author's pretensions on this head we shall afterwards have an oppor- tunity of more fully examining. 50 INSPIRATION OF Mv eleventh observation is, that though there is a distinction between the matter and manner of a book, yet there is no distinction between the author of a book, and the author of the style, or manner of a book. He that is the author of a book must be the author of the style of the book. I^ow God is said to be the author of the Bible, not merely the author of the matter of the Bible. "All Scri^Dture is given by inspiration of God." It is the Scriptm*e then that is given by inspiration, and this word contains the manner as well as the matter; the words as well as the thoughts. A -wTiting includes thoughts, words, style ; and as all the holy writings are exj)ressly declared to be inspu-ed, they must be insj)ired in thoughts, words, style. One man may suggest the thoughts contained in any composition, and another may express them in his own manner ; but we never say that one man is the author of a wi'iting or composition and another the author of the style of the composition, for the word writing or composition includes the style. Were any piece of writing produced in a civil com-t, as the produc- tion of a certain person, how ridiculous would be an attempt to prove that another was the author of the style of it. It might, indeed, be written in the style of another, that is, in the same kind of style which another uses, but the author of the writing must be the author of the style. Just po with the Scriptm-es ; they are written by the inspiration of THE SCllIlTUPvES. 51 God, but that inspiration lias conformed itself to the variety of styles used by the writers of Scrip- ture. To say that the Scriptures are the work of God, but their style the work of man, is the same thing as to contend that the expression God made man^ admits the supposition that the devil formed him. The word Soinptitre as expressly includes style as the word ')nade includes formation. The same thing is evident from other designations of the Scripture. The phrase word of God^ implies that the Scriptures are God's, in both matter and expression. The word Xo/oj^'' denotes not only a word, but a connection of words, expressing a thought, or a whole speech, oration, or treatise. It is very variously used, but whether it is employed to denote a word, a sentence, or a speech, it always includes style. Lideed it is distinguished by Demosthenes from Py;fxa, signifying a single word. Li his oration for the crown, he says of ^schines, dvvsCKsyj^g Po^fj^aicc xa.i Xoxovg, translated by Dr. Leland, his words and -jperiods are jprejpared. If then the whole Scriptures are called the word of God^ they must be His in words as well as in matter, in style as well as in sentiment. The same thing appears from the designation, oracles of God. Among the heathens the word oracle denoted the response given by the god, who Yv^as consulted through his priest. This answer was * See Appendix. 52 iNsi'iiLvnoN OF Bupposed to come from tlie god, botli in matter and form. Tlie priestess of Apollo at Delphi was in a plirenzy whilst she uttered the words inspired by her god. In general, the heathen j^rophets were fitted for being channels of communicating the divine declarations by previous derangement. It was then undoubtedly understood that the inspii'- ing deity was the author of the words and style, as well as of the substance of the communication. The Scriptures then are said to be the oracles of God^ and Stephen says, that Moses received the lively oracles. If so, he received the whole that he wrote. Indeed, Mr. Wilson admits what refutes himself. "The prophetical parts," he says, "the doctrines of pure revelation, the historical facts beyond the reach of human knowledge; aU the great outlines of Christianity, both as to matter, doctrine and practice, were probably of the inspira- tion of suggestion, both as to the matter and the words," 507. If so, the style in all such cases is God's, the manner as well as the matter. For if all the words are given by God, how can the style be abstracted from this ? Indeed, in prophecy not understood by the visiter, the words and the collo- cation of the words, needed insj^iration as much as the matter. The Scriptures then, soul, body and spirit, are the word of God. My last observation is, that Mr. "Wilson's system is crude and indigested, and fertile in contradic- TUE SCEIPTUEES. 53 tions above any otlier theory. It does not liang together, but obliges him to harmonise its discor- dant parts by saying and unsaying, in the most extravagant mamier. The theory essentially con- sists in supposing that in the making of the Scrip- tures, God is the author of one part, and man of another. The matter being divine and the form human ; yet he frequently asserts that the whole is divine, and the whole human. E'ow the ingenuity of Satan could not reconcile this on Mr. Wilson's plan. A thing may be both divine and human in different points of view, but in the same j)oint of view this is impossible. ]^ow to say that the Scriptures are divine and human in different points of view, is nothing to Mr. Wilson's purpose. In this sense the matter may be said to be human as well as the form. Tlie thoughts are as truly Paul's thoughts in his Epistles as the language and style are Paul's. Li a like sense also, the manner, though human, is likewise divine. God speaks through Paul in Paul's manner. But Mr. Wilson's theory makes the matter solely God's, and the manner or form solely man's. If so, every thing is not divine, every thing is not human ; but the Scriptures are partly human and partly divine. Mr. Wilson then palpably contradicts himself when he says that everything is divine, for according to him the manner of Scripture is not divine; and when he says that every thing is human, for 54 INSPIRATION OF according to his distinction, the matter can in no sense be human. Of the writers of Scriptn.re, he says, "They plead with those to whom they are sent, they address the heart, they expostulate, they reason, they invite." 'Now this is a portion of the pheno- mena that belongs to man. But his theory requires that nothino; belono:3 to man but the manner. Is there no matter then in the Scripture pleadings, addresses to the heart, expostulations, warnings, invitations? Are these all shadows without sub- stance ? Does not this admit that there is a sense in which the matter is man's as well as the maimer ? An apostle wi'ites his own thoughts as well as in his own style; that is, God speaks through the thoughts and style of the apostle. The facts of the case, he says, imply, " simply that God was pleased to use man as his instrument," 502. Tliis is perfectly correct but perfectly contra- dictory to the author's theory. According to it God does not make use of the instrumentality of man, but leaves a part of his work to the distinct agency of man, in which man acts as independently of God, as in his o^vn part God acts independently of man. If in the manner or form of revelation, man is only the rational instrument through whom God act, then the theory of Mr. Wilson is destroyed. Accordingly, though the author speaks thus in repelling objections, and endeavors to hide the THE SCRIPTURES. 65 Lideousness of the system tliat would rob God of any pai-t of His own word, yet he speaks another hin