m
I If 561]

W'W >~0W J

830cc

/?

7T

^,

f.''^iLu 3L*,*-

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

THE INSPIRATION

SCKIPTUKES: A REVIEW
OF THE THEORIES

O P THE

REV. DANIEL WILSON", KEY. DR. PYE SMITH,

AND THE

KEY. DR. DICK,
AND OTHER TREATISES.

BY ALEXANDER CARSON, LL. D.

NEW YORK:
EDWARD H. FLETCHER
1853.

v'4Y

i^O CC

CONTENTS.

PAGE
Review of 'Wilson, Smith and Diek on Inspiration, . . 5
Sanctmration ofthe First Day of the Week, . . 253
Human certificates of the excellency of the Scriptures, . 279
Difficulties in the Works of God designed to manifest the un
belief of men, ..... 289
Standard of Divine Truth, . . . . 291
Faith the Foundation ofthe 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 itself. . . . . . .333
The Mahometan Fast of Rhamazan, . . . 339
The general Resurrection, ..... 345
A view of the Day of Judgment, as delineated in the Scrip
tures, ...... 361
Incomprehensibility of God, . . ... 415

6 INSPIRATION OF
subject with so many distinctions, that, with the
utmost facility, they can make every ohnoxioua
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 precious 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
deeply to he deplored. Surely this is a thing most
incongruous and inexcusable. Little, however, as
this could have been anticipated, a number of
' writers have appeared professing the most evan-
'gelical sentiments, yet with a more than Socinian
- zeal, laboring 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 successfully 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 inspiration, I shall not pretend to
determine. "Whatever may be the origin of such a
sentiment, it is uncalled for by any of the phe
nomena of Scripture, without foundation in the
word of God itself, and directly contrary to its
most express statements.
The theory of Mr. "Wilson, as detailed in the
XIHth of his Lectures on the Evidences of Chris-

THE SOKIPTUKES. 7
tianity, is in words less "shocking than that some
time ago proposed by Dr. P. Smith, and the still
more shocking system of the Electric Review.
Warned, no doubt, by the reception of the extra
vagance of those writers, Mr. W. has proceeded
more cautiously, and indeed has expressed himself
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, with many other writers on
this subject, into four kinds or degrees : the inspi
ration of suggestion — of direction — of elevation — of
superintendency. My: fiiTit nhrnryntiVn 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

which he grounds 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 ISTew Testament again." Very
weU, Mr. Wilson, this is without doubt the only
way to settle the controversy. Open then the
New Testament, and if it teaches your theory I
shall submit to it with the most profound respect.
What then have you found in the JNew Testament
to support your doctrine? ''We see," says the
author, "on the very face of the whole, that the
writers speak naturally, use the style, language,
manner of address familiar to them." Demonstra
tion, surely demonstration! The waiters of the
New Testament speak naturally, therefore their
writings 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
then 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 then- style and manner of addresss
as well as their mouth, or then- 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 SCRIPTURES. ' 9
hi their conception of the most important doctrine.
The Spirit of God uses the varied style of the
writers. The writers are not left to themselves in
this. The mould, therefore, is as much divine as]
the matter. When God speaks to man he puts his
thoughts and words into the form which is natural
to those through 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 Revelation.
They who hate the truths revealed have, from this
peculiarity of inspiration, a plausible pretence to
deny inspiration altogether. They find in the
Scriptures a variety of style, according to the
number of the writers, and therefore ascribe all to
man. This peculiarity serves also a valuable pur
pose with respect to Christians themselves. By
affording a pretence for speculations and theories,
it manifests the mournful fact, that even they who
have been enlightened in the saving truth, have,
in many other things, a large proportion of that
worldly wisdom that savors not the things that are
of God, but the tilings that are of men.
"There are," continues 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 INSPIRATION 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 live." How does this phenomenon
bear upon the theory? "They employ all their
faculties ; 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 spoke through
a statute ? The only thing that surprises me in all
this is, that there shoidd be any intellect to which
this peculiarity of inspiration should, upon due
consideration, present a difficulty on the suppo
sition of the complete verbal inspiration of the
Scriptures. " They use all then 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.
The Holy Spirit used as much of their knowledge,
both natural and acquired, as was to his purpose.
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 accept them as being as truly divine as the

THE SCRIPTURES. 11
Gospel itself. " Their memory furnishes them with
facts, or the documents and authentic records of
the time are consulted by them for information."
Very true ; but they do not relate every fact thati
they retained in their memory, or that they kne-w j
from documents. ISTor were they left to their owi
discretion as to the facts to be related. The Hoi)
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 copied one, as in revealing
the way of salvation.
" They plead with those to whom they are sent,
they address the heart, they expostulate, they
warn, they invite." Is there any thing in all this
inconsistent with the complete verbal inspiration 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 heart, these expostulations, 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 inspired 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 INSPIRATION 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 through 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," 6ays 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 particular phrase
ology of the writers. These are the phenomena on
the other side ; these are the parts of man."

THE SCIUPTURE*. 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 coidd have been possessed without 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
full inspiration. Mr. Wilson then imposes 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, milst 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 '
and partly divine, it cannot, as a whole, be the word '
of God, nor be justly ascribed to Him as its sole '
author. Accordingly, if Mr. Wilson's paradoxes

14 INSPIRATION OF
are not explained on the vrew which I have given,
they are real contradictions. "If every thing,"
says he, " is divine, how is it that we see every thing
human ?" Now how is it that this paradox can be
explained as a truth ? How is it that any thing in
the word of God can be said to be human ? Only
in the sense of having been written by man. But
agreeable to the theory that God and man has each
his distinct part in this composition, this paradox
Js& a contradiction. If man has a part solely his
.-own in the composition of the Bible, every thing
'in the Bible is not divine ; if God has His part in
^this composition, every thing cannot be human.
The paradox must be harmonized not by a thing
ithat ascribes distinct parts to God, or the writers,
in the composition of the book ; but by supposing
that the Bible being the word of God, may in ano
ther point of view be ascribed to man as the instru
ment. Li this sense, the epistle to the Romans may
be called Paul's epistle, while it is the word of God
hi a higher sense. Such a mode of sj>eaking is
common on all subjects. The king built the palace,
the architect built the palace, and the masons built
the palace. Li this obvious light, we are to under
stand the passages that ascribes the different parts
of the book of God to the writers of them. But
this plain truth Mr. Wilson has chosen to represent
as a paradox, and a paradox that from his expla
nation of it, must be a real contradiction. " The

THE SCRIPTURES. 15
books," he says, " are human, -and yet they are
divine. They are the word of God, and yet they
are the word of man." Now though in the above
way, it is possible to explain this paradox in a harm
less sense, yet that explanation is harsh, and not
justified by the Scripture phraseology in which an
epistle is ascribed to an Apostle. The latter mode
of speaking is demanded by necessity, justified by
use on every subject, and its meaning is obvious to
a child. But the above paradoxes are not of this i
description ; the books of Scriptures are never by/
the Scriptures called human-, they are never called!
the icord of man. To call any thing human as'
contradistinguished from divine, as in this instance,
is to deny that it is divine ; to call any thing the
word of man as contradistinguished from the woi'd
of God, is to deny that it is the word of God. Mr J
Wilson's phraseology then is not only paradoxical.]
but improper, and not paralleled by any instance
of Scripture phraseology. However, as I am fully
convinced that the author had a harmless meaning,
I charge him with nothing more than an improV/
priety of expression. But it is an impropriety that
should not be considered as trifling, for a just expla
nation of it, according to the use of language, must
make it fully as shocking in him as it is in appear
ance. It is not to be justified on any principle to
call the word of God either a hwma-n work, or the
work of man.

16 INSPIRATION OF
But the support of his theory, will not suffer Mr.
Wilson's paradoxes to shelter themselves under this
mode of explanation. " The books are divine, and
yet they are human," — " they are the word of God,
and yet the word of man." Now what -are the
grounds on which he asserts this? Not merely
that the book inspired by God was written by
man, but that God and man are jointly the authors
of this book, each having a distinct share. If so,
the books are not all divine, nor all human ; but
partly divine and partly human. His theory then
makes his paradoxes a contradiction.
That what Mr. Wilson calls his second class of
phenomena, must be considered in the light in
which I have represented them, is clear from his
own account of them, when he is reconciling them
with the first class. When they are introduced to
us for this purpose, they have the most innocent
face imaginable, without the smallest appearance
of an imprudent intention to derogate from the
honors of inspiration. "Instead of addressing us
immediately," says the author, " God is pleased to
use men as His instruments." Now what can have
less appearance of contradiction to the inspiration
of every word of Scripture than this ? It is so silly
to state it in this light, that it is almost silly to
repeat it. " Instead of speaking to us severally by an
independent revelation, he has consigned his will to
us at once in the Holy Scriptures." Now can any

THE SCRIPTURES. 17
one conceive a light in which this even appears to
bear on the point in hand ? As to inspiration, is it
not the same thing whether God speaks to every
individual by a distinct revelation, or whether he
speaks to all in the same revelation ? " Instead of
making known that will," says Mr. Wilson, " in the
language of angels, or by the skill of poets and
phdosophers, he has been pleased to choose the
unlettered Apostles and Evangelists." What has
this to do with the subject of inspiration? How
does this fact appear to contradict the passages that
ascribe the Scriptures wholly to God ? Why is this
introduced as a fact to be reconciled with the first
class of phenomena? Does the fact, that in the
Scriptures God has not addressed us in the language
of angels, appear to contradict the notion of their
inspiration, either as to matter or manner ? If God
should speak to men in the language of angels,
would the revelation be God's, in any sense, hi
which it is not His, as contained in the Scriptures ?
Had he spoken by the skill of poets and philoso
phers, would the manner have been divine in any
sense in which it is not now divine ? Has he not
given some parts of the Scriptures in the language
of poetry? Are these more divine as to manner
than the parts written by the fishermen ? " And,"
says Mr. Wilson, " instead of using these as mere
organic instruments of his power, he has thought
right to leave them to the operations of their own-

18 INSPIRATION 0¥
minds, and the dictates of their own knowledge,
habits and feelings, as to the maimer of communi
cating his will." This is the only thing that can be
said to have any reference to the subject at all;
yet, if unexceptionably expressed, it would not have
even the appearance of a contradiction to the phe
nomena of the first class. God did not lea/ve the
writers of Scripture to the operations of their own
mind, &c. ; but He has employed the operations of
their mind in his work. Here then we see, that in
reconciling his two classes of phenomena, the wri
ter exhibits the second class in the most harmless
point of view, and it is only in his application of
the system afterwards, that he gives them a diffe
rent character. The fight then in which the two
classes of phenomena can be reconciled, is not
a fight in which they will bear the author's con
clusions. My third observation is, that the distinction
between matter stnSform, as to their author, is a
groundless figment, invented for the service of this
theory. God is as much the author of the manner
of the Scriptures as of the matter of them ; and
the sense in which they may be said to be human
in then manner, they may be said to be human in
then matter. Li what sense are they human in
their manner ? As they have been written by men,
after the manner of human writing, with the style
characteristic of those by whom they have been

THE SCRIPTURES". 19
written. And has not the matter of these been the
result of human thought, according to the opera
tions of the mind, and with language occurring to
the persons who were inspired to deliver them?
The Scriptures are the thoughts and words of the
writers, in the same sense in which they are in their
style. It has pleased God to communicate His will
in this way ; so that divine truth is ushered into the
world as the result of the operations of the human
mind. Even the most glorious doctrines of revela
tion, are not an exception to this. If we find
Paul's style, we find also Paul's gospel ; and his
statements of truth, his arguments, &c. &e. are as
much his as his manner of writing. In the same
sense that we can say, that the style is Paul's, we
can also say, that the thoughts are Paul's. They
are both Paul's in one point of view ; in another,
they are both God's. God, in conveying His truth,
has used the intellectual operations, as well as
the characterestic style of the writers whom he
employed. If this is the case with respect even to the dis
tinguishing doctrines of the Gospel, how much more
evidently is it so with respect to those parts of
Scripture that relate to things properly human.
How much of the Scriptures are employed in rela
ting the history of earthly things? Is not this
human matter as truly as it is related in human
style? But though, in one sense, both in matter

20 INSPIRATION OF
and manner, an historical event is human ; in ano
ther, it is divine in both. This writer is still more
inexcusable for such a distinction, since he seems
to hold that many things in Scripture needed only
divme superintendency. Are not such things then
in every sense human, in matter as well as in man
ner ? Besides, is it not as common to ascribe the
matter of the Scripture to the writers of them, as
to ascribe their manner? Do we not speak of
Patd's Epistles ? Is not the matter included in this
appellation? This ascribes every thing in the
Epistles of Paid, in one sense, to himself. We
speak more frequently of Paul's thoughts, Paul's
doctrine, Paul's reasoning, Paul's arguments, than
we do of Paul's style. Yet the simplest peasant
never views this phraseology as inconsistent with
his firm conviction of the full verbal inspiration of
the whole sacred volume. Such difficulties are
only conjured up by the invention of theorists, to
make void some part of the word of God, or to
enlarge the field of critical investigation.
That a human style may, in another sense, be
divine, may be made intelligible to a child by an
illustration. Suppose, to give greater popularity
to a work of genius, a writer should choose to
imitate the style and maimer of Sir Walter Scott;
and that the imitation should be so perfect that the
public could not distinguish. Now, such a style
would be, in one sense, the style of Sir Walter;

THE SCRIPTURES. 21
but in another, it woidd be the style of the author.
In like manner the style of the Scriptures is the
characteristic style of the different writers, but God
is the author of it. The style is as truly God's as
the matter ; for if He has employed the style of
different writers He has likewise employed the
expressions, thoughts, reasoning and arguments of
the different writers. In one sense the Scriptures
are all God's, in another they are the writings of
Moses and the Prophets, the Evangelists and the
Apostles. The same writer, on different occasions,
may employ different styles ; and God has employed
the characteristic style of each of the persons whom
he inspired to deliver his oracles. If he has
employed them as rational instruments with respect
to style, he has likewise employed them as rational
instruments with respect to thoughts, reasoning,
arguments and words.
That the different styles of the writers of Scrip
ture may, in a certain sense, be ascribed to God, is
clear even from the concession of the author. He
admits that the prophetic part of Scripture needed
the inspiration of words ; and that in this, as well
as in the rest of the Scriptures, we have a charac
teristic style. If then we have the style of Isaiah,
even when all the words with their collocation and
syntax were chosen of God, is not the style his
also ? For what is style abstracted from the words
that express it? Tlie distinction, then, between

22 INSPIRATION OF
the matter and manner of Scripture, as having a
different author is visionary and groundless.
My_J^th^_pbservatiori. is that Mr. Wilson's
theory, both as to the distinction between matter
and manner, and as to the different degrees of then-
operation is utterly without foundation hi the word
of God itself. What can we know of this, or of
any other subject of revelation, but as the Scrip
tures themselves teach us? But where do they
teach these distinctions? What portion of the
word of God asserts that the matter and the
manner of Scripture are to be ascribed to different
authors? Where do they teach that there are
different kinds of inspiration ? If no such doctrine
is taught by the Scriptures, then it is one of the
traditions of men, by which they, like the Phari
sees, have made void the word of God. It deserves
no respect. It is not necessary even to refute it ;
for to show that the Scriptures do not teach such a
thing, is to refute it. The Scriptures declare that
they are the inspired word of God, but in the whole
Sacred Volume there is not a hint that they are
inspired in a different sense, or in a different
degree. The man, therefore, who invents a theory
that ascribes to Scripture different kinds of inspi
ration is as inexcusable as the man who, in explain
ing the account of the creation, asserts that the
earth was an old planet repaired, or a splinter from
the sun. Where have our theorists found that

THE SCRIPTURES. 23

inspiration is divided into suggestion, direction,
elevation, and superintendency ? Where the Pha
risees found that it was a sin to eat with unwashed
hands. But let us not too hastily make assertions. Let
us hear what Mr. Wilson alleges : " By referring
to the language of the Apostles, as quoted in our
last lecture, we shall find that the divine inspiration
was extended to every part of the canonical writ
ings, in proportion as each part stood related to the
religion," 505. The language of the Apostles; I
do not wish a better authority. The language of
the Apostles teach such a doctrine ! Where, Mr.
Wilson? You have quoted no such passage.
" Whatever weight the different parts of the Sacred
edifice were intended to sustain, a correspondent
strength of inspiration was placed, as it were, at
the foundation." Fine, very fine; and is demon
stration itself more convincing? What can be
more certain than that the different parts of a
building ought to have a strength proportional to
the weight which they are intended to bear?
TTnlucHly it happens that there is a small flaw in
the figure. It has not the smallest reference to the
subject which it is brought to illustrate. The
different truths of revelation have a different degree
of importance, which might be well illustrated by
this truly beautiful figure. But it requires as much
inspiration to tell what o'clock it is by inspiration

24 INSPIRATION OF
as to reveal the Gospel itself. If all Scripture is
given by inspiration, the reference to Paul's cloak
requires as much inspiration as those passages that
declare the way of salvation. The question is not,
whether many things in Scripture might have been
known 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, "All 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 different things that require a
different extent of inspiration, but which have no
reference to the subject at all. l> 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." Now, had the author
proposed to point out the different ways in which
revelation was given, this would have been to his
purpose; but it has no relation to the extent of
inspiration. Whether a thing were revealed by
a vision, dream or angelic voice ; or without
any intervention the degree of inspiration is the

THE SCRIPTURES. 25
same. "Sometimes," he continues, "the sacred
writers were wrapt in the 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
what he saw in the third heavens, the extent of the
inspiration of his account of the 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
words. Who told Mr. Wilson that in the account
of the Saviour's fife, doctrines, miracles, parables,
discourses, the memory of the Apostles was, merely
fortified? Has he got any new message from
heaven ? Perhaps it will be said, this was all that
was necessary; this would be arrogance in an
angel, and would deliver him into chains of dark
ness to be reserved for the judgment of the great
day. Vain men will be wise ! who 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 different degrees
of inspiration. Who then dare say that one part
of Scripture is less inspired than another ? besides,
a man's memory might he so fortified that he could
remember every fact and circumstance with the

26 INSPIRATION OF
utmost exactness, he might be able to relate every
thing that ever he heard, with every word in its
proper place ; and after all be unfit for writing any
of the Gospels. Were an illiterate man to be put
in possession of every fact in Gibbons' History,
would he be fit to write the decline and fall of the
Roman Empire? Such a man will have full as
much need of words as of ideas. Much more in
the history of Christ must an 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
writer 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 known to him, he speaks the things of God
in the words 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 write 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." Very true, very true. But in all these
things there is but one kind of inspiration. All
this is called the word of God, and is said to be

THE SCRIPTURES. 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 ?
Not 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
New Testament, that in each case such assistance,
and only such assistance was afforded, as the emer
gencies of it required." Now, 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 New Testament, from which such a limitation
and distinction of inspiration are inferred. In no
copy of the New 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 page,
in an attempt to draw that fine which it is neither
needful nor possible to draw. I have hear d.of a
divine who in one head of discourse proposed to
speak of the revealed glories of heayen, and in
another, the unrevealed glories of heaven. Surely
Mr. Wilson's intrepid attempt to do what is neither
needful nor possible, manifests equal theological
heroism. " The prophetical parts, the doctrines of

28 INSPIRATION OF
pure revelation, the historical facts beyond the
reach of human knowledge, 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 were enough, as in 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 elevation and strength may be con
sidered as afforded. When matters more incidental
occur, the inspiration, 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 sayings,
to the works of nature, to history, were possibly not
entirely out of the range of the watchful guardian
ship of the Holy Spirit." Here is a lamentable
specimen of the folly and arrogance of the wisdom
of man hi 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 arc untaught in the
Scriptures. This is the worst species of novel-

THE SCRIPTURES. 29
wi'iting ; for it substitutes the baseless probabilities
and visionary suppositions of man for the dictates
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 com
mandments of men. In the things of God, the
Christian should know nothing but what God ha3
revealed. To say that this is a foolish and untaught
question would not be enough, because it is con
trary to what is expressly taught ; namely, that all
Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Mr. Wil
son has here given us an apocrypha to the New
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
the watchful guardianship of the Holy Spirit ? Is
the Christian then to be sent to his Bible to decide
how far each of its parts is inspired ? If he is set
loose from the authority of the divine declaration
that asserts the inspiration of the whole 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 possibly extends so far, others, by a like

30 INSPIRATION OF
authority, may decide that possibly it does not go
so far. Though I should displease all the evangeli
cal ministers of London and of Europe, I will
express my utter 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 of
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 first. 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 ? Are
they not sometimes elevated above the power of
nature ? Do they not speak of divine superinten-
dency in their places of worship ? But 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
superintendency. If then, the Scriptures are in
many things the work of man, merely directed, ele
vated and superintended by God, it is a falsehood 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

THE SCRIPTURES. 31
of men, directed, elevated and superintended by
God, gives the fie to the Holy Spirit, and calumni
ates the Scriptures. This is a serious charge, and
I charge it on Mr. Wilson, and those writers 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 own fancies, or the
necessities of our system, and the work is accom
plished. My sixth observation is, that if this distinction of I
inspiration is true, the greatest part of the Bible is I
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 work of the teacher ? No 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 in mat
ter and in 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 inspired writers may not belong
to the revelation; and that speaking on subjects

32 INSPIRATION OF
not of a religious nature, they may have erred.
This blasphemy has been openly avowed by some
Avriters, and Mr. Wilson 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
him, I will quote his language, on whiph I found
my charge. " How far the inspiration of the Scrip
tures extends to the most casual and remote allusions
of an historical and phfiosophical kind, which affect
in no way the doctrines or duties of religion, it is
not, perhaps, difficult to determine." Does not this
seem to betray a fear that history and philosophy
may detect something false in the Scriptures, for
which the author good naturedly provides, by sup
posing that such things do not affect the doctrines
and duties of religion ? God asserts most expressly
that " all Scripture 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 doctrines or the
duties of religion. Would Mr. Wilson take it
kindly if any one shoidd attempt a like apology
for himself? Would a jury look on it as no invali
dation of evidence that the witness is proved to
have uttered many falsehoods on his oath, though
not bearing on the question at issue ? Would they
not utterly discredit his whole testimony, if they

THE SCRIPTURES. 33
found a known falsehood in his evidence, even on
the most unconnected matters that are usually
brought forward in cross-examination? If God
avows the whole Scriptures as His word, a false
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. Wilson asserts that
" the claims of the sacred penmen to an unerring
guidance are, without exception, confined to the
revelation itself." God's assertion of inspiration
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
invention 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 ! If
even our evangelical divines will except from inspi
ration some things under the denomination of
history and philosophy, not affecting the religion,
what may not be expected from the daring pro
faneness of those who hate the gospel and are
willing to carry the theory to its utmost limits?
If Mr. Wilson is allowed to charge an historical, or

34 INSPIRATION OF
a philosophical 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 respect to the circulation of the Apocrypha
intermingled with the Scriptures. 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 natural philosophers." Very 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 contained 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 writers may have been as ignorant of
natural philosophy, as the most ignorant of British
peasants, without affecting their inspiration. But,

THE SCRIPTURES. 35
verily, if they have delivered one philosophical
dogma, it must either 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 would 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 with a complete religious inspiration."
How can this be the case, Mr. Wilson, when it is
said, " All Scripture is given by inspiration ?" This
pledges God equally for every thing in the Bible.
Mr. Wilson's assertion gives the lie to God's decla
ration." God says " AH Scripture is given by inspi
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 what does not
belong to revelation, to distinguish what is true

36 INSPIRATION OF
from what may be false. Could Satan broach a
worse doctrine in the school of Christ ? Impossible.
It would not be so mischievous if, in the boldness
of infidelity, he were to assert through his agents
that the Scriptures are not at all inspired. This
would be too shocking. From this all Christians
would start back with horror. But when, as an
angel of light, he asserts through the pen of an
evangelical minister that some falsehoods in Scrip
ture are not only consistent with the most complete
religious inspiration, but that this is the strongest
ground on which it is possible to vindicate inspira
tion, he is likely to infuse his poison 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 might think inaccurate. Was the author
ashamed in plain language to make the wicked
assertion ? His meaning must be that such things
are really inaccurate. This is the only point of
view in which the assertion is to his purpose.
Why then does he falter ? Does he think that this
soft way of charging God with falsehood will
excuse the daringness of the crime ? Was it caution,
or was it conscience, that induced him to utter the
horrible blasphemy as the sentiment of others ?
And what artifice appears in the association of
falsehood in history and philosophy, with critical

~THE SCRIPTURES. 37
faults in poetry and oratory ! Are errors in fact to
be ranged with errors in rhetoric ? Is it the same
thing in morals to be a liar and a bad poet? Is
the poetry, to which just 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 well 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 shall 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 all
mixture of human ignorance and error, in 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 ? " The
discovery may," he continues, "and unless the
powers of the human mind were infinite, it cannot
but be limited and partial, but as far as it extends,
it must be accurate." AH true, but all away from
the mark. No man eyer felt a difficulty on this
point. This is not debated by either infidel or

38 INSPIRATION OF
Christian ; by either the friends of plenary inspi
ration, or the abettors of partial inspiration. " In
whatever relates, therefore," he continues, "to
religion, either in theory or practice, the knowledge
of the sacred writers was infallible, or their inspi
ration was a mere pretence." And must 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
found 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
in subjects which he is not sent to teach." But is
ne not sent to teach every thing that he has taught ?
If 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 philosophy,
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 untaught. But of

THE SCRIPTURES. 39
what use is it, with respect to the man who charges
false philosophical dogmas, as taught by the Scrip
tures ? There is a mighty difference between refus
ing to speak and speaking a falsehood. It is,
however, with 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
subject, or in any 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 inspiration 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, " Their 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, without
excepting philosophers themselves. If the sun and
the moon are said to have stood still in the time
of Joshua, there is no philosophical sentiment
expressed, more than when the phdosopher himself
now speaks of the rising and the setting of the sun.
There is not the smallest difficulty thrown on the
subject from this quarter. It is only foolish divines
who wish to have employment 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 effort to reconcile his views with
those of this luminary 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." There is a happy
obscurity in this qualification which, if it prevents
us from 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? Are we on this subject to say and suppose
whatever fits our theories ? My way is to endeavor
to find what the Scriptures say, and to this I make

THE SCRIPTURES. 41
every human dogma to bend. I will not allow philo
sophy herself to prate on the things of God. She
is august in her own territories, but let her die
should she dare to invade the territories of revela
tion. On this holy ground her profane 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, which 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? No, truly, this is not the ground on
which he rests the matter. His two reasons are,
that philosophy has no objection to this..yiew,*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 know
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 would not
believe it. That Paul was inspired in directing

42 INSPIRATION OF
Timothy 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 Paid to be inspired in
this direction, 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 Mr. 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. We 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
cnn extract edification for us from these portions of

THE SCRIPTURES. 43
the word of God ? A passage may contain instruc
tion, yet we may be unable to see it. Are 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 cannot perceive their advantage ?
Does not this justify the Neologian in explaining
away all the miracles of Christ ? To rest the foun
dation of the inspiration of particidar passages of
Scripture upon any other foundation than that they
are a part of Scripture, 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 evangelical 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

44 INSPIRATION OF
of phfiosophy, where thou wilt find kindred mad
men ; leave the word of God in an unadulterated
state to the Christian. How daring, how diaboli
cally daring, to erect a standard to displace some
parts of Scripture from the word of God ! Who
but God has a right to say what is worthy of reve
lation ?
Mr. Wilson, like many other divines, assigns to
philosophy a dignity and an authority on this sub
ject which I cannot recognise. In her 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
umpires 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 the dignity of science, have
tamely acquiesced hi the assumed claims. As a
matter of fact, no madmen have been so extrava
gant as pretended philosophers. Tlie inmates of

THE SCRIPTURES. 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 effusion 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 employed them
selves in theories about the manner of the formation
' of the word of God. 'Ah! foolish sage,
He could not trust the word of heaven,
The light which from the Bible blazed — that lamp
Which God threw from His palace down to earth,
To guide his wandering children home — yet learned
His cautious faith on speculations wild,
And visionary theories absurd,
Compared with which the most eroneous 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
pvdpit has generally conformed to the reigning
systems of science, and has been made the echo of
the schools. Speculation assumes the place of
axioms, and the Apostles of Jesus must bow to the
successors of the Stagirite.

46 INSPIRATION OF
Even the real discoveries 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
convinced, that the glory of God has been much
displayed by the glasses of the astronomers. But
if Moses and the telescope were at issue, I would
trample 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 Newtonian system. This, I say, not from
any opinion of interference, for I am persuaded
there is none. The Scriptures are not pledged for
or against this system. But the usual way of
sjjeakmg 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." Very 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 ?
We would 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

THE SCRIPTURES. 47
right tb 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 then- 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 self-evident truth, cannot be con
tained in the Bible. The 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

48 INSPIRATION OF
Scripture which assert inspiration, as the mdst lax
system on this 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 Scriptures are
not the inspired word of God. They are not whol
ly by inspiration, which as truly 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 from this, we are equally justified in making
any number of exceptions. This 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 then own know
ledge, their own information, &c, &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 inspired. Now admitting
this, for the sake of argument, why may not the
human maimer be equally directed, and superin
tended, and elevated ; so that it may also be said

THE SCRIPTURES. 49
to be divine? Is the manner more human than,
according to the author, much of the matter ? If
then the human matter may be 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 in 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. Lf
all the matter of the Scriptures is God's, the
humanity of the mere manner cannot 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
My 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 ofthe style, or manner of a
book. He that is the author of a book must be the
author of the style of the book. Now God is said
to be the author of the Bible, not merely the author
of the matter of the Bible. "All Scripture is
given by inspiration of God." It is the Scripture
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 writing includes
thoughts, words, style ; and as all the holy writings
are expressly declared to be inspired, they must be
inspired 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
writing 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 court, 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 writinsr
must be the author of the style. Just so with the
Scriptures ; they are written by the inspiration of

THE SCRIPTURES. 51
God, but that inspiration has 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 devfi formed
him. The word Scripture as expressly includes
style as the word made 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 Xoyos* 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. Indeed it is distinguished by
Demosthenes from Pij^a, signifying a single word.
In his oration for the crown, he says of ^Eschines,
tfcvsiXs^ws P*j(/,aia xai Xoxovs, translated by Dr. Leland,
his words and periods are prepared. 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
was consulted through his priest. This answer was
* See Appendix.

52 INSPIRATION OF
supposed to come from the god, both in matter and
form. The priestess of Apollo at Delphi was in a
phrenzy whilst she uttered the words inspired by
her god. In general, the heathen prophets were
fitted for being channels of communicating the
divine declarations by previous derangement. It
was then undoubtedly understood that the inspir
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- tlie
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 ; all 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 writer, the words and the collo
cation of the words, needed inspiration as much as
the matter. Tlie 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-

THE SCRIPTURES. 53
tions above any other theory. It does not hang
together, but obliges him to harmonise its discor
dant parts by saying and unsaying, in the most
extravagant manner. 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. Now 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 point of
view this is impossible. Now 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. The thoughts are as truly Paul's
thoughts in his Epistles as the language and style
are Paul's. In 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 Scripture, 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 nothing belongs 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 writes 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. This 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 own 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. S,'
- hideousness of the system that would rob God of
any part of His own word, yet he speaks another
language when he exhibits his system. Instead of
using the writers of Scripture as instruments, God,
according to the author, " thought it right to leave
them to the operations of their own minds, and the
dictates of tlieir own knowledge, habits and feelings,
as to the manner of communicating His will," 501.
In like maimer he quotes Warburton, who asserts
" that the divine superintendence was with so sus
pended a hand as permitted the use, and left them
to the guidance of their own faculties while they
kept clear of error." Here there is no instrumen
tality. The nurse watches the child stepping
across the floor, and as long as it does not stumble,
puts not a hand to the little adventurer. In such
cases then, not only the manner but the matter
also is no more God's than the child's walking is
the nurse's walking. It is then absurd and contra
dictory for Mi*. Wilson to assert distinct and inde
pendent provinces to God and man in the compo
sitions of the Bible, yet when it suits his view to
speak of mere instrumentality on the part of man.
In another place, speaking of the books of Scrip
ture, he says, "they are the words of the Holy
Ghost." This is all I ask, and less I will not take.
But how has the author the hardihood to make
such an assertion, according to his views ? Does
he believe that all the words of all parts of Scrip-

56 INSPIRATION OF
ture are the words of the Holy Spirit ? His lan
guage can have no lower import. Yet, does he
not himself expressly distinguish between certain
things that needed suggestion, and certain other
things that needed less. Some things needed only
the eye of the nurse. I ask Mr. Wilson also, if all
the words of Scripture are the words of the Holy
Ghost, how is it that the style or maimer of the
Scriptures is not the work of the Holy Ghost ?
The author likewise speaks of "the wonderful
union of divine and human agency in the inspira
tion of the Scriptures." Is human agency a com
ponent integral part of inspiration? This makes
man the author of a part in the composition of the
Bible as distinct from God ; yet it absurdly makes
that part that belongs to man only a part of inspi
ration. This is a crude theory, Mr. Wilson. A
very slight cross-examination makes the witness
refute himself. Again, in one place he says : " The
books are given by divine inspiration," 499; in
another he says, " where nature ended and inspira
tion began, it is not for man to say," 506. In the
first, all is asserted to be inspiration ; in the second,
it is taken for granted that part is inspiration and
part the work of man, though it is impossible to
assign the boundary. If the Scriptures contained
such contradictions, it would be impossible to defend
their inspiration.
Let us now take a glance of the author's view of

THE SCRIPTURES. 57
the advantages of his theory. "By this conde
scension of God," says he, "in His manner of
inspiring the Scriptures, truth is made more intel
ligible to the mass of mankind than if the human
faculties had been altogether suspended, and the
feelings of common life extinguished or over
borne," 514. Is it peculiar to our author's system
to view the faculties of the writers of Scripture as
active I Does any system deny it ? I can admit
this, and I do admit it, as fully as the author, while
I contend that God speaks through the activity of
the human faculties. I go farther than the author's
distinction can consistently allow him. I can speak
of Paul's thoughts, reasonings, arguments, &c. as
well as of Paul's style. Why then does Mr. Wil
son make such a claim for his theory, when the
advantage he would appropriate to it is common to
all ? But in reality, it is an advantage that exists
merely in Mr. Wilson's fancy. The Scripture might
have been equally intelligible, and had it pleased
God, much more so, had the Scriptures been writ
ten by man through an inspiration that actually
suspended all the rational faculties — nay, though
they had been uttered by a statue, or written by a
machine. Nothing can be more unfounded 'than
the train of consequences which the author draws
from the supposition of the Scriptures being writ- •
ten by an inspiration which should have suspended
all the operations of the writer's mind. This, he

58 INSPIRATION OF
says, " must have spread an uniformity and same
ness over the whole surface of the Scriptures."
Why so, Mr. Wilson ? It is equally easy to assert
and equally easy to prove, that there is no must in
the case. Could not the same Almighty Author
have given the very same maimer, with every
variety of style, though man had been as unconscious
as a block of marble when he wrote them ? " Must
have expunged," continues our author, "all the
varieties of style, diversities of narrative, and selec
tion of topics — must have impressed one and the
same phraseology and turn of expression upon all
the sacred boois in the same language," 519.
There is not a must in one of these particulars.
Had God declined the instrumentality of man alto
gether in the writing of the Scriptures, would He
not still have written in the language and style of
man ? Such writers as Mr. Wilson seem strangely
to take it for granted, that if God had communica
ted the Scriptures without man, He would not have
used the language of man. In their odd supposi
tions, they sometimes speak of the language of
angels, as if that would be a revelation to man. I
suppose the Ten Commandment are as intelligible
as any part of the Scriptures, yet they are written
by the finger of God, without any instrumentality
of man. This then puts it beyond specidation
what the Scriptures would have been, even had
there been no human instrumentafity in them.

THE SCRIPTURES. 59
This fact should have guarded Mr. Wilson from
indulging in such a train of romantic speculation.
The second advantage of inspiration, as explained
by this theory, is " the interpretation of Scripture
is rendered more easy, as well as more safe." Now
this is an advantage which I cannot at all admit.
On the contrary, there can be no doubt but with
out any human instrumentality, God might have
rendered the Scriptures much more easily interpre
ted, and have freed them from all those apparent
contradictions, and all those real difficulties and
obscurities Which it is generally acknowledged that
they contain. The Scriptures have exactly that
degree of clearness which the divine wisdom saw
fit, and this He could have given them in whatever
way He might have chosen to convey them. Let
us, however, take a look at the reasons by which
the author supports his position. " It depends not,"
he says, " on the turn of any one particular phrase,
or the force of some few words, but springs from
the general import of language familiar to us all."
And had God given the Scriptures without human
instrumentality, would it have been otherwise?
Would more, in that issue, have depended on the
turn of one particular phrase, or the force of some
few words ? Would less attention have been paid
to the general import of language, or would the
speech of heaven have been employed ? Why does
the author speak of language familiar to us all?

CO INSPIRATION OF
As every nation has not the words of inspiration,
he must mean human language, as distinguished
from language not human. There seems to be a
strange confusion in the author's mind on this sub
ject. He seems to think that if the Scriptures had
not been written through the instrumentality of
man, they would not have been written in- human
language. Does he think that the Scriptures would
be a revelation at all, if they were not written in
human language? Whether they might have been
written by the finger of God, or by angels, they
must equally have been written in the language of
man. Has the author forgotten the Ten Command
ments, and the various messages delivered to men
by angels ? What occasion had he to go to heaven
for a language, as an alternative of the mode of
communicating revelation ? What reason had he
to think that the language of God without a medium,
or through the medium of angels, would have shun
ned the same mode of interpretation with the lan
guage of man?
" The Bible," he says, " is to be studied, its vari
ous parts compared, its metaphors illustrated, its
poetical and historical allusions unfolded, all its
declarations received, according to the well-known
rules of human writing." And would not the Bible
be studied, though God had written it by the instru
mentality of angels, or without instrumentality
altogether ? Does the author never study the Ten

THE SCRIPTURES 61
Commandments? Why mighl not the various
parts of the Bible have been compared on any
mode of inspiration? Is there any difference in
the illustration of a metaphor, whether it has been
pronounced by God immediately, or by man as
God's rational organ? Would it be profane to
exhibit the meaning and beauty of a metaphor as
coming from God without a medium, yet lawful to
make free with it coming through the medium of
man? Perhaps this is the true reason why divines
so earnestly labor to give God as little share in the
Scriptures as possible, and why they are so very
bold in their manner of interpreting the word of
God. They seem to think that the Bible is God's
word, in a like sense as the speech delivered to
Parliament from the throne, is the king's speech,
and treat it with similar rudeness and freedom.
Does Mr. Wilson know of any view of inspiration
that prevents the unfolding of poetical and histori
cal allusions ? Have not such allusions equal need
of being unfolded on all modes of inspiration ? Must
not the declarations of the Bible be received accord
ing to the well known rules of human writing, in
whatever mode it has been inspired? Does the
author really think that the Ten Commandments,
and every other communication immediately from
God, are not to be received according to the well
known rules of human writing? It is a wild and
extravagant conceit, that the communications of

62 INSPIRATION OF
God delivered immediately by Himself to man, can
not be in the language of man ; or, if in the lan
guage of man, cannot have their meaning ascer
tained by the known laws of human language.
Should God speak to me from the throne of heaven,
I would ascertain His meaning by the laws of
human language, as well as when he speaks to me
by Peter and Paul, Luke and John.
While the author provides work for the critic by
his mode of inspiration, the unlearned Christian is
kept in good humor by putting him on a level with
the greatest scholars, with respect to knowledge of
the great doctrines of Christianity. "The most
unlearned Christian," says he, "stands upon the
same ground, as to all the commanding truths of
revelation, with the greatest scholars ; whilst the
utmost diligence of the scholar will find employ
ment in the adaptation of his acquisitions to the
illustration of the more difficult parts of the inspired
volume." Now this is a compliment to the want of
learning in which I cannot coincide. It is mere
fanaticism. Indeed God often reveals himself to
babes, while he hides himself from the wise and
prudent ; and many unlearned men have a much
deeper and more correct knowledge of divine truth,
than many learned Christians. Still I contend, that
learning is of equal importance with respect to the
exhibition, proof, and illustration of the command
ing truths of revelation, as it is in that province

THE SCRIPTURES. 63
which Mr. Wilson exclusively assigns to it. There
is no subject in revelation in which it is not profita
ble. There is no greater bar to progress in the
knowledge of God, than the supposition that
all who believe in Jesus are equally acquainted
with the Gospel. K all parts of Scripture deserve
to be studied, this does so above all. And nothing
will so well repay study. What a wonderful diffe
rence as to degrees of knowledge, between the sim
pleton saved by faith and the Christian who, from
his long and deep acquaintance with the Gospel,
views it as a self-evident truth, having in itself its
own evidence as much as the divine existence itself !
Learning can in nothing be so well employed as
on the great truths of the Gospel. There is indeed
no room for speculation or theory, improvement or
alteration; but all the learning in the universe
might be employed in exhibiting the inexhaustible
treasures of truth.
The third advantage which the author finds in
his system of inspiration is, that " by this plan, the
trifling inaccuracies which have insinuated them
selves into the copies of the Scriptures, by the
carelessness of transcribers, the various readings
which have accumulated during eighteen centuries,
and the further defects arising from translations,
or from our ignorance of a few particular allu
sions, are of less moment." Now I cannot divine
in what way these defects can be either increased

64 INSPIRATION OF
or diminished by any mode of inspiration. I
know indeed that the mode of treating divine
truth employed by the Scriptures, interspersing
the same doctrine in innumerable places certainly
does lessen the evd of various readings. But
I know equally well that this does not belong to
the subject of the mode of inspiration, and that
this advantage might have been effected, had the
Scriptures been written every word by the finger
of God. If the author has an eye to this, he very
unphilosophically confounds things as distinct as
things can be. But let us hear himself in the illus
tration of this advantage. " They do not materially
impair the force of the divine books, because those
books are written by men like ourselves." Would
the above defects have more materially impaired
the force of the divine books, had they been writ
ten by angels, or by the finger of God? Would a
various reading, or an imperfect translation, have a
worse effect upon the Ten Commandments written
by the finger of God, or upon the Letters to the
Seven 'Churches of Asia, delivered by the Lord
Jesus Christ, than upon any of the Letters of Paul ?
In whatever way the Scriptures may be supposed
to be inspired, the loss to the reader from the above
defects is perfectly the same. Can any man, of
sobriety of mind, suppose that if God had written
every letter of the Scriptures without instrumentali
ty, He was more interested to preserve the sacred

THE SCRIPTURES. 65
volume from the errors of transcribers than He is
on the plan employed by Him ? Yet oui' author
asserts it as an axiom, that if the Scriptures had been
given by an inspiration which should have sus
pended all the operations of the writer's mind, it
" must have required the perfectly pure preserva
tion of all the copies in all ages from the errors of
transcribers, — must have rendered various readings
and imperfect translations of fundamental injury."
These assertions seem to be so entirely without even
plausibility, that I am at a loss to conceive how they
can have influence on any intellect. On the con
trary, it appears to me an axiom, that the same
various readings and imperfect translations will
equally injure the book, whatever be the mode of
inspiration. Would an imperfect translation, or a
various reading, do more injury to the Ten Com
mandments than to the Third Epistle of John ? But
by what sort of juggling is it, that the author con
trives to preserve the books considered as divine,
when they are injured as human? If a word is
lost, is no matter lost ? Does he not say that fhe
matter is all divine ? Words then that may be lost
certainly must contain no matter. The loss of
words is only the loss of manner ! How fond our
author is of mysteries and paradoxes ! The force
of the divine books is not impaired by any casualty,
because these divine books were written by men !
Then, it seems, if all the Scriptures which have

66 INSPIRATION OF
been written by men had been lost, all that is divine
in them would still remain ! Is not this a sort of
spiritual legerdemain ?
In the continuation of his illustration of this ad
vantage, the author observes, " The truths are not
conveyed dryly and systematically, but clothed with
human feelings," &c. Had God written all the
Bible with His own finger, must it have been a dry
systematic work ? Surely this has no relation to
the subject of inspiration. It is a peculiarity and
an advantage belonging to the plan of revelation,
but with the subject of the mode of inspiration it
has no more concern than it has with the genealogy
of Melchisedec.
The fourth advantage which the author ascribes
to his view of this subject is, that the sacred books
on this plan become capable of supplying proofs
of authenticity. This is a sound observation. Had
the Scriptures been written, either by God imme
diately, or through angels, we would have wanted
those proofs of authenticity, that result from the
characteristic style of each of the inspired writers.
But the views of those who consider the various
styles as also the work of God, as well as of man,
possesses this advantage equally. When Sir Walter
Scott writes in the style of any of his fictitious
characters, it is still the style of Sir Walter. The
same may be said of other internal evidences, to
which Mr. Wilson's fifth advantage refers.

THE SCRIPTURES. 67
His sixth advantage also is real, and the illus
tration of it quite satisfactory. It will be of great
advantage to read the Scriptures with this observa
tion constantly in view, for it is exemplified in innu
merable particulars. The Scriptures, he observes,
are thus more adapted to be a moral probation of
the heart. It might not be unprofitable to the
author, to consider whether his observations may
not apply to his own theory. The traces of the
characteristic style of the fishermen of Galilee may
afford an occasion to worldly wisdom to invent a
theory founded on an arbitrary distinction, instead
of submitting, like a little child, to believe the
testimony of God on this question, asserting that
" All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God."
Surely there is nothing in Scripture which asserts
that the manner of Scripture is not as truly divine
as the matter.
I am glad to find that the author, in the first of
his practical reflections, so decidedly condemns
that wicked theory that some have lately, brought
forward, that daringly ventures to divest of inspi
ration some things in scripture, as too trifling, and
of too worldly a nature to deserve that honor.
Such arrogance assuming to sit in judgment on the
word of Jehovah, instead of seeking instruction
from every part of it, cannot be too severely repro
bated. " The moment man dares to consider any
part of Scripture as uninspired," says Mr. Wilson,

68 INSPIRATION OF
"he sets up his own prejudices as the rule of
judgment ; he believes only what he likes ; and he
commonly ends in undervaluing or rejecting some
of the fundamental truths of the Gospel." I would
have had much greater pleasure in reviewing
Mr. Wilson's work had he written the whole in a
.strain worthy of this observation.
The author's second reflection is that this theory
"tends to close the avenues to some of the most
pernicious evils which have desolated the church."
He divides these errors into two classes ; the first
takes too low a view of inspiration, and the second
too high a view. The usurpation over conscience,
the authority of tradition, infallibility, the prohi
bition of the free use of the Bible to the laity, the
exclusive inposition of a particular translation, and
the intermixture of Apocryphal with Canonical
writings, are all ascribed to the first. Now there
can be no doubt that the abettors of these errors
have little practical regard to the inspiration of the
Scriptures ; but there can be as little doubt that
they do not arise from a denial of plenary inspira
tion. On the contrary, the Church of Rome will
admit the inspiration of the Scriptures more fully
than Mr. Wfison himself. It will ascribe them to
God, both in matter and manner. It admits the
Apocraphy, not because it makes light of the inspi
ration of the genuine books of Scripture, but
because it believes the Apocrypha to be inspired.

THE SCRIPTURES. 69
It imposes an exclusive translation ; not because it
believes the original to be uninspired, or inspired
in a low degree, but because it believes the Vulgate
to be an inspired translation. I wish Mr. Wilson
was engaged in actual combat with any Roman
Catholic writer ; he would soon be convinced that
he was here writing at random. ' There is no more
reason to ascribe Popish errors to imperfect views
of inspiration, than there is to ascribe all errors to
this source.
But it is more to my purpose to attend to the
errors supposed to result from an overstrained
view of inspiration. " On the other hand," says
Mr. Wilson, " the class of errors, not generally so
fatal, but yet most injurious, which spring from a
forgetfulness of the human character, and form of
the plan of inspiration, is to be guarded against."
Now, reader, put your invention on duty, and try
to find out a number of such errors — errors whose
origin is the overlooking of the manner of inspira
tion. "If the inspiration of Scripture," says the
author, "be so interpreted as to supersede the
free and natural flow of the writer's mind." Is
there any one who holds this ? and if there is, does
it lead to the supposed consequence ? Cannot God
convey His thoughts and His words through the
natural flow of the thoughts and words of him
through whom He speaks ? " If sound and reason
able means of expounding the force of terms," says

70 INSPIRATION OF
he, " the import of metaphors, the signification of
allusions to local customs be discarded." Do any
of those who have the highest views of inspiration,
discard sound and reasonable means of expounding
the force of terms, the import of metaphors, &c. ?
Or has their view any tendency to countenance such
extravagances? Mr. Wilson might as plausibly
trace such evils to overstrained corollaries from the
forty-seventh proposition of the first book of
Euclid's Elements. Why, Mr. Wilson, do you talk
so much at random ? This loose reasoning has no
more connection with the principles on which it is
professedly founded, than it has with theories of
the formation of the earth. "If the book," con
tinues Mr. Wilson, " is considered as so divine in
its form, as well as its matter, as to exclude man's
agency." Did any man ever hold this ? Did ever
Mr. Wilson hear of any one who denied the agency
of man in writing the Bible ? Especially do they
on whom he has his eye, deny the employment of
man as a rational organ in the writing of the
Scriptures ? They believe indeed, that the Bible is
as divine in its form, as in its matter, and as human
in its matter, as in its form. But both as to matter
and form, man was a rational organ in producing
it. " If the humon character of the manner," says
he, " is forgotten — the errors which may rise, are
by no means inconsiderable." Who can forget
that the Scriptures are written in the form of human

THE SCRIPTURES. 71 .
writings? This may be remembered, while at the
same time, it is believed that they have received
this human form from God. But that we may not
fight in the dark, let us see what those errors are.
" Truth is conveyed off, as it were, into the lifeless
reservoirs of human contrivance, instead of flowing
fresh from the living sources of the divine mind."
Now a Scripture metaphor I could expound, but
here is one that discards the efforts of criticism. I
can attach no more meaning to it, than if it were
written in Chinese. Let us then examine the next
supposed error. " Harsh and unnatural interpre
tations are imposed; arguments are violated, or
misstated; figures and parables are pushed into
minute and far-fetched novelties." How do any of .
these evils result from the belief that God is the
author of the Scriptures, both as to manner and
matter ? Does the author really think that it would
be lawful to impose harsh and unnatural interpre
tations, violate or misstate arguments, push figures
and parables, into minute and far-fetched novelties,
on the supposition that God had written the Scrip
tures with His own finger ? Is there any difference
as to the interpretation of a parable or any figure,
whether it had. been written by God or by man ?
The author seems constantly to labor under the
Btrange impression that if God should speak with
out human instrumentality, He would not speak in
language to be expounded by the ordinary laws of

72 INSPIRATION OF
speech. " Systems of theology," he continues, " are
framed according to the taste and habits of the
student, and not after the native simplicity of the
divine word." Many systems of theology, it is true,
are of this stamp, but it is not the result of too high
views of inspiration. Strange, indeed, that a writer
takes up his pen, with the conviction that the Scrip
tures are so eminently inspired, and that this very
conviction leads him to form his system in utter
disregard of these Scriptures! "A few passages
are taken out of their connexion, and forced to an
unnatural sense, and then the Scriptures compelled
to bend to that exposition." Very bad indeed, but
overstrained views of inspiration are surely the last
thing in which a source should be sought for such
an evil. " The various statements and arguments
of the Holy Scriptures, instead of being diligently
examined and compared, as so many phenomena
from which inferences are to be drawn with the
care of the inductive philosophy, are harshly put
together, reduced to a few rigid and unbending
propositions, and are made the first principles of
all subsequent advances. By these means, the
doctrine of the inspiration is overstrained, and
misapplied." How is it possible that any reason
ing mind could connect such errors with the opin
ion on which Mr. W. supposes them to be founded?
This, surely, is a noble instance of the inductive
philosophy. The wildest enthusiasm, in all its

THE SCRIPTURES. 73
phrenzy, never uttered any thing more extravagant
than this. A series of errors are ascribed to an
origin with no more semblance of truth, than if they
were deduced from wrong views of the solar system.
Though a person should be so frantic as to believe
that the writers of the Scriptures were unconscious
organs, as devoid of understanding at the moment
as Balaam's ass, his opinion would have no tendency
to lead to any of the above errors. It is mere
raving then to trace them to such a source. No
man can be more destitute of a philosophic mind
than this writer.
" The human part is forgotten. Men pass over
and obliterate all the finer traits, all the hidden and
gentle whispers of truth, all the less obvious, and
yet natural and affecting impressions of character."
Here again the writer gets into mystery. What
are these finer traits that are passed over and oblite
rated ? How are they obliterated, if they are passed
aver ? What are hidden whispers of truth ? Who
can hide a whisper ? H it is hidden, how is it ob
literated? Do not the gentle whispers of truth
belong to the matter of Scripture ? Are they man
ner merely; form without substance? What in
plain English is the meaning of this sentence?
Does the author really think that any one reads the
Epistles of Paul or Peter, James or John, without
knowing that man is speaking as well as God ?
Does he think that it is possible to overlook the

74 INSPIRATION OF
human agency, while he is addressed by a writer
expressly under his own name ? Whatever proba
bility there may be that some will forget that God
speaks through man, there is none that they will
forget that man speaks when he writes expressly
with his own signature. The agency of man is not
a fine trait, not a gentle whisper, not a less obvious
impression; but the most prominent feature in
revelation. He must be blind indeed, who does not
see the Apostle Paul in his writings. Has ever the
the author met any species of two-legged animals
who are guilty of the errors which he here exposes?
Yet the author speaks as if there was a very numer
ous class of this description. If it were the theme of
a school-boy, torturing his barren brains to fill up a
page or two, such a creation of fancied evils might
find some apology. But on so grave a subject, it is
utterly without excuse. There cannot exist an indi
vidual, who in reading the Scriptures, overlooks
the agency of man. Is it then consistent with
integrity, to create a class of fanatics so extrava
gantly frantic, for the mere purpose of disgracing
a disagreeable sentiment?
And what connexion has the quotation from Lord
Bacon with this subject ? As much as it has with
the theory of the tides. Lord Bacon prefers short,
sound, judicious notes and observations on Scrip
hire, to those commentaries that abound in common
places, pursue controversies, and are reduced to

THE SCRIPTURES. 75
artificial method. Well, what has this to say on
the subject of inspiration ? His lordship illustrates
his meaning by a figure. The wine that flows from
the first treading of the grape, is sweeter and bet
ter than that forced out by the press. Whatever
propriety of application this beautiful figure has to
the subject which it is brought to illustrate, it can
have no application to Mr. Wilson's purpose. Cer
tainly it was not from a gentle crush of the Scrip
tures that the author's theory of inspiration flowed.
All the power of the press could not force it out of
the words " All Scripture is given by the inspiration
of God," nor from any other words in the Bible.
It is not merely the roughness of the husk and the
6tone that we find in this wine ; we complain that
it is a wretched beverage, produced by pouring
water on the lees.

REMARKS ON THE REVIEW

REV. DANIEL WILSON'S THEORY OP INSPIRATION.

It is fortunate for Mr. Wilson, that all reviewers
are not of my way, of thinking on these matters.
Some of them will, no doubt, consider him as car
rying his ideas of inspiration much too far. Even
some who have professed evangelical sentiments
have made much greater havoc on the Scriptures,,
The most rigidly orthodox reviewers, it seems, are
quite satisfied with his views. The evangelical
press of England, I have no doubt, will be on his
side. The Christian Observer appears to consider
itself as very scrupulous on the subject, yet it pro
fesses a substantial concurrence in his doctrine. It
will be but justice then to Mr. Wilson to exhibit
the judgment of this Review by the side of my
remarks. I have no wish to conceal any thing that
may be supposed to throw light upon a point which
I deem so vitally important.
The Christian Observer's account of Mr. Wilson's
theory, is contained in the following extract. " The

78 INSPIRATION OF
next Lecture introduces us to a subject of much
difficulty ; namely, the plenary inspiration of the
Scriptures, leaving no defect or error in the reli
gious revelation ; and the human form, the mould,
the peculiar character, the natural methods of ex
pression ; the poetry, the history, the devotion, —
in short, the whole apparatus of earthly instrumen
tality, all impressed with the stamp of man, all
intelligible to man, all to be interpreted by the
laws of ordinary sense, and constantly applied by
grammatical, logical and historical rules. Mr. Wil
son considers the matter all divine — the manner all
human ; that is, with a constant preservation from
all errors affecting the revelation. He views the
Bible as God speaking to man, not by angels, nor
in the language, nor with the ideas, associations,
and style of angels, if angels have such characte
ristics, but by man, in the language of man, and
with the ideas, associations, and style of man."
Though the first sentence is not remarkable for its
clearness and precision, this extract will show that
I have not misrepresented Mr. Wilson's meaning.
My view of it is substantially the same with that
given here. Tlie Scriptures are impressed with
the stamp of man, that is, they are written as if
each of the writers were communicating his own
thoughts. Did any man ever doubts this ? Is this
a discovery? Was there ever a reader of the
Scriptures who was so ignorant as not to know

THE ¦ SCRIPTURES. 79
this? But have not the thoughts, reasoning and
arguments the same impression? Could not God
as easily use the respective style of the writers of
revelation, as He has used their thoughts, reason
ing and arguments? Has He not communicated
His truth and will to us through the thoughts, rea
soning and arguments of the inspired writers, as
well as through their style? The Epistle to the
Romans, or to the Galations, &c, is as much Paul's
matter as Paul's maimer. Both are his in one
sense ; both are God's in another. The style is the
style of Paul, but could not God use that style
when He wrote by Paul ? The thoughts also are
Paul's thoughts; but could not God convey His
mind in the way of Paul's thinking and reasoning ?
If these gentlemen possessed a little phfiosophical
perspicacity, they would perceive that there is no
(lifference in this matter between the thoughts and
the style, both equally possessing the marks of the
mind of man. There is no more reason from this
human impression to conclude that the manner was
without God as to the style than as to the matter.
But not only has every thing in Scripture, accord
ing to these writers, the stamp of man, but what
must be equally surprising, " all is intelligible to
man." Now is this a peculiarity in the manner of
inspiration? What childish trifling ! Must not
revelation have been intelligible to man in what
ever way inspired? In whatever way commiini-

80 INSPIRATION OF
cated ? Had God given it by angels would it not
have been intelligible ? Had He given it imme
diately from His own hand, would it not have been
intelligible? What peculiar darkness is in the
messages delivered by angels ? Have these gentle
men ever read the Ten Commandments ? Is not
the language of the tables of the law sufficiently
perspicuous ?
But not only are all things intelligible to man, it
is added, " all to be interpreted by the laws of ordi
nary sense, and constantly applied by grammatical,
logical, and rhetorical rules." And if God had
written the Scriptures Himself, or given them
through man as an unconscious instrument, would
not this have been equally the case? Must not
every thing written in any language necessarily be
understood in the sense of that language ? To say
that God might have written His word in human
language, and that its meaning was not to be
judged by the ordinary rules of that language, is a
coutradiction in terms. For if it is not to be under
stood in the sense of the language, it is not in the
language. The fact that revelation is written in
the peculiar style of each of the inspired writers, is
a peculiarity hi inspiration worthy of being noticed;
and from it doubtless we may derive instruction ;
but that it is written in our language, and to be
understood in the sense of the language in which it
is written, and that it is intelligible to men, are no

INSPIRATION OP 81
peculiarities. To mention such things as a distin
guishing part of inspiration is the most silly trifling.
The same may be said with respect to the alterna
tive of speaking by angels. " He views the Bible,"
says the reviewer, " as God speaking to man, not
by angels," &c. And did ever any one_ take a
different view of this matter ? Was it ever thought
that the Bible was written by angels in the language
of- angels? A most important discovery surely,
that the Bible was not written in the language of
angels ! By angels it might have been written or
by the finger of God ; but whether by the one or by
the other, it must have been written in the language
of those to whom it was designed to be a revelation.
The language of angels, then, it is absurd to men
tion as an alternative. What Cimmerian darkness
is it then that clouds the minds of these writers,
that as often as they make the supposition that God
or angels had written a revelation for man, they
think it might have been written in the language
of heaven! A book written in the language of
angels, it is absurd to speak of as a revelation to
man. Let the reader observe in this extract the limita
tion even to divine superintendence in the writing
of the Scriptures — "with a constant preservation
from all error affecting the revelation." I noticed
the same thing in Mr. Wilson as this reviewer has
done. According to this, the writers of Scripture

82 INSPIRATION OF
were not preserved from all error, but only from
such error as should affect the revelation. This,
however, seems inconsistent with many of Mr.
Wilson's assertions.
The reviewers next inform us : " We have often
thought long and anxiously on this much contro
verted question ; nor are we wholly ignorant of
what the most celebrated biblical writers and theo
logians have written upon 'it, or of the difficulties
which may be supposed to attach themselves to
whatever conclusions we may adopt." If these
gentlemen would consult the Scriptures with the
teachableness of little children, they might sooner
come to their purpose, than either by abstract
thinking on the question as a subject of controversy,
or by poring over the volumes of biblical writers.
The last is an aid not to be despised ; but I am
convinced that an implicit reliance on it, to the
neglect of the first, is the cause of much of the very
great ignorance of the learned with respect to this
subject. As long as men attempt to surmount all
difficulties by untaught distinctions in inspiration,
and by theories founded merely on supposition,
instead of submitting to the testimony of God, that
" all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," it
may be expected that, like the sorcerer who
opposed Paul, they will seek one to lead them at
noon-day. That there are difficulties connected
with inspiration, I do not deny; for I do not know

THE SCRIPTURES. 83
any truth or duty revealed in Scripture that has
not its difficulties. But this I know, that the
authors of the late theories have not in the smallest
degree contributed to remove these difficulties.
The greatest of these difficulties remain, even were
any of these theories admitted. The greatest diffi
culties that have ever occurred to me do not at all
respect the complete inspiration of the Scriptures,
both in matter and words. All that the doctrine
of the inspiration of every word in the original
Scriptures demands, is, that every thing written in
them was written by inspiration. This has no
more difficulty when it applies to the advice of
Gamaliel, or the Letter of Claudius Lysias, the
chief Captain, than when it applies to the Sermon
on the Mount. That every word of Scripture has
been inspired, does not imply "that every speech or
sentiment recorded there should be inspired. The
Letter of Claudius Lysias was not inspired, but it
is inserted in the Scriptures by inspiration; and
for a purpose useful for the edification of the man
of God. To this view of inspiration I have never
met an objection that could detain me for a mo
ment. All that Mr. Wilson and the Christian
Observer bring forward is perfectly consistent with
it. What they allege, is a thing so obvious that it
could lie hid from no child that is able to read the
Scriptures ; and instead of being in opposition to
my sentiments, is taken for granted in all my

84 INSPIRATION OF
reasoning. Paul's writings are in Paul's style;
but this applies to the thoughts as well as the
form. " Our general impression upon the whole," say
the reviewers, " we confess, is that Mr. Wilson is
not far from having arrived at the true phfiosophy
of the matter." The thing under discussion is not
a matter of philosophy, nor to be ascertained by
philosophical investigation. It is a matter of divine
testimony, the meaning of which is to be ascer
tained by the laws of language. God says, " All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God;" Mr.
Wilson, on the contrary, says, some part of Scrip
ture is human. Mr. Wilson's philosophy then teaches
him to contradict God. But Mr. Wilson's theory
is as bad philosophy as it is bad theology. It
makes a part contained, no portion of the whole
that contains it. The manner is supposed not to
belong to the writing of which it is the manner.
The style belongs to the writing; and if all Scripture
is given by inspiration, the manner of Scripture
must be giyen by inspiration. No theory was ever
propounded with less philosophical perspicacity than
this. It distinguishes what cannot be distinguished ;
and ascribes effects to causes with which they have
not the slightest connection. Besides, this theory
makes only the matter divine. Then the words
are not divine. Are the words the matter ? Yet
it makes the words of a great part of the Scrip-

THE SCRIPTURES. 85
tures to be divine as well as the matter. Is this
philosophy ?
Again, it makes all the matter divine, yet it
makes a great part of the matter human, supplied
from the sources of the private knowledge, infor
mation, &c. of the different writers. Is this phi
losophy? Nor are these the only inconsistencies
of this theory. While it makes all the matter
divine, it supposes the possibility even of some
error in the matter, in things that do not respect
the revelation.
Again, it makes the inspiration itself the joint
production of God and man. Is this philosophy ?
Still farther, it makes only the manner human,
yet it allows " the greatest freedom and latitude in
the use of each writer's knowledge and talents and
ordinary means of information." Is not this some
thing more than manner ? Li the exercise of this
freedom did they introduce no matter ? If it is
said that they were superintended in the introduc
tion of this matter, I reply that then they had not
the greatest freedom and latitude. I reply farther,
that superintendence is not inspiration, and that
things introduced under superintendence are not
mere manner. There is no consistency in this
theory. " We would, on the one hand," say the reviewers,
"zealously maintain against the semi-sceptic or
Socinian disputer, the plenary inspiration of the

86 INSPIRATION OF
Scriptures; we would not allow for a moment,
with the Belshams and Priestlys of England, or
the Neologians of Germany, that an apostle or
Baptist may maintain true conclusions from incon
clusive arguments ; that Jewish prejudices were
allowed to pervert the Christian records ; that the
Evangelists were little more than mere ordinary
relators of a true story ; or that a God of infinite
wisdom permitted His record of mercy to a perish
ing world to be liable to take any doubtful coloring
by passing through a human medium, what it must
have done, had it not been dictated by His imme
diate and infallible inspiration."
I may here remark the want of candor in such a
use of the word plenary. Surely plenary inspira
tion cannot apply to the views of those who make
any exceptions to the inspirations of the Scriptures.
Does not this phrase refer to every thing in the
Scriptures, and to every word of the Scriptures ?
Is it not then an abuse of language to speak of
holding plenary inspiration, while some things in
Scripture are expressly excepted from inspiration?
This is a mean artifice to sap the foundation of
the full inspiration of Scripture under the mask
of holding it. To those imacquainted with what
has been written on the subject, the -phrase plenary
inspiration would undoubtedly convey a meaning
very different from that in which it is dishonestly
used by many writers. With what propriety can

THE SCRIPTURES. 87
persons assert that they hold the doctrine of plenary
inspiration, when, according to their systems, much
of the Scriptures was not inspired at all? Some
part of it belongs to man, and in many things he
was only superintended, which is a very different
thing from inspiration. But why are the poor Bel-
shams and Priestlys, with the Neologians of Ger
many, not to be indulged in the exceptions which
they make to inspiration. Is this high popish pre
rogative, of distinguishing and limiting, where there
are no distinctions or limitations in Scripture, to be
confined to Evangelical divines alone? Must the
Belshams and Priestlys surrender to the more
orthodox zeal and predilections of the Christian
Observer ? What is it that can put down the im
pious views of Belsham and Priestly on this sub
ject? No abstract reasoning; no abhorrence of
Christian Observers, no a priori evidence, — nothing
but the declarations of God in the Scriptures. God.
says, " all Scripture is given by inspiration of God."
This cuts down the horrible blasphemy of Belsham
and Priestly ; and this equally cuts down the less
horrible blasphemy of the Rev. D. Wilson and the
Christian Observer. The man who makes any
exception, cannot consistently refuse any other ex
ception. The difference between Mr. Wilson and
Dr. Priestly is only in degree. Both proceed on
the same principle, though the evangelical minister
may not choose to carry his doctrine as far as the

88 INSPIRATION OF
Socinian philosophy. The Christian Observer is
shocked with the heresy that makes the Evangelists
little more than mere ordinary relaters of a true
story ; yet how much higher does even Mr. Wilson
place them in some parts of their narrative ? The
Christian Observer thinks it necessary that the
record of mercy should be dictated by immediate
inspiration. But is this the kind of inspiration for
which Mr. Wilson contends in the Evangelists?
Much of the record is not by inspiration at all.
"Yet, at the same time," says the Christian
Observer, " does not every divine, even those who
would most strongly object to the latter part of
Mr. Wilson's statements ; nay, does not the most
uninstructed person who thinks the very words of
King James' translation, the original diction of the
Holy Spirit, familiarly speak of the respective styles
of St. Paul or St. John ; of the sublimity of Isaiah,
or the pathos of Jeremiah; of the characteristic
peculiarities of the four Evangelists, all relating the
same truths by the same inspiration, yet each in a
manner which may be justly called his own?"
Very true, that there is a distinction in the style
of the different writers of Scripture, and that each
writer may be said to have his own. Learned and
unlearned admit this. The defenders of the full
inspiration of the Scriptures speak of this, as well
as their opponents. But what is the inference
from all this ? Is it that Mr. Wilson has made a

THE SCRIPTURES. 89
discovery, when he has tipned into a theory what
is admitted by all ? Is it that, as the writers of
Scripture have a characteristic style, they were not
influenced by God in the use of that style ? Is it
not possible that God could employ their style as
well as their tongue or pen ? Yes, we talk fami
liarly of Paul's peculiar style, and of John's pecu
liar style; and we talk as familiarly of Paul's
doctrine, of Paul's reasoning, &c. But in so speak
ing we do not mean to assert that the writings of
Paul, both in doctrine and style, are not God's.
Indeed, the very universality of the fact of such a
manner of speaking, is the strongest evidence, that
there is no opposition between the supposition of a
characteristic style, and the belief that this, in
another point of view, is the work of God. As the
most ignorant persons find no difficulty in admitting,
that the Scriptures may be written in the respective
styles of the different writers, while they believe
that every word of- the Scriptures is inspired, why
will the learned conjure up a difficulty to give
scope to their ingenuity in forming theories ? But
where have these sages found the man who believes
that the very words of the authorized version, are
the original diction of the Holy Spirit ? Is there
any one able to read the Bible, who believes that
it was written in English? But this is not all.
This person who thinks that the Bible was origi
nally written in English, is quite conversant with

90 INSPIRATION OF
the characteristic style *of each of the inspired
writers ; and can speak as accurately as Longinus
himself, of the sublimity of the one, the pathos of
the other, &c. What a compound of ignorance and
knowledge must he be ?
The reviewers proceed: "Mathematically to
adjust correctly the two points in their minute
boundaries, may not be easy ; but it appears to us
to be an excess of scrupulosity to deny, when
expressly reasoning on the subject, what we con
stantly admit when not thinking of it." What
have mathematics to do with settling metaphysical
distinctions ? Were an angel to draw the line, it
could not be done mathematically. There is no
more propriety in bringing mathematics to settle a
difficulty on the subject of inspiration, than in
bringing a text from the Bible to settle a point in
the conic sections. But the distinction as to the
present subject, is not a line separating between
adjacent territories ; the same territory belongs to
different occupiers, to the one it belongs in one
sense, to the other in another. The Epistle to the
Romans, for instance, is the Epistle of Paul, con
tains the thoughts, reasoning, arguments, language,
and style of Paul; but the same Epistle is the
word of God, both in style and matter. It would
not only be "an excess of scrupulosity to deny,
when expressly reasoning on the subject, what we
constantly admit when not thinking of it," but it

THE SCRIPTURES. 91
would also be extreme folly. But at all times, we
are willing to make the admission in the amplest
terms. Did any man ever deny, in reasoning on
this subject, that the Scriptures have the character
istic style of their different writers ?
In illustration of this variety of characteristic
style, substantially expressing the same thing, the
reviewers give us an example. "Take a familiar
example, a parent says separately to four children,
' Call your brother Richard.' One simply repeats
the message as the words of his parent : ' Richard,
my father desires me to call you.' A second makes
the message his own : ' Richard, my father wants
you.? A third repeats it as an injunction : ' Rich
ard, you must go to my father.' The fourth :
' Brother Richard, pray run directly to our dear
father, for he wants to speak to you.' Are not all
these exactly the father's message, and is it to con
travene this proposition to say that each was deliv
ered in a maimer characteristic of the respective
speakers ?" Now this example is entirely unsuited
to the illustration .of the point for which it is
brought. It gives a mere variety of expression,
but by no means four characteristic styles. So far
from this, the very same individual might, in deliv
ering the message, on different occasions, use each
of these forms of expression. Yes, and twenty
other similar varieties. Indeed, in repeating a
message to different individuals separately, who is

92 INSPIRATION OF
it that keeps by a single mode of expression? A
hundred such varieties are consistent with the style
of the same speaker.
As an illustration of substantial harmony, the
example is equally defective. Did any one ever
suppose, that mere variety of expression is contra
diction. The most inveterate hater of the word
of God, would never allege any inconsistency in
this, if he met it in the Scriptures. There is not
even the shadow of an appearance of contradic
tion. The relation of each of the brothers is as
much, and as directly, the father's message, as words
could express. Did not each call Richard ? What
else was the command of the father ? This exam
ple, then, does not correspond to any of the appa
rent discrepancies in the account of the Evangelists,
to which the infidel objects. Of what avail would
such an example be to harmonize the four accounts
of the inscription over the cross ? Instead of send
ing four messengers to one person, it would have
been more to the purpose to have sent one messen
ger, and have given four writers to report the
delivery of the message, with such a variety as the
Gospels give of the above fact. Indeed, to send
four messengers on such an errand, was a very
clumsy expedient. The invention of a reviewer
ought to be more fertile in resources. If the diffi
culties on the subject of inspiration were of the
nature that this example supposes, it would be an

THE SCRIPTURES. 93
easy thing indeed to clear them away. He must
be a sceptic indeed who alleges that, when a num
ber of persons are commanded to call an individual
the message is not executed, except they all use the
same words. Certainly the reviewers have thought
long, and anxiously, and profoundly on this subject.
After their able solutions of the most formidable
objections, infidelity must ever after feel abashed.
The reviewers are of opinion that it does not
derogate from the author's conclusions of full in
spiration, that he has admitted "though perhaps
not in the most desirable words, a wonderful union
of divine and human agency in that inspiration."
So then, it appears the reviewers agree with the
author in making man's part in the business a con
stituent of inspiration. Man, it seems, has partly
inspired the Scriptures. And do the reviewers
really think, that it does not derogate from full
inspiration, that a part has been effected by man
without God? Indeed they object to the author's
phraseology. They would not say, that "the Scrip- -
tares are both human and divine ;" but they say,
"when he explicates his proposition, we agree with
him." Now in what sense can it be said, that the
Scriptures are human, in consistency with the
assertion that they are all divine, or fully inspired ?
Only as they are written by the instrumentality of
man, in the style of man, and after the manner of
human writings. But this will not serve the pur-

94 INSPIRATION OF
pose of the author's theory. This theory makes
them human as a constituent part of their composi
tion ; a part in which God has no hand. Now if
there is any thing merely human in the Scriptures,
it cannot be true that they are wholly of God, or
fully inspired. The author's doctrine, then, is a
self-contradiction. The only reason why this con
tradiction lies hid from the smallest critical discern
ment, is, that by the assertion that the style and
manner are human, he frequently means no more
than what every one admits, namely, that they are
the characteristic style and manner of the writers.
In this light the Christian Observer seems to con
sider his doctrine ; but in this sense there is nothing
in the assertion that can entitle it to be called a
theory of Mr. Wilson's. Besides, his assertions
again and again make the style and manner a dis
tinct part in the composition of the Scriptures, in
which God had no hand.
But why do the reviewers refuse to say that the
Scriptures are human as well as divine, if they
adopt the author's conclusions? If a constituent
part of the composition belongs to man in such a
sense that it does not also belong to God, is not
such a fact as truly human as the rest is divine?
Indeed, according to Mr. Wilson, the Scriptures
are neither human nor divine ; they are not, as he
asserts, in contradiction to himself, all human and
all divine; they are partly human and partly

THE SCRIPTURES. 95
divine. But according to his theory, they are as
truly human as they are divine. The Christian
Observer then appears to be very slightly acquainted
with this subject.
It is much to be lamented, that a periodical
which has so much influence on the Christian,
public, should express itself substantially satisfied
with a theory of inspiration which lowers the
character of the divine word, without even the
alleviating circumstance of removing a single
difficulty connected with the subject. That so
crude a theory should be dignified as a philoso
phical solution of a difficult theological question,
hitherto unanswered, must surprise every one capa
ble of analysing the author's paradoxes. Indeed, a
paradoxical way of speaking is the only thing
original in this scheme. Let it be divested of this
and nothing is left for Mr. Wilson. The fact that
in the Scriptures there is a human manner, has
never been questioned — has never been unknown.
That not only the manner, but the thoughts,
reasonings, and conclusions may all be ascribed to
the writers, is a thing that no man who reads the
Bible can question. How then can Mr. Wilson
deserve the credit of unveiling an important hidden
truth? What has he discovered that was not
always known ? To the careless reader, who never
thinks of forming accurate ideas of what lies before
him, there is, in Mr. Wilson's language, the appear-

96 INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.
ance of great depth and metaphysical acumen in
reconciling things apparently incongruous ; but
when it is more closely examined, it turns out to
be a pompous way of saying nothing. But if God
is in very deed the Author of the Scriptures, how
guilty must he be, who has exerted his ingenuity
to deprive Him of any part of them ! How guilty
must they be who encourage him in this sacrilege I

STRICTURES ON SOME PARTS

REMARKS OF THE ECCLECTIC REVIEW,
OS
DR. SCHLEIERMACHEr's CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE
GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE.

It will be recollected that it was in the Ecclectic
Review that the infidel paper appeared, which
excludes from the sacred canon of inspired Scrip
ture, a considerable portion of the Old Testament.
It will not therefore appear surprising to any who
are acquainted with this fact, that the same pro
fessedly Evangelical publication has, in its review
of Dr. Schleiermacher's Critical Essay on the Gos
pel of Luke, audaciously charged the Evangelists
with falsehood. The accounts in the different Gos
pels are, according to the reviewers, in some points
so contradictory that they have fearlessly adopted
the conclusion that the writers of them have erred.
The work which they profess to review is on the
origination of the Gospels, and is of an entirely
geological cast. The reviewers, indeed, censure
his boldness and condemn his errors, but they

98 INSPIRATION OF
approach him with such awe and timidity, that
their gentle reproach must be very agreeable to
him, if he has any vanity. I shall not trouble
myself with the review, farther than respects the
subject of inspiration. Schleiermacher's book is
one of those productions that professes to throw
light upon the subject of the Evangelical History,
by tracing the different Gospels to their origin.
Such writers suppose that they can discover tho
different external sources from which the Evan
gelists took their accounts, and that this discovery
removes the difficulties felt from the disagreement
of their narratives. The elucidation of this ques
tion has occupied some of the most considerable
Biblical scholars in our own country, and the
Ecclectic Review has produced a specimen on this
subject, which shows their entire approbation of
such attempts. Now, notwithstanding the celebrity
of some of the writers who have occupied their
ingenuity on this subject, and the general approba
tion of their labor, I will be as rash as Job's three
friends, and pronounce with the fullest confidence,
that the utmost exertions of talent can never pro
duce any thing but a figment in this matter ; and
farther, that though the truth was exactly known,
it would be of no value for the alleged purpose. It
is indeed perfectly agreeable to the doctrine of
complete inspiration, that the writers of the Gos
pels should have taken much of their accounts

THE SCRIPTURES. 99
from external sources. Inspiration applies to them
in copying a genealogical title, receiving an account
of a fact from an eye witness, copying uninspired
records, or making extracts from them, as well as
in the most important communications of the Holy
Spirit. But to pretend, at this distance of time, to
discover and ascertain the different external sources
from which each of the Evangelists draw their ma
terials, is an attempt that sober good sense never
will make. No historical question can ever be
settled by theory. The utmost that ingenuity can
reach is probabfiity, or rather plausibility. A
thing may have been so, as is alleged ; but it may
not have been so, and nothing but childish credu
lity will ever receive as historical truth, the most
harmonious tales of fiction.
If this is a just observation, how deplorable is it
that the young Biblical student should have his
talents so misdirected as they are likely to be, by
the remarks in the following extract from the
Ecclectic Review ?
"The subject to which this volume (Schleier-
macher's Essay) relates, is the origination of the
Gospels, particularly the first three. The Bishop of
Peterborough's Dissertation, annexed to his Trans
lation of Michaelis' Introduction, in 1801, first
brought the subject fully before the minds of
English readers. The early Protestant commenta
tors and divines, with the exception of Grotius,

100 INSPIRATION OF
had scarcely adverted to the subject, or had con
tented themselves with occasional and brief notices,
such as a slight examination must have ascertained
to be quite unsatisfactory. Towards the beginning
of the eighteenth century, Le Clerc, Mill, and
Wetstein, proposed then opinions on this question ;
and in a following period it was investigated with
great assiduity by Michaelis and many others of
the German critics, and in our own country chiefly
by the late Dr. Henry Owen. But it is during the
last forty years that the most laborious diligence
has been employed upon it, by the late estimable
Dr. Niemeyer, by Eichhorn, and by many others
of the German Bible scholars." Such is the history
of this foolish and untaught question. The laborious
trifling of misemployed learning and ingenuity
is here exhibited with an approbation that must
give a wrong direction to the talents of young Bib
lical students, as far as it has any influence on the
Christian public. In what immediately follows,
we have the phenomena and the theory founded
on them. " Whoever reads a Greek Harmony of
the Gospels, must be struck with these facts : that
Matthew, Mark, and Luke frequently recite the
same facts, but particularly speeches of our Lord,
in the same words ; that often there is such a vari
ation of the words, but conservation of the sense,
as usually takes place when two persons translate
into one language a passage from a foreign book ;

THE SCRIPTURES. 101
that still more instances occur, in which the varia
tion is much less than must necessarily be in the
case just supposed, while yet the conformity is not
perfect, as in the first class of instances ; that in
some cases the differences are very considerable,
referring to words spoken, actions performed, and
the consecution of Events; and that in other cases
the variations are such as appear irreconcilable by
any method that ingenuity can devise, so that we
are driven to the conclusion, that some of the
Evangelists have erred in the dates of events, the
combination of material, and other minute circum
stances, merely of an outward and mechanical
kind, and which have no effect whatever on the
certainty of their narrative, or its grand use for
religious instruction."
Here we have without disguise the appalling
assertion that there are various errors in the Evan
gelical histories. It is not my business to contro
vert this infidel statement, else I might allege that
ingenuity might yet do what it has never done, and
that all former failures are no certain proof that
the thing is impracticable. These sages are not to
take it for granted, that human ingenuity can
never advance beyond their attainments, or even
the advance of all former times. I might allege
reconciliation might be possible, though human
ingenuity should never effect it, and that a proper
sense of human weakness, as well as a reverence for

102 INSPIRATION OF
the word of God, ought to have prevented this
blasphemous charge. Pray, gentlemen reviewers,
might not a harmony of the Gospels be possible,
though your exquisite sagacity has not found it ? I
might allege also, that in effecting a harmony every
possible supposition is perfectly allowable, and any
thing that could possibly reconcile the accounts may
be taken for granted. Even if two accounts appa
rently of the same transaction should be palpably
irreconcilable, there is still a possibility that it is
not the same. A sentiment uttered on one occa
sion may have been uttered on another with some
variety, and that which appears to be the same
miracle variously related, may in reality have been
two. But I will allege nothing like this. I will
take it for granted that the blasphemous charge of
these Evangelical critics is true. Of what use on
this supposition, are speculations on the origination
of the Gospels? Can the result of these specula
tions produce a harmony where there is acknow
ledged contradiction ? They may account for
variety, but can they excuse error ? If the Evan
gelists have erred, it does not free them front that
error, to discover its source. After all the specula
tions of these theorists, the error, with all its evils,
still remains. But these errors, it seems, are of
small moment. They are merely "outward and
mechanical." But how errors of dates and false
combinations of fact, can be called the outward and

THE SCRIPTURES. 103
mechanical errors of history, is what I cannot
understand. Faults of this kind do not belong to
inartificial composition. Nor is it true that error?.
of this description have no effect on the certainty
of the narrative. It is true indeed, that the substance
of a narrative may be true, while there is a mistake
in the date ; and two facts may be true, while they
are erroneously combined; but error in any of
these respects brings the whole Bible into suspicion ;
and when the whole claims the authority of inspi
ration, a false date is as bad as a false narrative.
When we read, " All Scripture is given by inspi
ration of God," we cannot admit that God has
committed an error in the date, more than in the
transactions. This passage of Scripture demands
truth in the dates as well as in the substance of the
narratives. If the Scriptures assert inspiration
equally with respect to every part of them, an error
of any kind, were it established against them, would
overturn their authority.
" There are, indeed," says the reviewers, " some
persons who suppose that all and singular the
sentences and words, in the very order in which
they stand through the whole of the Gospel records,
were literally dictated by the Holy Spirit." Extra
vagant fanatics ! What could lead them to so wild
a conceit ! What absurdity to suppose that the
words and sentences of a book, aye, all and singu
lar tlie words and sentences, in the very order in

104 INSPIRATION OF
which they stand, shall be the very words and sen
tences and arrangement of the author of such book !
What then, gentlemen, is your theory on this sub
ject? Will you show us how any piece of compo
sition can be ascribed to an author, when the words,
sentences and collocation are not his own? Are
the words, sentences and arrangement, no parts of
the writings to which they belong? I am one of
those fantastic people who believe that a writing
contains all the words, sentences and arrangement,
that are found in it ; and therefore cannot see how
all Scripture is given by inspiration, if any word
originally in the Scripture was uninspired. I am
so old fashioned as to believe, that if all Scripture
is inspired, there is no Scripture which is uninspired,
for I have not yet learned to believe both sides of a
contradiction. *But this is not the most extravagant thing that
these grave reviewers charge on their opponents
on the question of inspiration. They add; "and
that the Evangelists had no other part to perform
than that of mechanical hand-writers." Stop a little
gentlemen. Where did you find this ? In whose
writings can you verify this charge ? I will not say
that you never met with it, for in London, that
hotbed of fanaticism, there may be paroxisms of
religious phrenzy beyond the cold conception of mere
provincials. But I will say, since I began to exam
ine this subject, I have not met it. I never met an

THE SCRIPTURES. 105
individual who looked upon the Evangelists as
merely mechanical hand-writers. It is universally
admitted, that the inspired writers were rational
organs through which the Holy Spirit communica
ted his mind, though every word written by them
in the Scriptures was froni God. There is nothing
irreconcilable in the two parts of this statement.
God can surely speak His words through man, in
such a way that the words and thoughts shall be
the words and thoughts of both. If, however, the
reviewers make this assertion with respect to those
who in the late controversy have held the doctrine
of verbal inspiration, the charge is utterly false.
And there is some reason to think that this is the
allusion. For they add, "those persons, therefore,
do not shrink from maintaining that the variations,
equally with the coincidences, even those which ap
parently are the most insusceptible of being bent
to reconciliation, all proceeded from one and the
same source, the verbal prescription of the Spirit
of truth." I have distinctly avowed the sentiment
here alluded to ; and I do not shrink from defending
any thing I have advanced on the subject. I have
said, that any variety that is warrantable in the
different rehearsals of the same fact by an honest
witness in the things of man, is equally warranta
ble in the different relations of the same fact by
the Holy Spirit. It is a fanatical misconception of
the nature of truth and falsehood, to suppose that

106 INSPIRATION OF
what is consistent with veracity in the language of
man, would be inconsistent with it in the language
of God. To repeat a narrative with the exactness
of a message in Homer's heralds, is not required
by truth in 'the language of either God or man.
And if there are any discrepancies in the accounts
of the Evangelists, which do not come under the
protection of this shield, but are real errors, I
maintain that they overturn the inspiration of the
Scriptures altogether, and are inconsistent with the
declaration that " all Scripture is given by the inspi
ration of God."
"The chief questions are," say the reviewers,
" did one or two of the first three Evangelists
transcribe from the other ? Or did they all make
use of some one common document, takino; from it
more or less of their respective matter? Or had
they a variety of such common documents ? The
affirmative of each of these positions has been main
tained by different writers ; and each has attempted
to show the impossibility of any theory being true
except his own." Now, if there is an irreconcili-
ble difference between the accounts of the Evange
lists on any point, how can it harmonize them to
know the sources from which each took his matter?
Do not the reviews assert, that some of the accounts
are erroneous ? Of what avail then is it to point
out the source of the error, even were this possible ?
Can this excuse falsehood, or convert falsehood into

THE SCRIPTURES. 107
truth ? If two English historians differ in the date
of any event, does it reconcile them to point out
the different authorities which they have followed?
So far then from these being the chief questions on
this subject, they are not questions that relate to tho
subject at all. And as they are questions that are
not answered by the Scriptures, they are questions
that no man of a sound mind would ever ask. They
are questions that never can be answered but by
conjecture ; and on such answers a wise man will
not build any part of his faith on any subject. They
are questions perfectly similar to those which have
inquired after the name and the kindred of the
Witch of Ender, and the names of those two men
who accompanied Saul when he Avent to consult
her. Who can tell whether her name was Zepha-
niah, or in what respect would it profit us to know
this ? Is it possible to determine whether or not
she was the mother of Abner? Or would the
settling of this question enrich our knowledge?
Whether Abner and Amasa were the two men that
accompanied Saul on his errand, cannot now be
known; and could it be known, would be of no
advantage. Such questions did much occupy the Jewish
doctors, and much of the information which they
communicated in their commentaries is of this sort.
It is lamentable to find the censors of the press, the
professed defenders of evangelical sentiments in

IOS INSPIRATION OF
England in the nineteenth century, approving of a
species of inquiry equally vain, equally useless.
To find out the sources of the Gospels by theories
founded on suppositions, is as idle as to attempt the
discovery of the sources of the Nile or the Niger
in the same manner.
That my readers may be enabled to judge with
more advantage with respect to these competent
theories, I shall present them with a specimen that
these reviewers have themselves exhibited with
approbation. " Perhaps we shall be forgiven,"
they say, " if we here borrow a few paragraphs
from lectures on this subject, which have been de
livered more than twenty years ago, in one of the
Dissenting Colleges near the metropolis."
" Wherever the Apostles went to preach the Gos
pel, we find them attentive to two great objects ;
the first, the conversion of men to the faith and
obedience of their Redeemer ; the second, the in
struction and edification of those who had been
already converted.
" In discharging the duties of the second class,
the first Christian teachers must have experienced
such a state of things as I shall now take the liberty
of supposing. The new converts could not but feel
themselves deeply interested to inquire for all attain
able information relative to the character, conduct,
miracles, and discourses of the Lord Jesus. With
such requests, the apostolic instructors would un-

THE SCRIPTURES. 109
doubtedly be disposed to comply, to the utmost of
their power and opportunity. We have in Acts
xx, 35, a reference to information of this land, but
which is not recorded by any one of the Evan
gelists. " The relations thus given by the Apostles, would
be of various length, and would comprehend one
or more anecdotes or discourses ; as the judgment
of the relaters, under the inspiring guidance of the
Holy Spirit, dictated the propriety of the selection,
in application to the chcumstances of those for
whose benefit it was imparted.
" These relations would be justly esteemed of the
highest value, on account of the important and
interesting nature of the matter, and on account of
the promised influence of the Holy Spirit, to bring
to the recollection of the disciples ' all things what
soever Jesus had said unto them.'
"Within the immediate confines of Judea, the
Apostles would usually deliver their discourses in
Syro-Chaldaic, the language of the country ; but in
other places they commonly spoke the Alexandrian
Greek. "Though it is not probable that any of the Apos
tles, during the first few years of their laborious
duties, committed to writing any large accounts, they
might, upon request, write down such or such a par
ticular relation or discourse of their divine Master.
Or, perhaps more probably, some one of their

110 INSPIRATION OP
hearers wrote from their mouths those relations.
In each of their various audiences of converts, it
may surely be presumed that one person, at least,
was competent to perform this service for himself
and his companions in the faith.
" It' is further a matter of reasonable presump
tion, that such memorials, records, fragments, or
whatever Ave may call them, would be presented
by the writer to the Apostle from whose oral in
struction they had been derived, with a request for
revision and correction. Thus, these detached por
tions of narrative, conversation, or continued dis
course, would obtain most justly the sanction of
Apostolic authority, and wotdd be preserved, read,
circulated, copied, and reverenced accordingly.
" To the Evangelists Mark and Luke, such frag
ments would be of immense value. It may be
presumed, that they diligently collected them, that
they were able fully to appreciate their claims to
authenticity, and that they introduced those which
they knew to be of indubitable authority into their
respective narratives; and some of them might,
with equally good reason, be inserted by Matthew
in his original Syro-Chaldaic Gospel. Luke adverts,
in plain terms, to a plurality of sources from which
he had deduced his information, when he says, that
' those who from the beginning had been eye wit
nesses and attendants of the word, had delivered
their declarations ; and that he himself ' had dili-

THE SCRIPTURES. Ill
gently traced up all from the first.' When the
translator of Matthew's Gospel into Greek, whether
that was himself or any other person, found any of
these fragments which corresponded with passages
in his original, he would act properly by availing
himself of them, and transcribing them info his
version. This conjecture applies, of course, to the
Greek fragments, which may be presumed to have
been the more numerous of the two classes.
" The inference from these positions is, that
where we find the continued verbal agreements in
the three or in two of these sacred writers, we are
reading an authentic Greek fragment, which each
possessed and faithfully inserted in his work ; but
that, where we find the coincidences which are
not strictly verbal, but lie in the collocation of sen
tences and members of sentences, each of the
writers had before him a copy of the same Syro-
Chaldaic fragment, and translated it into Greek for
his own purpose."
Now what is this but a theological novel, as much
the work of invention as Waverley ? There is no
more reason to believe that all these suppositions
were actually realized, than that Sir Walter Scott
gives an authentic history of the attempt of Prince
Charles Edward. Is it possible that a writer can
be so frantic as to call on his readers to receive
conjectures as facts ? Must every link of a chain of
supposition be admitted as historical evidence?

112 INSPIRATION OF
The novels of Sir Walter Scott do not demand our
faith though they may possess much historical
truth ; and they give the knowledge of life, man
ners, and of many things that may be profitable ;
but a thousand volumes of such theological ro
mances would not enrich a reader with a single
idea. Reasonings, founded on conjecture with
respect to the things of God, pervert the mind
from the true pursuit and the true sources of
knowledge. How lamentable to find a professor
in a theological chair, in a seminary professedly
evangelical, amusing his students with reveries
about the origination of the Gospels, instead of an
able exposition of the contents of the Bible ! If
this is the way in which the English Dissenters are
now taught in then- Colleges, it will not be surpris
ing if, in process of time, then professors shall
amuse the students by mimicking the trick of the
resurrection of Jesus. Whatever ingenuity a man
may discover in devising and harmonizing such
theories, a sound mind he cannot possess, and none
but fanatics can receive edification.
But granting for a moment that all these con
jectures were matter of fact, of what avail would
this theory be for harmonising tire Evangelists?
Would it convert the supposed errors in the Gospel
into truth ? Would it show that inspiration might
communicate a falsehood? "Upon this general
basis," say the reviewers, "we understand that

THE SCRIPTURES. 113
the Professor whose words we have borrowed,
conceives that both the agreements and the disa
greements, and all the other phenomena of the
case may be accounted for, so far as it is in our
power to account for them." This basis ! A chain
of suppositions! This is a basis without a base.
This is truly like the Indian philosopher, who
supported the world on the back of an elephant,
and the elephant on the back of a huge tortoise.
This theory might, indeed, show the reason of the
coincidences, and the reason of the disagreements.
But does this harmonise the discrepancies ? Does
this show that all Scripture may be given by
inspiration, while the Scriptures abound in errors ?
To find out the external sources of the Gospels,
even were it now possible, would be nothing but
a matter of mere curiosity. Tlie man who would
give two hundred pounds for a Queen Ann's
farthing, might value such information. But any
man of a well regulated mind would utterly under
value such a discovery. Dr. Schleiermacher's
theory, the reviewers inform us, is essentially the
same with that of the English Dissenting Professor ;
but the intrepidity of our critics begin to fail them,
when the German Neologist attempts to harmonise
Matthew and Luke, by turning some parts of the
accounts into allegories and fables. "But when,"
say they, " to accomplish the long-felt desideratum
of harmonising this narrative (of Luke) with that

114 INSPIRATION OP
in Mathew i. 12 — ii. 23, he brings out the supposi
tion that certain parts in the narrative of each
Evangelist are poetical allegories, we feel tho
ground shake under our feet." But had the
reviewers been as well acquainted with the country
as then- profession demanded, they would have left
their guide on the edge of the quagmire, instead of
accompanying him to the very gulph which now
affrights them. They should not have entered the
very margin of the regions of conjecture on a theo
logical subject. And after all, are not the fears of
the reviewers either affection, or cowardice ? Is it
worse in the German Neologist, to charge a false
hood on the Bible under the decent veil of allegory
or instructive fable, than in the reviewers to charge
in direct terms, various errors on the accounts of
the Evangelists ? These young Neological recruits,
who have now shown themselves so nervous at the
first fire, will forget their fears, it is to be expected,
during the remainder of the engagement. If they
have now courage to charge the book of God with
errors in dates and combination of facts, the Neo-
logians have no reason to despair, that they will
come in time to pronounce, without faltering,
" patches of parable and instructive fable."
On the whole it is evident that the German
Neologians have had their influence even on the
evangelical press of England ; and that with all the
horror expressed with respect to their most extra-

THE SCRIPTURES. 115
vagant dogmas, there is an attempt to meet them,
and a desire to fraternize, as far as possible, in
their speculations. The tone of this Review indi
cates much more complaisance towards the errors
of learned ingenuity, than of zeal for the honor of
the word of God. A reviewer possessing an apos
tolic spirit, must have stamped every part of Dr.
Schleiermachers' work with his strongest repro
bation.

REMARKS*

Dr. Smith's account of inspiration appears to me
to proceed on principles at variance with the funda
mental laws of Biblical interpretation. It founds
on theory, and supports itself not by the declarations
of the divine word itself, but by the supposition of
difficulties and views of necessity. Whatever dis
tance there may be between the inspiration allowed
by Dr. Haffner, and that contended for by this wri
ter, they both build on the same objectional founda
tion, though the religious sentiments of the latter
permit him to ascribe a greater degree of divine
assistance. What is the method that just criticism
would adopt in ascertaining the nature and extent
of inspiration ? Undoubtedly it is by arguing, what
saith the Scriptures ? Whether the Scriptures are
inspired at all, and what is the extent of that inspi-
* These remarks were originally subjoined to a Review of the
Rev. Dr. J. Pye Smith's Defence of Dr. Haffner of Strasburg's geo
logical Preface to the Bible. The latter is in this edition omitted,'
as being unconnected with the subject of inspiration.

118 INSPIRATION OF
ration, can be learned from no other source. I turn
then to 2 Timothy, iii, 16, and it immediately gives
me full and perfectly satisfactory information. It
declares, that " all Scripture is given by inspiration
of God." Here plenary inspiration is expressly
asserted ; for what is a writing but words written?
The thoughts and sentiments are the meaning of the
words. To say that a icriting is inspired while the
words are uninspired is a contradiction in terms.
It is not said that the doctrines of Scripture, or the
thoughts and .sentiments of Scripture, but that the
Scriptures themselves, are given by the inspiration
of God. It is of the words as containing the mean
ing, and not of the meaning as distinguished from
the words, that inspiration is directly and expressly
asserted. For my own complete satisfaction, I re
quire not an additional particle of evidence. But
if, to sdence the captiousness of error, I proceed to
examine what additional light the Scriptures afford,
I am altogether overwhelmed with the mass of evi
dence brought to bear on the subject. This may he
seen fully exhibited in Mr. Haldane's Treatise on
the Authenticity and Inspiration of the Holy Scrip
tures. As I am not now arguing the point, but only
showing the legitimate mode of procedure, in every
question with respect to what is taught in Scrip
ture, I decline giving even an epitome of that
evidence. I shall merely suggest one or two things
that may be expressed in a few words. Some things

THE SCRIPTURES. 119
in Scripture must necassarily have been inspired in
words, as well as thoughts. All prophecies not
understood by the Prophets must have had such
an inspiration. Here, then, we have a key to the
nature and extent of inspiration. If any other part
of the Scriptures are ascribed to a lower degree of
inspiration, we are to believe it ; but without this,
we are to look on all as inspired to the same extent,
as the same inspiration is equally asserted of all.
That there are different degrees of inspiration, is
not an assertion of the Scripture themselves, but an
arbitrary theory of man. We find again, that the
Apostles, on the prospect of appearing before kings
and governors, were directed by their Master not
to think previously on what they were to say, as
they would be supplied with a defence in the mo
ment of trial : " It is not you that speak, but the
Holy Ghost." Now, if verbal inspiration was com
municated on such occasions, surely it would not
be withheld from the Scriptures, which are to abide
to the end of the world.
But instead of proceeding in this way, to inquire
ofthe Scriptures the nature and extent of their
inspiration, Dr. S. as if they could not settle the
question, invents a theory, and forms an inspiration,
varying in extent, agreeably to supposed exigencies,
without even alleging the color of Scriptural autho
rity. A plenary verbal inspiration is unnecessary, —
is attended with difficulties, — detracts from the cm-

120 INSPIRATION OF
tlwrity of translation, — gives weight to objections
from various readings, — therefore, there is not a
plenary inspiration. Now, admitting all the pre
mises, all of which I deny, I do not admit the
conclusion. Human views of what is unneces
sary, — the existence of difficulties, — the degree of
authority due to translations,' — -and the weight of
objections from various readings, are not- a para
mount reason to set aside the evidence of Scripture
doctrine ; but I shall examine his four objections
separately. "The hypothesis," says Dr. Smith, "that, in
every case, (for in some it was evidently necessary,)
the identical words were infused into the mind of
the inspired writer, appears to me untenable, for
these reasons:" — Smith's Scriptwre Testimony to
the Messiah, vol. 1. p. 62.
This is not an hypothesis, Dr. Smith ; it is the
express assertion of the Holy Spirit. If Dr. S.
could show that the words, 2 Tim. iii. 16, do not
imply verbal inspiration, he would show that our
interpretation of that passage is wrong; not that
our hypothesis is untenable. We form no hopothe-
sis on the subject — we deny hypothesis — we ab
hor hypothesis, with respect to every truth that can
be known only by the revelation of God.
"It is an unnecessary supposition; for the
divine influence on the mind of the inspired writer
would as certainly guide the rational faculty of

THE SCRIPTURES. 121
expression to the adoption of the best and most
suitable terms and phrases, as if the words were
dictated to a mere amanuensis."
I have never met a writer who betrays greater
indistinctness in his conceptions than this author.
I thought the question was, whether the very words$
all the words originally written in the Scriptures,
were inspired, as well as the thoughts. Here the
question is shifted, and the matter in doubt is sup
posed to be, whether the words of Scripture were
infused by the Spirit, or the inspired writers were
certainly guided to the adoption of them. Now, if
there is any difference between being guided to use
a word and having that word infused into the mind,
I do not think that that difference will be of any
avail to Dr. S.'s theory. If the divine influence on
the mind of the inspired writer has certainly guided
the rational faculty of expression to the adoption
of the best and most suitable terms and phrases,
then the terms and phrases of Scripture are all
given by God. Is this any thing akin to the theory
that in some things the words are left to the writers
themselves, or that the inspiration is in the thoughts
rather than the words ? The theory used in prac
tice, and the theory vindicated, are quite different.
The former is designed to afford some relief from
the supposed consequences of plenary verbal inspi
ration ; the latter, if it is not really such, is exposed
to all its objections. The guiding with certainty to

122 INSPIRATION OF
the use of a term, secures it as firmly as infusion.
What is guiding to the use of a word, but inspira
tion? By the assertion that such a mode of inspiration
is unnecessary, the author's scheme requires, not
merely that certain guidance will supply the place
of infusion, but that some things do not require
verbal inspiration at all. While the thoughts and
sentiments are communicated by the Spirit, the
writers may clothe them with expression. Now,
complete inspiration is necessary as the ultimate
resource in securing us that we have the mind of
the Spirit. We may indeed have an inspired
thought in uninspired xoords, as in translations of
the Scriptures; but that we have the inspired
thought, cannot be known on the highest evidence,
but by knowing the inspired words. How can a
thought be known, but by the words that express
it ? And how can we know that the words express
the thoughts of the author, if they are not the
words of the author? Had the inspired writers
been left to themselves, as to the choice of words
in any part of their writings, they might have made
a bad choice, and inadequately or erroneously repre
sented the mind of the Spirit. The best writer
that ever moved a quill, may often fad in express
ing his own sentiments. Instances might be given
in which the most learned writers misstate their
own meaning, and sometimes convey no meaning

THE SCRIPTURES. 123
at all. Shall the fishermen of Galilee, then, be
supposed equal to express themselves with unerring
correctness, if left to their own phraseology ?
It may be said, that this invalidates the authority
of translations of the Scriptures. And I admit that
it does imply, that no uninspired translation can
have the same authority of the inspired original.
But where is the man that has ever raised transla
tions to such a rank? The universal consent of
controversialists takes this for granted, Avhy then
should the abettors of verbal inspiration be taken
to account on this head? In determining the
meaning of all controverted passages, the last
appeal is universally to the original. This is the
idtimate ground on which certainty of meaning can
be affixed. They who cannot have access to the
very words which the Holy Spirit has inspired,
have not the highest grounds of certainty as to his
meaning. The inferiority of the authority of trans
lations to the inspired original, is a fact that all
must equally admit. Dr. S. himself asks, if Alethia
understands German, supposing this to be a quali
fication for the adequate ability of deciding with
respect to the sentiments contained in Dr. Haffner's
Preface to the Bible.
But while all must admit that uninspired trans
lations have an authority inferior to that of the
inspired original, no sound critic can question the
adequacy of translation for all essential purposes to

124 INSPIRATION OF
the unlearned. The Scriptures are not in a worse
condition, on this point, than the classics, and all
ancient and foreign books. Every one knows, that
to understand what is going on in the continent,
the bulk of the people of this country have no
essential need for its languages. Nay, a criminal
may be tried for his life, upon the testimony of a
witness whose meaning can only be known to the
court by interpretation. For the general faithful
ness of translations, there may be every testimony
that, in human affairs, usually determines opinion
on the most important points. Nor is the learned
man himself independent of human testimony. On
this ground it is that he knows he has the inspired
original. And though he has the inspired original,
he has not an inspired or infallible knowledge of
that original. In many things, then, he will be
liable to mistake the inspired meaning. While he
has an undoubted and a very great advantage over
the illiterate, he is not without difficulty, nor be
yond the reach of error. In judging of the fitness
of the modes of communicating divine knowledge,
incredulity demands evidence that admits no eva
sion ; and learned Christians often desire to indulge
them in this humor. But in this they err, not
thoroughly knowing the Scriptures, nor the works
of creation and Providence. In all God's works
there is the impression of His own hand ; not, how
ever, so legible but chicanery may question it, and

THE SCRIPTURES. V20>
plausibly ascribe it to forgery. Infidels demand
evidence with respect to the Scriptures, not ana
logical to that in any other of God's works ; and
when Christians endeavor to satisfy them in this,
they compromise the dignity of their God. Is it
not enough that men have the same kind and de
gree of evidence with respect to the revealed will
of God, that determines them in all other things ?
Must Jehovah shut up every avenue to evasion,
before we will deign to accept His mercy ? Salva
tion is our own concern. Shall we then so doat on
damnation, that unless one rise from the dead, we
will not believe the message of reconciliation ? If
the unlearned man rejects the Scriptures because
he has not an inspired translation, his own conduct,
in all other things, will attest the justice of his eter
nal condemnation. To convince him of the duty of
receiving his English Bible as a revelation from
God, there is no need of teaching him the chimeri
cal theory of an inspiration of meaning, abstracted
from the words that convey that meaning, that will
diffuse itself, with equal facility and equal authority,
through all the metaphrases, translations and com
mentaries. It will be perfectly sufficient to show
him that he has the same kind of authority on
which he rests his knowledge of all countries, an
cient and modern, — and on which depends the most
momentous concerns of man.
Let it be observed also, that we have greater evi-

126 INSPIRATION OF
dence of the general correctness and sufficiency of
translation, than we could have with respect to the
phraseology of inspired writers, had that been left
to themselves. Translations are made by the most
learned men of their age and country ; the inspired
writers were generally illiterate, and none of them
masters of composition. But what is of higher
importance, every error supposed to be committed
by the original writers, must remain forever undis-
coverable and irremediable ; whereas, if a transla
tion commits an error, it can be corrected by
recourse to the original. The inspired original
remains a ground-work for reference, with respect
to ah translations. There can be no such appeal
with respect to any blunders of the inspired writers.
If they have erred in the choice of a word or phrase,
we cannot go up to heaven to have it corrected. The
general consent of translations, in - representing
Scriptural truth, is such as to afford evidence of
general correctness. It may be said, indeed, that
a Bible inspired in thoughts, but uninspired in
words, might have been sufficient as to all things
essential to salvation, with all the errors contained
in the phraseology. I admit it ; but would such a
Bible be as good a one as that which is verbally
inspired? Would such a Bible be God's Scrip
tures? Could it be said of such a book, that it
was all given by inspiration of God I Better to
have such a book than no knowledge of salvation,

THE SCRTPTURES. 127
as it would be better to eat bread made of sandy
flour than be starved. But as it would be better
to have bread made of pure flour, so it would be
better to have an inspired Bible. A Christian going
into a heathen country without a copy of the
Scriptures, might communicate the knowledge of
salvation. But had he with him all the best books
that ever were written on Christianity, could they
adequately supply the place of the Bible? But
what reason can be assigned for such stinginess in
the Divine favor ? Why does the all-bountiful
Author of creation deal out His boons of grace with
so niggardly a hand ? If He did not employ men
to complete His works, why should He to complete
His word? Is the Almighty weary in working,
that Christians are unwdling to give Him unne
cessary trouble? Must they enter into minute
calculations to ascertain how far they can do with
out His assistance ? Are they determined to refuse
from Him every thing which they can hope to want
without irreparable loss ?
Except it is for the same good-natured purpose,
to make the tod of complete inspiration less neces
sary in God, I cannot see the use of substituting, in
some cases, divine acceptance of words for infusion.
According to this scheme there is no need for the
inspired writer to trouble the Spirit for the inspi
ration of every word. On many occasions his own
knowledge of phraseology, subject to the Divine

128 INSPIRATION OF
inspection, will sufficiently supply him-. Such a
scheme appears to me too bungling to ascribe to
any man of common sense — to ascribe it to Jehovah
is, in my view, little less- than blasphemy. I ac
knowledge that if God would accept the words
suggested spontaneously, or searched for by the
inspired writers, it would come to the same practical
issue. A bill accepted is virtually a man's own
bill ; but to represent a penman of Scripture and
the Holy Spirit as working on such a scheme strikes
me as so ridiculous that I cannot look at it but
with contempt and abhorrence. Is it to make the
work a little easier to Omnipotence, and to save
some trouble to Him who wearies not in working,
that such a confused and jumbling plan is proposed?
What a wonderful interruption in the mental
operation of the Apostles when writing or speaking !
How many wrong words and phrases, how many
inadequate expressions must be supposed to be
presenting themselves to the Holy Spirit for accep
tance in the minds of the Apostles ! These must
all be rejected, and if not replaced by hrfusion, new
ones must again and again be sought for. If the
suitable word is not supplied immediately by the
Spirit, the illiterate fishermen might have halted
and stammered till eternity, before they would have
finished one sermon or one letter. The scheme of
acceptance might not have seemed so utterly ridi
culous, if God had chosen the most learned men as

THE SCRTPTURES. 129
the writers of Scripture ; but with illiterate men,
who are almost as ill supplied with terms and
phraseology as with ideas, it would be a more
tedious process than complete verbal infusion.
This also shows the absurdity of supposing that
inspiration of facts, with faithfulness of statement,
is all that is necessary for Scripture history. No
subject requires a more full supply of phraseology
than history. No subject requires more art in the
disposing of its matter. So difficrdt is it, indeed,
that few men in all ages have succeeded in it The
historian must be master not only of all things re
lated by him, but he must be supplied with the
terms and phraseology that respect aU the objects,
and all the relations, &c. which are to be repre
sented in his history. Eliterate men have many
ideas for which they have no words — learned men
themselves are sometimes in the same predicament.
Let an illiterate man be inspired with a full know
ledge of all the affairs of Britain, throughout all
ages, he will still be unfit to write a history of
England. He must have a thorough knowledge of
the words of the language in which he writes, art
to arrange, and what is still more difficult, a fluency
of expression and facility of composition. To the
writers of Scripture history, inspiration of words
was as necessary as inspiration of facts. But had
they been the most perfect masters of language and
composition, to write a history that might be per-

130 INSPIRATION OF
fectly relied on as a part of the word of God, inspi
ration of every word was necessary. Let us grant,
however, for a moment, that plenary verbal inspi
ration was not, in our view, essential; is this a
reason why we shoidd not receive the obvious
testimony of Scripture on this point ? Shall we be
allowed to be better judges of what is necessary
than God ? How many things will human wisdom
reject in Scripture, if this theory is allowed ? Some
think a general judgment unnecessary, seeing every
man is judged at death; and, according to this
theory, they are justifiable in attempting to explain
Scripture in conformity with their opinion.
The second objection to plenary inspiration,
alleged by Dr. S., is :
"It is attended with extreme difficulties. For
example : in two or three of the Evangelists, we
often find the same discourse or sentence of our
Lord expressed by each in different word*, though
with precisely the same sense. If, then, we demand
a verbal inspiration in any one of these cases, we
destroy the possibility of it with respect>to the cor
respondent passage."
Instead of finding extreme difficulties in the
things here mentioned, I can feel no respect for the
understanding that finds in them any difficulty at
all. It is here taken for granted as an axiom, that
two or more accounts of the same thing, differing
in phraseology, though substantially agreeing, can-

THE SCRIPTURES. 131
not all be the words of inspiration. Now a very
small degree of perspicacity will enable any man
to see, that instead of being a necessary truth, this
has not the smallest foundation. In relating the
same event on several occasions, a narrator may
each time use different phraseology ; but if his
accounts substantially agree, no man will ever
charge him with falsehood. A man, even on his
oath, being several times called on to relate a fact,
whT never be found fardt with so long as his
accounts substantially agree. To attempt exactly
the same phraseology would rather look suspicious.
Now, if such is the case among men, why should
the Holy Spirit, in relating facts, be bound by
different rules ? When he speaks in our language
shall he not speak truth as required of men? Why
should a perfect identity of words be at all aimed
at? If the variety of expression in relating the
same thing in the Gospels would not affect the
truth of the narration, on the supposition that the
writers were uninspired men, why should it be
thought improper for the Holy Spirit to make use
of that variety ? Must a different law be prescribed
to him when he uses the language of man, from
that which binds man himself? The thought is
perfectly clfildish. Let us take as an example one
fact differently worded by the four Evangelists —
the inscription written over the head of Jesus on
the cross : This is Jesus the King of the Jews,

132 ' INSPIRATION OF
Matth. — The King of the Jews, Mark, — This is the
King of the Jews, Luke, — Jesus of Nazareth, the
King of the Jews, John. Now I maintain that as
four honest men might have related this fact with
this variety of expression, without any impeach
ment on their veracity, so may the Holy Spirit.
The man who says that it is impossible for any of
these accounts but one to be the language of inspi
ration, virtually asserts that none of them can be
the language of truth, but one. If the four accounts
are all substantially true, and would not discredit
any of four uninspired men, they may, without any
disparagement to God, be all the language of the
Holy Spirit. In speaking the language of men,
his veracity must be tried by the rules of human
language. Instead, then, of saying that such a
variety of expression in relating this faet, supposes
that the words were left to the Evangelists them
selves, I will fearlessly assert that- each of the four
accounts is verbally the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit. If the four accounts are true and reconci-
leable as the language of men, they are equally
true and recoittileable as the language of God. It
is a hypercritical fastidiousness that demands from
God an identity of expression in narration, which
truth never demanded from man. From this
variety I deduce a far different doctrine from Dr.
S. As in the word of God I perceive a palpable,
1 may say a designed variety of expression in

THE SCRIPTURES. 133
relating the same thing, I learn from this that the
God of truth sanctions the great principle that is
acknowledged by men in general with respect to
the nature of truth, and gives not His countenance
to that affected morality, that, like Dr. Smith's,
pretends to find imperfection in the smallestinstance
of verbel variety. We have the authority of the
divine example, that substantial truth is truth,
with whatever variety it may be expressed. Dr. S.
tells us that, " in two or three of the Evangelists,
we often find the same discourse or sentence of our
Lord expressed by each in different words, though
with precisely the same effect." Why, Dr. S.,
should this imply that each may not be the lan
guage of the Spirit ? If the sense is precisely the
same, must the God of truth be forbidden to use a
variety of expression, perfectly allowable to man ?
Yet Dr. S., certainly not to the credit of his under
standing, infers from the above fact, that " if we
demand a verbal inspiration in any one of these
cases, we destroy the possibility with respect to
the correspondent passage." I admit this variety,
and yet I demand a verbal inspiration, not merely
in some one, but in each of the correspondent
passages. Any thing that forbids the verbal inspi
ration will affect the truth of the relation. If it is
truth as the word of an iininspired historian, it
certainly is not less truth as the word of God. Dr.
S. must have very limited views of possibility,

134 INSPIRATION OP
when he imagines an impossibility here. It is
evident that there is great confusion in his own
mind on this subject. Tlie assertion, with respect
to possibility, takes it for granted that variety is
contradiction. It is evident also, that he looks on
variety of expression, in relating the same thing,
as morally faulty, though not in a degree that
deserves notice as respects man. Were there not
some jumble in his mind of this kind, variety of
expression would never strike him as inconsistent
with inspiration.
But I have another observation on the doctrine
of this objection. It is here positively asserted that
the verbal inspiration of all the Evangelists but one
is impossible. Now, how does this consist with the
language of the first objection? In showing infu
sion of words to be unnecessary, he -takes it for
granted that the mind of the inspired writer was
certainly guided to the best and most suitable terms.
Now I ask, if the Evangelists were guided with
certainty, by divine influence, to the use of the
words and phrases employed by them, in all this
variety of expression, is not the Holy Spirit as
chargeable with the variety, as if he had directly
infused the words ? If he is innocent as a guide,
so is he innocent as an infuser. This evidently
shows that the writer has formed no distinct
views on the subject, but floats among clouds and
fogs of his own creation, even in that heavenly

^

THE SCRIPTURES. 135
climate, where godly simplicity would have found
meridian light. One other observation on this
objection, and I have done. I admit, for argument
sake, that the doctrine of plenary inspiration has
great difficulties, though I have demonstrated that
it has none. What can my opponent make of the
admission ? Shall the existence of difficulties be a
sufficient reason to deny what the Scriptures, with
such a mass of evidence, assert ? Then give up the
sovereignty of grace ; give up particular redemp
tion ; give up the divinity of Christ ; give up the
Scriptures themselves; give up the existence of
God. It is a scheme for any man acquainted with
theology and science, to talk of difficulties as ren
dering any sentiment untenable. No important
subject is free from difficulties, and some of the
most important have the most puzzling difficulties.
It is evidently the design of the divine procedure,
that such difficulties should try the humility and
the faith of God's people, whUe they are as gins
and snares to human wisdom. Yet it is not agree
able, even to the wisdom of this world, to deny a
doctrine' for having difficulties, even great difficul-
culties. In opposition to Dr. S. I maintain, with
the greatest confidence of conviction, that rational
criticism cannot set aside, by difficulties, any doc
trine alleging a foundation in Scripture. Though
I had been obliged to leave this objection unan
swered, — though Dr. S. had given me passages

136 INSPIRATION OP
which I could not reconcile with the doctrine of
verbal inspiration, I would have trampled on his
objection as insufficient. There are many difficul
ties in the Scriptures that may never be solved
by man. A resolution to receive no doctrine that
has unsolved difficulties, would be a symptom, not
of wisdom, but of weakness.
The third objection is, that "it deprives all trans
lations of their claims to the authority of inspira
tion." Here, again, the author discovers great
confusion in his mode of thinking. Though I do
not believe the inspiration of translations, yet such
a belief does not result from the doctrine of plenary
inspiration, with respect to the original. Instead
of depriving all translations of a claim to inspira
tion, this doctrine is perfectly compatible with the
supposition, that there might be an inspired trans
lation in every language on earth. We may indeed
believe the inspiration of the original, and deny the
inspiration of every translation that exists ; but our
denying of the latter is not influenced by our belief
of the former. The- question of the inspiration of
the original, is not affected by the inspiration or
non-inspiration of any translation. But let us hear
the reason the author gives why this doctrine
deprives translations of the authority of inspiration:
" For by the hypothesis the original text alone can
possess that authority." We admit, indeed, that
our doctrine implies that the words of the original

THE SCRIPTURES. 137
alone are inspired, — does Dr. S.'s theory suppose
the words of translations to be inspired? We
admit that the inspired thought of the original may
be transfused into an uninspired translation; but
that we have the uninspired thought in the transla
tion, we rest on our own knowledge of the original,
or on testimony. Does Dr. Smith's theory give us
greater certainty of having the inspired thought ?
Our doctrine is not more unfavorable to the autho
rity of translations than is his hypothesis. He
maintains that the thoughts and sentiments, rather
than the words, are to be considered inspired. We
maintain, as well as he, that the thoughts and senti
ments are inspired, and the words also. Now, in
a translation, he thinks the thoughts and sentiments
may remain, while the words of the original are left
behind. What hinders us from thinking the same
thing? He brings out inspired thoughts from
uninspired words; what can prevent us from
doing the same from inspired words f In holding
the inspiration of words, we do not deny the inspi
ration of thoughts ; but Dr. S. holds the inspiration
of thoughts, and denies the inspiration of words.
The difference between us, then, is not that our
doctrine gives less authority as regards translation,
but that his hypothesis gives less authority as
regards the original itself. Our view does not
disparage translations more than his, while his
view disparages the inspiration of the Bible. If

138 INSPIRATION OF
his view approximates the authority of translations,
and that of the original more nearly than ours, it
is not by elevating translation, but by lowering the
original. The uninspired words of translations, so
far as suitable, are brought to a level with the
words of the original, by making both uninspired.
How can the belief of the inspiration of the words
of the original, lessen the authority of a translation ?
Has not a translation of inspired words as good a
claim to authority, as a translation of uninspired
words? Was ever any thing so absurd as to
suppose that a translation must lose a portion of its
authority by a claim of verbal inspiration in the
original ? Will not every person who impartially
reflects a moment, be convinced that we give a
higher authority than our opponents, not oidy to
the original, but also to translations ? Translations,
according to Dr. Smith, are translations of unin
spired words ; according to us, they are transla
tions of inspired words. The objection proceeds
on the absurd supposition that the belief of the
verbal inspiration of the Scriptucs, necessarily
implies the denial of the inspiration of thoughts and
sentiments. By whatever process he extracts in
spired thoughts from uninspired words, surely by
a similar process we may extract inspired thoughts
from inspired words. Our translation of a book
more fully inspired than his, will surely have as
much authority as his, that is the translation of a

THE SCRIPTURES. 139
book not so fidly inspired. It is an odd theory
indeed, that to detract from the authority of the
original, is to add to that of the translation.
But what can be more logical than Dr. Smith's
conclusion? Verbal inspiration deprives transla
tions of a claim to inspiration ; for our translations
are not verbally inspired. This, however, is but
a specious sophism. It confounds inspiration of
thoughts with inspiration of words. Of what kind
of inspiration does this view deprive translations ?
Of words only. But does Dr. Smith give inspira-
ration of words to translations ? Does his theory
give inspiration to translations that he acknow
ledges to be uninspired? Can his theory give
a more full inspiration to the thoughts and senti
ments, as contained in translations, than ours?
How, then, does verbal inspiration deprive transla
tions of a claim to inspiration? It denies them
inspiration in so sense in which Dr. Smith claims
it. This formidable objection, then, amounts to no
more than that, if the words of Scripture in the
original are inspired, they are of more authority
than the words of any uninspired translation, a
truth which I suppose no man ever thought of
calling in question.
These observations wfil prepare us to bear the
shock of the astounding consequences, that the
learned doctor draws from our doctrine. " Hence
it would follow," says he, " that the general body of

140 INSPIRATION OF
Christians, who are under a necessity of depending
on translations, are in fact destitute of any inspired
Scriptures." What a dreadful abyss is this into
which we have plunged the greater part of ,the
Christian world ! How wofully have I been mis
taken ! I had thought that my •doctrine on this
point was not equally innocent with that of my
opponents, but. had consoled myself, that by coming
forward in this controversy, I was pleading the
cause of both God and His people. But now I find
that I am laboring only to deprive the bulk of my
fellow-creatures of the inspired Scriptures. Never
was there a greater disappointment. But before I
admit these frightful consequences, let me make an
effort to avoid them. According to our view, it is
alleged that the unlearned are destitute of the in
spired Scriptures. Destitute they are indeed of an
inspired translation of the Scriptures, and destitute
in this respect, I presume, as fully on Dr. Smith's
plan as on our's, and I have shown something more
so. Will Dr. Smith have the goodness to point out
in what respect tlie translation can be called the
inspired Scriptures, according to his view of inspi
ration, in which they cannot be so called according
to ours? There is a difference of authority, be
tween the original and uninspired translations.
But it is not necessary that I should discuss this in
this controversy, Dr. Smith and all others must
v confess this. I presume there never was a Biblical

THE SCRIPTURES. 141
critic so foolish as to put an uninspired translation
on a level with the inspired original. In whatever
sense Dr. Smith's theory can allow the English
Bible to be the inspired Scriptures, our doctrine
can allow this in still a higher sense..
But if the objection as to the authority of unin
spired translations is valid, then, according to Dr.
Smith's own views, we have in translations no in
spired Scriptures, as far as concerns all those parts
in which he admits that verbal inspiration was neces
sary. He admits the necessity of verbal inspiration,
in conveying prophecies not understood by the
prophet. Now in translations, either these are not
inspired Scriptures, or if they are, all Scripture
may have been verbally inspired, yet in translation
be considered inspired Scripture. What is true as
to any portion, may be true as to the whole. His
own admissions, then, refute his theory.
The most formidable view of the objection, how
ever, is still to come. " The consequence," he
observes, " will also reach still higher. As the dis
courses of our Lord were delivered in the vernacu
lar tongue of Judea, the recital of them in the
Greek Gospels, cannot be the very words which he
used, but must be translations." Here is a tre
mendous consequence of verbal inspiration. By
the wicked doctrine that God, in revealing His will
to men, uses His own words, we deprive not only
the unlearned of inspired Scriptures, but we do

142 INSPIRATION OF
not leave a Bible even to the learned themselves.
Really I could not have apprehended any such
dreadful evil, from allowing God to use His own
words in communicating His own mind. It is a
shame for a man of learning to throw out senti
ments so crude. Surely he ought to have reflected
a moment, before he ventered to hazard such para
doxes. Ought not his good sense to have suspected
the process of reasoning, that led to draw conclu
sions so frightful from premises so harmless. Had
he allowed himself coolly to examine his own rea
soning, he could not have allowed his mind to he
entangled by cobwebs that must break from the
lowest exertion of human intellect. I should be
surprised if a very child could be imposed on by
such reasoning, however unable he might be to un
ravel the sophistry of it. What is the argument ?
Our Lord spoke in the vernacular language of Ju
dea, but the Gospels relate his discourses in Greek;
therefore, . on the supposition of verbal inspiration
in the speaker, the Gospels that speak in Greek
cannot be inspired. There is a world of obscurity
and silliness in this reasoning. It supposes every
translation to be of necessity uninspired. For if it
is possible for an inspired translation to be given
of an inspired original, why is it taken for granted
that the circumstance of the accounts of our Lord's
discourses, being recorded in Greek, forbids the
inspiration of those accounts? The words of the

THE SCRIPTURES. 143
Evangelists are, indeed, only a translation of the
words used by our Lord ; but if the Scriptures are
inspired, these words arc an inspired translation.
What does it concern us in what language Christ
spoke his discourses, if they are recorded to us in
an inspired translation ? Paul spoke the language
of the people whom he addressed, — does this imply
that the words that record this in the Acts of the
Apostles, are not inspired, because they must be
only a translation of the words that Paul Used ?
But the consequence of tins objection works still
higher. Jesus Christ surely spoke by inspiration,
his words were verbally the word of God. Now,
as we have none of these words, none of his doc
trines, but by translation, according to Dr. Smith's
theory, we are destitute of inspired Scripture with
respect to our Lord's doctrine. Should Dr. Smith
reply, that though we have not the words of Christ,
we have the thoughts and sentiments ; I subjoin,
that this cannot be said by him, consistently with
this objection, for that represents verbal inspiration
in the original, as destructive of inspiration in the
translation. I subjoin further, that if verbal inspi
ration in Jesus Christ does not forbid the inspira
tion of the Gospels as to thoughts and sentiments,
neither does verbal inspiration in the original forbid
the supposition of having the inspired doctrine of
Christ contained in uninspired translations. Dr.
Smith brings his elephants into the field, but they

144 INSPIRATION OF
are so ill disciplined, that instead of trampling down
the enemy, they take to flight, and crush his own
ranks. The author seems to have lost himself, in an
attempt, by a sort of chemical criticism, to reduce
all the inspiration of Scripture into the thoughts
and sentiments, that being then sublimated, it may
escape evaporation in the words that convey it, and
standing wholly unconnected with phraseology, be
ready to transfuse itself with equal strength into
all other languages, even by uninspired translators.
Granting, however, that a plenary verbal inspi
ration of the Scriptures has a more unfavorable
aspect towards translations than the opposite senti
ment, this is not to be admitted as a paramount
objection to a doctrine establishedvby such a weight
of evidence front the testimony of God's word. A
sound critic would not allow its authority for a
moment, — not even in the utmost extent in which
it could be supposed true. Whatever are the con
sequences as to translations, the doctrine of a com
plete verbal inspiration in the original Scriptures
rests on pillars that hell and earth will never
subvert. The fourth objection that Dr. Smith opposes to
the doctrine of a plenary verbal inspiration in the
Scriptures is, that
" It gives a serious weight to the otherwise
nugatory objection against the certainty of the
Scriptures, from the existence of various readings.

THE SCRIPTURES. 145
For no person, however well qualified, careful and
impartial, in applying the rules of criticism, could
assure himself, and still less could he satisfy others,
that he had in every case ascertained with absolute
certainty, the one genuine reading. But if we
regard the inspiration as attaching to the matter
and sentiments rather than to the letters and sylla
bles, the objection is effectually precluded. It is
not in one instance out of five hundred that the
diversities of manuscripts and other authorities
produce the smallest alteration in the ultimate
sense. Thus, in the general course, it is all the
same, as to practical effect, which reading is
accepted; and criticism is called to put forth its
utmost strength only in these few cases in which
the meaning is affected."
Upon this I observe, in the first place, that it
virtually excludes verbal inspiration in every
instance. Whether it is that the naked sentiment .
is too shocking for the author himself to contem
plate, or whether he wishes to disguise it from his
readers, he does not avow his sentiment in the
same extent in which his theory holds it. He does
not deny verbal inspiration flatly ; nay, he admits
it in some instances. Here he speaks of inspiration
attaching to the matter, rather than to the letters
and syllables. But he must mean, not inspiration
of matter rather than of words, but inspiration of
matter and not inspiration of words. The force of

146 INSPIRATION OF
the objection applies equally to every instance of
verbal inspiration. If there is a single verse in
Scripture verbally inspired, this objection lies
against the credit of that verse. It must either be
kept infallibly as free from corruption by transcri
bers aB it was originally pure, else this objection
will crush it with its serious weight. Now, there
is no part of Scripture infallibly free from corrup
tion by transcribers ; therefore, to save the honor
of revelation, according to Dr. Smith, we cannot
suppose an inspired word is in the Bible. But,
unfortunately, this same Dr. Smith has admitted
that some parts of Scripture must have been
verbally inspired ; therefore, against all such parts
this weighty objection has its full force. My mode
of reasoning, whatever may be the canons of Morns,
Dcederlein, &c, would be this. As some parts of
Scripture must of necessity have been verbally
inspired, and as such parts are not better secured
against the mistakes of transcribers than the rest,
if this objection cannot invalidate the verbal inspi
ration of the one, neither can it invalidate the
inspiration of the other.
Dr. Smith's plan for saving the honor of inspira
tion, reminds me of the way in which the popish
persecutors saved the honor of the priesthood;
when any of the clergy were to be burned, they
stripped them of their office before they committed
them to the flames. Just so with Dr. Smith and

THE SCRIPTURES. 147
inspiration. To preserve it from disgrace through
accidents in transcribing, he removes it from the
words of Scripture, and, with all the sublime mys
tery of the schoolmen, places it incomprehensibly
in the thoughts and sentiments. Should any bold
unbeliever ask, How can it be known that the
inspired sentiment is expressed with infallible cor
rectness, if the words are not also inspired ? The
best answer is, It is a mystery, it is all a mystery.
But these apprehensions of Dr. Smith are alto
gether visionary. Instead of giving a serious weight
to the objection referred to, the doctrine of plenary
verbal inspiration adds not a particle to its weight.
I maintain that it is no way connected with such an
objection ; and that to view it in this light, betrays
a mind destitute in a more than ordinary degree,
of critical discrimination. " No person," it is said,
" however well qualified, careful, and impartial, in
applying the rules of criticism, could assure himself,
and still less could he satisfy others, that he had in
every case ascertained, with absolute certainty, the
one genuine reading." Granted ; fully granted.
But what then ? What makes such a thing neces
sary, in order to defend verbal inspiration ? Does
the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration imply
that our copies must infallibly contain the pure
original in every instance ? It does not, Dr. Smith.
It asserts that the Scriptures, as God gave them,
were his, not only in matter, but in every word of

148 INSPIRATION OF
them. But this by no means implies that the
present copies are, in every instance, perfectly cor
respondent with the original. The permanency of
the purity of the divine word, was committed to
the care of his Providence, in the use of the ordi
nary means, by which he can always perfectly
secure his purposes. There is indeed every reason,
a priori, to think that God would not suffer his
word to be essentially corrupted ; and as Dr. Smith
himself admits, there is from fact the most satis
factory evidence that He has not permitted it to be
materially corrupted. But the doctrine of verbal
inspiration has nothing to do with this, whatever
may be the extent of corruption by transcribers.
If any man were so mad as to argue that every
word in our Greek New Testament is infallibly the
same with that originally given by God, the various
readings to which Dr. Smith refers, would be an
answer to such a madman. But to point to the
various readings as an objection to the plenary-
verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, as they came
from God, is to confound two things entirely dis
tinct and independent of each other. Nor does our
doctrine make a single corruption more than Dr.
S.'s theory ; nor does the assertion that the original
word, whose place the corrupted word now fills,
was an inspired word, cause greater incertitude
with respect to the true meaning, than the opinion
that it was uninspired. On the other hand, this

THE SCRIPTURES. 149
theory, in order to save the Scriptures from the
disgrace of losing a few inspired words, degrades
them from the rank of verbal inspiration, and leaves
us to gather the truth of God out of the words of
men. Both of us must acknowledge the fact to tho
same extent. To suppose that the lost words were
God's own words, is no more injury to what re
mains, than to suppose that they were man's words.
On the other hand, this hideous theory robs us of
the rapturous consolation, that we have in the
original of the Scriptures the very words of God,
with the few trifling exceptions alluded to. Would
it be a greater benefit to have all the words of
Scripture human, than to have them all divine,
with the exception of a few unimportant variations ?
If the loss of a_few unimportant words, considered
as divine, is an injury to the Bible, is not the loss
of ail the words of Scripture, as inspired, infinitely
a greater loss ? To save the loss of some trifling
articles, Dr. Smith sinks the ship with all its
treasures. To prevent the disgrace of losing a few
inspired words, he divests the Scriptures of verbal
inspiration. We have incomparably the best Bible.
Every word of our Bible was God's, as it was first
delivered. Dr. Smith's Bible was never anything
but human in language. We have still the same
Bible, with a few trifling exceptions. Dr. Smith's
Bible has lost no divine words, because it never
possessed any. The very worst part of our Bible

150 INSPIRATION OF
is as good now, as the very best of Dr. Smith's
ever was.
The doctrine, then, of plenary verbal inspiration
stands clear of every solid objection. All the inge
nuity of this learned writer has not been able to
devise anything that will fairly bear on the subject.
His objections are so very inapplicable, that I can
not bring myself to believe, that any man of a dis
criminating mind ever really labored under their
weight. They appear rather to have been sought
by study, to justify a sentiment originating in some
other cause. They are more like the forced thoughts
of declamation, when it strains to make the best of
a bad cause, than the serious scruples of a sound
mind. Had he given up a fortress committed to
him by his sovereign, to forces so inconsiderable,
there could not have been found a court-martial in
the empire that would not have doomed him to lose
his head. The doctrine of verbal inspiration is one
of the fortresses committed to Christians by Jesus
Christ. Dr. Smith cries " mercy," and strikes his
colors to a most contemptible enemy, without ever
firing a gun. Had he mustered the royal forces,
and come to an actual engagement with the squalid
foe, he would have put him to flight at the first fire.
He would have found the enemy totally without
ammunition. There might be indeed as much
powder as would enable him to puff a little, but
not to do any execution.

THE SCRIPTURES. 151
This theory, indeed, is one of the most inexcusa
ble that ever was forged for the interpretation of
Scripture. On most occasions men are tempted to
form theories from the real difficulties of the case,
and from some appearance of Scriptural assertion.
Plausable objections may be alleged from the
Scriptures against the doctrine of the Trinity itself;
and it requires solid criticism to give a satisfactory
answer to the Arian in the interpretation of some
passages. But against the plenary verbal inspira
tion of the Scriptures, there is not even alleged
the assertion of a single pasage of the book of God.
Does the truth of any thing contained in Scripture
require this theory ? Is it called for by any appa
rent contradiction? Is it the only way to solve
some insuperable difficulty ? No such thing. Never
was error more inexcusable; for never was error
less provoked by difficulty, or less sheltered by
appearance of Scriptural assertion. Where is the
passage that has the most remote appearance of
teaching the doctrine contended for by this writer ?
Frightened by the phantoms that himself has
conjured up, to escape them he plunges over a
precipice. Plenary verbal inspiration is asserted
by the Scriptures, — such inspiration is necessary
to perfect security in conveying the mind of the
Spirit, — to such inspiration there is not in Scripture
one even apparently contradictory expression, with
such inspiration there is nothing inconsistent in

152 INSPIRATION OF
their contents, — to reject such inspiration, then, on
the stress of the objections alleged by this writer,
is contrary to the first principles of evidence.
Having now examined the objections on the
authority of which Dr. Smith rejects the plenary
verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, I shall attend
to his remarks on the noted passages, 2 Thn. iii 15,
16, which are as follows :
"That from a child thou hast known the holy
writings which are able to make thee wise unto
salvation, through the faith which is* in Christ
Jesus. Every writing divinely inspired [is] also
profitable for instruction, for conviction [of error],
for recovery [to that which is right], for training
up in righteousness." It appears to me impossible
to establish, from the Greek text alone, so as to
preclude all fair objection, either side of the agi
tated question, whether Scoirvsvuvos agrees immedi
ately with iraifa. yia-yri, or is (as it is translated
in the common version and in many others) a
part of the predicate. But I apprehend that the
scale is turned in favor of the other construction
by the evidence of the venerable Syriac Version,
whose antiquity is almost, if not quite, apostolic.
It reads, " And that, from thy childhood, thou hast
known the holy books," &c. — " for every writing
which has been written by the Spirit is valuable
for instruction," &c. The Vulgate confirms this
interpretation : " Omnis scriptura divinitus inspi-

THE SCRIPTURES. 153
rata, utilis est ad docendum," &c. It is evident
that the Apostle, in v. 16, resumes distributively
what he had before advanced collectively ; so that
" every writing divinely inspired " is a description
by which the Apostle designates each and every one
of the writings comprised under the well-understood
collective denomination, t» /sji y^f^a,™, the holy
writings. Timothy, and every contemporary Jew
or Christian, needed no explanation of this phrase.
They knew it, as one of the most common terms of
usage, to denote the yjwpa/, writings, or scriptures,
to which the Lord Jesus was in the habit of refer
ring, as to the ultimate divine authority (e. g. Mat.
xxii. 29, xxvi. 54, Luke xxiv. 32,) the searching of
which he enjoined (John v. 39,) and which it is
impossible to suppose, with any shadow of reason,
that he did not design to use in the sense in which
he knew that all his hearers would understand him ;
namely, as expressive of the whole sacred canon of
the Jews, for to them " were entrusted the oracles
of God," Rom." iii. 2.) The general tenor of the
New Testament most clearly recognizes, under these
descriptions, the whole received Scriptures of the
Jewish nation ; and, when a particular passage is
cited, it is usual to refer to it in the singular
number : V/fa<pii, 'h ypa<pi "avrij, and 'ks^a. yga-cpri, tlie
writing, or scripture, this scripture, another scrip
ture, (John xix. 24, 37. Mark xii. 10.)
Thus the passage before us, though we adopt

154 INSPIRATION OF
that construction of Ssotfvsvovoff, which Unitarians
generally approve, furnishes the strongest testimony
to the inspiration of each and every of the books
of the Old Testament. The importance of this con
clusion, in relation to our present subject, and to
every other part of the controversy with the Uni
tarians, needs not to be pointed out." — Smith's
Testimony to the Mesiah, Vol. i. p. 27, 28.
It is satisfactory to find, that even admitting the
translation of the passage preferred by Dr. S. to be
irrefragably proved, it has no color of opposition
to plenary verbal inspiration. This translation, as
plainly as the other, asserts the verbal inspiration
of every thing inspired. " Every writing divinely
inspired," verbally declares that the writing, that
is, the words written, are inspired. If any writing
is inspired, the words must of necessity be inspired,
because the words are the writing. The Syriac
Translation implies this as fully as ours. The Bible
is said to be a writing written by the Spirit of God.
A more express attestation of verbal inspiration
could not be found.
The only point of view, then, in which we need
examine this translation, is its bearing on the
Unitarian controversy. And it is very satisfactory
to find, that though he prefers the Unitarian con
struction of this verse, Dr. Smith decidedly opposes
the Unitarian import of it. Whde, therefore, I
am happy to find Dr. Smith and myself on the

THE SCRIPTURES. 155
same side on this important matter, I will take the
liberty to suggest to him a few things to invalidate
tlie reasons of his preference of the Unitarian con
struction of this verse. Though I blame him very
much for his excessive partiality for learned men,
and his pernicious theorising on Scripture, — that
he is a learned, ingenious, and deeply read theolo
gian, I cheerfully acknowledge, and I would gladly
bring him over altogether to the right side. I
observe then, in the first place, that if the ambi
guity, in the construction of this passage, exists to
the extent that Dr. Smith alleges, that is to say, if
there be a passage hi Scripture so ambiguous, that
neither the connexion, nor any other resource,
furnished by the Scriptures themselves, will fix its
definite meaning, I maintain that we are so far
without revelation, and that such a passage of Scrip
ture might as well never have been written. There
may be, and there confessedly are, passages in the
Bible, which are not understood. But it is not
because they contain in themselves what necessarily
renders them unintelligible, as Dr. Smith virtually
asserts respecting the passage in question; an
assertion, than which it is not easy to conceive a
greater indignity to the language of Holy Writ.
If the Scriptures are really such a book, a pope we
must have. Surely the word of God was not given
but to be understood ! And if it does not afford
evidence to explain itself, it is not sufficient.

156 INSPIRATION OF
I remark further, that the Syriac version, and
the unanimous consent of all uninspired versions,
cannot legitimately be acknowledged as authority
to fix the meaning of phraseology indeterminate in
itself. They afford us nothing more than the opin
ion of their authors ; and though they lived among
the Apostles, if they are not inspired, they may
have been mistaken. To justify an opinion as hav
ing apostolic authority, it is not enough to show
that it was professed by some person in the age of
the Apostles ; it must be shown to have been
approved by the Apostles. Some opinions we
know to have been entertained by Christians in
the very times of the Apostles, which were con
trary to the apostolic doctrine. I care not how
high is the date of the Syriac version ; if it is not
inspired, I wdl take the liberty of questioning its
propriety. Still less can I admit the paramount
authority of the Vulgate. If we are not prepared
to adopt all its errors, let us not claim its patronage
in a particular emergency. A degree of counte
nance may, no doubt, be claimed from reputable
translations, which will be increased by the an
tiquity, learning, and impartiality of the authors.
But it never can be legitimately allowed to be
decisive. Such authority is to be referred to, not
so much to establish an opinion, as to show that a
translation has not been made for the occasion. If,
in supporting any of my opinions, I differ from the

THE SCRIPTURES. 157
common version of tlie Scriptures, a suspicion ought
to rest upon every man's mind, that I have made
my translation to cover my opinion. Now, to do
away this impression, it is very material for me to
show that I am not singular in the translation ; and
that others, well acquainted with the language,
have adopted the same interpretation, although
they did not entertain such opinion. In this way,
if the Syriac verson actually favored the Unitarian
sentiment with respect to inspiration, it would be
of very great importance for them to allege its
authority. Such a use may be made of the autho
rity of versions ; but a casting vote never can be
justly allowed them. If, then, it is impossible to
ascertain the construction of these words from the
text itself, no uninspired version can ever authori
tatively fix it.
If the translation is to be made from the words
of the common copies, there seems no difficulty in
the construction. The substantive verb is naturally
to be understood to each of the adjectives. What
reason can be given for giving it to one, and with
holding it from the other ? And why should we
adopt a various reading in order to create a diffi
culty ? If the substantive verb is to be taken into
the text between the two adjectives, it is naturally
to be construed with the first, and understood to
the last. It is not the natural darkness of the con
struction that has caused the various interpretation

158 INSPIRATION OF
of this passage, but disaffection to the truth con
tained in it. Men who are conscious of holding
opinions that the Scriptures condemn, yet are anx
ious to obtain the sanction of their authority ; or at
least, to remove the most conspicuous passages that
oppose them, would gladly limit the inspiration of
the Holy Book. All their efforts, then, are directed
to pervert the testimony of this glorious declaration.
If they cannot force it to prevaricate or bear false
witness, nothing can protect their impious senti
ments from the open reprobation of God.
It may be observed also, that according to the
Unitarian construction, the particle ley is rather
cumbersome than useful. It is very difficult to
dispose of it to any good purpose, or to assign it an
office in which it will not be troublesome as well
as useless. In the translation, " for all divinely
inspired Scripture is even useful," the word even,
instead of contributing a portion to the sense, essen-
¦ tially misrepresents it. To translate the conjunc
tion ky also, as Dr. S. does, is not so bad, but still
not at all satisfactory. Its application is dubious,
¦ — and its import not easily perceived. It is well
known that on some occasions, it will admit this
translation ; but to argue, that because it ought, in
some places, to have this acceptation, it may have
it in any other, according as it may suit the pur
poses of the critic, is not sound criticism. To.
justify such a signification here, it is not enough to

TnE SCRIPTURES. 159
produce examples in which it has such a significa
tion ; it is necessary also, to produce the authority
of similar, constructions. This is a canon of criti
cism which may be easily defended ; — a canon,
however, little respected by Biblical interpreters.
What word does Dr. S. mean the conjunction to
affect ? What is the precise effect he understands
it to have on the meaning ? This unfortunate ley
in the Unitarian construction, is treated as poor
Battier was treated in the 10th Hussars. The royal
commission, indeed, has given it a seat at the mess,
but all the dignity of that commission has faded to
procure the attention of the company. It is doomed
to sit unregarded ; — it speaks, but no one hears.
Though I perfectly agree with the learned writer,
that the Unitarian interpretation does not follow
from the admission of the Unitarian construction
of this verse, yet, for the above reasons, I prefer
the common translation. And though we can still
maintain the fortress, though we give up this out
work, I do not think we ought to give up the most
unimportant battery, while we are able to fire a
gun from' it. A- consciousness of sufficient remain
ing resources, and an affectation of excessive can
dor, may influence us sometimes to give up to the
adversary what is perfectly tenable. It is right to
make concessions for a moment,, to give the enemy
a more signal defeat. But an inch of Scriptural
ground is worth eternal war.

160 INSPIRATION OF
Let us now view this passage on the Unitarian
construction. And while I agree with the learned
writer in the result, I differ from him i«. the way
of obtaining that result. I have objections to his
translation, to his paraphrase, and to his reasoning.
His translation is at variance with his reasoning.
He very justly argues that the phrase *atfa •/».;¦,]
refers to every book of the Old Testament, as being
notoriously the most appropriated to that sense.
If so, every writing is not adequate as a translation
of the above phrase. Though writing is a literal
translation of y^atprj, it is not a proper, because not
a determinate translation of it here. For, as in the
original, yjwpi is here taken in its appropriate
sense, its translation must correspond to it, not in
its literal, but in its appropriate sense. As writing
has not such an appropriation in English, it is not
an adequate translation, although perfectly literal.
Scripture ought to have been the word, for it has
in English exactly the same appropriated meaning
that y^apr] has in the original. There is no greater
mistake than to suppose that a translation is good,
according as it is literal. It may be asserted, with
out exception, that a literal translation of any book
cannot be a faithful one. If the word is not used
in its literal sense in the original, it is a mistransla
tion of it to translate it literally. This is a canon
of Biblical interpretation of universal application,
and of the greatest moment — a canon not only often

THE SCRIPTURES. 161
violated, but to violate which is, in the estima
tion of some translators, the highest praise. A
translation of this kind, instead of conveying the
original with additional light, is perfectly unintelli
gible. When ta iera grammata is translated holy
writings, as Dr. S. translates the words, there is
not the smallest objection ; because what is inde
finite in the word writings, is rendered completely
definite by the epithet holy. His language can
bear this, and holy writ, and the sacred writings,
are phrases as definite as the appropriated word
Scriptures. Dr. Smith justly understands Tlieopneustos as
descriptive of pasa graphe. But it is not descrip
tive of it when translated every writing / because
every writing is not Theopncustos, inspired. It is
descriptive of<graphe only in the appropriated sense
of that term. Every scripture is divinely inspired,
but every writing is not. According to Dr. Smith's
translation, it is essentially necessary to understand
Theopneustos not as a description, but as a limita
tion — not every writing, because it is divinely
inspired, but every writing that is inspired,"br as
far as it is inspired. Dr. Smith's translation, then,
is at war with his sense of the passage.
I have an objection also to his paraphrase. The
supplementary matter connecting pasa graphe with
the assertion is divinely inspired-, ought not to be
which is, but because it is, or as being, or some

162 INSPIRATION OF
phrase assigning a reason. The Vulgate indeed,
adopts this construction, but it does not sanction
this interpretation. " Omnis Scriptura dwinitus
inspirata" ought not to be translated, " all Scrip
ture which is divinely inspired," but " ad Scrip
ture divinely inspired," and should be paraphrased
as it is divinely inspired, or by some supplemen
tary words indicative of description. As the Vul
gate does not design to exclude the inspiration
from any part of Scripture, but to assign the reason
of the reading of it being profitable, the supplement
should not be a limiting phrase, but a descriptive
one. " All Scripture, because it is inspired by God,
is profitable," &c. The Syriac version is not an
exact translation, according to any reading of the
text ; it is rather a paraphrase. If, in the expres
sion, "every writing which has been written by
the Spirit," the phrase every writing is understood
in its general sense, then the passage cannot be
descriptive ; for every writing is not divinely
inspired. If by every writing is meant every
book of Scripture, as Dr. Smith seems to under
stand the translation, then the translation into
English should not have been every writing, but
every scripture.
Dr. Smith states, very correctly, that the terms
graphe, graphai, and iera grammata, are all appro
priated, in the most decided and notorious manner,
to signify the inspired writings of the Old Testa-

THE SCRIPTURES. 163
ment ; and he reasons, very justly, that it is impos
sible for it to have any other signification here,
as Timothy, and every Jew or Christian, needed no
explanation of these phrases. This is a most deci
sive and conclusive argument against all those who,
with Dr. Smith himself, object to tho inspiration
of particular passages in books confessedly inspired ;
but I object to the conclusiveness of his reasoning,
when he rests on this fact, the certainty of the
inspiration of " each and every of the books of the
Old Testament." In my judgment, the decidedly
appropriated sense of the term graphe, can afford
no assistance in proving that these books were
inspired. A Unitarian may reply, " I fully grant
that these phrases designate the books of the Old
Testament, but I deny that this admits their
inspiration. For anything that can be learned
from the appropriations, there may not be a line
of inspiration in the whole." Now, to such a
man I have nothing to reply. With respect to
the passage under consideration, the Unitarian
might observe, "I acknowledge that Paul here
uses the term graphe it its appropriated sense ; he
does not, however, asserts inspiration of all Scrip-
¦ ture, but that all Scripture which is inspired is
profitable," &c. Now, that his reasoning is false,
is not proved by reference to the appropriated
meaning of graphe, nor from the paraphrase by
which he expresses his meaning of the text, in

164 INSPIRATION OF
which also he agrees with Dr. Smith, but by show
ing, as I have done, the true and natural supple
mentary matter to be descriptive, and not limiting.
That this interpretation of the Unitarian is false,
might also be solidly proved by the absurdity to
which it leads. It supposes that there must be a
standard or criterion by which, in reading the
Scriptures, we may distinguish what is inspired
from what is uninspired. If there is no such crite
rion, we cannot make the proper use of what is
inspired. Now, as no such criterion is given in
Scripture, there cannot be need for such criterion.
This is an axiom — the man who refuses it is not
worth reasoning with ; he ought to be given up as
a hypochondriac, or as a man who perversely
denies first principles, without which there can he
no reasoning. If it is said that we may form a
criterion for ourselves, I reply that such criterion
may be false ; and at best, is but human, and can
have no authority with ourselves, and much less
with others.
While, therefore, I hold with Dr. Smith, "that
the passage before us, though we adopt that con
struction of Theopneustos which Unitarians gen
erally approve, furnishes the strongest testimony to
the inspiration of each and every of the books of
the Old Testament," I do not think that the strength
of the evidence is brought out in his translation, or
paraphrase or reasoning.

THE SCRIPTUR1B. 165
But it is not only of advantage, it seems, to have
the Bible disencumbered of a useless load of inspi
ration as to words ; it will be still more eminently
improved by expelling inspiration from those trivial
unimportant passages, in which the inspired writers
have impertinently foisted in matters too undigni
fied for divine influences. Dr. S. quotes the follow
ing passage from Parry on Inspiration.
"If the inspiration and guidance of the Spirit,
respecting the writers of the New Testament,
extended only to what appears to be its pfbper
province, matters of a religious and moral nature ;
then there is no necessity to ask, whether every
thing contained in their writings were suggested
immediately by the Spirit or not ; whether Luke
was inspired to say, that the ship in which he
sailed with Paul was wrecked on the island of
Melita, (Acts xxviii, 1,) or whether Paul was
under the guidance of the Spirit, in directing
Timothy to bring with him the cloak which he
left at Troas, and the books, but especially the
parchments, (2 Tim. iv. 13;) for the answer is
obvious, these were not things of a religions, nature,
and no inspiration was necessary concerning them.
The inspired writers sometimes mention common
occurrences or things in an incidental manner,
as any other plain and fathful men might do.
Although, therefore, such things may be found
in parts of the evangelic history, or in epistles

166 INSPIRATION OF
addressed to churches or individuals, and may
stand connected with important declarations con
cerning Christian doctrine or duty, yet it is not
necessary to suppose that they were under any
supernatural influence in mentioning such common
or civil affairs, though they were, as to all the
sentiments they inculcated respecting religion." —
Vol. p. 65.
Now, to refute this impious theory, nothing
more is required than to quote Dr. S.'s observa-
tion»on 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16 ; and to me it is perfectly
astonishing that the learned writer did not see the
inconsistency between this and his views of that
important passage. If " each and every of the
books of Scripture" are inspired, how is it that
any part of these books can be uninspired ? This
is a problem that Dr. S. must solve, for he holds
both sides of the contradiction. If "all Scripture"
is inspired, nothing uninspired can belong to
writings caUed Scripture. We have 'only to
inquire, then, whether such things are found in
books called Scripture, of which, without exception,
inspiration is asserted ; but to say that a book is
inspired, and that a part of it is uninspired, is a
contradiction. That may be true of a part which
is not true of the whole ; but what is true of the
whole, must be true of every part. The doctrine
here incidcated, then, is not oidy untrue, but
absurd.

THE SCRIPTURES. 167
The proper province of inspiration, as we are
told, is confined to things of a moral and religious
nature. The proper province of inspiration, I
maintain, is every part of a book declared by God
to be inspired. It is the proper province of every
writer to be pledged for every thing in the book
which he authenticates by his name. Would I
permit an amanuensis to foist in under my name,
every thing he chose to communicate to the public?
And if I adopt any thing from him, am I not
pledged for it as my own? ShaU the inspired
writers, then, take a liberty with God that woidd
be utterly unwarrantable with man ? Is it not the
province of God to be the Author of every part of
the book which He recognizes as His own writing ?
For an amanuensis to foist in any thing not
inspired, woidd be downright forgery. If there
are some things unfit for inspiration, such things
should not have a place among things inspired, so
as to make a part of a book of which inspiration is,
without exception, asserted. Had God permitted
such a heterogeneous mixture to be given to the
world, than which nothing can be more absurd to
suppose, he would not have allowed the whole to be
designated by his name. And he would doubtless
have given a criterion to distinguish what is divine
from what is human. That no such thing is the
case, beside the absurdity of the thing, there is the
highest evidence in the fact, that no such criterion

168 INSPIRATION OF
is given by God. But what God has not done Mr.
Parry has kindly condescended to perform for Him.
Impious mortal ! will men never learn to give the
Almighty His own place ? Will the Pharisees
never cease, by then- traditions, to make void the
law of God ? AY ere such a discrimination necessary
in the book of God, would it be left to men to form
the criterion ? If such a criterion is necessary in
reading the Scriptures, and if no such criterion is
given, the Scriptures are an insufficient rule. Why
shall we not, then, admit the traditions of papal
Rome, as well as the theories of presumptuous Pro
testant theologians ? If Mr. Parry has a right to
make one criterion, has not Dr. Priestly a right to
make another ? If the former is permitted, by his
theory, to purge the Scriptures of certain useless
though harmless excrescences, shall not the latter
be equally entitled to devise a theory, that will
expel aU doctrines supposed to be derogatory to
human understanding? If the smaUest license of
this kind is permitted, nothing shall be left as God's
in the Scriptures that atheistical impudence shall
think fit to question. The inspiration of Luke in
writing the accomit of the shipwreck, and that of
Paul in writing for the cloak and parchments, stand
on the same foundation as their inspiration in
recording the plan of salvation. Nor are these
facts, and all similar ones, destitute of religious
instruction. But to be able to show this is not

THE SCRIPTURES. 169
necessary for the vindication of their inspiration.
That they are inspired, is ascertained by their
being found in a book that is divinely attested as
inspired. The plan that sound criticism would
pursue, is not to read in order to discriminate in
the Scriptures by a human theory, what is divine
from what is human, but to read every verse as the
dictate of God, and endeavor to find out the reli
gious use that the Holy Spirit intended that we
should derive from it. Admitting that in some
things we should not be successful, whether is it
more rational to reject such things as not being
given by inspiration of God, or to suppose that the
divine word may contain treasures that we are not
able perfectly to exhaust ? Is it modest to say that
a passage can have no religious use, if we cannot
immediately perceive that use? No, it is not
modest, it is atheistical, it is irrational. For my
own part, there is not one of those parts of Scrip
ture, that human wisdom has objected to, in which
I have not admired the divine wisdom. Instruction
is abundantly conveyed in them, and in a way that
shows the Scriptures to be divine. One of these
passages, (2 Tim. iv. 13,) that this learned writer is
unwilling to dignify as a part of the revelation of
God, I have known a very learned clergyman of
the Church of England, Dr. Stokes, to choose as
the text of a sermon, which he preached at a visi
tation of the Bishop of Derry., That in which Mr.

170 INSPIRATION OF
Parry and Dr. Smith can find no religious instruc
tion, Dr. Stokes, as learned as any of them, con
sidered as full of instruction for all the clergy of a
diocese. And, indeed, many of these things that
captiousness and learned ignorance are so much
inclined to disrelish, may be shown to be be the most
conspicuous indications of authenticity. God hath
said, " the meek will I guide in judgment." Is it
any wonder, then, that men who search the Scrip
tures with the arrogance of inquisitors, should, as
to the wisdom and application of many things, he
sent empty away ? These haughty doctors do not
sit humbly at the feet of Jesus to learn, but with
their self-invented standards, impiously seat them
selves above him.
" This view of the subject," we are told, " will also
enable a plain Christian, in reading his New Testa
ment, to distinguish what he is to consider as
inspired truth. Every thing which the Apostles
have written or taught concerning Christianity ;
every thing which teaches him a religious sentiment
or a branch of duty, he must consider as divinely
true, as the mind and will of God, recorded under
the direction and guidance of his Spirit. It is not
necessary that he should inquire, whether what the
Apostles taught be true. All that he has to search
after is, their meaning ; and when he understands
what they meant, he may rest assured, that meaning
is consistent with the wfil of God, is divine infalli-

THE SCRIPTURES. 171
ble truth. The testimony of men who spoke and
wrote by the Spirit of God, is the testimony of God
Himself; and the testimony of the God of Truth
is the strongest, and most indubitable of all demon
stration." What silliness, arrogance, and impiety is here !
And have plain Christians for eighteen centuries
been reading the Scriptures, in which some things
are divine, and some things are human, without
any criterion to distinguish? Has this ingenious
divine succeeded at last in discovering the longi
tude ? Was the world in darkness till the rising
of this star? What pity that the author had not
been born many ages sooner ! What a loss to man
kind, that his view was so long in making its
appearance ! The want of this discovery, has sub
jected plain Christians in all the previous ages of
Christianity, to confound the word of God with
what is merely human. Can there be an instance
of more insufferable arrogance and folly ? A view
that suggests itself after the lapse of nearly two
thousand years, is necessary to enable men to read
the Bible so as to ascertain what in it belongs to
God ! Without this, men cannot properly discrimi
nate what is the Bible ! And dare any wretched
mortal presume to give a criterion of discrimina
tion, in determining the authority of what is con
tained in the book of God? Impious men, give
your assistance to the Almighty and the All-wise

172 INSPIRATION OF
in the plans of creation and providence, where your
folly cannot mar the comfort of the plain Christian.
But foist not your theories on the volume that con
tains the words of eternal life, and the instructions
of heavenly wisdom. Rob not the unlearned Chris
tian of the cheering conviction, that " all Scripture
is given by inspiration of God." Let your impious
ingenuity gather laurels in the legitimate fields of
invention ; try your powers in the arts and sciences,
and by your sagacity rival the glory of the inventor
of the steam engine. But leave the poor Christian
his Bible whole and entire. Seek not to bewilder
him by your ignis fatuus, — darken him not by
your discoveries, — impoverish him not, by bestow
ing on him your riches. I have no language in
which I can adequately express my abhorrence of
such a theory, while it is impossible to restrain
emotions of contempt for its folly. What blas
phemy and absurdity are implied in the idea of
a plan for enabling plain Christians to distinguish
what belongs to God, in the book that God himself
calls his own word ! Can the man who has made,
or those who adopt this theory, quarrel with Arians,
who give a similar new guide to direct plain Chris
tians to discriminate in the Scriptures what is im
portant or fundamental truth, from what is uncer
tain, unimportant, and speculative ? Nothing, say
they, can be fundamental truth, but what is found
in each of the Gospels. By such infidel criterions,

THE SCRIPTURES. 173
men continue to reprobate everything in the Scrip
tures which they dislike.
But of what service is this theory, even were it
admitted? It is utterly indefinite. What will
appear to have religious instruction to one, will
have none to another ; and as every man must be
guided in this by his own view, every one will have
a Bible longer or shorter according to his opinions
and taste. Besides, on such points there will be no
possibility of coming to one judgment, for there
is no common standard. That which these two
learned theologians look on as so utterly without
interest we have seen another writer, equally
learned, admiring as a manifestation of divine wis
dom, and a proof of the divine perfection of the
Book of God. And how easy wdl it be, according
to this scheme, to discredit any part of Scripture,
by alleging that it is only a matter of speculation,
not of essential faith ? Were all men to adopt this
theory, they would be as far as ever from being
brought to agreement by it.
Upon the supposition, that the " common and
civfi affairs " mentioned in the Scriptures, are to
be considered in no point of view as things of a
religious nature, and consequently not inspired,
there is a door opened for the introduction into the
book of God, of as much uninspired matter as the
discretion of the writers might think fit to insert.
If, without inspiration, they might introduce one

174 INSPIRATION OP
sentence or observation, they might have added a
thousand volumes on the same principle. What
havoc does this theory make on the word of God ?
This discovery is also applied to settle the ques
tion, with respect to the inspiration of Paul, in
what is taught in the seventh chapter of the First
Epistle to the Corinthians.
" The above view of the apostolic inspiration will
likewise enable us, as I apprehend, to understand
the Apostle Paul, in the seventh chapter of his
first Epistle to the Corinthians, where in some
verses he seems to speak as if he were not inspired,
and in others as if he were. Concerning some
things, he saith, ' But I speak this by permission,
and not of commandment : ' (ver. 6.) and agahi,
' I have no commandment of the Lord ; yet I give
my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of
the Lord to be faithful.' (ver. 25.) The subject of
which the Apostle here delivers his opinion, was
a matter of Christian prudence, in which the Corin
thians had desired his advice. But it was not a
part of religious sentiment or practice ; it was not
a branch of Christian doctrine or duty, but merely
a casuistical question of prudence, with relation to
the distress which persecution then occasioned.
Paul, therefore, agreeably to their request, gives
them his opinion as a faithful man ; but he guards
them against supposing that he was under divine
inspiration in that opinion, lest their consciences

THE SCRIPTURES. 175
should be shackled, and leaves them at liberty to
follow his advice or not, as they might find con
venient. Yet he intimates that he had ' the Spirit.
of the Lord ' as a Christian teacher ; that he had
not said anything contrary to his will ; and that
the opinion which he gave was, on the whole,
advisable ' in the present distress.' But the Apos
tle's declaration, that as to this particular matter,
he spoke 'by permission, and not of command
ment,' strongly implies that hi other things, in
things really of a religious nature, he did speak by
commandment from the Lord. Accordingly, in
the same chapter, when he had occasion to speak
of what was matter of moral duty, he immediately
claimed to be under divine direction in what he
wrote. ' And unto the married I command, yet
not I but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her
husband,' (1 Cor. vii. 10^ This would be a breach of
one of the chief obligations of morality, and there
fore Paul interdicts it under the divine authority.
Respecting indifferent things, he gave his judgment
as a wise and faithful friend; but respecting the
things of religion, he spake and wrote as an Apostle
of Jesus Christ, under the direction and guidance
of his Spirit." — Parry's Inquiry, p. 26 — 30.
A very satisfactory defence of the inspiration of
the Apostle on this occasion, may be found in the
" Authenticity and Inspiration of the Scriptures,"
by Mr. Haldane, — a defence so full, as in my

176 INSPIRATION OF
apprehension, not to admit a single additional
observation. But in order to cut down these impi
ous theories, I will, for argument's sake, admit the
failure, and show that even this does not concede
the consequence with respect to the plenary inspi
ration of the Scriptures. If the Apostle guards
us against the supposition of his inspiration on this
point, then, doubtless, everything is to be taken
as inspired, when there is no such intimation. The
message about the cloak and the parchments, the
medical advice to Timothy, and the many common
and trivial incidents mentioned in his letters, have
their claims to inspiration more fully authenticated.
All we lose is inspired direction on one point, in
which, according to the hypothesis, inspiration is
expressly disclaimed. But I go further. Admit
ting that Paul disclaims inspiration on this point, I
maintain that the chapter oontaining the admission,
as a part of Scripture, is inspired equally with any
chapter in the Bible. Though he were not inspired
to decide the question, he was inspired to write
the account which he has given of the matter. If
the Apostle has told us that he is not inspired on
this point, he has been inspired to make the denial.
Not a line has he written in that chapter, that is
not immediately from the Holy Ghost. Gamaliel
was not inspired, but inspiration has recorded his
advice; and that document, as recorded by the
Holy Spirit, suggests inspired instruction to us.

THE SCRIPTURES. 177
Dr. Smith, you are engaged in a very unholy
cause, — your genius and learning are very ill em
ployed. By excluding the Song of Solomon, you
unsettle the canon of Scripture, and unhinge the
mind of simple Christians, by your speculations.
You have denied the verbal inspiration of the word
of God, and every kind of inspiration to all the
passages that any one may choose to consider not
of a religious or moral nature. Your speculations
are very crude, — your sentiments are self-contra
dictory, — and your half-formed conceptions show
that you have been too hasty in giving your opin
ions to the world. You must go back or forward,
— stationary you cannot remain. Make the best
use of your learning, but humble yom'self before
God, and seek more of the teaching of his Spirit
in the reading; of his word. Without much learn-
ing, it is impossible to be a Biblical critic ; but all
the learning of Bently will be insufficient, without
that child-like disposition of the wisdom given from
on high, which teaches to cry, Speak, Lord, for thy
servant heareth. Mary, the sister of Lazarus, is a
better model for a Christian minister than Dr.
Haffner, the learned professor of Strasburgh.
As might be expected, the unhallowed theory of
inspiration adopted by Dr. Smith, leads to a devas
tation of the Scriptures, to which no bounds can
be assigned. It is a gangrene that wdl gradually
spread until it eats the very vitals of Christianity.

178 INSPIRATION OF
Inspiration is first denied to the words, next to such
things as relate to common and civil affairs : from
this the progress to the non-inspiration of whole
books of Scripture is perfectly easy and natural.
So far, it appears, the disease has spread its bane
ful contagion in some professedly evangelical wri
ters of the present day. An article has appeared
in the Ecclectic Review for November, 1825,* in
which the inspiration of several books of Scripture
is denied ; and, as has been stated in the Edinburgh
Christian Instructor, the divine origin of no less
than one hundred and forty chapters of the Bible
has been impugned. In this article we have the
following passage.
" If the books of Proverbs and Solomon's Song
can be proved to be inspired, it is not, we appre
hend, on the ground of either external or internal
evidence, but on that of tlie inspired character
attaching to their royal author. That God was
the author of his wisdom, Ave know, as the Holy
Spirit is the author of all true wisdom, the inspirer
of ' all good counsels ' as wed as of ' all holy desires
and just works.' But, whether he Avas 'moved
by the Holy Ghost ' in penning those compositions,
or rather in speaking the proverbs ascribed to him,
* In the first edition of this Review, it was stated that Dr.
Smith was said to bo the author of this paper. But that gentle
man has disclaimed it. I wish I could also add that he disclaims
nil tamporing Avith tho Sacred Canon.

THE SCRIPTURES. 179
is not so certain as to rank among articles of faith.
There appears^ to us far stronger ground for believ
ing that '.Ezra the priest, the scribe,' acted and
spake under the guidance of inspiration ; but it is
observable, that he is never spoken of as a prophet,
nor does he lay claim to that character. Even,
however, admitting both Solomon and Ezra to have
been inspired men, it would be very difficult, we
conceive, to prove that this character attached to
the anonymous authors of the book of Esther and
the books of Chronicles. We must therefore still
contend, that these books, though very properly
included in our canon as both authentic and true,
' are possibly not inspired ; ' and that the question
whether they are so or not, comes within the proper
range of human opinion."
To enter into the proof of the inspiration of these
books, so rashly questioned by this writer, would
be altogether a waste of time in this place. It will
be perfectly sufficient to show that Dr. Smith can
not consistently question it. The business may be
effectually done from his own admissions. He
strongly contends that 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16, asserts the
inspiration of each cmd every of the books com
prised under the wed understood collective denomi
nation, Ta iera grammata, the Holy Writings:
and that even the Unitarian construction of that
passage furnishes " the strongest testimony to the
inspiration of each and every of the books of the

180 INSPIRATION OF
Old Testament." Now we have only to ask, were
the above books a part of the Old Testament when
Paul Avrote that Epistle, in order to be completely
assured that they are inspired ? Were they a part
of that coUection called Scripture, the Scriptures,
the Holy Scriptures, the oracles of God, &c. ? If
they were, their inspiration is unquestionable. To
settle this question, it is only necessary to know
the Jewish canon. If Dr. S. can deny the inspira
tion of any book of the Old Testament in accord
ance with his own explanation of 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16,
it requires more perspicacity than I possess, to
discern the agreement. Should he say that he can
not see anything in these books that can entitle
them to the denomination, Scripture, Holy Writings,
oracles of God, &c. ; this might be very becoming
in the month of an infidel, but is very inconsistent
in the mouth of him who admits them to be a part
of the Jewish canon ; and who applies the assertion
of Paul, 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16, to every part of that
. canon. Nothing can be more absurd than to apply
Paul's assertion of inspiration to each and every
book of a well knoAra collective denomination, and
afterwards to refuse it to certain books unquestiona
bly contained in that collection. Can they be a
part of the collection, and not deserve the com
mendation bestowed on every part of that collec
tion ? Hoav can he refuse them the denomination
of Scripture, after saying that the meaning of that

TOE SCRIPTURES. 181
well understood collective denomination, every Jew
and Christian recognised as including the Scrip
tures to which Jesus was in the habit of referring,
as to the ultimate divine authority f How can he
question the inspiration of some books of the Old
Testament, after asserting that 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16,
furnishes the strongest testimony to the inspiration
of each and every of the books of the Old Testa
ment? Were not these books, books of the Old
Testament ? To admit the canon to apply (2 Tim.
iii. 15, 16,) to every book of the canon, and yet
to question the inspiration of some of the books
of that canon, would be an instance of absurdity
and contradiction to be matched only in the doc
trine of transubstantiation. A deist might con
sistently admit the canon, and labor to show, from
the contents of any particular book, that it could
not be inspired. This would not only be consistent,
but effectually serviceable to his cause. Could he
succeed in shoAving that a certain book belongs to
the coUective denomination received by the Jews
as Scripture ; and that it contained evidence of
non-inspiration, he would prove Paul a liar, (2 Tim.
iii. 15, 16,) and discredit the inspiration of every
other book in the canon. If one part of the volume
attested as inspired by Paul, be proved to be unin
spired, his attestation is worthless with respect to
every book in the collection. The writer of this
article then, is not only inconsistent with Dr. Smith

182 INSPIRATION OF
in this matter, but actually labors in the cause of
infidelity, with respect to Revelation in general.
As far as the authority of the canon, and the gene
ral attestation of inspiration are concerned, both
the authenticity and inspiration of the whole Scrip
tures are subverted. For if the canon has admitted
one uninspired book, there is no security that it
has not admitted more ; if that canon has been
recognised by Jesus with one uninspired book,
every book in the collection may be uninspired,
notwithstanding that recognition. If Paul (2 Tim.
iii. 15, 16,) asserts inspiration of the whole volume,
while one is uninspired, no book in the volume can
be allowed currency from his stamp. If lie has
sealed one forgery, the great seals should be put ia
other hands. I am unwilling to suspect Dr. Smith
of secretly designing to undermine the authority of
the Scripture ; yet as he excludes the Songs of Solo
mon, I cannot clear him but at the expense of his
judgment. I cannot see how a man of sound
understanding can apply 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16, to each
and every book of a collection, Avhile he denies
inspiration to any book, unquestionably contained
in that collection.
The doctrine of the Avriter of the article under
review is a perfect absurdity. He tells us that
tho book of Esther, and the books of Chronicles,
though not inspired, are " A'ery properly included
in our canon, as both authentic and true." Now,

THE SCRIPTURES. 183
what canon? The answer is self-evident, — canon
of Scripture. What other canon is the writer here
concerned with ? Licluded in the canon of Scrip
ture, whfie they are not Scripture ! Included in a
canon to which they do not belong ! Included in
the canon of inspired books, while they are not
inspired! As' wed may the writer be included in
the peerage, while he is not a peer, or be enrolled
among crowned heads, while he is but a subject.
Include the writings of men.among the Avritings of
God, under one designation ! Was ever absurdity
more monstrous ? I had thought that the Church
of Rome had exhausted all the mines of absurdity ;
but it seemes there are some rich veins of unappro
priated ore, left to be worked by Protestant divines
for the support of sophistry. The authenticity of
a book does not entitle it to be taken into the canon
of Scripture. Mathematical demonstrations have
no more right to a place in the canon of the holy
books, than the most extravagant romance. They
are truths, but they are not the truths written by
the Spirit of God, for the spiritual instruction of
mankind. The Jewish canon was the canon of
Scripture, not the canon of authentic books in gene
ral. Our canon is the canon of the books acknow
ledged as inspired, not the canon of all true history;
the Avriter's canon would include aU the authentic
history of all ages and countries. Is not a canon
a rule? And what rule ought any- uninspired

184 INSPIRATION OF
book to be in the things of God ? Now, let me ask
him, could you seriously think of placing in our
Bible ad authentic records ? H not, why do you
give a place to the book of Esther, and the books
of the Chronicles, which in your opinion are unin
spired? Would you cad such a collection the
Bible, the Scriptures, tho Holy Scriptures, &c?
I thank thee, great Jesus, that thou hast not left
the making of our Bible to the ingenuity of learned
doctors. Much of thy wisdom in it, appears to
them to be folly. Their learning is employed in
mending thy work, and polishing what thy hand
has left unfinished. Go, vain man, enrol thy name
with that of him, who, in the arrogance of his
wisdom, boasted that he could have given a better
model for creation, had he been admitted to the
divine counsels ; but let the Bible alone. It is the
very wisdom of wisdom. The blemishes that the
Avisdom of this world finds in it, are often its
greatest excellencies.
Let us examine a little further this Avriter's prin
ciples of evidence, as furnished by this passage.
Though he denies these books as inspired, he ac
knowledges them as authentic and true. Now,
how does he knoAv them to be authentic and true,
independently of their being a part of the canon,
whose inspiration is asserted by Paul ? Who is the
voucher for the wicked Jew who Avrote the book of
Esther? What other authentic documents prove

THE SCRIPTURES. 185
every part of this narrative ? If there is a single
fact in it uncorroborated by other unsuspicious tes
timony, it stand unaccredited, and the admitted
Avickedness of its author levels it to the rank of a
romance. If it was Avritten by a wicked Jew, we
may be sure that he has falsified. We cannot de
pend on a single fact recorded. Was it ever known
that a Avicked Jew could Avrite a page of truth, when
the interest of his country would be served by a
he ? Believe the narrative of a wicked Jew about
his religion and country ? Go, then, to the Jesuits
for the authentic annals of Christianity. Swallow
all the fables of popish miracles. Receive, as the
truth of God, every adventure in the lives and le
gends of the saints. Then, that the renoAvned St.
Dunstan held the devil by the nose, at the door of
his cave, till he made all the rocks, hills and valleys
to re-echo his horrible bedowing, will become a
matter of sober history.
How very easily is this writer satisfied with
evidence of authenticity, contrasted with his obsti
nacy Avith respect to inspiration. Inspiration he
denies to these books, though they are part of a
canon, to the whole of Avhich inspiration is ex
pressly ascribed by an inspired Apostle. Their
authenticity he grants without evidence, though,
abstracted from their inspiration, there is the
strongest reason to suspect them of imposture.
Now, my view of evidence leads me to admit their

186 INSPIRATION OF
inspiration, from their being part of a canon, to
every part of which inspiration is ascribed by an
Apostle, and to recognize their authenticity, as
they are inspired. Their being in the canon is the
chief proof of their authenticity. Of the authen
ticity of some books, there might be no other
evidence than the fact that they are in the canon.
I know the history of the Old Testament to he
true, because it is inspired ; take away its inspira
tion, and you remove the strongest evidence of its
authenticity. Now, instead of resting the whole proof of the
inspiration of these books on the general inspired
character of their author, I rest no part of it on
this ground. Indeed, the evidence that Solomon
was an inspired man is, that he Avrote these books.
Even had we known him to have unquestionably
written books acknoAvledged by all to be inspired,
we would not rest the inspiration of these books on
that ground. This argument might go a certain
length towards proof; but the main evidence would
be, that these books were a part of the JeAvish
canon, recognised by our Lord, and to every part
of Avhich inspiration is ascribed by the Apostle
Paul. There may be additional eA-idences, external
and internal, but this is a pivot that, without any
other support, will bear the whole weight of their
inspiration. That Solomon Avas "moved by the
Holy Ghost in penning these compositions," is

THE SCEIPTUTES. 187
matter of Christian faith, as well as that Paul avrs
so moved to Avrite his epistles.
It would be still more difficult in this writer's
estimation to prove the inspiration of the book of
Esther, and the books of Chronicles. Not in the
least more difficult. Do they belong to the canon,
each and every book of which is asserted by Paul
to be inspired ? Here is no second question. The
author appears to labor under a mistake with
respect to the nature of the proof of inspiration.
He appears to make little or no account of the
authority of the canon, though authenticated by the
highest possible sanction. After the fullest evidence
of such a title, other evidence, external and internal,
seems to be considered as essential before its recog
nition. Now, to me it is quite obvious, that when
a book has the authority of the canon so augustly
sanctioned, it needs to a Christian no other recom
mendation. To him it ceases to stand on its trial.
To question it further is to suspect the guarantee
of Jesus and his Apostles. We may add to its
proofs for the sake of confounding infidelity, but to
refuse our oavh assent tid they are produced, is
most criminal unbelief.
With respect to internal evidence, nothing can
be more satisfactory than when a book of Scripture,
by the nature and excellence of its contents, proves
its origin to be divine. This is eminently to be
found in the holy books. But let it be observed,

188 INSPIRATION OF
that this is not essential in every book, and that
the nature of some books altogether precludes it.
Books of genealogies, and other matters, have their
use in the inspired volume. But how could genea
logical tables prove the inspiration by internal
evidence? These tables may be taken verbally
and literally from public documents ; but as they
are inserted in the inspired volume, they have the
seal of inspiration. Internal evidence, essentially
requisite in a revelation, is only negative. A
divinely inspired book can contain nothing thai; is
inconsistent Avith the divine perfections, as revealed
in the Gospel. But when a book is proved by
external evidence it is absurd to suppose that it
can contain internal evidence to disprove itself.
When, therefore, a book is proved by external
evidence to be inspired, wisdom directs us to he
Arery cautious in pronouncing its contents to be unfit
for the matter of revelation. Such a book could
not have external evedince. To judge rashly in
this way is to rush on the buckler of the Almighty.
It is the very sin of our first parents,- — the sin that
the wicked one is still prompting men to commit, —
to be as gods, knowing good and evil. Does vain
man consider himself a perfect judge of what in
all cases is fit for God to write ? Is he able to give
counsel to the perfection of wisdom ? Must revela
tion come up in all things to his ideas of propriety?
Must the Almighty- conform Himself to his stan-

THE SCRIPTURES. 189
dard ? How disgusting to the mind of an humble
Christian, to hear presumptuous men dictating on
the nature of divine revelation, as if they were
equal to God? Their pure minds take offence at
the grossness of the word of Him in whose sight the
heavens are not pure. It is awful presumption to
pretend to be disgusted with the Song of Solomon,
Avhen it is found in the canon of the word of God.
Whatever my oavti judgment might be, if left to
determine, a priori, of the nature of this book,
when I find it among the books that composed the
JeAvish canon, sanctioned by Jesus, and declared
by Paul to be inspired, instead of indulging my
ingenuity in finding out an evil tendency in it, I
set myself to discover its -wisdom, and reap the
instruction and comfort it is calculated to afford.
In this view, I am persuaded, every humble Chris
tian wid find it a part of the treasures of infinite
Avisdom. The spirit that rejects it is a spirit of
infidelity ; and though this writer indulges it only
in denying a few of the books of inspiration, it is
the very same spirit that works in the complete
infidel, in denying the whole word of God. To
deny the whole volume of inspiration would not
require the adoption of any additional principle ;
it would only be necessary to act more fully up
to it.
If there is any thing in the books of Chronicles,
the wisdom of which hunfility, patience and labor

190 INSPIRATION OF
cannot discover, I am convinced that there is more
good sense, as well as piety, in the observation of
Mr. Scott, than in the fastidiousness of this Avriter :
" If we could not understand, or get any benefit
from certain portions of the Scriptures, it would be
more reasonable," says that pious man, " to blame
our OAvn dulness, than, so much as in thought, to
censure them as useless." This is a sentiment that
breathes the true spirit of Christianity.
Instead of finding cause of quarrel with the book
of Esther, it is a part of Scripture that I have long
admired as super-eminently abounding Avith proofe
of a divine origin. I 6ee in it the characteristic
features of the divine wisdom, and every where
discover traces of the finger of God. It is to me a
key to the history of the world, and an inspired
commentary on the book of Providence. From
this I am taught to see the hand of God in the
minutest concerns of my life, as well as in guiding
the wheels of empire. When storms and darkness
thicken over my head, from the book of Esther I
am led to hope that they may break around me in
blessings, or at least be dispersed Avithout doing
me injury. When this book is commended to me
by the canon approved by Jesus, shall I give up
to hypercritical fastidiousness ad the consolation
which it affords me? He that robs me of my
money steals trash; but he that robs me of any
part of the word of God, takes from me what all

THE SCRIPTURES. 191
the earth cannot replace. Learned men, in the
wantonness of their genius, may think it a very
harmless thing to question our title to some parts
of the domains left us by our Lord. In the sport
of criticism, they may give away tracts of Scripture
territory with much less concern than an amateur
would the picture assigned to an admired artist, or
than a scholar would give up an ode of Horace.
But a Christian, acting fully in the spirit of Chris
tianity, will cling to every word of the Holy Book,
and guard it as a miser guards his treasures. The
Scriptures are the title-deeds of his estate ; and he
will, with the utmost care, preserve every line and
every word from erasure.
The omission complained of in the book of
Esther, is quite analogous to the providence of God
which it illustrates. It is in the characteristic style
of Divine Wisdom. Divine Providence rules aU
the events of this world ; but He guides the uni
verse with an unseen hand. Though His friends
see His hand in everything, His enemies see him not
at all. In ad the operations of His wisdom and
power, they perceive nothing but chance and con
fusion. Fortune is the goddess which they put in
the place of the God of Providence. They are like
children beholding the movements of puppets.
The hand behind the curtain is never suspected.
A leaf cannot move on a branch — no living crea
ture can draw breath, without the operation of the

192 INSPIRATION OF
Divine hand ; yet are the most wonderful interposi
tions of His providence unnoticed by the wisdom of
this world. God is hidden from the eyes of men,
even while He is everywhere at work before then
face. Is there any need for a voice from heaven
to proclaim on every occasion, " It is God that per
forms this ? " Is it not self-evident to every crea
ture truly wise ? Are not all inexcusable who do
not acknowledge His over-ruling power ? Must a
herald proclaim Him the author of His works, before
men are blameable in ascribing them to another
cause ? Is He so bad a painter that the style of His
works is not characteristic of their author ? Is He
so little knoAvn in the world that Avitnesses must he
brought into court to prove His hand Avriting ? If
there is a human creature, possessed of all the
faculties of man, who is unacquainted Avith the
hand-writing of God, he is a gudty creature. Innu
merable examples of it have, from his infancy,
been before his eyes. And why should not the
book of Esther be in the style of the hand-Avriting
of that Providence, whose wonders it exhibits?
Both are anonymous letters; but they are letters
which heaven and earth could not counterfeit.
The hand-writing proves its author. To ascribe
the book of Esther to a wicked JeAv, is as void of
foundation, as to ascribe the works of Providence
to the devd.
Had we written the Book of Esther, no doubt

THE SCRIPTURES. 193
our wisdom would have expressed our whole creed,
guarded at all points by logical definition, to cut
off pretence for invasion. The feeblest pin would
have afforded a hold for ad the weight of our
orthodoxy. But it is not so with the wisdom of
God. The truth, in aU its bearings, is not exhibited
in any single passage in the Bible. To have a com
plete view of it, we must bring together passages
scattered throughout the whole Scriptures. The
book of Esther is designed for a particular pur
pose ; it is sufficient that it serves that purpose.
As a part of the sacred volume, it is admirably
instructive ; it never was designed to stand alone.
The preaching of Jesus himself could not stand the
test to which this writer subjects the book of
Esther. He did not, in every address, bring for
ward the doctrine of salvation. The book of Esther
teaches the truth as far as it goes ; it is no degra
dation to it that it leaves the most important thing
to be gathered by inference. Even by itself, its
meaning cannot" be innocently mistaken ; but, in
conjunction with the other books of Scripture, aU
appearance of cover is removed. Is it not sufficient
if the whole Scriptures contain the whole will of
God ? Shad we arrogantly prescribe to Him what
is requisite in every part? Whde the way of
salvation is dispersed in multitudes of places through
the Bible, many passages might be collected in
which there is nothing about it.

194 INSPIRATION OF
I implore such writers to reflect on the awful
nature of their sentiments. If this book is inspired,
and, if Dr. Smith's explanation of 2 Timothy iii.
16, be correct, inspired it must be, how highly
audacious is it to ascribe it to some Avicked Jew !
If, in their judgment, it contains evidence of being
the work of a Avicked author, do they not find that
wickedness in God, should the book be finally
acknowledged by God ? Is there hazard here ? Is
not rashness on such a point the extravagance of
madness? If the Avork is charged as a wicked
work, and God is found to be its author, is not
God charged with its wickedness ? I admit that
the writer does not intentionally make such a
charge. But does this clear him ? If so, the Jews
wid be innocent in rejecting the Gospel ; for they
conceive that it led to licentiousness. If so, the
modern revilers of salvation, by the grace of God
through Jesus Christ, will ad stand without blame ;
for they oppose it out of zeal for the interests of
good works. Has the man of sin opposed the
truth, as being the doctrine of Christ, and the true
Gospel ? Does he not view the Gospel of the grace
of God as the heresy of wicked men, seduced by
the devil? Yet he is the son of perdition, the
smoke of Avhose torment ascendeth forever and
ever. And is it a light thing upon the strength of
rash objections, to affront the Spirit of Truth, and
ascribe, though ignorantly, any part of the word of

THE SCRIPTURES. 195
God to wicked men? If this charge is unfounded,
even though not intended as against God, it argues
disaffection to the divine wisdom. What is unbe
lief but disaffection to the wisdom of God 1 Men
reject the Gospel, because, indulging their own wis
dom, the wisdom of God appears foolishness to
them. Instead of submitting to the plan of divine
wisdom, when communicated to them, they take on
them to question its merits ; and finding it alto
gether opposed to their own views, they reject it
as an imposture, or explain it in conformity with
the wisdom of man. Had the Gospel appeared the
Avisdom of God, in the estimation of the princes of
this world, they would not have crucified the Lord
of glory. They did this in ignorance, — because
the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world ;
but this ignorance, as it was enmity against the
wisdom of God, which nothing but atheistical pride
of human wisdom could have kept them from dis
cerning, was culpable in the highest degree. This
ignorance was damnation. Now, if the book of
Esther is really written in the Avisdom of God, it
wid be no defence for this Avriter, that it is not in
the style of human wisdom. God has presented it
to him as his OAvn work, by having it inserted in
the canon sanctioned by Christ, and attested as in
spired by Paul. If, in the arrogance of his own
wisdom, he presumes to see defects in it, notwith
standing such attestation, it is at his peril he rejects

196 INSPIRATION OF
it. He indulged the very same spirit that in
duces all unbelievers to reject the Gospel. Do I
then say that to deny the inspiration of this book
is damnation ? No — I say it is not damnation ;
because no ignorance or opposition to the divine .
Avisdom is damnation, but the ignorance of one
point — the ignorance of the Avisdom of God in the
plan of salvation. This ignorance is declared by
God to be damnation. But ignorance of every
other part of the divine wisdom is not damnation ;
because it is declared that he that believeth the
Gospel shad be saved. It could not be a truth to
which there is no exception, that the belief of the
Gospel is salvation, if any ignorance consistent with
the knowledge of this one point, was damnation.
But Avhile I rejoice in this fact so comforting to us
all, for none of us are without our errors and igno
rance, I think it right to keep it constantly before
my OAvn mind, and that of all my brethren, that
every instance of disaffection to the divine wisdom
is highly criminal. It is this that has introduced
all the corruptions of the Gospel ; it is this that has
changed all the ordinances of God, and intro
duced into nominal Christianity all the pomp and
ceremony of pagan Rome. I am convinced that
many in the Church of Rome, Avith all the igno
rance of the divine wisdom that keeps them there,
may have so much knoAvledge of the wisdom
of God in the plan of salvation, as will Avash them

THE SCRIPTURES. 197
in the blood of Christ, and at last present them
blameless before his throne. But Avhde I think so,
I do not on that account think their ignorance
innocent, nor cease to cry to them in the words of
the Lord, " Come out of her, my people, that ye be
not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not
of her plagues." In like manner do I judge of the
denial of the inspiration of the book of Esther, on
the considerations of its supposed defects. It ap
pears to me exceedingly sinful, Avithout the alle
viating circumstances of prejudice, education, &c,
that weigh on the Roman Catholic. Were the
objection a thousand times more plausible than it
is, prudence, I think, should dictate very great
caution in condemning. Had the objection struck
me as it did the writer of the article, instead of
rashly yielding to it, my reason teaches me, that as
the book is authenticated by God, I should have
sought by reading and prayer, to see the divine
wisdom of that which in my wisdom did not appear
such. Instead of boldly concluding from first sight,
that this was evidence of a wicked author, I would
have taken it for granted, that there was wisdom
in it, though I could not discern that wisdom. In
this way, I have no doubt, I Avould have come to
see the wisdom of that which might at first strike
me as fody. As I am man, and not God, I never
pretend to judge for God. Ad His ways, I take it
for granted, are Avise, and my Avisdom is to search

198 INSPIRATION OF
for the traces of that wisdom. Li sitting doAvn to
a human writing, I try everything with the utmost
circumspection and jealousy. In re-perusing my
OAvn writings, I do the same, because to err is
human. But when I sit doAvn to the Scriptures, it
is not Avith the eye of a critic to find faults, nor as
a judge to put them on their trial at the bar of my
OAvn Avisdom. As I have the fullest evidence that
they are the word of God, I read to learn, — I read
to explore the divine wisdom,- — I read to discover
what may lie hid from human wisdom. As the
Scriptures are the word of God, I expect such a
fulness and perfection in them, that I may dig up
treasures that may have, yet escaped the eye of
human Avisdom. Having found the key of the
divine wisdom in the Scriptures, I apply it every
where ; and the marked characteristics of that wis
dom, are to me the best commentary on the book
of God, both of Scripture and providence. It is in
this way, that the thing that has stumbled this
writer, has long appeared to me as a certain evi
dence of the divine origin of the book of Esther.
Whether his scepticism, or my faith, is more suita
ble to human Aveakness, I might leave to the deter
mination of every humble Christian. At ad events,
I triumph in the appeal to the tin-one of the eternal
judge, for the decision of this controversy.
I request the Avriter's attention to another con
sequence of the sentiment adAranced by him on the

THE SCRIPTURES. 199
subject of the inspiration of the objected books.
He lays a foundation for infidelity, with respect to
the denial of the inspired books, to any extent that
a person may choose to build on it. He is himself
displeased only Avith a few books ; but if his princi
ples are admitted, I do not know how any book
can be retained. The authority of the canon, with
all its sanctions, he does not admit as paramount ;
and the non-conformity of its matter to his own
views, is adowed as sufficient to discredit the title
of a book to the character of inspiration. How
then can any book of Scripture stand such an
ordeal ? A thousand things in the epistles may
more plausibly be objected to, than the defect com
plained of in the book of Esther. So far from the
absence of the name of God, proving irresistibly
that none but a wicked Jew could have written
that book, it appears to me, on the contrary, that
had a wicked Jew ready been the author, it would
have possessed the perfection, the want of Avhich
the writer so much regrets. How could either the
honor, or the safety of the Jewish people, or any
single Jew, be hazarded by the avowal, that the
governor of the universe was their protector and
avenger? But at ad events, in whatever way
human Avisdom would decide on this question, to
deny the inspiration of a book so highly sanctioned
on the ground of speculations of this kind, appears
to me to be the very wantonness of sceptical folly.

200 INSPIRATION OF
Such evidence as that on which this Avriter rests,
would not be sufficient to displace from his works
any of the orations usually ascribed to Demos
thenes. To reject the book of Esther on such evi
dence, is the very madness of criticism. Admit
such principles, and who shad defend the inspira
tion of Paul against the Arians and Socinians?
Who shad be able to defend, in the Avritings of
that Apostle, the inspiration of those deep things
of God, that appear as hard sayings to the wisdom
of this world ? Every man may innocently reject
whatever is displeasing to his OAvn mind. In this
way our Bible will not contain a single page whose
inspiration wid be universady admitted. All will
be matter of human opinion.
Nor will the writer be able to keep the exact
station which he has now chosen. He Avill either
be obliged to come back to us, or the infidel Avill
force him nearer to himself. Let him not vainly
imagine, that by throAving the objected books over
board, he will be able to keep the ship from sink
ing, and save the rest. When he offers to surren
der these books to the deist, if he knows his busi
ness, he will not take them from him. He may
reply, these books that you give up to me, are
authenticated by him you cad your master, and by
him you denominate the great Apostle of the Gen
tiles. You must acknowledge them as yours, or
you must surrender at discretion, and give me up

THE SCRIPTURES. 201
ad tfie writings of Paul, and ad the authority of
Jesus. If the one falls, the other Avdl fall of course.
Who can depend on Jesus, if he has acknowledged
the authority of a book, which you and I have
found to be the writing of a wicked Jew ? What
credit can be given to Paul, if he has so egregiously
erred about these books ?
What an unholy cause are these writers engaged
in ! They are laboring as fervently in lowering
the character of the word of God, as the Neolo-
gians are laboring to sap the foundations of Chris
tianity, under a mask of submission to its authority.
Dr. Smith struggles hard to degrade the inspiration
of the Scriptures ; and both he and the Ecclectic
Review have labored to unsettle the canon. Both
haAre adopted principles which tend to confusion ;
and to the subversion of the Scriptures as the
Book of God. Dr. Smith has denied the verbal
inspiration of the Bible, and every kind of inspira
tion to ad the passages that any one may choose
to consider as not being of a religious or moral
nature ; and the Ecclectic Review has rejected
whole books of Scripture, on principles that will
condemn every book in the canon. Better, much
better for a Christian, that he had not so much
learning as to Avrite his oavh name, than to display
the abilities of Newton, in degrading the word
of God. Grotius is said to have exclaimed on
his death-bed: Heu vitam predidi offioiose nihil

202 INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.
agendo: Alas ! I have spent mg life in laboriously
doing nothing. But many learned Christians 'not
only waste their time in laborious trifles, but in
ignorantly fighting against God. How much con
fusion has been brought on divine truth, by the
waywardness even of the disciples of the Lord!
How much obscurity has been introduced into the
plainest subjects, by perverted ingenuity! How
much error arises from not reading the Scriptures
with the disposition of little children ! When will
Christians learn to renounce their oavh wisdom!
When Avfll they cease to conform the Scriptures to
their own Adews ! When Avid learned Christians
seek the approbation of God in ad then labors,
regardless of the smiles and of the frowns of a
world that lieth in the Avicked one ! When will
truth be esteemed the most precious of all posses
sions ! " Thy testimonies have I taken as an heri
tage forever ; " says the Psalmist, " for they are
the rejoicing of my heart."

APPENDIX TO REMARKS

DR. PYE, SMITH'S THEORY OP INSPIRATION.

Dr. Pye Smith, in a second edition of his work
on the Messiah, has endeavored, from the import
t>f the word Xoyoj, to silence some of the testimonies
for verbal inspiration. "Much stress," says he,
" has been laid on the use of the expressions men
tioned before, (p. 45.) where speaking, saying, and
the like, are ascribed to the Holy Spirit by the
mouth of his servants ; and such passages as these,
' I Avid put my words in his mouth,' Deut. xviii 18.
'I have given unto them the words which thou
gavest me,' John xvn 8. 'We speak not in the
words which man's wisdom teacheth, but in those
which the Holy Spirit teacheth," 1 Cor. u. 13.
Those who use this argument are probably not
acquainted Avith the Scriptural meaning of 13"» and
Xoyoj, especially the plural forms, and the idioms
connected with them ; that they denote not vocables,
or single word, but combined speech, the matter
conveyed in the tenor and total of an oral or written

204 inspiration of
address, sermones, la parole." vol 1. p. 97. The
peculiarity here adverted to, as far as it was Wed
founded, can be news to no classical scholar. And
it is equally obvious to the smallest degree of critical
discernment, that this fact cannot bear the inference
which Dr. Smith draws from it. Even admitting
that 13T and Xoyos never did refer to single terms,
the conclusion is not warranted. If sentences,
expressions, or combined speech, are ascribed to
God, the single words must be his also, for it is of
these the combination is composed. The whole
cannot be God's, if the parts separately are not His.
Dr. Smith's criticism is as absurd as if one should
say, that when an officer is said to be the colonel
of such a regiment, it does not import that he is
the colonel of the soldiers in that regiment, because
the word regiment denotes a body of men united.
An oration of Demosthenes is caded "koyog. But if
an oration as a Avhole is his, the words considered
separately are his also. We do not argue that it
signifies single terms as distinguished from terms
combined in speech; but that signifying terms
combined in speech, it includes single terms. If
God is the author of the terms as a combination,
He is the author of them considered singly. What
we contend for is, that \oyog, whether referring to
one word, or to a number in combination, refers to
expression, and that in this respect it is as definite
as fi)(^a itself. Xoyos when used distinctively, implies

the scriptures. 205
expression with respect to a number of words com
bined ; £*)<*<*, expression Arith respect to one word.
But though Xoyos has this distinctive meaning, it is
not fact that either it or the Hebrew Avord "Oi, is
never used with respect to singe words. Many
examples might be produced to prove the contrary.
Joshua viu. 34, 35, " And afterwards he read all
the words of the law, the blessings and cursings,
according to ad that is written in the book of the
law. There was not a word of ad that Moses
commanded, which Joshua read not before all the
congregation of Israel."
Here the term word must signify a single word,
yet the Hebrew is "Oi, for which the Septuagint
uses £1,u<a.
Isaiah xxxvi. 21, "But they held their peace,
and answered him not a word." Here the term
word applies to a single word, yet the Hebrew was
"til, and the Greek Xo^oj.
Psalm cxxxix. 4, "For there is not a word in
my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it alto
gether." Here the Hebrew uses frro, and the
Greek Xoyog.
Isaiah xxix. 21, " That make a man an offender
for a word." Here there can be no doubt, that a
single word is meant, yet we have in the Hebrew
and in the Greek the terms in question.
Rev. xxii. 22, " If any man shall take away from
the words of the book of this prophecy." Here the

206 INSPIRATION OF
original has X«-/og, yet it must refer to single terms.
But in this criticism, Dr. Smith artftdly substi
tutes the words, "The matter conveyed," ire. as
synonimous with the words " combined speech}'1
Now the matter conveyed in a speech is not the
speech that conveys that matter. The speech con
tains both the words and the matter, but not the
matter without the words, nor distinguished from
the words. Though, therefore, Xoyog signifies com
bined speech, a sentence, an oration, a treatise, &c.
yet it never signifies the matter of that sentence.
oration, treatise, &c. without the words, or distinct
from the words. It includes the matter, because
the words express the matter. It is admitted that
both the Hebrew word and the Greek have an
acceptation, Avithout any reference to expression;
but in that acceptation, it is evident, they cannot
be used in the passages in question. In such instan
ces they do not denote the meaning or matter of a
speech, more than the words of a speech. They
do not, indeed, refer to speech in any point of
view. Let us now take a look at the examples
AA'hich he alleges as the support of this criticism.
" Of this they might discover evidence, if they
Avould examine, in the Hebrew and Greek texts,
the following passages, which are but a specimen
of a A-ery numerous body. ' Exod. xviii. 16, 19, 22,
26 ; xix. 6—9 ; 2 Sam. xi. 18 ; Ps. cv. 27 ; Jer. i. 1 ;
Amos i. 1 ; 1 Chron. xxix. 29 ; Mark i. 45 ; John

THE SCRIPTURES.- 207
iv. 37, 39 ; Acts i. 1 ; xv. 32 ; xx. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 17,
18; ii. 1, 4; xv. 2,' &c. &c." Let us examine
them as they stand, and we shad see that they give
no testimony that will yield any support to Dr.
Smith's criticism. Exod. xviu. 16, 19, 22, 26,
" When they have a matter they come unto me," —
" bring the causes unto God," — " every great matter
they shad bring unto thee." — "the hard causes
they brought unto Moses." Here the Hebrew
word "vn is used to denote matter, thing, cause.
But this does not conform to either part of the
definition of the word given by Dr. Smith. This
is not combined speech, nor is it " the matter con
veyed in the tenor and total of an oral or written
address." It is matter, thing, cause, Avithomt respect
to speech. It is only a play upon the sound of the
word matter. It makes matter as an abstract word,
coincide with matter, as importing meaning, which
are as different in their significations as any two
words in the language. And it is most strange
that Dr. Smith has not observed, that in this accep
tation of the Hebrew term, the Septuagint has used
£»!(*«, as wed as >-oyog, as a translation. In verse 16,
the Greek is av7,Xoyia, a controversy; in verse 19,
the Greek is *oy»?; and in verse 22, 26, ^a is
used. Indeed f *i(*a is the term used for thing, in
Luke ii. 15. In this acceptation, then, gwa. and Xoyos
are equally used. In the sense of combined speech,
both gyiiM and sirog, are used as well as Xoyoj, though

208 INSPIRATION OF
Avhen used distinctively, each has its peculiar
province. Xoyos has a greater variety of significa
tions than any of its synonyms. There is no doubt
but there is a connection between the remotest of
these and the original idea ; and it is the business
of the philosophical linguist to trace this connection.
But the fact is ad we are concerned with, that it has
the meaning of matter, cause, thing, office, as well
as the corresponding Hebrew term, Avithout any
reference to speech at ad. In this, however, pim
has suffered the same extension. Indeed, the
origin of this use is not difficult to discover. What
can be more obvious, than a metonymy of the
expression for the thing expressed, and in progress,
the passing of the metonymical use into proper
signification, without any reference to expression?
Why, I ask, has Dr. Smith grounded an argument
upon this use of Xoyoj, which might as well be
grounded on ^«a, the very term which distinctly
denotes words as single terms ? Might not another
as reasonably say, "fijua signifies matter, thing, ore.
therefore it cannot be understood of single words."
This definition, then, is inconsistent with itself,
and the examples are inconsistent Avith both parts
of it.
In Exodus xix. 6, 9, the Hebrew word is used
in its usual meaning as denoting words, and is ren
dered by the Septuagint both by Xoyos and eiF1-
Moses laid before the people the very works of

THE SCRIPTURES. 209
the Lord, and to denote these words the LXX use
the two Greek words indifferently.
2 Sam. xi. 18. "Then Joab sent and told David,
all the things concerning the war." Here the
term in the original corresponding to things, may
either be taken as signifying things, without any
reference to words, or the words of the war, may
be words giving an account of the war — words in
the strict sense.
Psalm cv. 27. They showed the words of his
signs, that is, they used the words which God put
into their mouth, by which the signs were per
formed. But in whatever way this phraseology is
explained, it can have no bearing on the dispute.
Jer. i. 1. " The words of Jeremiah," &c. And
what else are they than words ? These words con
tained the things that he spoke. The LXX trans
late it, " The word of God that came upon^ Jere
miah," &c, using the word fi^a, and in the next
verse using \oyog for the same thing.
Amos i. 1. "The words of Amos." And the
words of Amos they are, notwithstanding it is said
that he saw them. This phraseology is to be
understood on the same principle as that which
speaks of seeing a voice. There was a vision ;
something was seen which uttered things that were
heard. Would it be more intelligible to substitute
for the " words of Amos," the combined speeches of
Amos, or " the matter conveyed in the tenor and

210 INSPIRATION OF
total of the oral or Avritten address, sermones, la
parole of Amos ? " I think it would need as good
glasses to see ad this, as to see the words of the
prophet. Mark i. 45. " Blaze abroad the matter." Though
the passage might be translated the report, that is,
the report of the miracle, yet I have no objection
to the common version, which is quite in accord
ance with what I have already advanced. But
it is matter, or thing, Avithout reference to Avoids.
It is not meaning contra-distinguished from words.
It is not matter conveyed in tenor and total of a
Avritten or oral address.
John iv. 37, 39. " And herein is that saying
true," — " the saying of the woman." Very good
proof, if Dr. Smith had the misfortune to contend
Avith any so uninformed as to assert that X»/»s
always signifies a single term, and not a number
of terms in combination. He does not, however,
find in us critics of this stamp, \oyog -we contend
may signify one word, or a Avhole treatise. Is it
_of such a thing as this that Dr. Smith presumes to
say, that those who alleged an argument from the
phraseology which he quotes, are probably unac
quainted? Who is unacquainted with the fact
that Xoyo? has a multiplicity of meanings ? None
who are able to look for a word in a lexicon. But
because the term Xoyoj signifies a sentence, or say
ing, or report, &c, &c, cannot it signify words 3

THE SCRIPTURES. 211
Then the term word itself in English, could not
signify word for it is used for saying, or report, as
wed as Xoyoj. Never was criticism more childish,
with ad its parade of Hebrew and Greek.
Acts i. 1. " The former treatise account" &c.
No man worth replying to, ever doubted such
acceptations of the term ~hoyog. But does not the
term in this acceptation apply to every word in
the treatise ? If it was Luke's treatise, the words
were the words of Luke ; a treatise comprehends
both words and matter. Strange indeed, if this
should be opposed to the idea of verbal inspiration !
Acts xv. 32. " Exhorted the brethren with many
words, or much discourse." Did they exhort with
out words ? The fact that "Kayos denotes combined
speech, does not imply that words are not included
in it. If not, this has no bearing on the subject.
Acts xx. 7. " Continued his discourse." Why
waste time with such allegations as this ? I sup
pose his discourse consisted in words, and though
the term "kayog applies to the whole, all the parts are
necessarily included in the whole.
1 Cor. i. 17. " Not with wisdom of words," or as
in the margin, " of speech." Is it not the expression
here that is directly referred to ? ICori. 18. "The
preaching of the cross." This might be alleged to
show that the term Xoyos had other meanings, as
wed as that in which it denotes words, a thing that
no man ever thought of calling in question. But

212 INSPIRATION OF
does this say that the term, Avhen it signifies words,
either singly or combined, cannot refer to ex
pression ?
In 1 Cor. ii. 1 — 4. Xoyos does not indeed denote a
single word, but speech. But this is nothing to the
porpose of Dr. Smith. Speech is made up of
single words, and the words of a speech are the
words of the author of the speech. It would he
absurd to say, that a speech was inspired, but that
the Avords were not inspired. Is it not of expres
sion, as distinguished from the thing expressed,
that the apostle is here speaking ?
In 1 Cor. xv. 2, the word is variously explained,
but in no sense can it favor Dr. Smith. Our trans
lation is substantiady good, though it overlooks
something expressed in the original, which, indeed,
can hardly be exactly given in an English version.
rin Xoya. in this place would, I think, be exactly
rendered by qua rationc, referring both to the doc
trine preached, and the orderly connection and
dependence of the parts of that doctrine. That
both the ideas are included, is evident from the
illustration which the Apostle himself gives of the
expression, in the following verses. He states the
different parts of his doctrine, and the order in
which they are taught. " If ye remember how I
preached the Gospel to you," might not be far
from expressing the ideas of the original. But
Iioav can this passage, hi any sense of which it is

THE SCRIPTURES. 213
capable, tend to prove that \oyog, when applied to
the Scriptures, cannot mean the expression as dis
tinguished from the meaning ? Is there any Avord
perfectly univocal? Did any one ever suppose
that Koyog had not a vast variety of meanings?
Does Dr. Smith mean to assert, that the meaning
Avhich it has here it must have in these passages
which are the subjects of dispute % He refers us to
a number of examples in which he supposes we
Avill find some wonderful discovery, of which, tid
the time of his writing, we were not at ad aware.
That discovery, however, is knoAvn to any school
boy, as soon as he is able to trace the words of his
lexicon. And worst of ad, it has nothing to do
Avith the subject. But I invite the reader espe-
ciady to attend to the manner in which Dr. Smith
endeavors to neutralize the testimony of 1 Cor.
ii. 13. This passage is so clear, that he is obliged
to confess that it refers to expression, but by
resolving expression into expressions, style, man
ner, he contrives to turn the reader's attention to
the latter as the only thing meant in the Apostle's
assertion. " The passage, 1 Cor. ii. 13," says he,
" evidently refers to the expression, style and man
ner in which the Apostle taught the truths of the
Gospel ; and it declares that he did not use splendid
eloquence and oratorical arts, nor resort to any
other kind of adnrement to captivate hearers.
(sv Xoyco KoXcwsiaj, 1 Thess. ii. 5, — tfXaaVoiff Xoyoig, 2 Pet.

214 INSPIRATION OF
ii. 3 ;') but that he delivered his heavenly message
in simplicity of diction, as taught and inspired by
the Holy Spirit, (lhs\j'fi.a.lixoig Ihsvpoflixa. ivyxeiwle;)
adapting spiritual (expressions) to spiritual sub
jects." Now what can be fairer in appearance
than this, if it is read Avithout a critical eye ? What
can we demand more than is here admitted ? And
is not style the principle thing to which the Apostle
refers ? But there is management here that per
verts the testimony of God. The art by which the
Avriter quashes the evidence here is, by substitu
ting something implied in what is said, for the
thing that is actuady said. It is of expression
solely that the Apostle speaks. Style, manner, ode,
are undoubtedly implied in this, but they are not
the thing of which the assertion is made. Splendid
eloquence and oratorical arts are unquestionably
included in the denial, but they are not the thing '
of which the denial is made. They are included
because expression includes them ; but it is of
expression that the assertion is made. The Apos
tle's words do not directly declare that he did not
use splendid eloquence and oratorical arts. But
this is one of the things implied in the declaration.
The thing declared is, that the Apostle expressed
divine truth, not in words taught by human wis-
dom, but in toords taught by the Holy Spirit.
The assertion then is made of the expression or
words directly, and respects style only as it is

THE SCRTPTUTES. 215
included in expression. The thing that he denies
is not the using of flattery and simulation, accord
ing to 1 Thess. ii. 5, 2 Pet. ii. 3, but that he spoke
the ti^uths of the Gospel in words taught by the
wisdom of man. That he did not use flattery and
simulation is no doubt implied in this. What he
asserts, is not "that he delivered his heavenly
message in simplicity of diction," though this is
implied in what he does assert ; but that he deliv
ered his heavenly message in heavenly words. The
author then has uncorked the heavenly liquor, and
presents it to us in a state quite evaporated and
A-apid. He has besides put an infusion into it cal
culated to deceive the eye and the taste. Here is
a passage then, Dr. Smith, that your instruments
of torture cannot sdence, nor force to prevaricate.
It speaks of words, and whether these be considered
as single terms, cr expression as combined speech,
it is expression directly distinguished from meaning.
The Holy Ghost most plainly declares, that the
truths of the Gospel were taught by the Apostles
in his own tcords. He speaks both of the matter
and of the expression in this passage, and directly
ascribes to the Holy Spirit the latter as distin
guished from the former. No words could more
expressly assert verbal inspiration. It is as clear
that the words are ascribed to the Holy Spirit, as
that the things are ascribed to him. Dr. Smith, it
is no easy thing to fight against the word of God.

216 INSPIRATION OF
When you may think that you haA-e stoned it to
death, it Avid with Paul quickly stand upon its feet
and testify against you as loudly as ever. You
have done your utmost to murder this passage, but
it rises up in judgment against you, and proclaims
that the Apostles spoke the things of the Spirit in
the words of the Spirit. " Which things also ave
SPEAR, NOT IN THE WORDS AVHICH MAn's AVISDOM
TEACHETH, BUT AVHICH THE HoLY GhOST TEACHETH."
Can you look to the judgment seat of Christ, and
deny that this asserts verbal inspiration ? If you
can, I do not envy you your conscience or your
perspicacity. With respect to the words llvsu>a7»xoij Ilvsufialiim
tfuyx|ivov7sff I am wed enough pleased Avith the com
mon version, in this instance as in most others.
But whatever is right, right Dr. Smith's version
cannot be, " adapting spiritual (expressions) to
spiritual subjects." 1. When an adjective is thus
exhibited without its substantive, the substantive
must be of the most general nature, and so obvious
as to occasion no question as to what it is. Things,
and neither expressions nor subjects, is the proper
substantive. 2. It is necessary that the same sub
stantive shoidd be supplied to both words. Mepres-
sions cannot be supplied to the one, and subjects
to the other. Let Dr. Smith produce me an un
doubted instance of simdar syntax, and I wid with
draw this objection. 3. Were such syntax allowa-

THE SCRIPTURES. 217
ble, I wonld translate the passage thus : — Explain
ing or interpreting the things of the Spirit, in the
words of the Spirit, a meaning both true and suited
to the connection. But as I am convinced that
such syntax is not warrantable, I wid never attempt
to force the word of God to support my views. I
wid not put one fingure on the ark, though it
should appear to be falling over a precipice. If
God's word cannot support its oavh truths, let error
prevail to the day of judgment. I stand quite at
ease in defending my sentiments on all subjects of
divine truth. I consider it my duty to establish
them, and to convince others, by an exhibition of
eAddence as clear as I am able. But I wid not
forge proof, were I assured of proselyting the
world. It is not to please myself, that I adopt my
views, and I cannot expect to please God by defend
ing His truth with falsehood. 4. With respect to
the word duyxgivolsg, we might as wed open an
English book at random, and take any word that
should first occur, as a translation, as take the
word adapting. This is to make Scripture not to
translate. Will Dr. Smith be so good as to show
us where this word occurs in this acceptation?
5. Where there no other objection, the phrase
spiritual expressions appear to be unwarrantable.
What is a spiritual expression, as distinguished
from the things expressed ? Are there any expres
sions either as to words or phrases of a spiritual

218 INSPIRATION OF
nature abstracted from their meaning, or contra
distinguished from it ? Is there any spiritual vo
cabulary in any language ? Did not the Apostles
take the common words of the languages in which
they spoke, and apply them to express divine
truth ? If some fanatic had spoken about spiritual
expressions, I would have knoAvn that he referred
to the cant phrases of his party, but when I meet
it in the writings of Dr. Pye Smith, I cannot under
stand it.
Upon the whole then, this criticism of Dr. Smith,
is liable to the fodowing objections. 1. It con
founds two meanings of the word Xoyog that are
entirely distinct — namely, combined speech, and
matter, thing, cause, affair. The examples in
which it has the former meaning, refer to expres
sion, as much as Avhen it denotes single words ; and
in the latter signification, it has no reference to
speech at all, either in expression or meaning.
2. It supposes that Koyog when it refers to speech,
always signifies combined speech, and never words,
which is not fact. It may signify a treatise, but it
may also signify a single word. 3. It plays on
the sound of the word matter, and because it signi
fies the abstract idea matter, it is made to signify
matter, as the meaning of words, two ideas as dif
ferent as any two that can be conceived. The
definition of the Avords iti and \oyog uses the word
matter, as signifying the meaning of an expression,

THE SCRIPTURES. 219
the examples in which the words signify matter,
ad refer to matter in the abstract sense. The
examples of course fad in proving that for which
they are alleged. 4. Had it even been successful
as to the words "m and Xoyog this would not have
affected the evidence arising from the phraseology,
in which " speaking, saying, and the like, are
ascribed to the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of his
servants." Yet the criticism professes to apply to
this. 5. The criticism supposes that the significa
tion of combined speech, is peculiar to the Hebrew
and the Greek, Avhereas it is just as fully verified
in English, as in either. The English term word,
denotes a promise, a saying, a report, an account,
short statement, or even the whole Scriptures.
We say, a man pledges Ms word, for he gives his
promise, the word went abroad, for the report
spread — I Avid ask you one word, for one question
— in a word, for in short — the word of God, for
the Bible, &c. Dr. Smith's criticism then, is just
as if a foreigner finding our term ward as signifying
a saying, report, <&c, should venture to assert that
it never signified single terms, but denotes com
bined speech, the matter conveyed in the tenor and
total of an oral or written address. Any school
boy speaking the English language would laugh at
such a criticism. Yet, in dead languages, it passes
for the most profound erudition. 6. Lastly, I
object to this criticism, because the author does

220 INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.
not show the bearing of the examples on the point
at issue. Had he done so, he must have left him
self more open to assault, or have discovered his
error. But by a mere general reference to pas
sages, he commits himself as little as possible ; and
most readers will be more inclined to take the
argument on trust, than have the labor of scruti
nizing the proof. By this means also, he may
puzzle many whom he cannot satisfy.
But it is an unhadowed task Dr. Smith has
undertaken. It is a Avretched thing to tod in en
deavoring to show how little the Scriptures deserve
to be caded the word of God. His first attempt
has miserably faded ; and if it is only in this feeble
way he intends to sustain our charge, it is a virtual
confession of defeat.

STRICTURES

DR. DICK'S ESSAY ON THE INSPIRATION OF
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

I am surprised to find in Dr Dick's Essay on the
inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, a recognition of
the mischievous distinctions which have laid a
foundation for so much error and confusion on this
plain subject. The author is not chargeable to the
same extent Avith any of those whose works I have
been reAdewing, nor is it his design in any measure
to lower the Scriptures in accommodation to Neo-
logical illumination. On the contrary, he rather
adopts than vindicates the distinctions ; and his
admissions unfavorable to full verbal inspiration
are rather concessions that he cannot refuse, than
assertions which it gives him pleasure to substan
tiate. Of course, though I acquit him of treason I
cannot clear him of incompetency. I must arraign
him as having surrendered a fortress which he
might have held, had he made the best advantages

222 INSPIRATION OF
of the munitions of Avar, with which, the royal
arsenals were abundantly supplied.
In some respects his Avork is more dangerous to
the unsuspecting Christian, than the worst of the
kind; for while he substantiady gives up proper
inspiration with respect to many' things both as to
matter and words, he speaks decidedly and strongly
in reprehension of partial inspiration. The reader
is led to think that no higher inspiration can be
thought of, than that vindicated by the author.
On the nature and designations of the distinc
tions in inspiration, he quarrels Avith the common
views ; but as long as he adopts them substantially,
he is involved in the same error. He divides the
kinds or degrees of inspiration into three classes.
" 1. There are many things in the Scriptures,
which the writers might have knoAvn, and probably
did know, by ordinary means." "2. There are
other passages of Scripture, in composing which,
the minds of the writers must have been super-
naturady endowed with more than ordinary vigor."
" 3. It is manifest, with respect to many passages
of Scripture, that the subjects of which they treat,
must have been directly revealed to the writerss.''
Let us attend to these in order. With respect to
the first, he says, " As persons possessed of memo
ry, judgment, and tha other intellectual faculties
which are common to men, they Avere able to
relate eArents in which thev had been concerned ;

THE SCRIPTURES. 223
and to make such occasional reflections as were
suggested by particular subjects and occurrences."
Now this is very true, but would such relations be
entitled to be caded the Avord of God ? Could it
be said, that they were given by inspiration of God?
Such relations might be true, but they are not
inspired. " In these cases," says the author, " no
supernatural influence was necessary to enlighten
and invigorate their minds ; it was only necessary
that they should be infadibly preserved from error."
Necessary for what ? If it be necessary to produce
a true narrative, this is just. But if the assertion
is that this is ad that is necessary to entitle the
narrative to be caded the word of Goel, the thing
must be strongly denied. A narrative that has
nothing more than this cannot be said to be " writ
ten by inspiration." " They did not need a revela
tion," says he, " to inform them of what had passed
before their eyes, nor to point out those inferences
and moral maxims, which were obvious to every
attentive and considerate observer." Very true,
they did not indeed need any information with
respect to what they knew. But in recording what
they saw before their eyes, they must relate that
only which is given them by the Holy Ghost, in
the very words of the Holy Ghost, if their narrative
is to be the word of God, and be characterized as
given by inspiration. " Moses could ted," says he,
" Avithout a divine afflatus, that on such a night the

224 INSPIRATION OF
Israelites marched out of Egypt, and at such a
place they murmured before God ; and Solomon
coidd remark, that 'a soft answer turneth away
wrath, but grievous words stir up anger,'" &c.
No doubt of it ; but if such facts in the narrative
of Moses, have been told without a divine afflatus,
they are not a part of the Scriptures ; and if Solo
mon had nothing but his own spirit in recording
these moral maxims, they may be true, but are not
entitled to be received as dictates of inspiration.
Inspiration is not necessary to constitute true in
formation, but surely inspiration is necessary for
everything that is said to be inspired. Can a thing
be inspired without inspiration? The author in
deed afterwards asserts that such things require
more than superintendence. " In the passages of
Scripture," says he, " which we are now consider
ing, I conceive the writers to haA-e been not merely
superintended, that they might commit no error,
but likewise to have been moved or excited by
the Holy Ghost to record particular events, and
set down particular observations." So far this is
in the right path ; but it does not go far enough.
The Holy Ghost not only pointed out the particular
events and observations, but if the account can be
called inspired, the whole matter and language
must be God's. The Avriters of Scripture Avere not
like amanuenses, as this author represents them,
copying such things as have been selected for them

THE SCRIPTURES. 225
by then employer, but AATiting as he dictated.
There is indeed something in the case that cannot
be represented by an amanuensis. The sacred Avri
ters are rational instruments, through the opera
tions of whose minds, God communicates His will.
That the Almighty is able to speak His mind in this
way, so that the same thing will be the writing
of men and the word of God, is quite possible.
The mode in which it is done, it is not for us to
inquire. Let us now glance at the second distinction,
which is the invigorating of the memory and judg
ment. This is quite foreign to the question of the
inspiration of the Scriptures. That some things in
Seripture are not beyond the reach of the most
ordinary talents ; and that others could not have
been produced by the highest order of created
intedect is very true. It is admitted also, that
passages of the former class do not contain the
evidence of their oavh inspiration ; and that the
inspiration of the latter is self-evident. Dr. Dick
produces many passages that most clearly prove
their inspiration by their sublimity ; but that there
are innumerable passages that do not prove their
divine origin by any intrinsic elevation, no one wid
dispute. In such a view the distinction is good.
But if it can be said of the passages of the latter
class, that they are all given by inspiration of God,
they must as truly be the work of God as the

226 INSPIRATION OF
former. An uninspired man might have written
the account of Ananias and Sapphira ; but if it is
Scripture, it is as much the work of God, as the
description of the horse in the book of Job. It
does not follow that man, without inspiration, wrote
GATerything in the Scriptures, which might have
been written without inspiration. Some things in
Milton might have been Avritten by an ordinary poet,
but the meanest things in Paradise Lost are as much
the work of Milton, as the most subhme flights of
genius. As a matter of fact then, though a man's
writings may display more or less abdity, they can
not be more or less his; and if all Scripture is
given by inspiration of God, no Scripture can he
more or less inspired than another, though different
parts may contain in themselves more or less evi
dence of inspiration. It may be said that God has
discovered Himself in some passages, and in others
He has not discoA-ered Himself. But if all Scripture
is given by inspiration, no passage can be more or
less inspired. A writer cannot be more or less the
author of any part of a work, of every part of
which he is said to be the author. If every part
of Scripture Avhich might have been written
without inspiration, was actually written Avithout
inspiration, then such parts cannot be said to be
inspired. On the other hand, if such parts were
written by inspiration, they are on a level with
every other part, as to inspiration. That this in-

THE SC1HPTURES. 227
vigoration of mind is no kind or degree of the
inspiration, of Scripture, is farther evident from the
consideration, that the highest measures of it might
have been given to the sacred writers, while not a
sentence of their writing might have been inspired.
To inspire a man Avith vigor of intellect, is quite
a different thing from inspiring him with a com
munication. Noav, it is not the writers of Scrip
tures who are said to be inspired, but their wri
tings are said to be inspired. " Ad Scripture is
given by inspiration." A Avriter might indeed be
inspired to write one thing, and he might write
another without inspiration. But this supposition
is excluded as to the Scriptures, since the inspira
tion is asserted, not of the writers, but of the wri
tings. A writer might be inspired with genius and
vigor, Avhile every sentence written by him might
be altogether uninspired. A mere simpleton might
become a Mdton, or even might obtain such vigor
as to enable him to equal the sublimity of the book
of Job ; while not a sentence written by him could
be called the word of God, or said to be given by
inspiration of God. The invigorating of the minds
of the Avriters of Scripture, therefore, is no kind or
degree of the inspiration of Scripture. Whatever
parts of the Scripture, therefore, are the production
of men supernaturady invigorated, are not the
word of God, are not inspired in any sense. Were
God to enable a child to write a poem superior to

228 INSPIRATION OF
the Eiad, would that poem be the book of God ?,
Could it be said to be Avritten by the inspiration of
God ? God has indeed qualified the child to write
the book, but the book was stid the production of
the child, and could in no sense be caded God's,
any more than it could be said that God built the
city of Glasgow. God has given to all men the
talents Avhich they possess. This, however, does
not entitle their writings to be called His. And
the case is quite the same in this respect, whether
the talents be natural, or an extraordinary gift.
With respect to the third distinction, it is true
that while some things Avere fully knoAvn to the
Avriters, other things could not be knoAvn but by
immediate revelation. But this is not the question.
The question is, whether things that coidd be
knoAvn by natural means, were written without
inspiration, or written by an inspiration different in
kind from that which records the things knoAvn
only by revelation, or inferior in degree to it. It
required no inspiration to teach a man Avhat he
knew ; but it required inspiration to write such an
account of this as could be called the word of God,
or be said to be written by inspiration. Any spec
tator at the tomb of Lazarus, was fit to say " Jesus
wept ;" but if it can be said that this is Scripture,
and -if it is true, that " all Scripture is given by
inspiration of God ;" it required as much inspira
tion to Avrite, " Jesus Avept," as to record Avhat was

THE SCRIPTURES. 229
said of the things " which eyes had not seen, and
ear had not heard." An uninspired man might
have said "Jesus wept!" But if the Evangelist
said it without inspiration, it is not Scripture. As
it is Scripture, and as all Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, we are entitled to say that the
Holy Ghost has said " Jesus wept," as wed as to
say that the Holy Ghost has said, " Unto us a child
is born," &c. -There is no more inspiration in the
one account than there is in the other. The great
mistake on this subject has arisen from considering
inspiration as it respects the inspired person;
whereas the inspiration asserted 2 Tim iii. 16,
respects the things written. Now, if every part of
a wi'iting be given by inspiration, no part of it can
be uninspired, or differently inspired. In the
relation of the most ordinary fact, God must have
given every word of the account, else it cannot be
said to be given by his inspiration. Every part of
it is the word of God, and the inspiration that
records the deepest mysteries cannot go beyond
this. Inspiration, as it represents the inspired
persons, might have many degrees. Two might be
inspired with the knowledge of some things equady,
while one of them might be inspired with the know
ledge of many things unrevealed to the other. But
the question is not whether one man may not have
been more inspired than another, but whether one
part of Scripture is more inspired than another.

230 INSPIRATION OP
The question is independent even of the truth or
falsehood of the thing recorded by inspiration.
The inspiration of the account of Satan's lie in
deceiving our first parents, is as great as that
which records the promise, " The seed of the woman
shad bruise the head of the serpent."
It has arisen entirely from viewing inspiration
as it respects the inspired persons, and not the
things written by them, that it has appeared absurd
to speak of inspiration with respect to what was
known by natural means, and that could have been
written without inspiration or without revelation.
To avoid this absurdity some have denied inspira
tion with respect to some things, whde others, with
more reverence for the Scriptures, contrived such
distinctions in the word as to suit the various cases.
But this difficulty does not at all present itself when
the question is properly stated. It is not said that
the sacred writers were inspired with knowledge
which they preA'iously possessed. But it is said
their accounts of every thing recorded by them
are given by inspiration ; and this is as true with
respect to things previously known by them, as it
is Avith respect to things communicated by revela
tion. When they wrote Avhat they knew, and could
of themselves have expressed, both the matter and
the Avords Avere God's, as much as when they
wrote Avhat they did not understand. There was
no need to be inspired Avith the knowledge of what

THE SCRIPTURES. 231
they knew, but every word in their account of this
-may be by inspiration.
The author himself reasons in this way, when
dealing Avith those who maintain partial inspira
tion. "The notion of a partial inspiration," says
he, in a note, " seems to have arisen from the want
of distinct ideas on the subject. A false meaning
is annexed to the term ; and then it is easy to show
that it cannot be applied to every part of Scripture.
Lispiration is supposed to signify the supernatural
communication of knowledge to the mind ; and if
this were the oidy sense of the word, it would be
true that inspiration was not necessary to enable
men to relate what they knew by ordinary means."
So far the observation is just. But in what follows
the writer labors under a mistake as great as that
which he censures. " But if," says he, " we under
stand by inspiration, the general assistance afforded
to the sacred writers according to the exigency of
the case, and which supplied the want of know
ledge, or rendered it correct, or excited the person
to communicate it, and presided over his thoughts
and expressions, it may be affirmed that simple
historians were inspired as wed as prophets," &c.
If we understand by inspiration -the general assis
tance, &c. ! That is, if we understand inspiration
to mean what it does not mean, which in no instance
it can be shown to mean, and which it cannot mean ;
if we suppose inspiration to mean any thing we

232 INSPIRATION OF
choose to take out of it, then the case will have no
difficulty. A general assistance is not inspiration.
Did it not occur to the writer that if inspiration is
a general assertion of the Holy Spirit, according to
exigency, then it might be alleged by Socinians,
that there is not in Scripture any need of that
inspiration which he terms revelation. If the
word, to serve his purpose, may be taken at so
small an amount, what Avid oblige others, on any
occasion, to take it at a higher value ? The just
way to answer those who labor under the above
mistake, is not to lower the meaning of the word,
but to show that inspiration is asserted of every
part of the Scriptures ; and not that the sacred
writers were inspired to know what they previously
knew. When an amanuensis writes an account of
a death for a newspaper, he may AAdrite by dictation,
as wed as when he Tecords a new theory. In like
manner, Avhen the sacred writers wrote an account
of things with AAdiich they were fully acquainted,
they wrote what the Spirit dictated, and in the
words of the Spirit.
Here then, I distinctly charge Dr Dick with sur
rendering a post to the enemy, that wid enable him
to make himself master of the field. This concession
virtually gives up inspiration. A general assistance
according to exigency, is not inspiration. I cad on
Dr. Dick to shoAV what part of the instructions of
his royal Master Avarrants him to explain inspira-

THE SCRIPTURES. 233
tion in so lax a sense. Is it optional with us to
attach any meaning that suits us, to the words of
Scripture? If a general assistance according to
exigency is inspiration, then the Christian minister
speaks by inspiration in the pulpit ; then, indeed,
all Christians are inspired, for they have a promise
of assistance according to exigency. What, then,
is Dr. Dick's defence of inspiration, but an effort
to retain the name, at the expense of surrendering
the thing. Dr. Dick's Bible is not the word of
God. Many parts of it are the work of man, with
slight assistance from God. Is this the treatise that
has so long been considered as a standard on the
subject of inspiration ? Surely the Christian pub
lic are slightly acquainted with this important
subject, else such a work could not meet their ap
probation. Can any Christian bear the idea that
the Bible has been composed by men enjoying only
a general assistance from God, according to exi
gency ? If this is true, then why may not others
adege, that as in their opinion there is no exigency
for any thing of the nature of inspiration in the
strict sense of the word, there is nothing of it to be
found in the Scriptures. A mere invigoration of
the memory and judgment, was ad that was neces
sary for men to produce the Bible. How easy a
thing it is to mislead the public ? Let a Neologian
declare, from a pulpit in Edinburgh or Glasgow,
that the Scriptures are not inspired, and his bias-

234 INSPIRATION OF
phemy Avill shock all minds. But let an orthodox
divine explain the word inspiration in a sense that
equady denies the proper idea contained in it, and
it is likely he wid be admired as a deep theologian,
who has happily arrived at the phdosophy of an
abstruse question, and an able vindicator of the
plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. I cad
on Dr. Dick to reconsider his concessions on this all-
important subject, and to cease to rob us of the book
of God. He has taken from us God's book, and
we cannot be content, though he has left a good
book in its stead.
" They had the Bible. Hast thou ever heard
Of such a book ? The author God himself." Pollock.
" From the preceding statement," says our au
thor, " it appears that we do not apply the term
inspiration, in the same sense to the Avhole of
Scripture." And why do you not, Dr. Dick?
What authority have you for giving two senses to
the word in the same occurrence ? A Avord may
have two senses, or more, in different situations;
but this makes the passage, 2 Tim. iii. 16, give tAVO
senses to the word jn the same place. "With
respect to some things, it must be revelation ; with
respect to others, only assistance ; and an assistance
infinitely varied according to circumstances. Was
ever anything more arbitrary than this ? The

THE SCRIPTURES. 235
author speaks of partial inspiration as implying " a
distinction perfectly arbitrary, having no foundation
on anything said by the sacred writers themselves."
But is it more arbitrary than his own distinction in
this meaning of this word? Can any distinction
have less foundation in any thing said by the sacred
writers themselves ? Does he not give two senses
to the same word in the same occurrence ? Does
he not give it a meaning which it never has — a
meaning perfectly inconsistent with its true import?
This mode of defending a doctrine by a double
sense of a word in the same place, is the perfection
of the skill of the Jesuitical defenders of Popery.
When an antagonist unskided in their mode of
fighting, comes forward with a muster of texts,
that he expects from then clearness will utterly
confound and sdence, if they do not convince, is
himself confounded, when he finds that ad his
proofs are at once both admitted and denied by the
help of this mode of explanation. To overturn all
the self-righteous refuges of superstition, he thun
ders out the words — "The blood of Jesus Christ
cleanses from all sin," convinced that there is no
way of escape. But with the greatest coolness it
is promptly replied, " Very true; the Church of
Rome never taught any other doctrine but this.
The blood of Jesus Christ, and nothing but the
blood of Jesus Christ, does indeed cleanse from all
sin ; that is, Christ's blood takes away the eternal

236 INSPIRATION OF
punishment of our sins ; but there remains the
temporal punishment due to our sins, which we
must suffer for ourselves, either here or hereafter."
And verily, if Dr. Dick is justified in explaining the
word inspiration in 2 Tim. id. 16, in two senses,
the same liberty cannot be denied to the doctrines
of Popery.
But let us hear the writer's reason for not giving
this word the same sense with respect to all the
inspired writings. " Because " says he, " the same
degree of assistance was not necessary in the com
position pf every part of it." Then the Bible is
not the book of God, but a book composed by man,
Avith less or more of God's assistance, according as
it was needed. If it be the word of God, if every
part of it can justly be said to be given by inspira
tion of God, the whole must, in the same sense, be
God's. There is no more authority to give two
senses to the word inspiration in the same place,
than there is to give two senses to the word God,
and to say, that 2 Tim. iii. 16, asserts that some of
the Scriptures are a revelation froni the true God,
and that other parts of them have been inspired by
the god of this world. A book composed by God's
assistance, could not be said to be given by inspi
ration of God. Dr. Dick's Sermons, I hope, are
compositions of this kind ; but, I dare say, he does
not pretend to inspiration. This is deeply erro
neous language, Dr. Dick. This is a solution of a

THE SCRIPTURE.-.. 237
difficulty as to inspiration, that destroys inspiration
itself. While it vindicates the name of inspiration,
as applied to ad the Scriptures, it not only ex
pressly excludes much of them from proper inspi
ration, but lays a foundation for the denial of it as'
to all. The Bible is not a good book written by
God's assistance ; but is God's OAvn book, of which
He is the very Autlior, in as true a sense, as Dr.
Dick is the author of this Essay on Inspiration.
Much of it, indeed, respects ordinary matters ; but
even this is His as truly, and as fully, as the rest.
Though the writers might have related many things
in their own language without God, yet as a mat
ter of fact, they did not write anything Avithout
Him ; for " ad Scripture is given by inspiration of
God." This is my polar star on this question. As
long as my eye is upon it, I do not fear to steer, my
course with safety. By losing sight of this, Dr.
Dick has got himself entangled in the theories of
human wisdom, those hallucinations that promise a
refuge to the unwary mariner, but hide rocks and
quicksands under a vapory surface.
"In some parts," says Dr. Dick, "If I may
speak so, there is more of God than in others."
Doubtless. But in what sense is this? A sense
nothing to the purpose of your argument, Dr. Dick.
There is certainly more of God, in those passages
that reveal the divine character, than in those parts
that speak of temporal things. But this is not the

238 INSPIRATION OF
question. If God is the author of every part of the
Bible, there is no part of it, of which He can be
said to be more the author than another. But let
us hear the Avriter's own illustration. "When a
prophet predicts the events of futurity, or an
Apostle makes known the mysteries of redemption,
it is God alone who speaks ; and the voice or the
pen of a man, is merely the instrument employed
for the communication of His wid." Now this
illustration is not at ad warranted from the Scrip
tures. Man is a rational instrument in delivering
the doctrines of salvation, and speaks in his OAvn
proper person, using his own arguments and illus
trations, as much as when he relates facts that
occurred before his own eyes. Indeed, it is man
that directly speaks, and it is only from Scripture
testimony that we learn that the doctrines, argu
ments, idustrations and language of the Apostle,
are the doctrines, arguments, illustrations and lan
guage of God. And " when Moses relates the
miracles of Egypt, and the journeys of the Israelites
in the Wilderness, or the Evangelists relate the
history of Christ," they speak only what God gave
them, or in the words which he gave them, though
" they ted nothing but what they formerly kneAV."
Dr. Dick says that " without the assistance of the
Spirit, they could not have told it so well." But
this is giving up inspiration, and substituting assis
tance in its place. Without divine assistance a

THE SCRIPTUTES. 239
man cannot preach so wed. But this is not inspi
ration. If, in such instances, it is lawful for Dr.
Dick to scoop out the meaning of the word, and
substitute a fancy of his own in its place, others
may with equal propriety allege that such assis
tance was ad that was necessary to record the docu
ments of our salvation. If such assistance is inspi
ration as to some things, why may it not be inspi
ration as to others ? Inspiration was not given
merely to enable the sacred writers to tell their
story well, but that their narrative might be the
true word of God. Dr. Dick's Bible, then, is quite
a different book from mine. My Bible is God's
book, Avhich God Himself has made ; yea, every
part of which he has made. How lamentable is it
to find the writer of an essay long recognized as a
standard on the subject of inspiration, avowing that
much of his Bible is the work of man, assisted
according to exigency by God ! Dr. Dick has
written an Essay on the Inspiration of the Scrip
tures, in which he virtuady gives up the inspiration
of much of them. To speak of plenary inspiration
with such views, is to hold the word and to
renounce the thing signified by it.
" In some cases," says the Bishop of Lincoln, as
quoted with approbation by this author, " inspira
tion only produced correctness and accuracy in
relating past occurrences, or in reciting the words
of others." Now is this all that inspiration does in

240 INSPIRATION OF
the cases aduded to ? Do the narrators of sacred
history select their facts, or recite the language of
others without God? But even more than this, I
affirm, is imported in inspiration, even in reporting
that Judas hanged himself. The meaning ex
pressed, and the expression itself, have God for
their author, else it could not be said, " all Scrip
ture is given by inspiration of God," 2 Tim. in. 16,
is of more weight with me, than that of ad the
speculations of human wisdom.
It is obvious that the Bishop of Lincoln speaks
here of the inspiration of the writers of Scripture,
whereas the question respects the inspiration of the
Scriptures. The common confounding of these two
things has produced much of that confusion in
which the subject is involved, and has driven wri
ters to unscriptural distinctions in the meaning of
the word. The sacred writers had no need to be
inspired with the knowledge of facts which they
already knew, but to make then relations the word
of God, they must ad be given by His inspiration,
both in matter and language. This distinction is
confounded by Dr. Dick. Whde his work is enti
tled an Essay on the Inspiration of the Holy Scrip
tures, he begins by defining inspiration, as it relates
to the inspired Avriters, and not as it relates to
things Avritten by them. "I define inspiration,"
says he, "to be an influence of the Holy Ghost
on the understandings, imaginations, memories,

THE SCRIPTURES. 241
and other mental poAvers of the sacred writers,
by which they were qualified to communicate to
the world the knowledge of the will of God."
Now, if instead of giving a definition, independent of
Scripture authority, he had simply referred to the
passage 2 Tim. iii. 16, that asserts inspiration, and
gives an exhibition and illustration of the meaning
of the Greek word as used in the passage, he would
necessarily have been led into the right path. For
here inspiration respects the Scriptures ; and all
Scriptures is equady said to possess it. But inspi
ration as it respects inspired persons may be vari
ous in degree to any extent that may please God.
This is one of the many instances, in which the
worst effects proceed from considering questions
with respect to divine truth in an abstract maimer,
without any reference to the passages on which
they are founded. On this subject there was no
need of a human definition of the term. It would
have been much more useful to exhibit the mean
ing of the word with any illustration that might be
afforded by the use of it in Greek writers. The
uffvoi Ssotfvs'jifloi, or inspired dreams of the heathen
would have given us a more precise idea of the
meaning of the term, than the most accurate ab
stract definition. In treating of the inspiration of
the Scriptures, there is no necessity to enter into
discussions about the divine operation on the facul
ties of their mind. This is not the subject. On

^42 INSPIRATION OF
this there is nothing revealed, and ad definitions
with respect to this, must therefore be the work of
fancy. That the Holy Ghosfe spake and wrote
through man, is a fact attested by the Scriptures,
but hoAV he influenced their minds, we are not
informed. It is not then to be expected that we
are to obtain much light on the subject, from the
definitions of divines. The only proper definition,
is a definition of the word, that is, an explanation
of the word as it is used in the language.
This writer does not expressly deny verbal inspi
ration in the fullest extent, but the theory which
he favors does not require this ; and with respect
to some things, he considers that it does not exist.
Infallible direction is what he pleads for on this
point. Now direction is not inspiration, though it
might equally secure a fair representation of truth.
And I complain, that he does not rest verbal inspi
ration on its main evidence, 2 Tim. id. 16. There
are manyr other sound and substantial arguments,
and these the author states in a very convincing
manner. But the direct and main evidence, which
applies to every case is 2 Tim. iii. 16, which I have
not obser vei among the author's proofs of verbal
inspiration. " All Scripture is given by inspiration
of God." The writing is the thing whose inspira
tion is asserted. It cannot then be a question
whether words belong to a Avriting. It is by over
looking this and treating of inspiration as it respects

THE SCRIPTURES. 243
the sacred writers that false theories have origi
nated. It is this that has led the author to such
concessions as this. "With respect to other pas
sages of Scripture, and particularly those which
treat of such subjects as might have been known
without reA-elation, it is not necessary to maintain,
that the language was inspired precisely in the
same sense as in those already considered." After
what I have already said, it cannot be necessary to
spend time in showing, that if such things are
inspired at all, they must be inspired precisely in
the same sense with everything else that is said to
be inspired. What I would observe now is, that
such assertions as this, result from holding the
necessity of inspiration on general principles only,
and not on the expressed testimony of the Scrip
tures themselves. As long as we believe verbal
inspiration on the authority of its general necessity
only, it is obvious that to this general necessity
there may be exceptions. And here are the excep
tions. There are some things that do not seem to
need this verbal inspiration. But if we look to the
testimony of Scripture, 2 Tim. id. 16, we wid find
that it demands the same inspiration in every part
of the word of God.
" We may conceive," says he, " the sacred wri
ters to have been permitted more freely to exer
cise their own faculties." 2 Tim. ui. 16, does not
permit us, Dr. Dick, to roam at large on this sub-

214 INSPIRATION OF
ject, and to indulge our oavh random conceptions.
But the fullest inspiration by no means implies any
constraint in the exercise of the faculties of the
sacred writers. They were as free on the doctrine
of atonement, as in historical facts. " The words,"
says he, "were not formerly dictated any more
than the sentiments." This virtually gives up the
inspiration of such parts of Scripture both as to
words and sentiments, and substitutes something
else in its stead. We can know nothing of the
process of inspiration on any subject. " But they
seemed," says he, " to proceed like other historians
and moralists, and to express themselves in then
natural manner." They did so on the doctrines of
salvation as wed as in the relation of the most
trivial facts. Paul used his natural manner in the
Epistle to the Romans, as well as Luke in his
account of Paul's shipwreck.
It would have been an essential advantage to
this essay, had the author treated inspiration as a
matter of revelation merely. This would not only
have given a greater unity to the work, but would
have led to a fuller exhibition of what the Scrip
tures actually teach on the subject. In exhibiting
directly the meaning and bearings of ad the pas
sages that reveal anything on this point, the full
extent of A-erbal inspiration could not have lain hid ;
and a fuller scope Avould have been given for a
reply to objections. In vindicating inspiration,

THE SCRIPTURES. 245
there certainly Avas no more necessity for a vindi
cation of miracles, and the exhibition of the gene
ral evidence of the authenticity of the Scriptures,
than there would have been, had the subject been
the incarnation or the atonement. Inspiration is
as much a matter of revelation, as justification by
faith. Both stand equally on the authority of the
Scriptures. Li teaching and defending the doc
trine of inspiration, then, the authenticity of the
Scriptures as a revelation from God, should havTe
been taken for granted ; and the contest should
not have been Avith Hume and Gibbon, but with
Priestley and the evangelical theologians, who
speak of partial inspiration. The authenticity of
the Scriptures, and their inspiration, are quite
different questions. Multitudes who receive the
Scriptures as containing a revelation from God,
deny their inspiration, or modify it, so as in effect
to destroy it. With these solely, and not with
deists, the battle of inspiration ought to be fought.
It was not a little surprising then to me, to find a
considerable portion of this Essay taken up with
the infidel, and still more surprising to meet the
fodowing observation : " Paul affirms, in the Second
Epistle to Timothy, that 'all Scripture is given
by inspiration of God ; ' but every person must be
sensible that this assertion is not in itself a suffi
cient ground for believing the inspiration of the
writings to which he refers.'* And what other

246 INSPIRATION OF
ground can you have, Dr. Dick, for believing inspi
ration ? Is not the authority of Paul as fully able
to establish inspiration, as to establish the doctrine
of the Trinity ? It is true, indeed, that the Scrip
tures themselves must first be established ; but this
is equally true with respect to every other doctrine.
Would any writer think it necessary in establishing
the doctrine of salvation by grace, through faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ, to vindicate miracles, and
establish the authenticity of the Scriptures ? Cer
tainly not ;' because the people with whom he con
tends admit this. In like maimer, those who deny
or modify inspiration, admit the Scriptures as con
taining a revelation from God, and it is a waste of
time to argue this point Avith them. True, indeed,
the infidel denies inspiration, but he denies also
the authenticity ; and it is useless to vindicate the
former till the latter is established. Indeed, there
is no way of estabfishing inspiration, but by the
Scriptures ; and Scripture authority wdl not pass
Avith the infidel. I am aware that many arguments
for inspiration may be founded on the authenticity,
and that it is evident that if the Scriptures are
authentic, they must be inspired. But I do not
blame the author for taking advantage of argu
ments of this kind. On the contrary, I fidly ap
prove of his conduct on this point. But he might
have equally avaded himself of all such arguments,
taking the authenticity for granted. What I mean

THE SCRIPTURES. 247
is, that a work on inspiration ought to have treated
the subject as a matter of revelation, as much as a
treatise on faith or redemption ; and that by acting
on another principle, the author has produced con
fusion in his work, and has unjustly- degraded
inspiration, as if it must be received on different
grounds from those on which the other doctrines
of revelation are rested. The Scriptures are as
much an ultimate authority on this question, as
any other question of revealed truth. A very con
siderable proportion of this work is not at ad on
the subject of its title.
I cannot conclude my remarks without extract
ing an observation from the preface to this work,
which appears to me time, striking, and important.
" An attentive observer," says Dr. Dick, " cannot
have faded to remark a very striking peculiarity
of the present times. It is the influence of the
principles of infidelity upon many professors of the
Christian religion. The bold opposition made to
some doctrines of revelation, renders them ashamed
or afraid to own them, without at least such quali
fication and changes, as shall smooth their asperi
ties and lessen their apparent incredibdity. In
some instances such concessions are made, as
amount to a complete surrender of the point in
debate. The inspiration of the Scriptures is an
article of our faith, against which infidels have
directed all the arguments which their ingenuity

248 INSPIRATION OF
could furnish, and all the abuse which their malice
could invent. What is the consequence? Many
professed champions of Christianity seem to have
concluded that the article is not tenable, because it
has been preA'iously assaded ; and accordingly, they
have abandoned it whody, or in part to the enemy.
Few Avriters, indeed, who now undertake to defend
the cause of revelation, hold the plenary inspira
tion of the Scriptures. That idea has become
unfashionable ; it is classed with other opinions of
our fathers, which are exploded as the dreams of
enthusiasm and superstitious credudty; and he
only is supposed to entertain rational sentiments on
the subject, who looks upon the Sacred Books as
partly human and partly divine ; as a heteroge
neous compound of the oracles of God, and the
stories and sentiments of men." "The spirit of
infidelity is working among Christians themselves/'
The application of this to the works which I have
reviewed, is perfectly obvious. Some evangelical
divines of the present day, unlike their uncom
promising predecessors, have endeavored to recon-
cde the favor of the world with the cross of Christ.
By the perfection of their Avisdom, they think they
have succeeded in fhiding a way to declare the
counsel of God substantially, without exciting the
mortal enmity of the Avorld, as constantly happened
from the less skillful address of Christ and the
Apostles. If the Gospel cannot conquer the obsti-

'IHE SCRIPTURES. 249
nacy of the infidel, slrilful management it is thought,
may make them peaceable neighbors. It was quite
imprudent, then, in the Apostle to act on the prin
ciple of not " shunning to declare the whole coun
sel of God." Had he acted towards the phdosophers
of his day, as some evangelical divines have towards
the learned Neologians, instead of being accounted
a "babbler," he might haAre been treated as the
lea/ixned and liberal introducer of a new science.
And if, instead of denouncing ad the opposers of
his doctrines as the enemies of God, he had pro
posed his scheme as deep speculations to exercise
the ingenuity of the wise, he might have been
hailed as another Socrates.
Whde I gladly acquit Dr. Dick of this compro
mising spirit, I must charge his Essay with the
same radical errors as the other systems. He ad
mits the same mischievous distinctions, that are only
another name for denying proper inspiration to a
great part of the Scriptures. The inspiration
which he avows, has " such qualifications and
changes, as smooth its asperities, and lessens its
apparent incredibility." In some instances, such
concessions are made, as amount to a complete sur
render of the point in debate. " Inspiration he has
abandoned in part to the enemy." He indeed un
dertakes to defend " the plenary inspiration of the
Scriptures ;" but it is only the name which he ex
tends in a plenary manner. He concedes as expli-

250 INSPIRATION OF
citly as any other writer, that the Avord does not
apply in the same sense to ad parts of the Scrip
tures, which is virtuady to deny the inspiration of
such parts. He does not, indeed, like Mr. Daniel
Wilson, "look upon the Sacred Books as partly
human and partly divine ;" but I was surprised to
find, in reading Dr. Dick's Essay, that Mr. Daniel
Wilson was not the first Avho speaks of nature end
ing, and revelation beginning, with reference to
inspiration. When I first found this distinction in
Mr. Wilson's Lectures, I little expected to discover
afterwards, that the original honors of this infidel
phraseology, belong to the Essay on the Inspiration
of the Holy Scriptures. If Dr. Dick is justified
in speaking of nature, as going a certain length in
the composition of the Bible, I cannot see why he
should condemn those who " look upon the sacred
books as partly human and partly diAdne."

In the part which I have taken in the contro
versy on Inspiration, it has given me great pain
that I have been obliged to contend with the real
friends of the Lord Jesus, on a subject in which all
believers might be expected to harmonize. From
various circumstances, it is not surprising, that in
many things there should be difference of views
among Christians. But Avhat can be the temptation

THE SCRIPTURES. 251
to lower the character of the word of God ? Might
it not be expected, that ad would mute in exalting
the perfection of our common standard ? What is
it that operates in the mind of a believer to induce
him to toil in degrading the oracles of heaven ?
In the hrvestigation of all subjects connected with
revelation, though I do not overlook the importance
of bringing the Christian public along Avith me, yet
my first study is accurately to ascertain and exhibit
-the mind of God. I never think of measuring my
conclusions with the limits assigned by the learned.
When I see truth, I am not ashamed to avow it,
nor afraid to defend it. And the cross of adhering
to it, few have felt more heavy, or have greater
temptations to throw it away. Yet while I spare
not error, my love to those in error is not abated.
My brotherhood extends not to party, but to the
whole household of God. While I labor to unfold
truth, I presume not to dictate; and though a
Christian should reject every thing which I hold,
but the way of salvation through faith, in the
righteousness of the Son of God, I will receive him,
as I trust God, for Christ's sake, has received me.
In reasoning from Scrip ture on this subject of
inspiration, and on every other, it is of great
importance that we never lose sight of the tre
mendous responsibility which we incur. It is no
light matter to attempt to influence the belief of
the people of God, with respect to subjects on

252 INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.
which He has expressed His mind. It is a fearful
thing to labor to misrepresent the divine testimony
in any matter. It is bad to err, but it is worse to
exert ourselves to pervert others. On the other
hand, it is a delightful idea to be in any measure
instrumental in leading forward the minds of the
Lord's people, to a more fud understanding of His
word. Nothing but the conviction that I am
pleading the cause of God and truth, could console
me in opposing so many distinguished writers on"
the nature of the inspiration of the Holy Scrip
tures. I rise from my labors, myself much edified
and confirmed, and Avith an increasing zeal to con
vince ad my fellow-Christians. And Avhy should I
not hope that the most exalted views of the word
of God shall prevail ? It is not a party question.
Many of ad parties seem inadequately acquainted
with the subject. But there is no obstacle to pre
vent any from embracing the most honorable A-ieAvs
of the oracles of God. Though, therefore, the chd-
dren of the Most High may nnhappdy continue to
differ in many things ; in this one thing ad may be
expected to unite. Let us all celebrate the perfec
tions of our common standard — the Bible.

THE SANCTIFICATION

FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.

Some Christians have supposed that the New
Testament does not sanction the religious obser
vance of the first day of the week, and that such a
practice is founded on a misconception of the law
of Moses. As this is a matter of the first impor
tance in Christianity, it is right that it should be
investigated in the fullest manner. Till the Scrip
tures have been examined throughout, with the
utmost deliberation and impartiality, it would be
rash to incur the hazard of anmdling what God
may have enjoined. Let us discard, without cere
mony, ad the commandments of men ; but let us
take heed lest, in the intemperance of our zeal, we
do not dismiss Avith them any of the command
ments of God. After the fudest and most calm
deliberation, the evidence in favor of the sanctifica-
tion of the first day of the week, appears to me

254 THE SABBATH.
decisive. I shall, therefore, for the satisfaction of
my brethren who may have doubts on this subject,
submit to them the grounds of my opinion. In
doing this I am conscious that prejudice for anti
quity has as little Aveight with me as fondness for
novelty. I have desired, above ad things, to know
the wid of God, and Avhen I think I have discov
ered it, I am anxious to impart it to my brethren.
I am impatient to save them from the sin of teach
ing the disciples of Jesus to despise what the Scrip
tures teach them to reverence, and of adding to
the offence of the cross, by a tenet unsupported by
the authority of God. In examining this subject,
I entreat those of sentiments opposite to these
inculcated in this paper, to dismiss from their
minds everything but the. desire of finding truth.
Let the fear of God banish all partiality for opin
ions already conceived, and all undue desire of
vindicating what has already been avowed. It is
a difficult thing to review our own opinions, espe
cially when published, with the impartiality Avhich
we can bestow upon those of others ; yet, Avithout
this attainment, no man is thoroughly fitted for
discussing subjects of controversy. It is an awful
thing, in giving the import of God's testimony upon .
any matter, to give it a turn to suit our own vieAVS ;
yet, a bias of this kind is sometimes discoverable,
as wed in intemperate reformers, as in the preju
diced defenders of ancient error.

THE SABBATH. 255
In examining the evidence on this subject, it has
appeared to me, that they must have taken a very
partial view of it, avIio have supposed that the
seventh-day-Sabbath rests on the Mosaic law. If
we consult the book of Genesis, Ave shad find that
it was instituted two thousand years before the
law, and is founded upon reasons that have no
exclusive respect to any nation, or to any dispen
sation. " Thus the heavens and the earth were
finished, and ad the host of them. And on the
seventh day God ended His work which He had
made; and He rested on the seventh day from
all His work which He had made. And God
blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, be
cause that in it He had rested from all His work,
which God created and made." — Gen. ii. 1-3.
Here is a Sabbath even before the entrance of
sin, founded upon reasons that apply to ad na
tions and to ad times. Is God's resting on the
seventh day, a reason for the Sabbath applicable
to the Jews only ? Is not this a Sabbath for ad
the human race ? Is there anything of a local or
temporary nature in this language ? Is not the
reason assigned for the institution of the Sabbath,
as' forcible this clay as the day it was given ? Is it
not as applicable to us as to the Jews, or to Adam
himself? Is the finishing of the work of creation
no longer worthy of remembrance ? Granting then
in the fudest sense, that the law of Moses is

256 THE SABBATH.
abolished, how does that affect this subject ? Shad
the abolition of the law which was not given for
two thousand years after the institution of the Sab
bath, abodsh an institution which, though incor
porated in that coA-enant, is totady independent
of it?
The Sabbath is not a Jewish institution, for
though it formed a part of the national covenant,
it was previously incumbent on all mankind in
virtue of its original appointment. As the Sab
bath was incorporated into the Jewish law, it re
ceived appendages applicable to the Jews alone.
These appendages perished with the law, but the
Sabbath itself no more dies by being connected
with the law, than the soul does by being united
with the body. Suppose a landlord to give leases
in which it is covenanted that his tenants are sub
ject to forfeiture upon conviction of any act of
treason, their loyalty is then one of the conditions
on which they hold their farms. In addition to
the fear of the civd powers, they are deterred from
treason by the dread of losing their property.
Suppose again, that on the expiration of these
leases, the landlord makes no such coA-enant, but
leaves them with respect to -their title to their
farms, at full liberty either to be loyal or disloyal.
Is it not evident that though free from their cove
nant and its additional enactions, they are still
bound by the laAvs of the state, and that though they

TOE SABBATn. 257
shall not now on account of treason forfeit their
lands, yet they shall stdl be answerable for their
crimes to its laws. In like manner, the Sabbath
which was an institution for the human race, was
embodied in a temporal covenant with a particular
nation. With the abodtion of that covenant, the
temporal sanctions of the Sabbath were abolished,
and everything in it that peculiarly respected that
nation, but the Sabbath itself, could not perish with
a covenant of which it was independent.
But I shad go farther. To overturn the Sab
bath, it is not sufficient to prove merely the abod
tion of the law, no, nor even the insufficiency of
the evidence in favor of the sanctification of the
first day of the week. I maintain that, even though
the day of Christ's resurrection should be degraded,
the Sabbath remains in virtue of its original insti
tution. There is no proof, it is said, that the clay
of Christ's resurrection was observed as a Sabbath ;
grant this, and what follows ? Is it that there is no
Sabbath ? No verily, but that instead of the first
day of the week, the seventh according to the
original appointment is the Sabbath. Christ tells
me that he is Lord of the Sabbath, and the New
Testament affords me evidence that it is changed ;
but had I no such evidence of a change, the seventh
would still command my respect. The reasons
upon which God rests the appointment of fhe Sab
bath, are as lasting as the hills ; while the creation

258 THE SABBATH.
remains they cannot wax old. Every nation under
heaven is equally bound to respect the day that
God sanctified and blessed. If the nations have
lost the knowledge of the original Sabbath, they
have in ldie manner lost the knowledge of many
other things. But as soon as they receive the
Scriptures which contain this institution, their ne
glect of it Avid be then condemnation. God sancti
fied and blessed a Sabbath for the human race,
even in a state of innocence, for the commemora
tion of the finishing of His Avorks. Shad the aboli
tion of a covenant that respected only one nation,
abolish that Sabbath ? Wid any man presume to
class the original Sabbath appointed for man in
innocence, with these beggarly elements, these
rudiments of the world, which were to vanish as
shadows at the coming of Christ ? I conclude then,
that if the first day of the week is not to be ob
served as a Sabbath, the seventh day stid enjoys
that honor. It was appointed for the human race,
and not for a particular nation : it was appointed
for man in hmocence, and not merely as a shadow
haAang reference to human guilt ; it was founded
on reasons applicable to all ages and countries.
No artillery employed against the law of Moses,
can ever be brought to bear upon it. It stands as
firm as the throne of God.
Again, the Sabbath is one of those command
ments which in general are recognized by our Lord

THE SABBATH. 259
and his Apostles, and are exhibited in the New
Testament as living after the death of the law.
There isjiothing that can be said from the abolition
of the law of Moses, that deters me from using this
argument. While I admit in the fidlest maimer
that this law is abodshed, I contend that every
thing in that law that was obligatory on ad men,
and on the Jews preAdous to their national cove
nant, remains unaffected by the death of the law.
I shall not enter into that question at present ; but,
as a foundation for the present argument, shad
merely observe, that though the usual distinctions
of the law are both unscriptural and pernicious,
the commandments which men have termed the
moral law, are sanctioned by the New Testament.
To the ruler who asked what he should do to in
herit eternal fife, our Lord repded, " Thou knowest
the commandments, Do not commit adultery," &c.
It is no matter in what view it is supposed that
our Lord uttered these words. Whatever was his
view, he admits that the keeping of the command
ments would gain eternal dfe. They are the sub
stance of human duty. Did ever our Lord speak
so of any of the temporary precepts of the law of
Moses ? Could it be said that by observing any of
these rites that are ready abolished, a man might
have eternal dfe ? Besides, is it not evident that
our Lord understood these commandments in all
the extent in which some of them are explained

260 THE SABBATH.
by him in the fifth chapter of the Gospel by Mat
thew ? In the sense in which they stood in the
national covenant — by keeping of which they had
a right to a happy life in Canaan — they were kept ;
but this did not entitle to eternal fife. Whatever
precepts are made, the conditions of eternal life
must contain the substance of all the duties that
God requires of man. Is it not most absurd to
suppose that the commandments, to the obedience
of which our Lord attaches eternal dfe, are abo
lished by his coming ? Instead of abolishing them,
he recognizes and explains them. Is it not most
absurd to suppose that these commandments, to
which our Lord pays such deference, should share
the same fate Avith the carnal Jewish rites ? Here,
then, the commandments in general, are recognized.
The fourth, indeed, is not named. Neither are
several others. But when they are generally
referred to as a whole, and a sample given, those
not named are equally sanctioned. Indeed, if only
one precept of the decalogue is continued in force
in the dispensation of Christ, it will show that the
abolitiou of the law does not necessarily destroy
any of them. If one survives, all may survive.
If any perish, it is not by being involved in the
general ruin of the law, but by individual repro
bation. No one Avid say but that the Sabbath
might have been totally abolished ; but to do this,
more Avould have been necessary than the abolition

THE SABBATH. 261
of the law ; for its existence did not depend on the
law. The Jewish Sabbath hath been abolished,
and the original Sabbath hath been changed, for
the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.
These commandments are, in like manner, sanc
tioned by all the authority of the Apostle Paul. —
Rom. xiii. 8 — 10. We are urged to love one an
other, because "love is the fulfilling of the law."
He then enumerates some of the commandments,
and shows that they are briefly comprehended in
love. But if these commandments had been abo
lished, they would not have been spoken of as a
fulfilling after the death of Christ. Nothing can
be more palpably obvious than that the command
ments are here generady considered as obligatory.
The Sabbath, then, which is one of these command
ments, is obligatory, as far as it is unchanged by
Christ. Not only are the commandments generally re
cognized by the New Testament, but the fourth
commandment is itself both recognized and ex
plained by the Lord. There is no other command
ment more fully dlustrated by him. He explains
its nature, shows what may be lawfully done on it,
and clears it from all the rubbish heaped on it by
the Scribes and Pharisees. If he does not enforce
it with greater strictness, as he does some other of
the commandments, it was because these religion
ists were over rigorous in the observance of it.

262 THE SABBATH.
By showing the nature of the things that might be
clone he teaches that things of another nature ought
hot to be done. Will it be said that ad this was
intended for the Jewish Sabbath, which was imme
diately to cease? Then, it may as plausibly be
said, that what he said of the sixth commandment,
and of the seventh, had a reference only to the
duration of the Mosaic law, and that after its
abolition, murder and adultery are no crimes ; at
least, that what our Lord says against them does
not apply under tlie present dispensation. Our
Lord says, " AVhosoeA-er looketh on a woman talust
after her committeth adultery Avith her in his
heart." Shad it be replied, " Truth ; this is adul
tery, and sinful as long as the law lasts ; but, as
the law is abolished, adultery is not now a crime."
On the contrary, do not all understand this to be
the Lord's explanation of that sin, importing its
criminality under the new dispensation ? And, if
this be the case with respect to one of the Ten Com
mandments, why is it not so with respect to the
fourth ? Why do we not grant our Lord's recog
nition of that commandment to have the same
weight as his recognition of the seventh ? If the
latter was duty, independent of the laAv, so was the
former. Besides, can it be supposed that our Lord
would have been at such pains in explaining a pre
cept that was to die with himself? How many
encounters has he Avith the Pharisees on this sub-

THE SABBATH. 263
ject ? Instead of avoiding giving them offence, he
seems intentionady to heal often on the Sabbath,
when he might have easdy omitted it till the next
day. We cannot suppose that Christ was influ
enced by that vanity which sometimes actuates
people in ostentatiously displaying their liberty,
glorying in their superiority to vulgar prejudices.
He was lowly in heart. I rather suppose that his
design in this part of his conduct was, to take an
opportunity of showing the true nature of the Sab
bath, for instruction to his disciples throughout all
ages. It strikes me that it is not likely that he
would have been so solicitous to quarrel with them
on this question, if the Sabbath itself was a merely
temporary Jewish institution, tottering to its fall.
This is not ad that may be drawn from our
Lord's explanation of the Sabbath. Some of the
arguments used against the Pharisees evidently
import, that the Sabbath is no temporary institu
tion. "The Sabbath," saith he, "was made for
man, and not man for the Sabbath." Here two
points are fixed, namely, that the Sabbath is a uni
versal institution, and that it was designed for the
advantage of man. He speaks of it not as a Jew
ish institution, but refers to its original appoint
ment for man. The Sabbath was not made at the
giving of the law ; it was made immediately after
the creation of the world. But when it was made,
it is here asserted that it was made for man. It is,

264 THE SABBATH.
therefore, for the human race, and not for the
Jews, it Avas made. Why then should man be
loosed from the Sabbath, when the Jews were
loosed from the law to which as a nation they
were married ? If it was made for man, it must
be obligatory on man, independent of the Jewish
covenant altogether, until it is either changed or
individually abrogated. Can the abolition of a
temporary, national covenant, abolish .a Sabbath
made for the human race — made even before the
entrance of sin? Shall a paradisiacal institution
be classed with these carnal ordinances, those rudi
ments of the world, those beggarly elements of
which all that was peculiar to the Jews in their
national covenant consisted, and which the New
Testament represents as done aAvay ?
The phrase referred to imports, also, that the
Sabbath was made for the benefit of man, not as
his burthen. It was, therefore, for the advantage
even of Adam, in a state of perfect innocence, to
have a day set apart as a Sabbath. Now, is it not
absurd, even to the utmost bounds of absurdity, to
suppose that a Sabbath was of advantage to inno
cent Adam, and that it is not of use to the children
of God in their state of imperfection ? Shad a Sab
bath be useful amidst the innocence of Eden, and
shad it be useless amidst the temptations of the
devil, the Avorld, and the flesh ? How can any
man say that he has no need of a Sabbath that was

THE SABBATH. 265
useful to Adam before his fad? But if a Sabbath
is useful, the Sabbath cannot be abolished. I hold
it to be as clear as the light of heaven, that if the
Sabbath was useful Avhen it was made, it is much
more needful now.
To the Jews who sought to slay Jesus for per
forming cures on the Sabbath, he replies : " My
Father hitherto worketh, and I work."- — John v.
17-. Here the ground of our Lord's defence is the
example of his Father. This shows that Jesus
does not consider the Sabbath a merely Jewish
institution ; but, that he views it as that first Sab
bath sanctified and blessed by God, after the crea
tion. As a merely Jewish institution, the Father's
working on that day would have been no justifica
tion of himself for like conduct. Jesus was made
under the law ; but was the Father bound to keep
any institution he gave the Jews ? It was the duty
of the Jews to keep the holy days ; but God might
have made a new world on these days, or, which
is the same thing, He might have permitted, and
He did permit, all other nations not to respect these
holy days. But He would not do so with that day
which He blessed, and sanctified, and honored by
His OAvn example. Though the Lord of heaven is
not bound to law, yet He honored and sanctified the
Sabbath, and observed it Himself by resting from
His works. Our Lord's argument takes it for
granted, that the Father Himself still respected the.

266 THE SABBATH.
Sabbath ; for in any other view it is irrelevant.
If God did not respect the Sabbath at all, why is
anything that He does on that day referred to as a
justification of the couduct of one who is bound to
keep that day. The Lord might command men to
keep, a day that He does not keep Himself. It was
no justification of Jesus to adege that the Father
did similar things to those he did on the Sabbath,
except it is true that the Father respects the Sab
bath. But this argument has full force when taken
in connection with the Lord sanctifying the Sab
bath, and sanctioning it even by His own example.
If, then, the Father Himself respects the Sabbath
by His own example, whatever He does on the Sab
bath might be done by Jesus, though he was bound
to keep the Sabbath. God is working every day
in providence ; and on the very first Sabbath on
which it is said He rested, He was working in some
respects. He rested from creation ; but He was
stid working in providence. What conducted the
heavenly bodies in their revolutions ? What made
ad things to proceed on that day as on others?
The hand of the Lord alone. If the Lord would
cease to Avork, the revolutions of the heavenly
bodies woidd cease, the productions of the earth
should not adA-ance in growth, and animals should
not come into the world on that day. Our Lord's
design in this argument is to shoAv the Jews that
though God Himself respects the Sabbath, there

THE SABBATH. 267
are some things He does on that day. Like things,
then, might be done by him, even when under
obligations to keep the Sabbath ; for nothing could
be essentiady a breach of that day which was sanc
tioned by something similar in the conduct of the
heavenly Father, who Himself respected that day.
This argument, then, takes it for granted that the
Sabbath is not merely a Jewish institution, and
that it was not only respected by God when He
made it, but that it was stid respected by Him.
If he had not stid a respect to it, his conduct on
that day Avould be no example to those bound to
observe it. How honorable, then, is the Sabbath !
It was not only made for man in a state of inno
cence, but it was honored by the observance of
God Himself, who is not bound to law at ad, and is
still respected by Him. With respect to the first,
marriage is on a level with it ; but with respect to
the latter, it is unrivaded among all the divine
institutions. Shall it, then, be supposed that such
an ordinance should perish with the national cove
nant of the Jews ?
Having proved that the original Sabbath could
not be abolished with the law of carnal command
ments, let us next see if there is any evidence that
the day of its observance is changed. We may
observe, in the first place, that our Lord prepares
us for a change, Avhen — after a copious enumera
tion of arguments, showing its nature — he asserts

268 THE SABBATH.
that he is Lord of the Sabbath. This implies his
absolute authority over it ; and not obscurely hints
that he designed, to make some alterations with
respect to it. But that he did not intend to use
his Lordship over it, for the purpose of entirely
destroying it, we are assured by what he previously
declares — " The Sabbath was not made for man."
That the day of its observance was actually
changed, and that the first day of the week is now
entitled to that honor, is clearly intimated by the
meeting of the churches on that clay, and the
marked respect that our Lord paid to it. On the
mere circumstance of his appearing to his disciples
on the evening of the first day of his resurrection
I would build nothing, taken independently ; but
even that appearance seems to be related in a
marked manner by John : " Then the same day,
at evening, being the first day of the week, when
the doors were shut, where the disciples were
assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and
stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be
unto you." But connecting this with his next
appearance, it is impossible not to suppose that
there was a design in marking the particular day.
"And after eight days, again his disciples were
within, and Thomas with them : then came Jesus,
the doors being shut, and stood in the midst.'' If
the disciples did not meet during the preceding
week, Avhich is not likely, then there must have

THE SABBATH. 269
already been a command for meeting on this par
ticular day ; but if they met through the week, and
our Lord did not during that time appear among
them, allowing the doubts of Thomas to remain ad
that time, then he surely designed to honor the
meeting on that day more than any other of their
meetings. Is there no intention in mentioning
with such exactness that this appearance was on
their me'eting eight days after his first appearance.
No doubt our Lord appeared frequently to them
on ad days of the Aveek ; but the marked manner
in Avhich his appearance among the assemblies of
his disciples on the first day of the week is recorded
evidently intimates design.
But this fact derives additional force from con
necting it with the meeting of the churches on that
day. When Ave find that the churches continued
to meet on that day, we are confirmed in the opin
ion that we have not misinterpreted the preceding
intimation. If there is a day in the week to be
honored above the rest, there can be no doubt but
on that day the Lord would appoint His churches
to meet. If, therefore, I have proved that there is
a Sabbath independent of the Jewish law, obliga
tory for reasons applicable to ad mankind — if the
seventh clay was neglected by the churches planted
by the Apostles, and the first day appointed for
their meetings — I consider the matter settled. If
the seventh day had been continued in its original

270 THE SABBATH.
distinction, it is to me clear as demonstration, that
it would have been honored by the meetings of the
churches. When that day is not so honored, and
another day obtains that distinction, the change is
proclaimed in language loud and clear. Were not
the weekly meetings of the Jews on the day then
honored as the Sabbath, and were not their other
stated days honored by meetings ? The day, there
fore, that has the honor of the meetings of the
churches has the honor of the Sabbath.
Had there been no intention to respect the first
day of the Aveek, there is no reason to suppose that
the Lord would have fixed any particular day
for all the churches in all the different countries of
the world. Why did he not leave the day of meet
ing as open as the hour of the day at which they
meet ? Since he has not done so, but fixed down
ad nations and ages to meet on the first day of the
Aveek, he must have designed to honor that ' day.
Some admit that the churches ought to meet on
that day, but contend that the day is -not to be
respected. But it strikes me that the only reason
for fixing a particular day must have been to honor
that day.
But the argument has irresistible Aveight when
considered Avith reference to Judea. In that coun
try the disciples would not be permitted to fodow
their civd employments on the seventh day pf the
week. Now, is it at all supposable, that the Lord

THE SABBATH. 271
Avould oblige the churches in Judea to meet on the
first day of the week, Avhen they must be unem
ployed on the preceding day, except it Avas to
honor the day of meeting ? Would not this haAre
been a useless burden ?
Further, if no respect is designed to the first day
of the Aveek, why are the meetings weekly ? Why
are they not every fourth day, every fifth day,
every sixth day, every tenth day ? If ad regard
to that primitive division of time be done away
with, why is it stid. pressed upon our view by
Aveekly meetings ? If the frequency of meeting
Avas not left to ourselves, why did we not get the
French decade ? Does not the establishment of a
weekly meeting recognize the primitive division of
time, and the utidty of one day in the Aveek being
taken from civd employments ? In giving weight
to the argument irovf. the meeting of the first
churches, various circumstances concur with the
simple fact, Avhy were the meetings Aveekly? If
weekly, why on the first day of the week, espe
cially in Judea ? Let it be remembered, also, that
it is not merely the meeting on that day that
proves the day holy, although nothing but respect
for that day can be assigned as pointing it out for
that puipose. The meeting of the churches on
that day,, taken in connection with the fact that
there is a Sabbath independent of the Jewish law,
forms an argument in my mind not to be resisted.

272 THE SABBATH.
From the resurrection of Christ some reason in
favor of the sanctification of the first day of the
Aveek as an independent argument. From the
importance of the event, they deduce a Christian
Sabbath. But this is a foundation upon which no
Aved taught Christian can hold any truth. This
basis Avould bear the whole fabric of superstition
and will-worship. If an ordinance can be deduced
from our own views of the importance of any event,
there Avid be no end to ordinances. But though
this is irrelevant as an independent argument, it
has much weight when coupled with the eAudence
of the sanctification of the day of Christ's resurrec
tion. It is like a cypher in figures — placed on the
left hand it is nothing; on the right, it has the
poAver of increasing the force of the figures that
precede it. All the arguments in favor of the sanc
tification of the first day of the week wid receive
an additional force from the consideration of the
import of that illustrious fact — the resurrection of
our Lord Jesus Christ on that clay. On that day
he ceased from the mightiest of Almighty AATorks.
If the finishing of creation Avas Avorthy of a day of
commemoration, why will Ave resist the evidence
of a day for commemorating the finishing of the
more glorious Avork of redemption ?
Nor does the day appear to haA7e been overlooked
1 y the prophets. It seems evidently anticipated in
the 118th Psalm. Speaking of the triumph of

THE SABBATH. 273
Jesus, the Psalmist exclaims, " this is the day the
Lord hath made ; we will be glad and rejoice in
it." The time he refers to is when the stone rejected
by the builders was made the head of the corner —
Avhen this day ofthe Lord appeared wonderful in the
eyes of His people. But was not this when Jesus
was declared to be the Son of God with power, by
his resurrection from the dead ? Why, otherwise,
does he couple a certain day with the celebration
of that glorious triumph ?
But the nature of the evidence of the passage
usuady quoted on this subject from the book of
Revelation, is such as cannot ever be evaded. This
is calculated, not only to satisfy the candid inquirer,
but to stop the mouth of evasion itself. " I was in
the spirit," says John, "on the Lord's day." If
after reading this, any one should venture to assert,
that there is, under the new dispensation, no day to
be regarded above another, I should not feel myself
bound to reason with him, as one who did not
perceive evidence, but as one who resisted evidence.
If any thing can be established from the New Tes
tament, this passage proves, incontestably, that the
first churches had a Lord's day. Why, then, have
they supposed that any view that can possibly be
taken of the law of Moses, should sap the founda
tions of this edifying ordinance ? Long after the
abrogation of the Jewish law, John shows us that
he had a Lord's day ; and from the manner in which

274 THE SABBATH.
he refers to it, it is evident that none of those to
whom he wrote were ignorant of the particular to
which he aduded. It might as Avell be supposed,
that when Ave date our letters by the day of the
week, the person to whom they are addressed should
not understand what particular day Ave mean.
There was, then, at that time, a Lord's day, univer
sally known and acknowledged among Christians.
Wdl any one now object that they cannot find
out what day of the week is this Lord's day ? Grant
the objection to be well founded, and what fodows?
It fodoAvs that the Scriptures are an imperfect rule ;
that they set apart a particular day, without giving
us any information with respect to what day they
mean. Let persons who entertain this view, burn
their Bible, for surely it is not the book of God.
Can any thing be more absurd and even blasphe
mous ? The New Testament informs us that there
is a Lord's dav, but gives us no hints from which
Ave may discover that day !
But even this scepticism wid not free them fi'om
a Sabbath. If the first day of the week has not
received that honor, the seventh, appointed at first,
must still retain it.
But after observing the honor put upon the day
of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, can any candid
mind doubt of the day called the Lord's day ? Look
at the churches in all parts of the world, meeting
from the beginning on the first day of the week,

THE SABBATH. 275
and not on the seventh ; and after this try to doubt
any more. The passage in the book of Revelation
estabdshes a Lord's day, and these other passages
clearly fix the particular day so called.
Even this passage itself affords no trifling evi
dence that the day referred to is the notable day
of Christ's resurrection. What day is so likely to
be the Lord's as the day of his triumph ? The most
remarkable day ever the Avorld saAV. Besides, it is
evident that John marks this day as honored by
the Lord, in giving these important discoveries of
Ids Avid Avith respect to things, tid the second
coming. " I was in the Spirit," says John, " on the
Lord's day." The Lord then honored his own day
in this way. Noav compare this with the accounts
in which we see him honoring the first day of the
week, and we will have a sufficient criterion by
which we may distinguish the day that is here
caded the Lord's — the day that these other pas
sages mark as being honored as the first day of the
week. The day here honored is called the Lord's
day. May we not then conclude that they are the
same day- — that the first day of the week is the
Lord's day ; or that the Lord's day is the first day
of the week ?
It has been said that this book is figurative, and
that this appedation is figurative also. I would
not wish to hear any Christian making use of such
an objection. It argues so much perversion of

276 THE SABBATH.
mind, so much obstinacy of unbelief, that it Avould
be difficult for me to suppose that it satisfied the
conscience of him AA'ho should use it. This book is
indeed, hi its general character, figurative; but
every thing in it is not figurative. If the appella
tion, Lord's day, marking the time of receiving the
revelation, be not plain language, there is- no
dependence to be put upon language at all. As
wed may it be said, that the Apostle's banishment
was figurative, that Patmos is figurative, that the
testimony of Jesus Christ is figurative, and that
the name Jesus itself is figurative. There are no
bounds to absurdity, when obstinacy Avid think
itself justifiable in availing itself of any thing that
an ungoverned imagination can suggest. Instead
of plying such an objector with arguments, I should
judge the most Avholesome discipline for him Avould
be to warn him against the perverse disputing; of
men of corrupt minds.
Among the A-arious ways by which Satan has
attempted to rob us of this precious ordinance he
has suggested that if the respecting the Lord's day
so far as to meet, cannot be denied, no more of it
ought to be sanctified than Avhat is employed in the
meetings. But if Satan quotes Scripture, Scripture
can be retorted on Satan to his confusion. It is the
Lord's day; if so, the Avhole of the day is his.
Hoav it is to be employed privately, is to be learned
from our Lord's lessons on the nature of the Sab-

THE SAEEATH. 277
bath. There is no doubt, that if some have erred
by rejecting the observance of this day, there are
others who have erred by insisting on pharisaical
strictness. Many Christians would certainly have
taken part Avith tho Pharisees in their charges
against Jesus for breaking the Sabbath. They
hold it in such a way as to make it a yoke and a
bondage, not a privilege and a blessing. Such
persons ought to study the reasons by which our
Lord justifies his conduct to the Scribes and Phar
isees on this subject. They Avdl find that no work
of love to the human race is improper on this day ;
and that every thing belonging to a church, how
ever much it may lead into temporal matters, ought
to be attended to on it. If the priests in the temple
service did the work of the shambles, and were
blameless, nothing that concerns a church of Christ
can profane the day Avhich he claims as his own.
The view in Avhich many keep the Lord's day con
demns Jesus Christ as a Sabbath breaker.
Some take offence at the name Sabbath, as
applied to the Lord's clay. There is no doubt but
the names, Lord's day, and first day of the week,
are those by which alone it is designated in the
New Testament ; but it appears to me that this fas-
tideousness is too nice. Sabbath imports a day of
rest ; such a day is the Lord's day ; and if it agrees
to the idea imported in the name, why refuse it the
name ? Besides, it appears to me evident that the

278 THE SABBATH.
Lord's day includes the commemoration both of
the finishing of creation, and of redemption. The
original Sabbath Avas never abolished, therefore
must still exist. It can be found no where but in
the first day of the week. It is asked, if the Lord's
day is a Sabbath, why not so .tailed? For a very
sufficient reason. Another day had already en
grossed that name, and therefore, although it de
served that name ever so Aved, the irreversable
foundations of the laws of language Avould not per
mit it to be given. In the age in which the New
Testament was Avritten, the Sabbath always referred
to the seventh day. They discover more precipi
tancy than deep research, who deny this name as
applicable to the Lord's day. Some people arrive
at the perfect knowledge of the Bible, as Gd Bias
got to the bottom of medicine, not by mature
study, but by adopting hastily a few insignia of
perfection.

ON HUMAN CERTIFICATES

OP THE

EXCELLENCY OF THE SCRIPTURES.

Christians have discovered a great propensity
to sanction the wisdom of God by the wisdom of
men.' The Scriptures, on the contrary, oppose
these; and, instead of coA'eting the patronage of
the wisdom of this world, they cast upon it the
utmost contempt. So far, therefore, as Christians
do otherwise they are carnal and walk as men.
That the Scriptures are suited to the capacities of all
men, and that they are the power of God to the
salvation of the learned and Avise as Avell as the
unlearned and unwise or illiterate and ignorant, is
a truth that reflects glory on them ; yet that they
should be so agreeable to the natural taste- of
learned men as to recommend themselves to their
constant perusal, is neither agreeable to fact nor to
the nature of their contents, except these are grossly-
perverted and mistaken. These reflections may

280 COMMENDATION OF
frequently occur from the writings of Christians;
they are at present excited by some things in the
article of Buck's Anecdotes, entitled the Scriptures.
Speaking of the book of God, he says : " It is so
sublime in its language, so noble in its doctrine, yet
plain in its precepts, and excellent in its end, that
the man must be ignorant and depraved indeed
who fives without reading it." I acknowledge that
there are many specimens of sublimity in the
Scriptures, especially in the Old Testament, that it
is impossible to find paradels in any of the writings
of men ; but it is equally true that there is much,
especiady in the language of the Apostles, that
cannot bear the test of criticism, according to the
rules of human eloquence. I am convinced that
the rhetorical excedencies of many parts of Scrip
ture Avould recommend them to the admiration of
the learned, Avere they to be found on any other
subject, but fact proATes that there are many who
live without reading them, who cannot be called
ignorant in any other sense than as referring to the
Gospel. The nobility of its doctrines, instead of
being an inducement to wise men to study the
Scriptures, is the very thing that prevents them
from looking into the Bible, and would prevent
them, had it all the elegance required by the rules
of all the critics from Longinus to Doctor Blair.
If any such delight in reading the Scriptures it is
under some misconception of that which is the

THE SCRIPTURES. 281
glory of the Christian ; and such parts of them as
have the least reference to the foundation of a
sinner's hope.
" I walk," says Queen Elizabeth, " many times in
the pleasant fields of the holy Scriptures, where I
pluck up the goodlisome herbs of sentences by
pruning, eat them by reading, digest them by
musing, and lay them up at length in the high seat
of memory by gathering them together ; so that
having tasted then: sweetness, I may less perceive
the bitterness of dfe." A few words of the pre-
ciousness of Jesus would have been more convinc
ing evidence that she well understood and valued
the Bible, than ad this farrago of quaint and
incongruous metaphor. I cannot ted iu what part
of the sacred volume that celebrated queen learned
to persecute the saints of God. Her pride, her
ambition, her haughtiness, her cruelty are not
convincing proofs that she had drank in the spirit
of Christ.
It would indeed, be pleasing to learn, that " the
book which Sir Isaac Newton studied with the
greatest application was the Bible ; if it was also
ascertained that his love to it originated in the
belief of the doctrine of the cross, and of salvation
to the guiltiest of men, by faith in the atonement
of Christ. But if it is true, that he denied the
divine nature of the Son of God, I class him infidel
as Thomas Paine.

282 COMMENDATION OF
I am as little edified with the certificate of Mr.
Locke, though it appears plausible. " Mr. Locke,"
says our author, "justly esteemed one ofthe greatest
masters of reason, being asked, a little before his
dissolution, ' What was the shortest and surest way
for a young gentleman to attain a true knowledge
of the Christian religion in the fud and just extent
of it?' made this memorable reply : ' Let him study
the holy Scriptures, especially the New Testament.
Therein are contained the words of eternal fife. It
has God for its Author, salvation for its end and
truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.'
And again : ' The only Avay to obtain a knowledge
of the Christian religion in its full extent and purity
is the study of the holy Scriptures.' " For my
part, instead of considering these words memorable,
I look upon both the question and answer as pecu
liarly silly. Where could a knoAvledge of Christi
anity possibly be obtained but in the Scriptures?
It might as Avell be asked, how shall we obtain a
knowledge of the Scriptures ? No real knowledge,
more than a just and fud knoAAdedge, of Christianity
can be obtained from any other source than the
Scriptures. These accounts and defences of Christi
anity, independent of the inspiration of the Scrip
tures, can serve the cause only of Antichrist. Mr.
Locke's words seem to pay the highest compliment
to the Scriptures ; but that they are consistent;with
entire ignorance of the truth is clear, from the

THE SCRIPTURES. 283
words of the same author, except he is inconsistent
with himself. "God," says Mr. Locke, ^'had, by
the light of reason, revealed to all mankind who
would make use of that light, that He was good and
merciful. Tlie same spark of the divine nature
and knowledge in man, while making him a man,
showed him also the way of atoning the merciful,
kind, compassionate Author and Father of him and
his being, when he had transgressed that law. He
that made use of this candle of the Lord, so far as
to find what was his duty, could not miss to find
also the way to reconcdiation and forgiveness when
he had failed of his duty. The law, (meaning the
law of nature) is the eternal immutable standard
of right, and a part of that law is, that a man should
forgive not only his children, but his enemies, upon
their repentance, asking pardon and amendment.
And therefore he could not doubt (see Leland, 1.
148) that the Author of this law, and God of pa
tience and consolation, who is rich in mercy, Avould
forgive His frail offspring, if they acknowledged
their faults, disapproved the iniquity of their trans
gressions, begged His pardon, and resolved in earnest
for the future, to conform their actions to this rule,
which they owned" to be just and right; this way of
reconciliation, this hope of atonement, the ' light
of nature revealed to them.'' Now, how doefe this
consist with the compliment he makes to the Scrip
tures? If this is true, what is the use of the

284 COMMENDATION OF
Scriptures ? If the light of nature points out both
a man's duty and the way of atonement for trans
gression, what room is there for revelation. If re
pentance, asking pardon, &c, be that atonement,
what need is there for the atonement of Christ?
Does not Mr. Locke insinuate that God Himself is
bound by the law of nature to forgive his penitent
enemies ? What blasphemy is it to speak of a spark
of tlie divine nature and knowledge in man ? Does
not this make man in part a divine being ? Is not
this the old error taught by the devd, that men are
" as gods, knowing good and evd <"'
The testimony of Sir Widiam Jones is just, so
far as it goes ; but it is not decisive of his having
discovered the true excedence of the Scriptures,
and I am not sufficiently acquainted Avith his his
tory to form an opinion of it. " I have regularly
and attentively read these holy Scriptures, and am
of opinion that this volume, independently of its
divine origin, contains more sublimity and beauty,
more pure moradty, more important history, and
finer strains of poetry and eloquence than can be
codected from all other books, in whatever age or
language they may have been composed." It is
not any of these perfections thaf recommends the
Bible to the attention of sinners. This may recom
mend it as a classical book of morals ; but it is the
testimony that it bears to Jesus that recommends
it to the guilty. I do not find fault with Sir Wil-

THE SCRIPTURES. 285
liam's remarking of those excellencies ; but, in a
man that understood the Scriptures, I would expect
something more. It is like, in speaking to crimi
nals, proving the style in Avhich is conveyed the
condemnation by the judge, or the reprieve by the
sovereign. The honorable Robert Boyle, we are informed,
spent his "whole life and fortune in idustrating
the beauties of the two grand volumes of creation
and revelation. He has said everything in favor
of the Bible that language admits of. He calls it
that 'matchless book,' and has written a whole
volume to idustrate its beauties." If the author
could have informed us that Mr. Boyle held the
apostolical testimony about Jesus, it would have
enabled us to rejoice exceedingly in the disin
terested zeal of this truly great man. If he con
fessed the Gospel, his zeal in the spreading of the
Scriptures was a testimony in favor of his sincerity ;
but it damps my joy that I have heard he was an
Arian, or, that he did not believe in the divine
dignity of the Son of God. I hope I have been
misinformed. "The learned Le Clerc teds us," says our author,
" that while he was compiling his ' Harmony,' he
was so struck with admiration of the excellent dis
courses of Jesus, and so inflamed with the love of
his most holy doctrines, that he but just then
began, to be acquainted Avith Avhat he scarce ever

286 COMMENDATION OF
laid out of his hands from his infancy." Admira
tion of the discourses of Jesus, and love of Chris
tianity, as a system of perfect religion, or morality,
do not characterize a man as a Christian. All who
heard these discourses of our Lord and his very
manner, could not but confess the superior excel
lency of his doctrine. I have no objection to speak
of this as a testimony in favor of the Scriptures, or
of the Gospel ; but I would always adduce it as
a testimony forced by evidence from enemies. Le
Clerc, with ad his learning and study, if he taught
salvation in any other way than by having faith in
the atonement of Jesus, imputed for righteousness,
cannot be enroded among Christians. The excel
lency of the morality of Chsist, may very properly
be argued from the confession of great men, and
his greatest enemies may here be brought in as
unsuspected vouchers. But the doctrine of salva
tion to guilty men, through faith in the atonement
of Jesus Christ, is the distinguishing excellency of
the Bible, and to confirm it by testimonies taken
from those who understand not this excellency is
not to serve it. What would Elizabetii have
thought of one of her friends, who, to prove the
excellency of the greatness of his mistress, would
quote the approbation of the lowest political pamph
leteers, AATho understood nothing of the principles
of greatness ? What would NeAvton have thought
of one who Avould haAre complimented him Avith the

THE SCRIPTURES. 287
approbation of some Avriters of mathematical ques
tions in a common almanac, Avho understood none
of his great principles ? What Avould Locke have
thought had some of his friends attempted to raise
the merit of his metaphysics by the approbation of
some pedant that could not enter into any of his
speculations I And what is the Bible obliged to
those who exhibit in its favor, the compliments of
these great men, who, though conversant with it,
were ignorant of its chief design and glory ? No
man's praise, however sincere, is of any A'alue
further than his knowledge. When I hear a coun-
.try pedant praising another as the most consum
mate scholar, though I may be fidly conAdnced of
his sincerity, I cannot give the smadest weight to
his testimony. I Avould rather hear the poorest,
weakest, and most dliterate Christians adduced as
vouchers for the excedencies of the Scriptures,
than ad the endghtened philosophers and states
men in the world. They, and they alone, are a
practical proof of the excedency of the Scriptures,
who, by understanding them, have been " turned
from darkness to light." I would make more
account of the testimony of poor Joseph, the Lon
don idiot, than that of the illustrious NeAvton or
Locke.

DIFFICULTIES IN THE WORKS OF GOD,

DESIONED TO

MANIFEST THE UNBELIEF OF MEN.
Deut. xui. 1—3.

There is one point of analogy in the works of
God, which, from its universality, must be the
effect of design. In examining the works of crea
tion, of providence, and the words of divine grace,
this striking singularity presents itself to us, that
in ad there are instances of apparent negligence, or
want of skill, or of want of design, or of inconsis
tency. As this phenomenon is viewed in any
single instance, or in any number of distances,
without a reference to a general analogy, it has
usuady afforded a plausible source of objections to
unbelievers of every kind. The Atheist, the Deist,
the opposer of the divinity and atonement of the
Son of God, and the adversaries of every thing
that is taught in the Scriptures, find this a never-
failing refuge. The defenders of truth have as
generady overlooked this analogy as their oppo-

290 unbelief.
nents, and have, consequently, been often much
embarrassed in repeding objections. How often
do they wish that in His works and in His word,
God had been a dttle more on His guard, and not
have afforded such a handle to error ?
To those who perceive this analogy, and the de
sign of it, the wisdom of God appears in a character
altogether divine. If, in ad His works, God has
left sufficient marks of the impression of His oato
hand, there is no necessity that He should shut up
every avenue to invasion, and silence incredulity
by permitting no occasion to make it manifest. On
the contrary, if men "love darkness rather than
light," Avhy should not occasion be afforded to em
bolden them to make knoAvn their choice ? If men
are haters of God, Avhy should He not give them
opportunity for rebellion ? What the weakness of
man would incline him to prevent in his own case,
in like circumstances human wisdom is inclined to
wish that God would prevent in His own.
Let us turn our eyes to the works of creation,
and see what pretext they afford to the Atheist.
Time and the discoveries of natural philosophy
have, no doubt, deprived him of many of his argu
ments, or answered many of his objections, but as
much still remains to his purpose as may give him
room to talk. What a disproportionate share of
this little globe do vre find under seas ! How much
of it is taken up Avith mountains, sands, and unin-

unbelief. 291
habitable deserts! How much rendered noxious
by the,unwholesomeness of the climate! How
much scarcely habitable by excessive heats and
colds ! Of what use are those immense tracts
covered by perpetual snow ? Why are these seas
impassible by mountains of ice? By such argu
ments as these, Mr. Hume and others have thought
themselves entitled to conclude that there is no
sufficient evidence that the world is the effect of
a designing cause or if there is design in the
cause, that there is no reason to believe that it
was guided by goodness and wisdom. The phdo-
sophers in reply, have, no doubt, pointed out many
usefid purposes served by some of the things ob
jected to by the Atheist, and have made the best
apology they could for others. But after all that
can be said — it must be owned that Almighty
power joined with infinite wisdom and goodness,
could have produced a world with ad the advan
tages of the present, without any of those incon
veniences complained of by the Atheist. In stand
ing up as the advocate of God, the phdosopher
rather apologises for the imperfections ofthe objec
tionable parts of the divine workmanship, than
vindicates their wisdom. It appears to me, that in
repelling the attacks of the Atheist, we may assume
a firmer tone, and take a shorter course. When
we have from the innumerable and irresistible
evidence of wisdom, power, and goodness, proved

292 UNBELIEF.
that the world is the work of an Almighty, ad wise
and good being, we are not bound to show these
perfections in every acre of barren sand. We need
not struggle with him about the advantages of
mountains, rocks, and deserts. Whatever other
thing God may have designed by these, one obvi
ous use of them is to afford an occasion to make
manifest the pride and atheism of the human
heart. In like manner, in the works of Providence, many
occasions to error are afforded. Though a sparrow
cannot fad to the ground vrithout God's knowledge,
though His power is exerted continually about ad
His works, it is astonishing how Providence hides
Himself from the eyes of carnal men. He moves
the very tongue that reviles Him. Yet men in
general perceive no need for His operation, except
in effecting miracles. What are called the laws of
nature, are merely the process according to which .
He usually works ; but in this way He hides Him
self from the world, and has given occasion to them
to worship this idol instead of Himself. Nature is
the god most usuady in the view of men. In send
ing good and evil, God gives occasion to men to sup
pose that there is no particular providence, or if
theire is, that he makes no distinction between sin
and holiness. My field, said one, produces as sure
a crop as that of my neighbor.
She like difficulties occur to the student of moral

UNBELIEF. 293
science. How many plausible objections may be
made to the testimony even of the senses. By a
patient codection of supposed lying reports, we are
seriously warned not to trust our eyes, our ears, or
any of our senses. A jaundiced eye makes white
appear yedow; therefore, we should not believe
our eyes, when they ted us that there is a world. A
man who has a leg cut off, may feel pain in a toe
of that foot many years afterwards ; therefore, it is
irrational to give credit to the testimony of feeling.
A ventriloquist may speak so as to make us believe
that the voice is not coming from himself, but from
under the earth, from the clouds, or from any other
quarter ; therefore, wo ought not to give credit to
the reports of our sense of hearing. By crossing
our fingers, we may feel a little bad double, there
fore we ought not to take for truth the reports of
feeling. By indisposition, the most pleasant food
appears of a different taste ; therefore we ought not
to believe the sense of taste. By such arguments
as these, sceptical phdosophers have thought them
selves justifiable in not believing the existence of an
external world. Who thinks a pity of those foolish
wise men ? Is it not right that they should have
some occasion to discover to the world their mad
ness? Let us turn now to the Deist, and see what pre
text he can find in the Scriptures to justify his
impiety. There is enough to give him boldness to

294 UNBELIEF.
declare his disapprobation of the wisdom of God.
See Avhat a formidable series of seeming inconve
niences and contradictions he has mustered up.
How many people, when they reflect on this sub
ject, cannot refrain from regretting that the Scrip
tures contain such blemishes ! Though they adow
that the difficulties are capable of solution, they
cannot but think it would have been better, had
there been no occasion for such solutions. This is
man's Avisdom, but God's Avisdom is different. It
gives the Infidel a handle for unbelief.
The same point of analogy discovers itself in
every thing taught in Scripture. The Lord Jesus
and the Apostles were aware of the coming of Anti
christ. Yet, in their phraseology, there are not
wanting occasions of seeming justification of Ids
pretensions. When Christ gave the keys of the
kingdom of heaven to Peter, and the power of
remitting sins to the Apostles, could he not, espe-
ciady as he must have been aAvare of the use that
afterwards would be made of his language, have
used a mode of expression that would not possibly
have admitted of such perversion ? Do not most
Protestants, on reading the words referred to, wish
that Christ had been a little more circumspect in
his phraseology ? To me it appears that ad such
expressions are intentionally to make manifest
those who hate the truth. We shall find that the
Socinian, Arian, and every other enemy of the

UNBELIEF. 295
truth, may plead from Scripture phraseology, some
plausible defence of their errors. Men in general,
who oppose these errors, would most scrupulously
avoid the phraseology that God seems intentionally
to employ. The same observation may be made
with respect to ad the differences among Christians.
What can be alleged by any of them against any
thing that is taught by Scripture, is no better than
what can be adeged by the greatest unbelievers.
By perverting Scripture phraseology, they show
their disaffection to that part of divine truth which
they have not been taught.
Instead of making the application, as might be
done in a thousand instances, I spare the feelings
of my brethren, and leave them to make the appfi-
cation themselves. If the works of creation and
Providence, afford a pretext to the perverseness of
men, let not Christians think themselves safe when
they take shelter under apparent difficulties. Were
it not for their own ignorance and alienation from
truth, these difficulties would have no weight.

THE STANDARD OF DIVINE TRUTH,

Before any important advances can be made in
any science, the foundations of it must be ascer
tained and accurately discerned by those employed
in rearing the superstructure. Whatever rests on
any other grounds, though it may add to the appa
rent size of the budding, diminishes its strength
and beauty. For more than two thousand years,
the inquiries of philosophers concerning the works
of God, were carried on by hypothesis invented by
ingenious men, for explaining the phenomena of
nature, and during ad that time, few real discove
ries were made with respect either to matter or
mind. Lord Bacon was the first who clearly point
ed out the proper method of philosophising ; Sir
Isaac Newton on natural philosophy, and Doctor
Reid on the science of the mind, were the first to
put it in practice. In both of these departments
of knowledge, one theory succeeded another tld the

298 STANDARD OF
time of these dlustrious phdosophers; but since
that period, their respective sciences rest upon a
foundation from which they can never be moved.
And what has produced this remarkable difference
between their systems, and those of all preceding
phdosophers ? It is solely to the standard of truth
which they ascertained, and to which in ad their en
quiries they appealed. Had he invented a theory, and
proceeded by conjecture, Newton, with ad his vast
abilities, would have reared only a temporary fabric
to be blown away by the next innovator. The phi
losophy of Aristotle reigned in the schools without
a rival, till the time of Des Cartes. That great man
completely overturned the theories of the Stagyrite,
but instead of building on more stable ground, he
set himself to invent a theory of his own. By the
contrivance of an immense whirlpool of subtle mat
ter, he carried round the heavenly bodies in their
evolutions, like straws and chaff in a tub of water ;
and this wild conjecture satisfied a great part of
the learned of Europe for a considerable time, and
with many, prevented the reception, even of the
discoveries of Newton, for half a century. De
spising vain conjectures, and being guided in his
experiments and observations by those self-evident
rules of phdosophising which he had laid down,
Newton ascertained those laws of nature that must
forever give satisfaction to the mind of man.
The revolution effected by Doctor Reid in the

DIVINE TRUTH. 299
philosophy of the mind, is not less wonderful than
that effected by Sir Isaac Newton, in that of
matter. By taking for granted principles that are
false, and rejecting the authority of others that are
self-evident, philosophy, tid his time, had estab
lished the most monstrous and incredible absurd
ities. The principles adopted by phdosophers had
rejected the testimony of the senses, and left no
evidence even that there is an external world. By
the most conclusive reasoning from these principles,
Berkley had proved that there is no matter in the
universe, and with equal validity Hume advanced
a step farther, and boldly annihilated both matter
and mind. According to this great philosopher,
there is neither matter nor mind, neither God nor
devd, nor angel nor spirit, nothing in the universe
but impressions and ideas. And ad these mon
strous absurdities flowed regularly from the princi
ples acknowledged by ad philosophers tid the time
of Doctor Reid. And how did Reid restore us the
world, from the united grasp of ad the wise men
of the world ? By settling the standard of phfloso-
phical truth, by vindicating the authority of the
testimony of our senses, and rejecting that of the
figments of philosophers. In ascertaining the
powers and faculties of the human mind, he ad
mitted no appeal but to the mind itself by observa
tion and experiment ; and every fan result of such
an appeal he received with avidity, however oppo-

300 STANDARD OF
site to the established sentiments of philosophers.
By this process he has done more to ascertain the
principles of the human constitution, than ad the
philosophers who preceded him ; and its only by
folloAving in his track that this science can be
perfected. It would not be without interest for a Christian
to read the observations of this phdosopher on
hypotheses, as almost without exception, they ap
ply to the theories of men with respect to the
contents of the Scriptures. If hypotheses have led
men to misinterpret the works of God, hypotheses
have led them to misinterpret His word. The
analogy is singularly striking.
And if human conjecture has ever faded with
respect to the works of creation, shad it succeed
with respect to the depths of the divine counsels in
the redemption of sinners ? Vain theologians, Avid
ye not learn from this that the way to discover the
mind of God, is not to form hypotheses, but to
examine the Scriptures ? What is it produces
your infinite diversities? How is it ye deduce
from Scripture your innumerable errors ? Ye form
theories, and then wrest the Scriptures to agree
with these. With the arrogance of Satan, ye de
termine, by your own views, what must be the
divine conduct and plans, and with satanic inge
nuity and effrontery, ye torture His word to speak
your sentiments.. While in words ye acknowledge

DIVINE TRUTH. 301
the Scriptures to be a standard, ye take the liberty
of erecting a standard of paramount authority in
your OAvn understandings, and of interpreting the
oracles of God, by the delusions of your own fan
cies. Though ye cad the Scriptures a standard, ye
do not allow them to be the sole standard of diA-ine
truth. Some things, ye say, God has left to be
planned by the wisdom of man. How, then, can
ye escape error? How can ye agree with each
other ? Christians, have ye no errors, have ye no
differences ? Bedeve it, they are mostly owing to
the same cause. Strange as on first view it may
appear, Christians do not ad agree in the source of
religious sentiments. Do not some, even tid this
moment, contend that some things are left to human
institution ? What common principle have we then
to reason with such? With them the Scriptures
are not the sole standard. Others by distinctions
and difference of times, and various inventions,
have considerably abridged this standard, so that
almost the half of its testimony is not heard in evi
dence, but rejected as irrelevant. The testimony
of the Holy Spirit is treated like that of an old
honest but doating man, who speaks now and then
to the purpose, but is perpetuady subject to mental
wanderings. Even among those who acknowledge
the Scriptures as the sole standard, I find there
are vain controvertists, who steadily and uniformly
act up to their avowed principles. When the

302 STANDARD OF DIVINE TROTH.
interest of a favorite dogma is at stake, every arti
fice is employed to make the witness prevaricate.
With ad their deference for the authority of the
divine word, how do they grapple with it, when it
seems to enjoin any disagreeable practice ? Chris
tians, in ascertaining the mind of God, let us
banish all the prejudices and prepossessions of our
own minds. Let us listen to the Scriptures as the
rule, as the perfect standard. Let nothing be
received, because it commends itself to our wisdom;
let nothing be objected for want of this sanction.
Let us remember that, in ad things, the wisdom of
God is not like the wisdom of man.

FAITH THE FOUNDATION

GREATER PART OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE.

Philosophers have labored much to rest all their
knowledge on the foundations, not only of self-evi
dent, but of necessary truth. They have esteemed
it an affront to their art, not to be able to deduce
ad their doctrines from the intuitive light of their
own reasoning faculty. Evidence has been sup
posed to consist in the perception of the agreement
or disagreement of our ideas ; and consequently, to
believe any thing which is not the result of the
operation of reason, is to believe without authority.
For this purpose some of our greatest philoso
phers have renounced the empire of common sense,
and commenced their career with universal scepti
cism. Even their own existence, and the existence
of the world, cannot be taken for granted. These
truths must be proved by reason, or they must
want a foundation. But they have labored in vain.

304 FOUNDATION OF EN0AVLEDG-E. **"
After ad the exertions of the greatest human facul
ties, it cannot be proved even that there is a world,
unless implicit credence is given to the testimony
of the senses. Not only do men in general, but
even phdosophers themselves, continue to believe
in then* OAvn existence and in the existence of the
Avorld, not from the arguments alleged by Des
Cartes, Malebranche, Arnauld, and Locke, but from
the testimony of consciousness and the senses.
The theologian who loves to strut in the philoso
pher's steps, and to ape his sentiments and language,
has also talked much of subjecting the contents of
the word of God to the control and determinations
of reason. What cannot be comprehended or
accounted for by the reasoning faculty, it is sup
posed irrational to believe. With this standard in
his hands, he goes through the Scriptures, pruning,
and retrenching, and refining, and supplying, that
the dictates of the Spirit may be modeded, so as to
pass the review of human reason.
According to their different degrees of intrepid
ity and prejudice, the various sects have modeded
the Scriptures by the principles of reason. Some
content themselves by taking from divine truth
some of her strongest features, and giving her those
additional graces that human Avisdom can supply ;
Avhile others deface every marked feature in her
countenance, dimmish her to a very pigmy, and
instead of her oavu noble deportment, give her

FOUNDATION OF KNOWLEDGE. 305
the airs, gestures, and voice of our rational Chris
tians. It is no unpleasing thing to find these vain pre
tensions refuted and ridiculed, even in the philoso
pher, by the first name in moral science. Doctor
Reid irresistibly proves that the greater part of the
knowledge, even of the philosopher, rests upon
foundations of which no account can be given.
Many things, we believe, not because our reasoning
faculty perceives the evidence, but because, by the
principles of our constitution, we are irresistibly
determined to believe. Reason, he asserts, can lay
no claim to the greater part of the knowledge of
which phdosophy boasts. " By his reason he can
discover certain abstract and necessary solutions of
things ; but his knowledge of what ready exists, or
did exist, comes by another channel, which is open
to those who cannot reason. He is lost to it in the
dark, and knows not how he come by it."
How is the philosopher assured that he thinks,
and reasons, and exists? Is the belief of these
truths a deduction of his reason ; or must he de
pend solely on the testimony of his consciousness
for the reality of these things ? Why does he be
lieve the reports of memory with respect to what
happened to him the preceding hour? Does he
ever seek any other reason than that he clearly
remembers it ? Yet the belief of the veracity of
memoryis not a deduction of memory, but a prin-

306 FOUNDATION OF ENOAVLEDGE.
ciple of the human constitution. Let him open his
eyes and look at the sun. Why, great philosopher,
do you believe in the existence of yon vast orb of
light? Can you prove it by abstract reasoning?
Is your conviction the result of the operation of
your reasoning powers? No. You bedeve that
the sun exists, because you see it. You have no
better foundation for your conviction than the ab
solutely perfect redance you have in the testimony
of the senses. And what are the senses ? Are they
not witnesses appointed by God to report to you
certain truths that are necessary for your welfare ?
You receive the report of your senses with the
unsuspecting confidence of a little child ; but the
testimony of God in the Scriptures, with respect to
His own character, and the work of His son Jesus
Christ, you Avill not receiA-e upon ad the authority
of the Almighty. Yet, you never Avid enter into
the kingdom of heaven unless you receive it as a
little child. The testimony of God must be received
on the authority of the reporter. Implicit credence
must be given to his word, without requiring cor
roboration from the testimony of human reason.
We can give no more account of our belief of the
existence of the world, than of our befief of the
character and atonement of the Son of God.
What a vast proportion of our knowledge depends
upon the testimony of men ! Were we to refuse
assent to every thing but Avhat comes under our

FOUNDATION OF KNOWLEDGE. 307
own immediate review, we Avould sweep away all
our knowledge of foreign countries and of past
times, and reject the immense treasures heaped up
for our use by the experience of others. On these
principles the greatest genius on earth would never
advance beyond chddhood. But Avhatever incre
dulity a man may profess, he is irresistibly deter
mined to rely upon the testimony of others, and it
is not till we are deceived that we learn to regulate
our belief in human testimony by the criterion that
experience has proved to be a necessary limitation.
If, then, we believe the testimony of men, greater
is the testimony of God. Why, then, wid not men
submit to the report that God has given of His son ?
Was the credibility of any witnesses ever better
'attested than that of the Apostles? Was there
ever any historical fact better proved than the
death, resurrection, and atonement of Jesus Christ ?
Does the authenticity of any book present such a
mass of varied evidence as the Bible? The voice
of the Lord, attested by innumerable credible wit
nesses, cads continuady from heaven, proclaiming
mercy, through belief in the atonement, to the vdest
of the human race ; yet men in general, instead of
hailing the good news, go about to fortify themselves
in rejecting the credibdity of the message. The
multitudes that pretend to pay any attention to the
voice of God, instead of receiving the testimony of
the divine word, like that of any plain honest man,

308 FOUNDATION OF KNOWLEDGE.
in the evident sense of the language, have employed
themselves in altering the report, and suiting it to
the corrupt tastes of the various classes of society.
In this place we hear the Apostles speaking like
phdosophers, and preaching the doctrine of the ra
tional Christians. In another they assume the gri
mace and cant of enthusiasm. Here they are made
to utter the dictates of moral science, and there they
enjoin the austerities of monkish superstition. With
some you would think that they had no other busi
ness but to wrangle about party politics ; with
others, they are thought fit for no other employ
ment but the civilization of barbarians or the regu
lating of the manners of society.
Let Christians seek no other authority for the ,
belief of anything, than that God has taught it in
His word. While others shoAv their rebellion against
God, by replying against His word, let them receive
Avith promptness and gratitude every communica
tion of the unerring word.

THE

WORLD BY WISDOM KNEW NOT GOD.

1 Cos. i. 21.

The powers of the human mind, though puny in
comparison with the divine wisdom, are great in
themselves. Though unequal to the task frequently
assigned them, their efforts, when legitimately em
ployed, are truly astonishing. The great intedects
of Des Cartes and Leibnitz, when employed hypo-
theticady on the formation of worlds, are lost in an
abyss. Their theories are only the ingenious reve
ries of learned madmen. But when we behold in
Newton the lawful direction of the human faculties,
we are constrained to admire their wonderful capa
city. What an amazing depth have the intellects
of that single man penetrated into the works of
God ! The worlds formed by the imagination of
other philosophers, he overthrew with a touch, and
discovered the admirable simplicity of the laws that
govern the works of creation. Has the sagacity
and patient exercise of the faculties of the human

310 THE WORLD BT WISDOM
mind determined the motions, dimensions, and dis
tances of the heavenly bodies ? Look into the
discoveries of natural philosophy, and admire the
extent of human intedect. On the foundation of a
few axioms what a stupendous fabric has been
reared by mathematics ! In every human science
where the powers of man have been properly
directed, there success has been superior to the
most sanguine anticipation. The inspiration of the
Almighty hath given him understanding.
But let us try these wise men on things that
relate to God. Have they discoATered the glories
of the divine character ? Have they made a pro
per estimate of the character of man ? Have they
perceived the origin of the guilt and misery of the
human race ? Have they seen that men are by
nature universally in rebellion against then maker,
and, consequently, the children of wrath ? Have
they discovered the way to heaven? Have they
told us how God can be both just and merciful —
the just God, yet the Saviour of the ungodly?
Have ad their searches after God discovered His
nature, or given any light to the guilty, in order
acceptably to approach Him? No; in all these
things they are very children. In answering these
questions, they are like men shooting at a mark in
the blackness of midnight.
That God might give a fad trial to the efforts of
human wisdom on these subjects, and silence for-

KNEW NOT GOD. 311
ever the arrogant pretensions of phdosophy, learn
ing had been deeply cultiA*ated for several centuries
before the proclamation of that truth that saves the
sinner. For a period of more than five hundred
years, the subtlety of the genius of the phdosophers
of Greece had been diligently and enthusiastically
employed in inquiries about God, virtue, and hap
piness. But in ad these five hundred years, instead,
of discovering anything like the truth they made
not the smadest approaches towards it. Instead of
pointing out the tame way to virtue and happiness,
their learned theories only bloated the mind with
increased measures of vanity, and served to show
that the wickedness of the human heart increases
with an increase of its Avisdom. These wise men
differed from the vulgar only in the excess of their
arrogance. Their investigations led to scepticism
or atheism ; and when they had not these results,
they never raised an individual above the folly of
polly theism. It is usual with the learned men of
modern times, to endeavor to cover the nakedness
of their ancient brethren. In excuse for the worship
of the gods by the sages of Greece and Rome, it is
adeged that their compliance was only out of con
straint or courtesy. If the excuse is founded in
truth, it condemns their honesty, and robs these
boasted sages of all pretensions to virtue. While
they talked so much of truth and of virtue, how
can they be justified in not confessing the truth

312 THE WORLD BT WISDOM
which they are supposed to possess ?' But, although
they occasionady speak something rationady of
some of the divine attributes, there is, in my appre
hension, not the smadest reason to suppose that any
of them who were not Atheists, were anything but
Polytheists. The patriarch of the heathen world,
(as Socrates is styled, I think by Lord Shaftesbury,)
though ridiculed on the stage by Aristophanes as
an Atheist, died in the sincere profession of the
worship of the gods. Before his death, he ordered
his friend to sacrifice a cock to Esculapius. What
were the gods of the Epicureans ? Lazy, volup
tuous sensualists, who lived at a great distance
above the clouds, and took no concern about the
affairs of men. What a poor view of the divine
character Avas entertained by the stoics, is seen
in every line of their phdosophy. Then man of
virtue was superior to then Jupiter. Instead of
needing mercy from divine clemency, he scorned
to crouch under ad the effects of the unprovoked
rage of heaven. The wise man might be happy
independent of Jupiter, and even as his opponent ;
yet, as the Pharisees among the religious sects of
the Jews, the Stoics were the strictest sect among
the philosophers.
That the highest efforts of human wisdom might
be exerted, there was nothing wanted to stimulate
their genius. They were divided into different
sects, who were perpetually at war. Each phdo-

KNEW NOT GOD. 313
sopher was roused by all the strongest passions, to
labor for the honor of his system. Phdosophy was
not merely the ornament, but the very business of
life for thousands of- the acutest men. The appro
bation of numerous disciples increased the exer
tions of the heads of sects, and the perpetual dis
cussions among their followers, could not but
sharpen the penetration, and increase the vigor, of
the human mind. As war increases the courage
and prowess of nations, controversy undoubtedly
increases the energy of the mental powers among
warring sects. And what Avas the result of all
their inquiries, of all their intricate discussions ?
Let us receive an answer to this question from the
month of God Himself: " For it is written, I will
destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to
nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where
is the wise ? where is the scribe ? Avhere is the
disputer of this world? Hath not God made
foolish the Avisdom of this world ? For after that
in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew
not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of
preaching to save them that believe." — 1 Cor. i.
19-21. So far from discovering the divine charac
ter, and the plan of salvation, God testifies of these
sages, that, professing themselves to be wise, they
became fools.
That the wisdom of this world is still not only
unequal to the discovery of divine truth, but in

314 THE WORLD BY AVISDOM
dreadful opposition to it, when discovered, is seen
in the doctrines of our modern philosophers. In
many things respecting the perfections of God,
they speak more rationally than their ancient
brethren, owing to the light of revelation, Avhich
sheds some of its rays on those Avho are blind to its
true glory. They have rejected polytheism, and
ascribe immensity, and eternity, and many other
attributes, to then god. But he is a god, perfect
neither in mercy nor in justice. He neither saves
the guilty, nor condemns eA-ery transgressor. With
the above exceptions, the god of the phdosopher is
not materially different from the god of the ancient
sage. Their man of virtue is in eveiy essential
point the same. Modern philosophers are even
found to acknowledge this. They are willing to
give a just theme of praise to the happy tendency
of the labors of their great predecessors. Mr.
Dugald Stewart, the greatest living philosopher in
the science of mind, expressly asserts that some of
the ancient systems Avere rather defective than
erroneous. Philosophy has never changed her
tone. The soul of her systems in every age is
the same. She is every where known by her
hatred of the true character of God, and her
enconiums on the virtue of human kind. If ever
she succeeds in bringing men to find happiness,
it wid be by storming the gates of heaven by
the artillery of moral worth. Learn, then, proud

KNEAV NOT GOD. 315
philosopher, that your Avisdom is fody in the esti
mation of God. Renounce your atheistical de
lusions — submit to the wisdom of _Gocl — receive
the atonement of Jesus. If any man is wise in
this world, let him become a fool, that he may
be wise.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE LOED

MAKES WISE THE SIMPLE.

The question which, in vain, is put to the wis
dom of this world, receives a satisfactory answer
from the weakest of those Avho are taught of God.
Ask the authors of ad the systems of phdosophy
that ever were promulgated, hoAv a sinner can be
saved, and you will receive an answer very differ
ent from that of the Scriptures. They whose genius
has invented the most profound and subtle theories,
supported by the most abstruse speculations — they
who have discovered the laws that regulate the
course of nature — they who can solve the most
difficult problems in the abstract sciences, Avdl
speak like children or simpletons, when they
attempt to point the way of fallen man to heaven.
They will talk inconsistently of virtue and of merit,
of mercy and of justice, of imperfection and of
moral worth. If they deign to recognize the Chris-

318 MAKING WISE THE SIMPLE.
tian system under any view, it is only to make it
speak their own sentiments, and sanction their vain
speculations by the authority of heaven. None of
all the mere philosophers that ever lived coidd per
ceive how mercy and truth meet together, righteous
ness and peace kiss each other. There is a parable
in their sentiments on this subject, and each sys
tem differs not more from truth, than one part of
it does from the other. If human virtue is acknow
ledged by ad to be imperfect, it must come short
of the standard by which it is to be measured.
How, then, can it either merit reward, or screen
from punishment? That which comes not up to
the standard, is in ad things rejected. If God has
not raised that standard unreasonably high, there
can be no excuse for coming short of it. If God
does not require men to come up to His standard,
in order to escape punishment, or receive a reward,
then His standard becomes no standard. It lies,
then, upon philosophers and theologians, Avho pro
pagate the sentiments of philosophers, to point out
that second standard, and to ascertain the neces
sary degrees of excedeiice. But human virtue is
defective, even according to the standard of philo
sophers themselves. How, then, can the best of
men escape divine, wrath ? No mere philosopher
will ever succeed in giving consistency even to his
own scheme.
But while the wise men of this world talk at

MAKING WISE THE SIMPLE. 319
random about the divine attributes, and flatter
their deity with a pomp of incongruous phraseology,
the iditerate peasant, who is taught by the Word
of God, exhibits the divine attributes in all their
extent, expatiates with wonder on their harmony,
and proclaims fhe name of that God, whom to
know is eternal life. The truth that the wisest of
the sons of men do not understand, is understood
by thousands of the weak things of this world.
Ask'poor Joseph, the London simpleton, the way
to heaven, and he will reply : " It is a faithful say
ing, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ
came into the world to save sinners, not excepting
the Aery chief."
It is astonishing to obseiwe what cultivation of
mind the knowledge of the truth confers on the
illiterate. They are enabled to talk rationally and
consistently^ on the divine character and plan of
salvation, when there is nothing but darkness,
inconsistency, and error, in the discourses of the
philosopher. Viewing this world in the light in
which it is represented in the Scriptures, they
obtain more correct views of everything respecting
the state of man, and the divine government. The
present state of man is the most difficult problem
that human wisdom has to encounter — a problem
that it cannot solve. But the knowledge of the
truth explains all the phenomena of human conduct,
and makes the- Christian the only true philosopher-

320 MAKING AVISE THE SIMPLE.
Self-knowledge, it has always been the boast of
philosophy to confer, and her employment to re
commend. " Know thyself," is the great injunc
tion of the ancient philosopher, which has always
been supposed to contain the essence of ad wisdom.
But no man knows himself, till he knows the truth
in which his true character and situation are exhi
bited. Of all truths, self-knowledge is the one of
which the philosopher is most ignorant. He specu
lates on the human character, and traces the
sources of human action ; but he wants the key
that can alone open the secret recesses of the heart.
He may ascertain with great accuracy, the various
powers and faculties of the mind, and communicate
many valuable observations on their culture ; but,
to the moral state of the mind, he is an utter
stranger. Partiality to himself and his race, makes
him mistake its language on this subject. He
hides the depravity of human thought, and veds
the evil that appears in the conduct, under the
names of imperfection, or defective virtue. When
he draws a picture of human nature, flattery guides
the pencil. Her hectic cheek he suffuses with the
redness of health and vigor, and her loathsome dis
eases he throws into the shade, or covers Avith
drapery. While the philosophers motto is, " know
thyself," it ought rather to be, " know everything
but thyself."
The Christian, however illiterate, views human

MAKING WISE THE SIMPLE. 321
nature in a juster light. He traces her seeming
virtues to their true source, either in appearance
only or in her constitution. The benevolent affec
tions which are the philosopher's great boast, and
which are almost his only hope, the Christian
ascribes to the constitution, which is the result of
divine wisdom, and entitled to the rank of moral
worth, no more in man than in brute, in whose na
ture they are found as far as they are necessary for
the preservation of the individual and the species.
What the philosopher considers as slight failings or
frailties, the residt of excusable imperfection, the
Christian condemns as manifesting enmity to God.
He sees that in him, that is in his flesh, or as he
is born, there is no good thing.
How much the fight of the Christian peasant
with respect to Providence, and the divine govern
ment, exceeds that of the phdosopher, may be seen
in an instant from their observations on a newspaper.
The former speaks like one admitted to the council
of his heavenly sovereign ; the other speaks as if
there were no God, or no control of Providence.
Where the one finds ad tilings dark, unaccountable
and forbidding, the other finds ad things clear and
consolatory. While the man of wisdom hides his
head, like a child in a thunderstorm, the man of
God smiles when he hears the terrible voice of his
great Creator. In short, the Christian sees every
thing around him with so much more clearness and

322 MAKING WISE THE SIMPLE.
accuracy, that he is like a man with an additional
sense. A great philosopher observes, that to com
prehend time and space, the human mind perhaps
wants an additional faculty. To behold the char
acter of God and of man, the human mind wants
the light of heaven. May the Lord open the heart
of those deluded men, to attend to the things spoken
by the Apostles, instead of then own vain specu
lations. The cultivation of mind, conferred by the know
ledge of the truth, is seen in a striking point of
vieAV, in the precision and facility with which
many illiterate men speak on subjects, on which
even those who have employed all their lives in
schools and studies cannot speak, Avithont commit
ting everything to memory. This is so observable,
that many Avho are enemies to the Gospel, cannot
but wonder Avhile they revile.
It has been often said, that it is necessary for
philosophy to go before, as the harbinger of Chris
tianity, that the minds of men may be civilized
before they be Chistianized. How unfounded this
opinion is, no Christian needs to be instructed. Its
fallacy may appear even to blindness itself. Who
were the bitterest enemies of the truth in the days
of the Apostles ? — the philosophers, next to the
religious zealots. Fanaticism expresses her rage
by the paroxisms of madness. Philosophy attempts
to laugh the Gospel out of the Avorld, and scoavI her

MAKING WISE THE SIMPLE. 323
from the earth by the supercilious brow of cool
contempt. Instead of taking the Apostle by the
hand at Athens, and introducing him to the favora
ble reception of the people, both Stoics and Epicu
reans encountered him. Come, said the haughty
Arise men, let us hear what these babblers have to
say. The Gospel, so far from finding a friend in
philosophy, meets her as an enemy, and treats her
as an impious seducer of men to the worship of a
false god. She need* not her services ; she fears
not her attacks. Though the Gospel is the power
of God to the salvation of the philosopher, as Avell
as the vulgar, it is an awful truth, that not many
of the Avise men of this world are enlightened by it.
The wisdom and sovereignty of God have left the
schools of philosophy, and seats of learning gene
rally, in the possession of His enemies, Avhile He has
chosen the foolish things of this world to confound
the wise. This is a fact obvious to every Christian
that is at all conversant Avith the world. What
reason can we assign for this ? Shall we say^ that
the Gospel is not able to change the philosopher ?
Shad we ascribe it to the weakness of the Gospel,
or to the wickedness of the philosopher ? To
neither. We reply with Jesus, &c.

SOLUTION ,OF THE GREAT PARADOX,
Exodus xxxiv. 6, 7.

When Jehovah declared His character to Moses,
He proclaimed " the Lord, the Lord God, merciful
and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in good
ness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiv
ing iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will
by no means clear the guilty." These words are
well known and often repeated for the encourage
ment of repenting sinners ; but they are very gene
rally misunderstood. Hpon first sight they appear
a paradox, and few venture to quote them without
some qualifying epithet to reconcile the apparent
contradiction. How is it that the different parts
of this seemingly inconsistent character can be
viewed in harmony ? If God clears not the guilty,
how does He forgive iniquity? If He forgives
iniquity, must He not clear the guilty ? Which of
these attributes shall we limit or modify to make it
consist with the other ? Shad we lower the claims

326 THE GREAT PARADOX.
of both, and find a union by a compromise ? Let
us try the first. It is said that Jehovah clears not
the guilty. Nqw, as all men are more or less
guilty, consequently, if we should understand the
Avord in a strict sense, no one could be saved.
What if we should suppose that the word guilty
means those who are egregiously gudty. The
meaning, then, will be a vTery comfortable one for
the budc of mankind, Avho, though they cannot
plead entire innocence, are in their OAvn eyes far
from enormity of transgression. It wid import
that though God will forgive iniquity to a certain
extent, this is not to be understood as an encourage
ment for heinous sins. People of tolerably good
moral conduct have no reason to fear on account of
a few slips ; but let not adulterers, murderers, and
reprobates of that description, dare to shelter them
selves under the wings of divine mercy. This
seems to agree very Avell AA-ith the hopes of many,
whose language intimates that they expect this
sort of leniency from God. He is not very exact in
counting the sins of men. He marks no little sins ;
if they can answer for one in a thousand of their
transgressions, they are not far astray.
Aye, but there is one thing spoils this comfortable
scheme of divinity. Like Des Cartes' world, it is
the invention of human wisdom, not the plan of
Jehovah. It looks admirably well in theory, but
if we bring it to the test of truth, it is annihilated

THE GREAT PARADOX. 327
by a touch. Guilty cannot mean merely guilty in
excess, but must apply to every degree of guilt.
Whatever be the nature or magnitude of the crime
with which a criminal is charged, if it is proved,
he is found gudty. Punishment is indeed propor
tioned to guilt ; but a criminal is brought in and
sentenced as guilty, as Avell for petty larceny as for
murder or high treason. The word guilty, then,
must apply to every sin, and to every degree of
sin. Since the term guiltyr is so very stubborn as not
to bend to our system, what if we should try the
effect of some explanatory epithet? Instead of
guilty, let us suppose the phrase to be impenitently
guilty, and we will have a meaning admirably to
our purpose. Li confirmation of this explanation,
besides the invincible necessity of the thing itself,
we have then the authority of almost all divines.
This description of the divine character is scarcely
ever heard from the pulpit in any other sense. To
repeat the passage \rithout supplying this necessary
modification, might frighten sinners too much, and
drive them to despair. For if God does not clear
the guilty, Avhat comes of sinners ? The admirable
moral tendency of this explanation is also a very
strong recommendation ; while it leaves hope to
.poor penitents who have abandoned their sins, and
Avho, though not positively virtuous, are doing all
they can by their prayers and tears to supply the

328 THE GREAT PARADOX.
deficiency. This view cannot countenance sin, be
cause it gives no hope to the sinner tid he finds
himself a penitent. It gives no unnecessary dis
couragement to sinners, because there is mercy
enough for them, if they are only willing to quit
their sins. Surely, then, we have at last hit upon
the true theory that wid reconcde ad inconsis
tencies and avoid ad extremes.
The whole fabric is not only proportionable, but
strong in every part but the foundation ; but as
that happens to be entirely on a running sand,
it will tumble as soon as assailed by wind and
water. Were the word impenitently to be re
cognised by the Scriptures, nothing could over
turn our system. But the misfortune is, the autho
rity of God is opposed to that of the divines,
and our fair scheme, with ad its advantages, van
ishes into air. We have no more warrant to
say impenitently gndty, than Ave have to say inno
cently guilty.
If neither of the opposite parts of their charac
ter wid bend so as to unite with the other, we
might try to meet them by obliging both to give
a little. A smad concession of the claims on
each side would make peace. I have no doubt
that in this way we might form a very pretty
theory; but as it would be subject to the same
unfortunate objections, we shall spare ourselves
the trouble.

THE GREAT PARADOX. 329
Since we can make nothing of tins passage by
our own AAdsdom, let us try to exhibit it in the
light of revelation. Let us see if there is not a
view hi Avhich the opposite parts of this character
are perfectly reconcilable with each other. If the
Avord of God shows us how God can pardon sin
Avithour clearing the guilty, then there is a sure
refuge for sinners ; then the wisdom of God will
appear as much superior to the wisdom of men, as
heaven is higher than the earth.
The Scriptures declare that God not only par
dons sinners, but even the chief of sinners. The
plan by which he effected this without clearing the
guilty7, is manifested in the atonement of His son
Jesus Christ. He gaAre His son a sacrifice and
a ransom, that he might suffer the punishment of
sin, and that whoever bedeveth in him may not
perish but have everlasting life. Jesus Christ took
on him the sins of his people, and in suffering
under them, was esteemed virtually guilty. The
sins, therefore, of believers haAre been atoned for to
the utmost extent of then desert. When Jesus
became the sinner's surity in the eye of law, those
for whom he suffered are innocent. In pardoning
them, God does not clear the guflty. As gudty,
they have been punished in the death of their
substitute. When their guilt has been purged
away, they must, of necessity, be declared clear.
Whoever, therefore, has had his sins atoned for

330 THE GREAT PARADOX.
in the death of Christ, wid stand before the tri
bunal of God as spotless as an angel. Now, God
declares to the whole world, that whoever be
lieveth in the Lord Jesus Christ shad be saved.
As ad who have their sins atoned for by Christ
shad be cleared on the day of judgment, so all
who believe, and they only, are declared to haAre
their sins thus canceled. Faith in the divine mes
sage, that proclaims Jesus as coming into the
Avorld to die for the guilty, is the medium through
Avhich sinners become interested in his atone
ment. Is not this plan of salvation truly divine ?
Could ever such a way of harmonizing the divine
attributes in saving the gudty have occurred to the
mind of man ? Sinners, abandon every refuge of
lies, invented by delusion and forced on the Avord
of God by constraint. Believe the truth, and ye
shad be pardoned in such a way as wid clear you.
Submit to the Gospel of Christ. All perversions
of the word of God wid be found at last to be
refuges of lies. No scheme of salvation ever in
vented by men, can show the consistency of the
divine character. In the death of Jesus alone can
we find a plan that will consist with the whole
word of God. Notwithstanding the death of
Christ, it stdl remains true that God does not
clear the gudty. All whose sins are not atoned
for in the death of Christ must suffer the fud

THE GREAT PARADOX. 331
retribution of their demerit. Let none dream
of mercy and of escaping through Christ, Avhile
they continue to neglect the Gospel. The same
authority that declares, that whosoever believeth
shad be saved, declares also, he that believeth
not shall be damned.

THE SCHEME OF SALVATION,

BY LAW AND GRACE

IRRECONCILABLE AVITH ITSELF.

Perhaps there never was a man OAA'ning the
divine existence, so full of the opinion of human
merit, as not in some respect to have recourse to
the grace of God. Even Tinclal, Avhose god is more
limited in his powers than an earthly father or
master, speaks of a gracious god. They who deny
the atonement of the Son of God in the proper
sense of the word, speak notwithstanding, of grace
and mercy. Oil the other hand, few of the multi
tudes Avho speak of salvation by grace, hold the
doctrine in such a view as to exclude law and
merit. Tlie scheme of salvation which commands
the approbation of the greatest part of what is
called the Christian Avorld, is that Avhich represents
an interest in the atonement to he procured by the
condition of good works. In opposition to all these,
the Apostles declare salvation to berpurely of grace,

334 LAW AND GRACE.
the free gift of God through Jesus Christ. The
Apostle Paul not only asserts salvation by grace,
and not hy human merit, but declares that salva
tion by grace and works, is a contradiction in terms.
" And, if by grace, then is it no more of works,
otherwise, grace is no more grace. But if it be of
works, then is it no more grace ; otherwise, work
is no more work." — Rom. xi. 6. " For if the inheri
tance be of the law, it is no more of promise ; but
God gave it to Abraham by promise." — Gal. iii. IS.
This is so obvious a dictate of common sense, that
it is strange to find any professing to believe the
Scriptures, and mixing these incongruous elements.
Yet, these things thought so inconsistent by the
Apostle, have been found perfectly reconcilable
by others ; and what Paul "looks upon as a contra
diction, they have considered as a scheme, beauti
fully harmonizing the attributes of God, and the
moral agency of mankind. God is just and gra
cious in the atonement, while man is entitled to
the benefit of this and the reAvard of eternal life,
by his repentance and new obedience. 'This is the
darling scheme of the Avise and the unwise. The
bold conclusions of the Socinian and Arian are em
braced only by a feAV hasty speculatists. They are
never likely to be the refuge of the generality of
mankind. But let us see how the admirers of this popular
scheme reconcile Avhat Paul looked upon as a con-

LAW AND GRACE. 335
tradiction. If it is obvious to common sense, that
grace and merit are irreconcilable, how can those
who haA'e not only common sense, but many that
have much good sense and learning, be blind to
the contradiction ? It seems to me, that they hide
the inconsistency from themselves, by vieAving the
grace of God and the merit of man, as not respect
ing the same things. Were it not for something
of this nature, it would be impossible to attempt to
reconcde things palpably irreconcilable. Tlie same
thing that is given purely of favor, cannot also be
given as wages for work. But they contrive to
appropriate the grace of God to one thing, and the
merit of man to another. The former respects the
giving of Christ as a ransom for sinners ; the lat
ter respects the terms of obtaining an interest in
this ransom. The atonement is all of grace, but
human efforts must obtain an interest in tfiat work.
This surely is the spirit of their doctrine, Avho speak
of the grace of God in salvation, yet of man's being
pardoned through the atonement for his repent
ance, rewarded for his sincere obedience. The
grace of God consists not in giving all freely
through Christ, but in making salvation possible
through him, which was otherwise impossible, in
giving a new and an easier covenant, which re
quires not perfect but sincere obedience. This
they cad a milder law, the Gospel covenant, &c.
In this view, also, some speak of faith itself, as if

336 LAW AND GRACE.
God, on account of the excellent disposition which
it is supposed to manifest, accepts it in lieu of sin
less obedience to his laAv. They seem to have
the same view of God's grace, as they would
of that of a rich man, who, to encourage indus
try among, the poor, would engage to give them
Avages, in value much above their Avork. While
others give but a shiding a day, he gives five.
He is gracious, then, in giving the poor so good
a bargain ; theyr merit their wages, because they
haA'e performed the work. But it is obvious
that when the Scriptures speak of God's grace, and
the opposition of grace and works, they refer to
the Avhole scheme of salvation, and oppose grace to
Avork Avith respect to the same points. In Gal. iii.
18, where Paul asserts the inconsistency of hiAv and
promise, he is speaking against the doctrine of those
Avho made the observance of law necessary to salva
tion, as wed as faith in the death of Christ. In
Rom. xi. 6, it is not only the salvation of sinners
that is represented as of grace, but the election of
them as of grace. The heirs of die are represented
as chosen, not on account of works that they should
do, but altogether out of grace. If so, Avorks of no
kind can ever be represented consistently Avith
Scripture as conditions of salvation. But ad the
ingenuity of all the learned advocates of this hete
rogeneous scheme, has never been able either to
harmonize it with the Scriptures, or even with

LAW AND GRACE. 337
itself. If God requires any conditions on the part
of sinners, it is impossible that salvation is of grace.
However inconsiderable and easy such conditions
may be, however short of the value of what is
gained, stid, when they are performed, they are
Avork, and therefore contrary to grace. When-
they have been performed, they give ground to
glory. If in themselves they are of no value, then
they who have them not, are not inferior in moral
Avorth to those who possess them ; consequently
they are of no value. If, though of no value in
themselves, they are valuable, as commanded by
God, then they who possess them, offer some value
to God for their salvation. But if these conditions
are valuable in themselves, as is generady supposed
by the advocates of this scheme, then, according to
their value, do they afford God a price for wfiat he
gives. If faith, repentance, sincere obedience, are
the work of man, or the productions of man's own
efforts, then his salvation is the fruit of his oavh
labor. If one perishes, because he does not comply
with these terms, and another is saved on account
of them, then salvation is not of grace, but by
human merit. The man who is saved may glory
in the success of his efforts. He cannot be said to
be saved by grace. He has given value for what
he has received ; and although it is not fud value,
it is all that is thought reasonable in his bankrupt
circumstances to require of him. God then still

338 LAW AND GRACE.
demands of him all the debt which he is able to pay.
Is this a salvation of grace ? If faith, repentance,
sincere obedience, are spoken of as the gift of God,
then it is absurd in that view of them, to consider
them as conditions on the part of man. In this
vieAV, the man who receives them has no more
merit than the man who receives them not. If
through faith ; repentance, and sincere obedience,
are the gift of God, but are given to one rather
than another, on account of complying with some
preAtious conditions, it is only removing merit a
dttle farther back, and salvation is the reward of
these preAuous conditions. On the other hand, if it
can be said that salvation is of grace, that eternal
life is the gift of God, then it is absurd and contra
dictory to suppose that the performance of any
thing is required on the part of man. It cannot be
grace that requires — that wid not give without
something in return. It cannot be a gift that
requires a purchase before it is communicated.
No conditions on the part of the sinner can exist
in a free salvation. It is of faith that it might be
by grace. The pride of man is humbled in the
doctrine of the cross. The virtuous sage is able to
offer to God, for his salvation, nothing more than
the abandoned profligate. If they believe the Gos
pel, they both alike are changed by its power ;
they repent, are bom again, and perform good
works.

THE

MAHOMETAN FAST OF RHAMAZAN.

Many persons in their eagerness to support ortho
doxy as a system, speak of salvation by grace and
faith in such a manner as to undervalue holiness
and life devoted to God. But there is no ground
for this in the Holy Scriptures. The same Gospel
that declares salvation to be freely by the grace of
God through faith in the blood of Christ, and asserts,
in the strongest terms, that sinners are justified by
the righteousness of the Saviour imputed to them on
then believing in him, without any respect to works
of law, also assures us that without holiness, no
man shad see God ; that bedevers are cleansed by
the blood of atonement; that their hearts are
purified by faith, which works by love, and over-
cometh the world ; and that the grace that brings
salvation to ad men, teaches those who receive it,
that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, they

340 FAST OF RHAMAZAN.
should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this
present world. Any fear that the doctrine of grace
wid suffer from the most strenuous inculcation of
good works on a Scriptural foundation, betrays an
inadequate and greatly defective acquaintance with
divine truth, and any tampering with the Scrip
tures, in order to sdence their testimony in favor
of the fruits of righteousness, as absolutely neces
sary in the Christian, is a perversion and forgery
with respect to the word of God. Holiness is as
necessary as faith, but it is necessary for a different
purpose. When these purposes are clearly dis
cerned, there wid appear no clashing between faith
and works, between justification by grace through
the atonement, and the fruits of this in righteous
ness and holiness.
On the other hand, there are many who, not dis
criminating between the holiness which is produced
by the bedef of the truth, and that counterfeit piety
which is the offspring of ignorance and superstition,
think favorably of ad who are greatly devoted to
external acts of religion. Tfie man who prays,
must in their estimation, be a man in favor with
God, without considering that he may be praying,
not like Paul after his conversion, but like the
Pharisee for ostentation, or as a legal price for his
salvation. If he fasts, however superstitious may
be his views of religion, it is hoped that God wdl
accept so much piety, though it be in ignorance.

FAST OF RHAMAZAN. 341
If he afflicts himself, and does many things with a
vtiew to please God, and appease His wrath, it is
hard to think, as appears to them, that it wdl be
utterly without advantage to him in the final day
of reckoning. A pidar saint may to them be an
object of contempt, but they will not be so unchari
table as to suppose that his austerities will not be
rewarded, or at least graciously accepted in the
judgment.- These observations forcibly strike us in
reading the fodowing account of the austerities with
which the Mahometans observe their fast Rhamazan.
H persons who set so high a value on merely
external acts of devotion and religious austerities
under the Christian name, would turn their eyeB
to the ancient nations who professed the grossest
idolatries, and modern nations, which are either
Pagan, or Mahometan, they wid find examples of
devctedness and superstitious piety, which go far
beyond those that, under the Christian name, appear
to them to be either meritorious, or in some way
giving a claim to divine favor. The austerities of
heathenism and of false redgion, have infinitely
surpassed the severity of Christian superstitions.
The fodowing article is extracted from a news
paper :
THE RHAMAZAN.
" Constantinople, December 11.
"The continuance of tho Rhauiazan keeps everything con
nected with politics in the most perfect state of stagnation at

342 FAST OF RHAMAZAN.
Constantinople ; fasting, praying, promenading all day, and feast
ing, and making merry all night, is all that is now going on ; and
everything except such daily business as cannot he interrupted, is
put off till the approaching Bairam. The painfully rigid obser
vance which Mahometans pay to the keeping of the fast of Rhama-
zan, throughout the whole month, is most remarkable, and forms a
striking contrast to the so misnamed fasts in Catholic countries.
Here no exception is made in favor of a fine piece of fish, or a
dainty omelette, under the plea of its not being flesh ; nor are any
discussions entered into as to what may be eaten or what may
not ; the term last, or Islam, means total abstinence ; and from the
time the first rays of sun appear above the horizon, till the Murz-
zim from the minaret proclaims the hour of sunset prayer, no mor
sel of food of any kind passes the lips of the rigid Mosleim ; and
even when the Rhamazan falls in the hottest months of summer,
which it sometimes does, (the lunar calender used by the Arabians,
bringing it of course through all the seasons every thirty-three
years,) the hardy Homal in the streets, and the Caiquegi at his
oars, toils through the labors of the day, exposed for so many
hours to the broiling sun, without permitting themselves even a
drop of water, to moisten their parching lips. This, however, is
not all, for incredible as it may. appear, it is no less a fact, that
to some of the more rigid Mussulmans, even the hours of sunset
scarce can be said to bring a breaking of the fast, since during the
night, when it ia permitted to eat, they scarce take what is suffi
cient to support nature. During the month Ehamazan, which thus,
converts night into day, the nature and habits of the Turk may be
said to become entirely changed. Instead of rising as usual, with
the first beams of the morning, and retiring to rest again at a very
early hour, he very rarely quits his couch till mid-day, and de
prived even of the pleasure of his pipe, thus endeavors by sleep to
get through his weary hours of fast. All except those who are
really obliged to work, lay aside business of every kind, and about
three of the day, all the gay world of Stamboul, not excepting the
Sultan himself, may be seen promenading in the large open space
in front of the Seraskier Pacha's. The Sultan, who is incog, on

FAST OF RHAMAZAN. 343
these occasions, passes almost unhoeded through the crowd, and
when he has fatigued himself with walking or riding, he seats him
self in the shop of a tobacconist near the end of the promenade,
from whence he amuses himself in contemplating the gay scene
before him. In the evening, the mosquos and houses are all par
tially illuminated — the streets are again filled, and every calire is
crowded with smokers, enjoying the so-long forbidden chibouque
and amusing themselves with story telling-, magic lanterns, &c,
till morning's dawn again obliges them to commence their rigorous
abstinence. Thus passes the Rhamazan at Constantinople, till the
part of the Bairam which follows again, restores things to their
ordinary course."

THE GENERAL RESURRECTION.

" Marvel not at this : for the hour is coming, in the which all that
are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth ;
they that hath done good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they
that have done evil, unto the the resurrection of damnation." —
John v. 28, 29.
The general resurrection is among the most
awful and interesting scenes that can occupy the
contemplation of man. According as it is viewed
by hope, or by fear, it is calculated to yield the
most transporting joy, or the most pungent pain.
If we understand the way in which God is just,
and the justifier of the ungodly ; if we know the
way in which a gudty creature may approach
Avith confidence, the tribunal of the God of the
whole earth; if we have a wed-founded hope of
enjoying the kingdom prepared for the ransomed
of the Lord, no subject can yield sweeter consola
tion to the mind, than the prospect of rising from
the ruins of mortality. Nature revolts against the

346 THE RESURRECTION.
tfiought of dissolution; it is with reluctance that
the soul is separated from its dearest companion ;
and without abhorrence we cannot contemplate the
corruption and loathsomeness of the grave. No
thing but the hope of finally triumphing over death,
can make the prospect of dissolution, and the gloom
of the mansions of the dead, agreeable, or even
tolerable, to a thinking mind. To view death as
the debt of nature, and the terms on which we
received existence, can yield no real, no substantial
consolation to a dying man. But how grateful to
the mind, to turn from vieAving the rottenness of
the grave, and the worms that are about to devour
the body, to the day when death shad be swadowed
up in victory ; when this corruptible shad have put
on iucorruption, and this mortal shad have put on
immortality !
But, on the other hand, to those who are ignorant
of God, whose consciences testify against them as
evil doers, how insupportable is the view ofthe
resurrection of the dead ? No longer shall the
graves be able to hide their bodies. These must
awake from the rest of death, to suffer the punish
ment of transgression. They shall live, only to
endure merited Avrath. They may now put the
evil day far from them, but it will at last overtake
them as travail doth a woman Avith chdd. The
crimes which they may have concealed from? men,
will now meet them in ad their gudt ; they Avid be

THE RESURRECTION. 347
unable to hide themselves or their deeds from the
eye of Him who shall judge the living and the
dead. Yet such is the blindness of the human mind,
that men often succeed in turning away their eyes
from beholding that aAvful scene. The Ararious
occupations and incidents of life so engross them,
that it is seldom thoughts of so gloomy and disa
greeable a nature are allowed to present themselves.
In health and prosperity men are carried down the
streams of pleasure, and fi-om the various amuse
ments which they have contrived to kill time, they
are secured from the frequent intrusion of serious
reflections. In acute distress, or the bustle of busi
ness, the present feelings occupy the mind ; or if
adversity should force them to perceive the vanity
of earthly things, and obtrude eternity upon their
thoughts, they find relief in the delusions of false
hojje, and false views of their own situation and
character. All is not right, it will be acknow
ledged, but the partiadty Avith which men are in
clined to view then- OAvn conduct, will discover some
good qualities to counterbalance what is amiss,
which, with their incorrect views of the justice and
mercy of God, soothe them in the prospect of
appearing before the judgment-seat of Christ. No
thing more fully evinces the awful situation of
those who are dead in trespasses and sins, than the
torpor and -stupidity of the human mind in view

348 THE RESURRECTION.
of this solemn appearance before the Searcher of
Hearts. Were not men totady dead in sin, they
could not manifest such insensibility and unconcern
about things of such infinite importance. Whde
they are awake to espy and avert the most distant
temporal danger, and to secure every prospect of
temporal happiness to themselves and then latest
posterity, they are little affected with that most ter
rible of ad truths, the appearance before God, and
the eternal misery of the Avicked. This could not
be so, were not men dead, utterly dead, in tres
passes and sins.
Not only do many who profess their belief in a
resurrection, live in a great measure unaffected by
it; there are some who fortify then hearts against
the day of God, by denying this truth or making it
a subject of ridicule. Not knowing the Scriptures
nor the power of God, they raise objections from
phdosophical principles, which at once tend to fos
ter their pride, and harden them in their delusion.
Arrogantly pretending to judge of the power and
operations of God, from their own narrow views of
His works, they have concluded that there can be
no resurrection, as the particles of the bodies of
certain individuals, may have formed part of innu
merable other bodies. " But some man will say,
how are the dead raised up ? and with what body
do they come? Thou fool ! that which thou sowest
is not quickened except it die. And that which

THE RESURRECTION. 349
thou sowest, thon sowest not that body that shall
be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of
some other gram. But God giveth it a body as it
hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own
body."— 1 Cor. xv, 35—38.
No less lamentable, though less shocking, is the
situation of those who speak with pleasme of the
resurrection of the dead, and anticipate with seem
ing delight the reward which they expect for then-
works, who yet are ignorant of the atonement made
by the Lord Jesus Christ, and have their hopes
founded on false views of God and of themselves.
The Apostle Paul declares himself peculiarly af
fected with the situation of such. — Romans x. 1 — 3.
" Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God
for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear
them record, that they have a zeal of God, but not
according to knowledge. For they, being ignorant
of God's righteousness, and*going about to establish
their own righteousness, have not submitted them
selves unto the righteousness of Goel." How
pitiable is the case of those, who, from a hope of
escaping eternal wrath, and of obtaining eternal
glory, deny themselves the gratifications of the
flesh (on which their whole souls are nevertheless
set), submit to the most rigorous and painful morti
fications, and seem totally engrossed with zeal for
God, and are yet strangers fo the new and living
way to the Father !

350 THE RESURRECTION.
But how awful is the situation of those, who,
with seeming transport, resign their bodies to the
grave, while they obstinately continue to reject the
atonement, and to deny the Scripture-character of
our Lord Jesus Christ ! What desperate hardness
of heart, what blindness and stupidity of mind,
does this discover in man ! In what spiritual dark
ness must the human understanding be buried,
Avhen men can profess to rejoice in the life mani
fested in the Scriptures, while they atheistically
deny Him who is the Author of that life ! The
wretch who will curse God and die, is not more
blind than he who, Avhile he praises the god Avhoni
his own wicked heart hath formed, manifests deter
mined enmity against the God of the Scriptures.
What inconsistencies are discovered in the hu
man mind ? With ardent curiosity men endeavor
to discover the origin and early state of nations ;
and trace with eager attention the various steps of
their progress from rudeness to refinement, whde
the volume that contains the true account of the
primitive, present, and future state of man lies
neglected. A nation emerging from barbarism to
civilization, is supposed an object worthy of the
most attentive contemplation ; while the resurrec
tion of the whole inhabitants of the earth, is a truth
which possesses little attraction. The discovery of
an island, and the description of its inhabitants,
more powerfully interest the generality of mankind,

THE RESURRECTION. 351
than the account of the resurrection of man, and
his future destiny through eternity.
A new source of commerce and riches seems
more inviting than the glory and treasures of the
heavenly Jerusalem ; yet surely in itself, as a
subject of mere curiosity, the resurrection of the
human race is the grandest that can employ the
contemplation of man. What an astonishing scene,
when the Lord Jesus shall appear in the heavens,
with ad his mighty angels, in all the majesty of the
God and Judge of the earth ! He shouts, and his
voice reaches to the ends of the world, penetrates
into the depths of the earth and of the sea, and
calls to life and judgment the ashes of the dead.
They that are in their graves, they that have slept
for thousands of years in the arms of death, shall
hear his voice and come forth. View the millions
of mankind, that have lived since the creation of
the world, ad rising out of the earth, and present
ing themselves before the tribunal of God. The
earth that now swells with the dead bodies of her
children, shall open to deliver her charge. The
grave shad surrender its captives. What an inte
resting sight, to behold all the myriads of human
creatures, that the successive ages of time have
ushered into existence! Come forth, ye men of
renown, ye conquerors, ye men of glory, who, to
gratify ambition, have so often desolated the earth,
and drenched her with the blood of her children.

352 THE RESURRECTION.
Come forth, that you may drink the oceans of blood
that you have shed in wantonness. Let the Judge
hear the grounds of your quarrels, the cause of
-your cruelty. What avails it with him, to allege;
the glory of your name and of your country?
Shall the cloak of public interest, with which you
have covered your abominable designs, hide from
Him the true motives by which you were actuated?
You have lived and died for glory ; come now and
receive from Him, who is the God of glory, that
which your crimes have merited. Instead of glory,
you shall be covered with shame and everlasting
contempt. Ye sons of pleasure, who lived wanton on the
earth, whose hearts cheered you in the days of your
youth, and walked in the ways of your hearts, and
in the sight of your eyes, now shad you know that
for ad these things God Avid bring you into judg
ment. For your fornication, your uncleanness,
your inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, your
drunkenness, and debauchery, the wrath of God
cometh upon you.
Ye servants of mammon, come forth — call now
to your god in whom you trusted ; let him deliver
you, seeing you faithfully served him. " Cry aloud,
for he is a god ! either he is talking, or he is pur
suing, or he is on a journey, or peradventure he
sleepeth, and must be awaked." Having in your
lifetime received your good things, and despised

THE RESURRECTION. 353
the heavenly inheritance, you shad be forever ex
cluded therefrom, and have your portion with the
devd and his angels.
Ye sober, devout, religious formalists, who de
nied the power of godliness, and, ignorant of
God's righteousness, went about to establish your
own righteousness, how shall you stand in the
presence of Him, whose eyes are as a flame of
fire, and who looketh on the heart ? Your good
deeds, that were done that they might be seen
of men, secured you your reward — your alms
and your prayers, which had for their object
the quieting of your consciences, fatally suc
ceeded; but when weighed in the balance, you
wid be found wanting, for inasmuch as you did
it not to one of the least of these my brethren,
because they were so, saith the Judge, you did
it not to me.
How different the Judgment of God from that
of man ! 'Ad that is dignified and held up to pub
lic admiration, by the pen of the historian, shall be
covered with infamy in that day. The warrior,
the statesman, the patriot, the philosopher, and the
sage, these envied names, to which ad earthly
honors are consecrated, shall then yield up their
ad — their triumphs. The name of the righteous
alone — a name which now is held in contempt —
shad be truly glorious in that day. Shame and
confusion of face shall be the everlasting portion of

354 THE RESURRECTION.
all who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of
our Lord Jesus Christ.
Sinners, who have so often heard and neglected
the voice of Jesus speaking in the Scriptures, how
shall you bear to hear it, when it calls you to judg
ment ? When he spoke in mercy, you refused to
hear ; you must now hear him when he speaks in
wrath. By his Gospel he is now calling on the
sons of men, without exception, to bedeve and be
saved. Then he shall call those who have neglected
his salvation, to receive the reward of unbelief and
unrighteousness. Instead of those gentle words of
love and mercy, that invite the gudty to pardon
and happiness, the Judge shall pronpunce their
sentence of eternal condemnation, and remit them
to the place of torment. '• Take them, angels, bind
them hand and foot, and cast them into the lake
that burneth with fire and brimstone." Such hav
ing despised and neglected his mercy, he " also
will laugh at their calamity ; he wdl mock Avhen
their fear cometh."
What an awful meeting for the enemies of Jesus
avIio have labored with all zeal and embittered
¦enmity to oppose the dignity of his person ! They
would not have the man, Christ Jesus, to reign
over them ; but now they must submit to him as
Judge. They made him altogether such an one as
themselves, and haAre refused to honor him, as
they pretended to honor the Father. Noav they

THE RESURRECTION. 355
must behold him clothed in divine majesty, and
able to frown them into the place of torment. At
that time, though reluctantly, they must confess
him. The condition of rebels who have strenu
ously opposed the just authority of their sovereign
but who have now been brought in chains into his
presence, affords but a faint emblem of the dread
ful situation of such deluded men. They reject his
claims to divine honor, though the works of al
mighty power which he performed attested that
what he spoke was true, and though the Father
fudy confirmed all he had said, when He raised
him from the dead. How, then, shall they look
him in the face? Where shad they hide them
selves ? In vain shad they call upon the rocks and
the mountains to fad upon them, and to hide them
from the presence of the Lamb ; the great day of
his wrath being come, and that man whom they
denied as being the true God, shall overtake them
with vengeance, though they hide themselves in
the depths of the ocean.
Let us attend for a moment to the rule of judg
ment. " They that have done good, shad come
forth to the resurrection of life ; and they that have
done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."
By their works shall men be tried. In vain, you
workers of iniquity, do you seek in yourselves the
supposed marks of grace. In vain, ye sober reli
gionists, do you comfort yourselves with the work-

356 THE RESUREECTION.
ings of a deluded mind. In vain do you substitute
a pharasaical face, in the room of obedience to the
laws of Christ. The covetous man and the extor
tioner, the lover of the praise of men and of earthly
honor, may assume, and in some distances main
tain, a religious profession, and be able to enume
rate their happy symptoms, amidst all their fail
ings, defects, and spots ; but the righteous Judge
declares, that they who heme done evil, let then
feelings have been what they might, shad come
forth to everlasting condemnation. The cautious
orthodoxy of unfruitful speculators in religion, may
suppose that this is laying too great a stress upon
character, and that to represent matters in this
unguarded way, is calculated to countenance the
advocates of salvation by works ; but these are the
words of Jesus ; this is a document published by
him Avho shad sit in the aAvful judgment. Let
none presume to direct men to another criterion of
character. By their Avorks alone can men prove
that they have believed the Gospel. " Not every
one that saith Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of
my Father (saith Jesus) who is in heaven. This is
the love of God that ye keep his commandments —
ye are my disciples if ye do whatsoever I command
you — he that hath my commandments and keepeth
them, he it is that loveth me."
But who are they that do good? Are they such

THE RESURRECTION. 357
as act according to a standard which they them
selves have erected, for the criterion of conduct ?
Ye, who trust to your own works, pervert not the
Scriptures to your own destruction. Eternal life
shad indeed be given to them that do good ; but
the doing of good is not the price of the reward,
but the standard and measure by which the extent
of the reward is determined. Eternal life is the
gift of God through Jesus Christ ; the doing of
good is the fruit and evidence of believing the
truth that justifies the ungodly. Jesus has made
the doing of good the criterion of character ; be
cause this is tlie characteristic of ad his disciples,
and of none besides. None but such as believe in
him can do anything good in the sight of God, the
carnal mind being enmity against God ; therefore,
they that are in the flesh cannot please God. To
do good, is to do what Jesus commanded out of
love to him and respect for his authority. To do
good is to obey God ; this none do but such as
receive his testimony with respect to His son Jesus
Christ. This being the Father's commandment
that men believe on the name of His son Jesus
Christ. — 1 John di. 23. The heart of man being
naturady unclean, there naturally flows from it,
evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, blasphemies,
&c, tid the same is purified. This is only done by
faith (Acts xv. 9), or by men obeying the truth
through the Spirit (1 Peter i. 22) ; and thencefor-

358 THE RESURRECTION.
ward the issues of life correspond to the purified
source from which they flow : " A good man out
of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth
good things, whilst an evil man, out of the evd
treasure of his heart, bringeth forth evil things."
This takes place as naturady and necessarily as a
good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and a corrupt
or a bad tree bringeth forth bad fruit. Every tree
is known by his fruit. Do men gather grapes off
thorns, or figs off thistles ? Even so a good tree
cannot bring forth bad fruit, or a bad tree good
fruit. Wherefore, by their fruits shad men be
known. Those who seek the shelter of such passages as
these, because they are externady decent and sober
in their conduct ; because they are good members
of society, and have been distinguished for many
actions in themselves good ; shall be driven from
their refuge of lies when the Judge shad determine
the true motives of then' conduct. The motive
is essential in determining the nature of an action.
Things in themselves good may be performed from
such motives as Avid stamp the action to be sinful,
and instead of meriting reward, to be deserving of
indignation. Ploughing is a duty ; but the ploughing
of the wicked is sin. The sum of the morality of
the Scriptures, is the love of God and man. Manay
in their account of morality altogether overlook
what respects God, and consider what respects

THE RESURRECTION. 359
man merely from the action, without reference to
the motive. But the Scriptures suppose that we
might give our bodies to be burnt through zeal,
and all our substance to feed the poor, yet neither
love God nor man. Good works, in the sense of
Scripture, are neither the hollow morality of some
nor the servde acts of voluntary humility of others.
They are works which Jesus requires performed,
because he requires them. Those who in this way
give but a cup of cold water, shad not lose then
reward; whde, from a different principle, they
might give all their goods to feed the poor, and not
be profited. Let those, then, who know Jesus,
walk in all his commandments and ordinances, for
this is the criterion of character. Let sinners
befieve in him ; for this is the only way that they
can bring forth good fruit and stand in the day of
retribution. It is a faithful sayting that Jesus came
into the world to save sinners, and they alone are
righteous who believe it. " He that believeth on
the Son hath everlasting life : and he that believeth
not the Son, shall not see life ; but the wrath of
God abideth on him."

A VIEW

DAY OF JUDGMENT:

AS DELINEATED IN THE SCRIPTURES.

My soul ! take a view of the awful transactions
of that day, which closes the duration of this world,
and assembles the children of Adam for judgment.
Tlie spectacle is glorious, but terrible ; it gratifies
the taste whde it excites to diligence. Art thou en
raptured with the grand and the awful in the Avorks
of creation ? Dost thou feast with delight on the
rugged, but venerable majesty of the mountain?
Dost thou delight to look on the face of heaven,
when bespangled Avith its fiery orbs ? Thou lookest
on the ocean, and art pleasingly overwhelmed with
the conception of so vast a collection of waters.
Thou viewest it in a storm, and art transported.
When the angry waves lash the sounding shores ;
when, with repeated shocks, they threaten to drive
the towering rocks from their foundations, and the

362 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
Avhite spray rises aloft sprinkling the shepherd on
his distant hid, thou sayest, it is grand ! Rage on,
proud waves, ye are the ministers of God : proclaim
to mankind the terror of his power !
Dost thou feel, my soul, an awful and gloomy
pleasure from the hoarse roaring of the wind?
Dost thou not fancy that thou hearest the angry
voice of God ? Yon hodow and dismal groans put
thee in mind of the impending ruin of His enemies.
Dost thou look my soid with pleasure on the
lightning, and hear with awful satisfaction the
voice of thunder? When it rumbles through the
clouds with a hoarse and horrible groaning; when
the mountains are shaken by its noise, and the
heavens themselves seem to crash by its fury, dost
thou say, here is subdmity?
Come away, my soul; turn from these grand
objects to one that is infinitely more grand. Advance
to the contemplation of an object which the men of
this world view Avith horror, or dare not view at
ad. Come view the judgment of the great day of
God Almighty. It is a scene of terror indeed;
bnt it has no terrors for the friends of Jesus
Christ. Who shall lay anything to the charge
of those for whom he died 1 On that memorable
day in Avhich our Lord ascended from the midst
of his disciples it was notified to them by two
angels, that he Avould again descend upon the
earth: '-And when he had spoken these things,

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 363
whde they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud
received him out of their sight. And whde they
looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up,
behold two men stood by them in white apparel ;
who also said : Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye
gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus that is
taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in
like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." —
Acts i. 9—11.
Both our Lord and his Apostles have given signs
of the approach of that dayr, and have foretold a
number of events that must take place before it.
But the exact time of his coming, Jesus has not
declared ; nor was this any of those things which
he had in charge from the Father to make known
to his people. After speaking of the signs of his
coming, he adds : " But of that day and hour
knoweth no man; no, not the angels of heaven,
but my Father only." The Scriptures, however,
furnish us with some interesting descriptions of the
terror and glory of his appearance, and contain a
number of scattered hints of the procedure and
transactions of the day of judgment. In examining
these, the first thing that strikes us is, the sudden
ness and unexpectedness of his coming. This cir
cumstance adds greatly to its terror, and is, in
many places, emphaticady held out to view. Our
Lord compares his coming to the lightning, than
which nothing perceivable by the sense flies with

364 DAY OF .JUDGMENT.
greater rapidity: "For as the lightning cometh
out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so
shad also the coming of the Son of Man be." No
man wdl have time to advertise his friend of this
event after it takes place. He Avid not appear in
one country before another, but, as a flash of light
ning crosses from east to Avest, in the twinkling of
an eye, so shall the Lord appear to ad nations at
the same instant.
It may be asked how can he be seen by all
nations at the same time ? At the instant he is
descried in any one part of the earth, must he not
be invisible to every other ? Especiady, when he
appears to the nations on this side of the globe, how
can he be seen by those on the other ? Let his
descent be ever so rapid, must he not either make
a circuit round the globe, or have ad the inhabitants
of the earth gathered into one place before he can
be visible to them all? To those who make these
objections, I reply, to the Avord of the Lord, on
another subject : "Ye do err, not knowing the
Scriptures, neither the power of God." Upon this
subject and, in general, upon everything that relates
to fhe world to come, men have found a great many
difficulties ; and have invented a great many solu
tions, which are founded on the notion, that the
operations of God must be conducted in some way
analogous to those of men ; and that the present laws
that regulate the phenomena of nature, must always

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 365
exist. The laws of vision, for instance, that now
regulate and limit our powers of sight, are supposed
to continue for ever. But, in reality, there would
be nothing more wonderful in our seeing round the
globe, or to its centre, through ad the dense mate
rials of which it is composed ; or in our seeing the
minutest objects in the fixed stars, than in our see
ing an object within a few yards distance. The
greatest phdosopher on earth cannot give a reason
why we see at ad. He may trace the laws of vision ;
he may ted us of the rays of light coming from the
object to the eye — entering the eye in such a direc
tion, and forming a picture on the bottom of it ; he
may ted us of the impression communicated to the
brain by the optic nerve : but here he must stop.
Why this would make the object perceivable to
the mind, is beyond his skid. Here he is as igno
rant as the savage or as the beast. If you ask him
why he sees with his eye, rather than with his
mouth, he can give no reason, but that it is the wid
of God. If, then, it altogether depends on the wid
of God, that we see with our eyes at the proper dis
tance, could not God as easdy make objects visible
to us without eyes, or make us, with the eyes which
we have, behold objects most perfectly, ad round
the globe ? Might we not read a volume placed at
the remotest of the fixed stars, or perceive what is
going on in heaven itself. Stephen saw the heavens

366 DAY OF JUDGMENI.
opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right
hand of God.
We can, in no instance, judge of the extent of
the powers of perception, in our future state of ex
istence, froHi the present laws by which they are
regulated and limited. Let us, then, in ascertaining
from the Scriptures the mind of God on this sub
ject, beware of limiting the power of God, by our
weak conceptions of possibidty. Let us not avoid
the obvious meaning of His word, on account of
any inconsistency between this and the established
laws of nature. Nature is but the order of His
operation ; and though it is unchangeable by us, it
is not so to Him. Let us not make any bold conjec
tures, to reconcde our own views of possibility Avith
his authoritative declarations. That ad Avill see
him in his descent, previous to their being gathered
before his tribunal, is clear from many passages of
Scripture, and, therefore, not to be questioned on
account of any difficulties from the laws of nature.
" And then shad appear the sign of the Son of Man
in heaven : and then shad ad the tribes of the earth
mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming
in the clouds of heaven, with power and great
glory." Here all the tribes of the earth are repre
sented as beholding the coming of the Judge. The
next verse gives an account of the gathering of
the saints, as subsequent to this. Jesus says to the
high-priest, and those that sat with him, " Hereafter

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 367
shad ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right
hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."
John also declares, " behold, he cometh AAdth clouds,
and every eye shad see him ; and they also who
pierced him ; and all kindreds of the earth shad
wad because of him. Even so, amen." Jesus
Christ, therefore, in his descent from heaven, wid
be seen by every individual of the human race.
What a terrible appearance must this be to his
enemies ! Whither shad they fiy from his presence ?
Look up, thou bold infidel ; behold him Avhom thou
wouldst not have to reign over thee ; yon sight Avill
cure thine unbelief. Behold the despised Nazarene
in the midst of his heavenly legions. David Hume,
Avhat seest thou ? Blustrious sceptic, dost thou still
doubt ?
Degenerate sons of Abraham, look up to yon
cloud that carries to the Avork of vengeance him
whom ye crucified as an impostor. Yonder comes
the God whom ye blasphemed as an associate with
the devd. O, unhappy man ! Proud son of science,
lift up thine eye from the volume of nature, and
behold this singular phenomenon. There appears
nothing in the cross worthy of thy attention ; thy
system of virtue needs no atonement for guilty
men ; thy philosophy accounts for all things, with
out any instructions from the Galdean, or his unlet
tered fishermen. Come, now, gather all your
volumes of wisdom, and show the Judge, from the

368 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
necessary relations and fitness of things, that it is
improper for him to condemn his enemies. Ap
peal from his tribunal altogether, and refuse to be
tried by any other standard, but that which thou
hast established for thyself.
Yet his coming Avid not only be suddenly and
simultaneously visible to ad men, it wid also be
unexpected. The world Avid be surprised in the
midst of the greatest security, earnestly intent on
the concerns of this life. We are taught this by
the destruction of the world by the flood. Our
Lord illustrates the circumstances of his second
coming, by this example : '• But as the days of
Noah Avere, so shall also the coming of the Son of
Man be. For as in the days that were before the
flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and
giving in marriage, untd the day that Noah entered
into the ark, and knew not until the flood came,
and took them ad away ; so shad also the coming
of the Son of Man be." Notwithstanding that
Noah, the preacher of righteousness, through the
long-suffering of God, continued to warn them dur
ing the time that the ark was preparing, they were
as ignorant of the matter as the dead. They knew
not till the flood came.
We are taught the same thing by the parable of
the ten virgins : " Then shall the kingdom of heaven
be likened unto ten virgins, who took their lamps,
and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 369
of them were wise and five were foolish. They
that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil
Avith them ; but the wise took od in their vessels
with their lamps. Whde the bridegroom tarried,
they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight
there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom
cometh ; go ye out to meet him. Then all those
virgin arose and trimmed their lamps. And the
foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil, for
our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered,
saying, Not so ; lest there be not enough for us and
you ; but go ye rather to them that sed, and buy
for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the
bridegroom came ; and they that were ready went
in with him to the marriage ; and the door was
shut. Afterwards came also the other virgins, say
ing, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and
said, Verdy, I say unto you, I know you not.
Watch, therefore, for ye knoAV neither the day nor
the hour wherein the Son of Man cometh." — Matth.
xxv-. 1 — 13. Hoav aAvful Avid be that midnight cry
to ad that are not furnished with od ? Vain the
expectation of being assisted by others, or of im
portunity in crying for mercy. The door of mercy
wid then be shut for ever.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, is said
to be for an example to those that shall five ungodly.
.All Avicked nations are not, like Sodom, cut off by
temporal judgments ; but all wicked men will

370 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
assuredly suffer a similar catastrophe. The Lord
will unexpectedly, come upon them, and hurl them
to the abodes of misery, where they wdl suffer the
vengeance of everlasting fire. Look at the people
of Sodom on the evening before their destruction.
Consider their employments and pleasures. How
secure ! how little suspicious of ruin ! Even they
that were warned remained ignorant of the dreadful
event, till the moment it commenced : " and the men
said unto Lot, hast thou here any besides ? Sons-in-
laAv, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatso
ever thou hast in the city bring them out of this
place. For we wid destroy this place, because the
cry of them is waxen great before the face of the
Lord ; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it.
And Lot went out and spoke unto his sons-in-law,
which married his daughters, and said, Up, get ye
out of this place ; for the Lord will destroy this
city ; but he seemed as one that mocked unto his
sons-in-law." — Gen. xix. 12 — 14. But how dread
fully Avere they convinced in the morning ! What
an awakening out of sleep ! " The sun was risen
upon the earth, when Lot entered into Zoar. Then
the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah,
brimstone and fire from tlie Lord out of heaven ;
and he overthrew these cities, and all the plain,
and ad the inhabitants of the cities, and that which
grew upon the ground." Thus terribly and unex
pectedly wdl the Lord descend to the judgment of
the great day.

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 371
Our Lord and his Apostles illustrate this circum
stance, by the unexpectedness of a robber entering
a house in the gloom and sdence of night : " The
dayr of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
For Avhen they shall say, peace and safety, then
sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travad
upon a woman with chdd, and they shad not
escape." — -1 Thess. v. 2.
From the simditude of the thief in the night, and
the midnight cry, some haA'e imagined that Christ
Avill come by night to increase the surprise and
horror. But this opinion forgets, that while it is
midnight in one place, it is noon at another.
Besides the similitudes teach no such thing. The
cry of the coming of the bridegroom is at midnight,
not to show that the Lord wid come at midnight ;
but, that he will come upon men as unexpectedly,
as suddenly, as one coming at that unseasonable
horn-. The like may be said Avith respect to the
similitude of the thief. Figures suppose resem
blance ; but this way of explaining them would
confound the principal object with the simditude,
and make that apply literady, which is meant to
apply only figuratively.
It may be asked, do these passages teach that the
day of the Lord wid come unexpectedly to the peo
ple of God then living? The slumbering of the
virgins certainly appears to insinuate, that Christ's
disciples who wid be on the earth at his coming,

372 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
will not be sufficiently vigilant ; on any other view,
I cannot see why the wise virgins should be repre
sented as sleeping, as well as the foolish. In some
instances, the completeness of the parable requires
circumstances to be introduced, which have nothing
to correspond to them in the subject to be illus
trated. But that is not the case here. The virgins
thus waiting for the bridegroom, might ad have
remained awake, or part might have watched,
though the rest had slept. It manifested disrespect
to the bridegroom, for any of the party expecting
him, to sleep, or even to feel an inclination to it.
This part of the parable, then, is certainly designed
to be significant. Ye disciples of Jesus, too often
ye verify this part of the representation. Awake,
and with lamps in your hands, be always looking
out. Be not only furnished Avith oil, but stand
ready to hail him. Be ashamed of your lethargy.
Why are ye drowsy I Is it a slight honor to be
bidden to the marriage of the great King?
O ! foolish virgins, how tremendous is that mid
night summons ! What Avild confusion will fill
your souls at the sudden cry, " Go ye out to meet
him." What stupefaction is in sin ! Man sports,
with unconcern, on the very brink of endless misery.
From schemes of aggrandizement, of pleasure, or
of folly, he will be hurried before the judgment-
seat. Let us now take a view of the passages of Scrip-

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 373
ture in which the transactions of that glorious day
are described. In some respects it might be better
to present, in one connected view, ad the facts in
their order, as far as this can be collected from the
Scriptures, and to quote no more of each passage
than AA'hat should bear upon the point in hand.
But as my object is not to argue, but to point to
the sources of gratification afforded to the mind by
this subject, I judge it more profitable to take
every passage in detad, that in all the varied
lights in which the Holy Spirit brings this before
us, we may leisurely examine and admire. We
shall thus have an unbroken view of each of these
divine drawings, whde in the one, we can note the-
things that are untouched in the other.
Our Lord himself gives a solemn and striking
vieAv of the judgment, which is recorded in the
twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew's Gospel : " When
the Son of Man shad come in his glory, and all the
holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the
throne of his glory; and before him shall be
gathered ad nations ; and he shall separate them,
one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep
from the goats ; and he shad set the sheep on his
right hand, but the goats on his left. Then shall
the Ring say unto them on his right hand, Come ye
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world : for I
was an hungered, and ye gave me meat ; I was

374 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
thirsty, and ye gave me drink ; I was a stranger,
and ye took me in ; naked, and ye clothed me ; I
was sick, and ye visited me ; I was in prison, and
ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer
him, saying, Lord, when saw we the an hungered,
and fed thee ? or thirsty, and gave thee drink ?
When saw Ave thee a stranger, and took thee in ? or
naked, and clothed thee ? Or when saw we thee
sick, or in prison, and came unto thee ? And the
King shall ansAver, and say unto them, Verily, I
say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto
one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done
it unto me. Then shad he say also unto them on
his left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into
everlasting fire, prepared for the devd and his
angels : for I Avas an hungered, and ye gave me no
meat ; I Avas thirsty, and ye gave me no drink ;
I Avas a stranger, and ye took me not in ; naked,
and ye clothed me not ; sick, and in prison, and ye
Arisited me not. Then shad they also answer him,
saying, Lord, when saAV we thee an hungered, or
athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in
prison, and did not minister unto thee ? Then shall
he answer them, saying, Verdy, I say unto you,
inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of
these, ye did it not to me. And these shad
go away into everlasting punishment ; but the
righteous into life eternal." Let us here pause for
a moment, to contemplate this solemn scene. Jesus

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 375
Avdl come in his glory. And what will be the
glory of him, whom the Father delightetsh to honor?
Of him, who glorified the Father, and ad the
divine perfections, by the redemption of guilty
sinners ? In his retinue wdl be ad the angels of
heaven. What an august assembly ! How glorious
a spectacle ! How grand the appearance of Jesus
and his company, when they burst through the
heavens and become A-isible to men ! O, my soul !
do not flag ; sink not under the difficulties of the
Christian life ; endure to the end, and thou shalt
share his glory. Keep this prospect continually
before thee, and despise the laugh of fools.
Let us now turn our eyres to our Lord, seated on
the throne of judgment, and to the innumerable
multitudes assembled before him. It is " the
throne of his glory." If so, what imagination can
form an adequate conception of its lustre ? Com
pared to this, the gorgeous thrones of the kings of
the earth are no better than the seats of beggars
by the way side. O, ye sovereigns of the world
submit yourselves to this King of kings. Your
true glory consists not in sumptuous palaces, gor
geous thrones, or humble prostrations of your sub
jects. Know that your highest honor is to be the
ministers of this great King. Jesus has given you
your thrones, and they are upheld by his provi
dence. O, how wdl you stand before his throne,
if ye have rejected his Gospel, despised his autho-

376 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
rity, and persecuted his people ? Believe in him,
that you may sit down with him upon his throne,
as he has sat down upon the throne of his Father.
Let us reflect a moment on the immensity of the
assembly standing before the throne of judgment:
" Before him shall be gathered all nations." What
an appearance would the inhabitants of this island
make, if they were all assembled in one place!
But if all the generations that ever have inhabited
this island were assembled, the multitude would be
immense. What, then, shall be the multitude, when
all the inhabitants of ad the islands, and continents
of the earth, of all generations, shad stand before
God ? Let no impenitent sinner hope to escape in
this crowd, through the ignorance or inattention of
the Judge. Not the slightest mistake will he make
with respect to the character of one of the Avhole
multitude. The Judge is the Searcher of Hearts,
therefore fit for his office. " He will separate them,
one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep
from the goats." Sinners, your doom will then be
irreversible ; ye shad go into everlasting punish
ment. We may also notice the importance which the
Judge will attach to works of love to his disciples.
These are exhibited as the criterion of judgment.
All his fodoAvers who have had opportunity to
manifest their disposition, Avid be characterized by
offices of love to the brethren of their Lord. The

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 377
atonement of Christ has washed away their sins ;
faith in the testimony of God, with respect to that
atonement, has justified them before Him, and dis
posed them to do His wid. His new command
ment is, that His disciples shall love one another ;
therefore, Vvhoever love not Christ's people, are
not his disciples. Think of this, you that hate
them, because they are his ; that mock them, be
cause they do the things which he hath enjoined on
them ; that persecute them, because they wdl not
renounce his authority, and do what he has for
bidden. Nor wid there be found in all the multitude of
the wicked, an individual who hath given so much
as a cup of cold water to one of his disciples, out of
love to his master. "And whosoever shall give to
drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold
water, only in the name of a disciple, verdy, I say
unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward." —
Mat. x. 42. As none of the wicked can be rewarded
none of them have ever given the smadest favor to
a disciple for Christ's sake. It is not merely human
ity, sympathy, and that sort of universal benevo
lence, to which some are fond of reducing the whole
of duty; much less is it the value ofthe things
given, than that Christ wdl look to in the judgment.
It is the distinguishing love of his people that he
requires. Many persons distinguished for general
philanthrophy, dislike Christ's people. Many per-

378 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
form works of charity, merely from the feelings of
their nature. If a man should give all his goods to
feed the poor, and Avere not possessed of that love
to Christ and his people that flows from faith in his
atonement, it would profit him nothing. — 1 Cor.
xiii. 3. Indeed, none more vehemently hate Christ's
people, than those who mean to storm heaven by
their pretensions of universal beneA7olence. Trajan
and Antoninus are among the persecutors of Chris
tians ; while some of the beastly emperors suffered
them to escape.
Some interesting particulars relative to the judg
ment may be learned from one of Christ's parables :
" And as they heard these things, he added, and
spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem,
and because they thought that the kingdom of God
should immediately appear. He said, therefore,
a certain nobleman went into a far country, to
receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And
he called his ten servants, and defivered them ten
pounds, and said unto them, occupy tid I come.
But his citizens hated him, and sent a message
after him, saying, we wid not have this man reign
over us. And it came to pass, that when he was
returned, having received the kingdom, then he
commanded these servants to be call unto him, to
whom he had given the money, that he might
know how much every man had gained by trading.
Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 379
gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Wed,
thou good servant ; because thou hast been faithful
in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound
hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise
to him, Be thou also over five cities. And another
came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound,
which I have kept laid up in a napkin : for I
feared thee, because thou art an austere man ; thou
takest up that thou layest not down, and reapest
that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him,
Out of thine OAvn mouth wid I judge thee, thou
wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an
austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and
reaping that I did not sow ; wherefore, then, gavest
not thou my money into the bank, that at my
coming I might have required mine own with
usury? And he said unto them that stood by,
Take from him the pound, and give it to him that
hath ten pounds. (And they said unto him, Lord,
he hath ten pounds.) For I say unto you, that
unto every one who hath shad be given ; and from
him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken
away from him. But these, mine enemies, who
would not that I should reign over them, bring
hither, and slay them before me." — Luke xix. 11-27.
From this we learn, that among his professed ser
vants, there are many who have very unworthy
views of his character, and, consequently, have

380 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
never truly served him. All then- evasions and
excuses on that day shall be Arain. The high and
glorious character of Christians, that they have in
this world unjustly arrogated, shall be taken away,
and they wid be punished as wicked servants, who
have aggravated their guilt by an abuse of their
opportunities. His profession shall avail him no
thing. " Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer
darkness ; there shad be weeping and gnashing of
teeth."— Mat. xxv. 30.
This parable holds out the greatest encourage
ment to Christian exertion. Our works bring us
not into favor with God ; but they are immensely
profitable, as the criterion hi the distribution of
rewards. Being created in Christ Jesus unto good
works, Ave can no more boast in our lives, that we
can boast in atoning for our sins. But greater
encouragement for good works need not be desired,
than that without them we proA~e ourselves to be
the enemies of Christ ; and that in proportion to
them we shall receive our reward. He that in
creased his pound to ten, Avas made ruler over ten
cities ; he that had got five, was set over five cities.
Can there be a greater stimulus to activity in trade,
than the certain prospect of succeding according to
exertion, without being marred by accidents, or
any untoward events? What an elevating view!
Why do we not strain every nerve in the work of
Christ ? All our other labors wdl be without

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 381
advantage in a few years. Our labors in the
work of Christ are of eternal advantage. Here is
scope for our ambition. Here we may enlarge our
territories, and extend our dominions without the
injury of others. The works of a momentary life,
have an influence on eternity. Ye conquerors,
who subject nations to your dominion, let me fight
Avith all efforts, that my future kingdom may be
glorious ! What a lesson does this parable read to
Jews, infidels, and ad that will not have Jesus to
reign over them! Many have bolcdy sent that
message after him, and glory in refusing subjection
to his authority. On that day they must account
before assembled worlds. Wdl any apology avail ?
Wdl Christ sustain any of those excuses that men
are sometimes ready to make for one another?
Wdl ye talk of your sincerity ? Will ye adege the
virtue, the integrity, the benevolence of your con
duct ? All excuse will be equally vain. " Those
mine enemies, who would not that I should reign
over them, bring hither and slay them before me."
There is a sense in which the poet's language is
just— " He can't be wrong, whose life is in the right."
But in the sense of the author, it is an awful delu
sion. There is no man whose life is worthy of the
Gospel, but the man who is born again, through the
belief of the truth. But in the partial eye of man,

382 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
there may be many things that appear to have a
proud demand on the justice of heaven, that in the
day of judgment will be discovered to be hodow
and unsound.
What a striking difference between the doctrine
of Jesus, and the decisions of phdosophers ! I am
acquainted AArith no system of moral philosophy,
that is not radically as hostile to the Gospel, as the
Avritings of Bolingbroke or Paine. They ad heat
of man, of duty, and of merit, upon the supposition
that human virtue may challenge the prize of a
happy immortal life. Nay, more, the pulpit is
often the echo of the schools ; and the advantage
of revealed religion above natural, is, that it assures
the virtucrus man of a happy immortal life, of
Avhich the latter gave probable hopes. How many
systems of duty leave the atonement of Christ
altogether out of vieAV ? How unlike to this is the
Gospel? How harshly do those words grate on
the ear of the wisdom of this world : " He that
bedeveth, shad be saved ; he that believeth not,
shall be damned ! "
Instead, then, of being a trivial thing, what
opinions we entertain with respect to divine truth,
let all men know, that greater enmity to God is
discovered in men's sentiments, than in then im
moral lives. Saul of Tarsus was a virtuous and a
religious man, in the sense of the world, from his
earliest youth ; yet it was not the publicans and

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 383
harlots, but himself, as the determined opposer of
Jesus, that he designated the chief of sinners.
The sober unbeliever must go doAvn to perdition in
company with the beastly sensualist. Except they
repent, they shad both perish everlastingly.
We have a most animating and sublime account
of the coming of our Lord, in the end of the fourth
chapter of the first epistle to the Thessalonians :
" For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again,
even so also them that sleep in Jesus, wid God
bring with Him. For this we say unto you by the
word of the Lord, that we which are alive and
remain unto the coming of the Lord, shad not pre
vent them which are asleep. For the Lord Him
self shall descend from heavTen with a shout, with
the voice of the archangel, and Avith the trump of
God ; and the dead in Chrjst shad rise first : then
we which are alive and remain, shad be caught up
together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord
in the air ; and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
This description presents to our imagination the
glorious Lord in his descent upon the earth, with
some of the most striking circumstances of that
grand and terrible appearance. The Thessalonian
churches are assured, that the dead will not be
forgotten in that day more than the living. Them
that sleep in Jesus, will God bring with Him to
heaven, on His return from, judgment. Nor wdl
the believers who are alive at the coming of Jesus,

384 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
be taken to heaven a moment before their brethren
who are in the grave. They wid both be taken up
together to meet their Lord.
The Lord shad descend from heaven with a shout.
The word that corresponds in the original to the
English word shout, is derived from one that signi
fies to exhort, to incite, to command; and is
applied to denote the shout of soldiers engaging in
battle, to encourage each other, and to intimidate
the enemy. It is also used to denote the cry of
rowers inciting each other's ardor in their laborious
work ; and the shout of charioteers inciting their
horses. It is, therefore, generady understood in
this place to refer to the acclamations of the angelic
hosts, accompanying their Lord to judgment. I
think there is every reason to understand it in this
sense ; but not, perhaps, to the exclusion of the
voice of Jesus himself, who wid lead these heavenly
legions. Whether or not the shout of Jesus be
included in this term here, Ave know with certainty,
that his voice, at this time, will be heard by ad.
By his mighty call, he Avill raise the dead from the
bowels of the earth, and from the bottom of the
seas. To those Avho were amazed at his speaking
of raising the dead, while on earth, he says, "Mar
vel not at this ; for the hour is coming, in the Avhich
all that are in their graves shall hear his voice,
and shall come forth : they that have done good,
unto the resurrection of life, and they that have

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 385
done evd, unto the resurrection of damnation." —
John v. 28.
We learn from this, that as the worlds were
made by his word, so by his word the dead wid be
made alive. When on earth, he said with authority,
"Lazarus, come forth," and the dead man heard
his voice and obeyed. In like manner, as he
descends to judgment, he wid awake the dead with
his mighty cad.
The next thing to which our attention is called
in this description, is the voice of an archangel.
Doctor M'Knight supposes, that as John the Bap
tist was sent before Jesus to cry, "Prepare ye the
way of the Lord, make his path straight," so an
archangel wdl proclaim his advent, and cad the
living to prepare for judgment. But whether the
archangel wdl have anything to utter different
from the angelic hosts, and if so, what this may be,
is not revealed, and therefore cannot be discovered.
As this voice is distinctly mentioned, there is no
doubt but it wdl be distinguished in some way.
We are next presented with the trumpet of God.
The voice of Jesus raising the dead, the grand
angelic acclamation, the shout of the archangel,
and. the sound of the trumpet, Avid commence the
awful proceedings of that day. We learn expressly
from 1 Cor. xv. 52, that the sounding of this trum
pet wid be a signal for the -dead to rise, and the
living to be changed.

386 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
Let us now pause a moment, to contemplate the
different objects in this awful representation. Look
up and behold the Son of God in his glory, bursting
the heavens, and accompanied by all the angels of
God. Hear his voice, that extends round the globe,
penetrates the grave, and raises the dead. Listen
to the shoutings of yon terrible army hastening to
execute vengeance on the enemies of God. Terri
ble is the shout of a multitude. How terrible, how
sublime the shout of the countless hosts of God"!
What words are those that proceed from the tre
mendous voice of yon flaming archangel? Ye
mighty ministers of mercy and of vengeance, this
day affords glorious scope for your zeal.
Ye children of men, listen to the sound of the
trumpet of God. Its tones are solemn and loud.
If the people of Israel trembled at the sound of the
trumpet at Sinai, hoAV much more terrible is the
trumpet of judgment ! Ye conquerors, whose
trumpets have stunned the hearts of trembling
nations, hear yon tremendous blast; it summons
you to account for the seas of blood which you
have shed. Ye sons of blood, ye murderers of the
human race, come forth to judgment : you have
waded to power and glory through the blood of
your fellow-creatures ; you have flattered your
selves with the hopes of deathless fame. This
trumpet ushers in the day of retribution. Great
Julius, behold your slaughtered midions rise up in

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 387
judgment against you ! Come forth, thou Mace
donian madman, behold all the nations of your
proud conquests ! The day of vengeance is come,
the groans of a bleeding world speak your sentence.
Come forth, all ye other restless sons of renoAvn ;
down with these accursed laurels; yield up that
glory which was purchased by murdered millions.
Blow, mighty angel, blow ! How long shall the
children of God sleep in " the dark and narrow
house ? " When shad they arise from then loath
some bed ? When shall they be invested with their
glorious immortal bodies ?
It is usuady supposed, that the words " the dead
in Christ shad rise first," import that the bodies of ,
dead believers will be raised before those of the
wicked, or before the living wid be changed.
" But the dead in Christ," says Mr. Scott, " shad
rise first, and be rendered incorruptible, even before
their brethren be changed that never died." " In
this passage," says Doctor M'Knight, " the apostle
teaches that the dead in Christ shad be raised
before the living are changed." As appears to me,
there is no such thing taught here. " The dead in
Christ shad rise first," does not mean that the dead
will be raised before the living wdl be changed ;
but that the dead wdl be raised before the living
wid be taken away to meet the Lord. The living
saints will not prevent or anticipate the dead ; that
is, they will not be taken to heaven before them.

388 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
Nor shall the dead a moment anticipate the living.
In the same instant, the one wid be changed, and
the other raised. It is evident that the apostle is
not speaking about the priority of the time of rais
ing the dead with respect to the change of the
living, but with respect to the ascent of the living.
Immediately' after the word first, he adds '¦'¦then
we who are alive and remain, shall be caught np
together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord
in the air." Besides, this notion is directly con
trary to 1 Cor. xv. 52, in which we are taught, that
both the change of the living and the raising of the
dead wid take place at the sounding of the trumpet,
even in a moment, or the twinkling of an eye.
" In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the
last trump : (for the trumpet shad sound) and [or,
both] the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and
we shall be changed." Here then it is evident,
that the dead saints Avid be raised, and the living
changed, precisely at the same time ; and that
time is to be at the sound of the trumpet, and its
duration no more than the twinklino; of an eve.
The resurrection then wid take place before Christ
descends, even as soon as the trumpet begins to
sound. Thus every eye of the human race will see
him as he comes. There is no reason, with Doctor
M'Knight, to make the trumpet of God the same
as the voice of Christ, spoken of, John v. 25. The
trumpet being sounded by Christ's command, does

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 389
not make it the voice of Christ. The real voice of
Christ wid be heard as distinctly when he calls the
dead to life, as Avhen he caded Lazarus from the
grave. Doctor M'Knight supposes also, that the
trumpet wid sound a second time, for the changing
of the living, after the raising of the dead ; in
which account tire second sounding is caded the last
trumpet. But it is called the last trumpet, not
with respect to different soundings of the same
trumpet, but with reference to the time of its
sounding at the last day. A second sounding
would not be a second trumpet. Besides, his
scheme Avould need a third sounding for raising the
wicked. But he has strangely overlooked the
circumstance, that the dead are raised, as well as
the living are changed, after this last trumpet, even
according to his own translation. " In a moment,
in the tAvinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet ; for
it shall sound ; and then the dead shad be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed." Here
both the raising of the dead, and changing of the
living, are representing as following the last trum
pet. The same writer observes, that the expression,
" Tlie dead in Christ shall rise first," demonstrates,
that the wicked are not to be raised at the same
time with the righteous. This is very lame demon
stration. The import and reference of this expres
sion I have shown already. If the Apostle is not
speaking of a priority of raising the dead saints,

390 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
with respect to the change of the living, much less
with respect to the resurrection of the Avicked.
He is not speaking at all of unbelievers ; and this
writer makes the same assertion. He strenuously
contends, that this passage does not respect the
resurrection of the wicked, lest it should mar a
favorite theory of his, that the bodies of unbe
lievers are not to be raised immortal or imperisha
ble, but that they will be totally burned up in the
fire that consumes the world. I shad at present
take no notice of this theory, as it does not respect
my subject.
That the wicked Avid not be raised the same time
with the righteous, he endeavors also to prove
from 1 Cor. xv. 23. Every man is to be raised in
his proper band. But it is evident that this expres
sion, let it be translated as it wid, refers not to the
righteous and the wicked. It respects Christ and
his people : " Christ the first fruits, afterwards they
that are Christ's at his coming." The wicked are
not in any of these bands or divisions. This writer,
however, is not to be considered as holding the
opinion, that the resurrection of the righteous wdl
any considerable time precede that of the wicked.
He seems to make it merely a matter of form.
" Between the resurrection of the righteous," says
he, " and their being caught up, the living are to be
changed; as is implied in their not anticipating
them who are asleep. Also, the wicked are to be

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 391
raised after the change has passed on the living."
But there is no foundation for this opinion in those
passages, and it is positively contradicted by
others. In John v. 28, both the righteous and the
Avicked are represented as hearing the voice of
Jesus, and coming both together out of the graves.
The parable of the virgins also supposes, that both
the foolish and the wise hear the cry, " Go ye out
to meet him," at the same instant. Therefore, the
dead, whether righteous or wicked, are to be
raised, and the living saints are to be changed at
the same moment.
The instantaneous resurrection of the dead, and
changing of the living, give us a noble idea of
Almighty power. How confounding is the thought
of innumerable millions of rotton carcases ad rising
to life, and standing on the earth in the twinkling
of an eye ! How glorious the change from corrup
tion to heavenly bridiancy !
When the dead saints are raised, and the living
changed, they will both be taken up together on
clouds to meet the Lord in the air. "Then we
which are adve and remain, shall be caught vp
together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord
in the air ; and so shad we be ever Avith the Lord."
Some have supposed that the saints shall ascend to
meet their Lord, by the activity of their new
spiritual bodies. I think there is no reason to
question, that the glorified bodies of the saints will

392 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
possess locomotive powers, of which we have no
conception. Nevertheless, the phraseology of the
passage evidently implies, that the saints wid be
snatched up from the earth, to meet the Lord, by
some external force. What this wid be, is clear
from Matt. xxiv. 31 : " And he shad send his
angels Avith a great sound of a trumpet, and they
6hall gather together his elect from the four winds,
from one end of heaven to the other." After such
declarations, it is worse than foolish to speculate.
As the saints are to meet the Lord in his descent,
the last quoted passage imports, that some of the
angels that accompany him, Avid be sent before, to
assemble and bring forward his people. The instru
mentality of the angels is also to be employed in
bringing forward the Avicked to judgment. " The
Son of Man shad send forth his angels, and they
shad gather out of his kingdom ad things that
offend, and them which do iniquity ; and shad cast
them into a furnace of fire : there shall be wading
and gnashing of teeth. The angels shad come
forth and sever the wicked from the just." Matt.
xiii. 41 — 49. These passages prove also, that the
resurrection of the wicked Avid take place at the
same time Avith that of the righteous. The wicked
are to be severed at the resurrection from among
the just, and before the gathering of the elect.
Matt. xxiv. 29, 30. All the tribes of the earth are
represented as mourning, when they see the Son

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 393
of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power
and great glory. No speculations can be permitted
to contradict this distinct and repeated testimony.
Doctor M'Knight is of opinion, that the event
referred to, 1 Thess. iv. 17, is subsequent to the
judgment. It appears clear to me, that it is pre
vious to it. The phraseology is suitable to the
meeting of the Lord only. What the common
version renders meet, he translates join, but with
out authority, without propriety. It imports strictly
to meet from opposite directions, as travellers on
the highway, and is so used in the New Testament.
Even his own translations forbid his interpretation.
To join the lord, cannot be applied to those who
have been AAuth him ad the time of the judgment.
The things that are said to be joined, must have
been previously separated.
"From this verse it appears," says the same
writer, " that at the judgment, Christ will fix his
seat in the air." I perceive no foundation for this
observation, whether the passage is understood to
apply to the meeting of the Lord before the judg
ment, or the accompanying of him after it. I draw
-a different inference from the mention of the place
of meeting. When they are said to meet or join
in the air, it imports, that previously they were
not in the air. That Christ wid descend to the
earth, I think is implied in the general phraseology
of Scripture that speaks of his coming again ; but

394 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
whether his throne of judgment will be fixed in the
air or on the earth, I find no materials upon which
to found an opinion. Some have gone so far as
to point out the particular spot of earth on which
his tribunal wdl be fixed. This is the worst species
of novel writing. It teaches Christians to indulge
opinions, founded not on his word, but on the vain
conjectures of human wisdom. Such theories are
like those of the philosophers, with respect to the
seat of the soul and the formation of ideas.
On the throne in clouds, Doctor M'Knight thus
observes : " In Scripture, multitudes of angels are
called clouds, Mat. xxiv. 30, wherefore caught up
in clouds, may signify, caught up by the ministry
of angels." Angels can neATer be caded clouds.
In the passage referred to, the term clouds has its
proper meaning. The Lord wid indeed come with
his angels, but he wid also descend upon the clouds.
" Clouds, likewise," says the author, " signify great
multitudes of people. — Heb. xii. 1. According to
this sense, the meaning wdl be, caught up in great
numbers at once." Nor does the term clouds,
signify great multitudes of people. The author
confounds the signification and the figurative appli
cation of words. A cloud may, metaphorically,
signify a multitude of any kind. A cloud of wit
nesses, is a multitude of witnesses ; but cloud, with
out any words to show its figurative application,
has always its proper meaning. According to the

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 395
author's mode of criticising, the phraseology ought
not to be a cloud of witnesses, but clouds. " Where
fore, seeing we also are compassed about with so
great clouds, let us, &c." Such principles of criti
cism, have darkened the Scriptures and perplexed
every controversy. What is it the Scriptures will
not say in this way of applying their language ?
We have another very awful description of the
coming of Jesus, in 2 Thess. i. 7 — 10. " And to
you Avho are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
angels in flaming fire, taking vrengeance on them
that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of
our Lord Jesus Christ, Avho shall be punished with
everlasting destruction, from the presence of the
Lord, and from the glory of His power, when He
shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be
admired in ad them that believe (because our testi
mony among you was believed) in that day."
The heavens at present contain the Lord Jesus,
and hide him from the sight both of his friends and
enemies. But on that day, he will be revealed for
the admiration of the one, and the punishment of
the other. The angels, in the midst of whom he is
to descend, are here called the angels of his might.
They are the mighty ministers, who now are em
ployed in executing various purposes of mercy or
of judgment, and who will then be employed in
assembling men for trial, and executing the dread-

396 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
ful sentence. What a mighty host ! How glorious,
how terrible the appearance of a single angel, at
the tomb of this same Jesus ! " And behold, there
was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord
descended from heaven, and came and roded back
the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His
countenance was like lightning, and his raiment
white as snow ; and for fear of him, the keepers
did shake and became as dead men." How glorious
then, and how terrible wdl be the whole hosts of
angels on the great day of the Lord ! The phrase
flaming fire, is by some connected with the preced
ing context, and by others with the succeeding. If
we understand the passage with the latter, it im
ports that Jesus wdl inflict punishment on the
wicked with flaming fire; and thus, does not re
spect his own appearance. I am inclined to connect
it with the preceding context, as referring to the
dreadful appearance of Christ surrounded Avith
flaming fire. The appearance of the Lord on Mount
Sinai, was accompanied with fire, and not less dread
ful, surely, wdl be His appearance for judgment.
Indeed, in most other circumstances, the descrip
tion of these two events is resemblant : " And it
came to pass on the third day, in the morning, that
there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick
cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet
exceeding loud : so that ad the people that were in
the camp trembled. And Moses brought forth the

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 397
people out of the camp to meet with God, and they
stood at the nether part of the mount. And Mount
Sinai was altogether in a smoke because the Lord
descended upon it in fire ; and the smoke thereof
ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the Avhole
mount quaked greatly. And the sight ofthe glory
of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of
the mount, in the eyes of the children of Israel." —
Ex. xix. 16—18. xxiv. 17.
Upon whom is the Lord to execute vengeance on
that day? Is it merely upon the most enormous
sinners ? No, but upon ad that know not God, and
obey not the Gospel. None shall escape but those
who have believed God's testimony, with respect
to the atonement of His son. This, and the dread
ful nature of the punishment, which occupy so
much of this portion of Scripture, are not to the
present purpose. But can we pass it without
noticing that it denounces wrath against the great
body of mankind. If this is a hard saying, let Jesus
answer for it. That infernal sectarian spirit that
causes some to delight in dealing damnation to ad
who do not adopt their peculiarities, I reject, I abhor.
All the sons of Adam are my brethren ; but I can
not but believe the plain import of God's declara
tions. I dare not quarrel with the divine procedure.
That philanthropy that hopes contrary to God's
declaration, is Atheism. " He that believeth shad
be saved, he that believeth not, shall be damned."

398 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
It appears from Scripture, that the faden angels
also will stand on that day before the judgment-
seat of Christ. The Apostle Peter speaks of the
angels that sinned, as being cast doAvn to bed, and
delivered into chains of darkness, to be reserved
unto judgment. — 2 Pet. ii. 4. Jude expresses the
same thing. The Scriptures also teach, that the
saints are to be admitted to join the Lord in the
judgment of wicked men and angels. Doctor
M'Knight, however, warmly controverts this com
mon opinion, but I think, without being able to
overturn the foundation on which it rests. The
passage on which this opinion is built, is to be
found in the beginning of the sixth chapter .of the
first Epistle to the Corinthians : " Do ye not know,
that the saints shad judge the world ? Know ye
not that we shad judge angels ? " The expression,
" the saints shall judge the world," he thus para
phrases : " Do ye not know, that the inspired
teachers among you, judge the world by the laws
of the Gospel which they promulgate ? " But this
interpretation is altogether Avild. The term saints,
is appropriated to believers in general, and can
never be employed to designate inspired teachers.
He observes in a note : " this name, though com
mon to all who believe in the true God, is some
times appropriated to the spiritual men in the
Christian church, Avho were inspired Avith the
knowledge of the Gospel." — Col. i. 26. But the

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 390
passage on Avhich he rests his proof, has not the
least intention of giving him its countenance. The
mystery formerly hidden, now manifest to the
saints, is the Gospel which is made known to ad
the saints.
On the words, " judge the world," he observes :
" Here St. Paid told the Corinthians, that agreeably
to Christ's promise to the Apostles, Matt. xix. 28,
they were at that time actuady judging or ruling
the world by the laws of the Gospel which they
preached to the world." But the Apostles cannot
be meant here : it is expressly asserted of the
Corinthian believers, "and if the world shad be
judged by you." The world then we see, is to be
judged by the Corinthian saints as well as the
Apostles ; besides, this interpretation destroys the
argument. How does the fact, that the Apostles
are now judging the world by their doctrine, prove
that the Corinthians should settle their own dis
putes among themselves ? We Apostles, declare
the judgment of the world ; therefore, ye believers,
may judge of the temporal concerns among your
selves. Is this argument ? That it is not inspired
men who are meant, is clear from the fourth verse :
"If then ye have judgments pertaining to things
of this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed
in the church." Surely inspired men could not be
of this number. The opinion that this direction
refers to the lowest order of what he calls spiritual

400 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
men, is so exceedingly ridiculous, as not to merit
refutation. The least esteemed in the church, must
be the least esteemed of ad, and not of a certain
class in the church.
With respect to Mat. xix. 28, it does not appear
to import, that the doctrine of the Apostles now
judges the world. The Apostles are now testifying
to the world of Jesus. If men believe not, this
word wdl condemn them at the last day. But this
passage appears to refer to the personal observa
tion ofthe Apostles on the day of judgment. "In
the resurrection, when the Son of Man shad sit on
the throne of his glory, ye also shad sit on twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." This
author's objections to the opinion, that the saints
will join with their Lord in the judgment, are con
tained in the following extract : " With respect to
the idea which many entertain, of the saints being
Christ's assessors when he judges the world, I
observe, that it is repugnant to all the accounts
given of the general judgment ; and particularly
to our Lord's oavh account of that great event,
Mat. xxv., Avhere the righteous are represented as
all standing before his tribunal along with the
wicked, and as receiving their sentence at the same
time with them." I apprehend, there is not the
slightest repugnancy between this opinion and
those accounts. Though the righteous are to stand
before the Lord along with the wicked, yet, the

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 401
former being judged first and acquitted, may join
in the judgment of wicked men and angels. He
adds, " besides, for what purpose are the saints to
be Christ's assessors at the judgment? Is it to
give him counsel ? or only to assent to the sen
tences he wid pass on the Avicked ? Surely not the
former, and for the latter, why should their asseut
be necessary, more than the assent of the holy
angels ? " In reply, I ask, why is there a day of
judgment ? Why will Christ permit his people to
reign with him? Why has he made them one
with himself? Are we entitled to ask a reason,
before we admit God's plain declarations ? Will
any one who knows the dignity to which Christ
has exalted our nature, ask why believers shall be
set above angels? If they are with their Lord,
why should they not sit with him ? For the con
fession of his word, they have been condemned by
the world. Many of them have stood before kings
and rulers for his sake, and all of them have been
hated and despised by ad men, for professing their
confidence of salvation, through faith, in his name,
and for walking in his commandments. In that
day, things will be reversed. Kings, and con
querors, and statesmen, and philosophers, must
stand before Christ and his followers. Those who
have honored Jesus, he will honor. Yes, ye proud
sons of science, ye must stand before poor Joseph,
the London simpleton. This is a glorious promise,

402 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
and therefore not lightly to be given up. Is it no
encouragement to bear the reproaches, the rnock-
ings, the calumnies of the world, that we are to be
admitted to a seat with Christ in the judgment cf
this great day ? Now Ave weep, but then shall we
langh ; but wo unto you who laugh now, for ye
shall mourn. The expression, "do ye not know
that Ave shall judge angels ? " this author para
phrases thus : " do ye not know that we declare
the judgment of the evil angels ? " Was ever gloss
more violent and absurd ? Judging the angels, is
only declaring that they shall be judged. To
relate a fact, is then the same thing as to perform
it ; besides, what argument is in the words in this
interpretation ? We Apostles declare, that the evdl
angels shall be judged, therefore, you Christians in
Corinth, haATe a right to settle your OAvn disputes
about the affairs of this world, without going to
laAv. Again, if it is the Apostles who are said to
judge angels by their declaration, it is the Apostles
who have a right to judge the things pertaining to
this life ; for both assertions respect the same per
sons. " If Ave judge angels, how much more,
&c." This, therefore, would speak nothing of
the duty of Christians to settle their disputes with
out going to law, the subject which the Apostle
was treating. In no sense are the evil angels
re-judged by the Apostles ; nor will the apostolical
writings be the standard by which they are to

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 403
be judged. The Apostles, as far as I have yet
learned, do not even declare by what sins the
fallen angels have rendered themselves obnoxious
to judgment. Theologians, hoAvever, have happily
supplied this curious piece of information. It was
well knoAvn to Milton.
We learn from the Apostle Peter that in the day
of judgment, the earth and the heavens also will be
destroyed by fire. By the Word of God, the
heavens and the earth were first made : " But the
heavens and the earth which are noAV, by the same
word are kept in store, reserAred unto fire against
the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly
men." — 2 Pet. iii. 7. He gives us a tremendous
description of this destruction, in the following
words : " But the day of the Lord will come as a
thief in the night, in the which the heavens shall
pass away with a great noise, and the elements shad
melt with fervent heat ; the earth also, and the
works that are therein shall be burned up."
What are we to understand by the heavens that
are to be burned? Doctor M'Knight supposes,
that it is merely our atmosphere. In my opinion,
it includes also all the heavenly bodies. It is true,
that the atmosphere is called heaven (Gen. i. 8,) ;
but here, the term is not heaven, but heavens;
which includes the atmosphere and starry firma
ment, in contradistinction from which, the glorious
place of the Divine presence" is called the third

404 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
heaven. The latter cannot be included ; therefore,
the term, lieavens, must apply to the first and
second heavens.
Science, contemplating the number, magnitude,
and distance of the fixed stars, derides the sim
plicity of the illiterate fisherman, who represents
the catastrophe of our insignificant planet, as involv
ing the ruin of so many systems and worlds: She
has discovered, that these sparkling globes are
scattered in countless multitudes throughout the
immense regions within her view ; that each of
them is a sun, the centre of a system, round which
other worlds, with myriads of inhabitants, are
revolving. Shad ad those immense orbs, Avith all
their inhabitants, probably more respectable than
man, perish at the destruction of this molehill that
we inhabit ? No, no ; the discordance of the
Scriptures with the sublime doctrines of philoso
phy, and the discoveries of astronomy, shows that
the writers were ignorant impostors. Impudent
soceress ! how dare you assume such a tone ? By
Avhat evidence do you justify your arrogant pre
tensions ? Presumest thou to confront the best
evidence of testimony Avith thy A'ain conjectures. ?
Thou art an impostor ; thou art falsely caded
Science. All the discoveries of the true OAvner of
that name, are to the honor of the Lord of the Scrip
tures. Thou sayest thou hast discovered that the
stars are numerous beyond conception, immense in

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 405
size and distance. Well, madam, so much the
more glory to Jehovah ; so much more extent to
the dominions of His redeemed people. Thou
sayest that the planets of system are inhabited as
well as the earth, and that round the stars there
are worlds thickly peopled. Stop, Mrs. Impudence,
thou sayest more than thou canst prove ; true
science belieA~es nothing without evidence. All
thy discoveries can prove no more than that from
analogy it is probable they are inhabited. The
man of God has no objection that there should be
innumerable mdlions of worlds, ad the residence
of happy creatures ; but he is not a philosopher
more than a Christian, who founds behef on con
jecture. If a single clear passage of the Word of
God was inconsistent with the opinion that the
heavenly bodies are inhabited, I would contempt-
tuously reject that opinion, and sternly look defi
ance into the face of ad the astronomers on the
earth. But I see nothing in the most extravagant
guesses of astronomy, were they even true, that
forbids us to believe with the Scriptures, that ad
the stars of heaven will be burned in the general
conflagration. This earth is infinitely more impor
tant than any world, as the residence of man.
Human nature' is exalted, not merely above that of
the stellar inhabitants, but above that of every
created being. Even in heaven man wdl have no
superior but God. The meanest of Christ's people,

406 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
as one with himself, must reign over ad creatures.
The glasses of the astronomer cannot discover to
him the glory of the person and works of Jesus
Christ, which the most illiterate Christian has dis
covered in the book of God. Ignorant of the high
destinies of the ransomed of the Lord, he stumbles
at the comparative importance of this world in the
accounts of Scripture, after he has been viewing
the bright worlds dispersed through the immense
fields of ether.
Theologians who Avish to keep in the good graces
of both science and Scripture, are ever endeavoring
to mediate betAveen these rivals. Many a stretch
they make to reconcde then discordant claims.
Philosophy is haughty, and must be flattered and
soothed into reconciliation. The Scriptures are
pliant and submissive, and must soften and explain.
Many a fine figure has - been invented to give a
philosophical turn to the dictates of inspiration.
On this subject, divines have made the Scriptures
acknowledge to philosophy, not only that the stars
are not to be burned with the earth, but that they
were not made at the creation of the world. " In
ad probability," says Doctor M'Knight, " Moses,
iu his history, describes the creation of our plane
tary system only. For though (Gen. i. 16,) he
says, ' God made two great lights, the greater light
to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the
night, He made the stars also.'' The words He made,

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 407
found in the latter clause, are not in the original.
Taylor, therefore, thinks the translation shoidd be,
tlie lesser light to rule the night with the stars —
tiiat is, jointly with the stars, they having been
made long before ; for it is the opinion of many,
that the stars are much more ancient than the
earth, and shall remain after it is destroyed." A
phdosopher Avould have said at once, without cere
mony, that tins account shows Moses to have been
an ignorant impostor ; but a commentator can do
the business more respectfully. The translation
may be altered. It may ; but never can be justly
made to say anything different from ours. Lite
rally it is, " and the stars." The ediptical words
are necessarily supplied from the connection, and
can be no other than He made.
This passage affords other evidence that the stars
wid be burned in the day of judgment. Parkhurst
produces satisfactory authority, that the word trans
lated elements, denotes also the heavenly bodies,
sun, moon, and stars ; and many circumstances in
this connexion incline me so to understand it here.
1. The only other sense in which the word could
be used here, is that of first principles. But if that
were its meaning, I think it would have been
applied also to the earth as wed as the heavens.
Would the Apostle speak of the first principles of
the atmosphere, and not of those of the earth?
Estius, indeed, understands the word as denoting

408 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
the elements of which this terraqueous globe is
compassed; but this cannot be its signification.
Would the Apostle first speak of the dissolution of
the elements, or first principles of the earth, and
afterwards of the burning of the earth ? The ele
ments of the earth by burning shall be dissolved,
and the earth shall be burned, would be intolerable."
M'Knight is of opinion, that in this verse the Apos
tle is speaking of the electrical matter, the sul
phureous vapors, the clouds, and whatever else
floats in the air, together with the air itself. But
these are not the elements of the atmosphere in
any sense ; nor do I think that the Apostle would
bring forward, as a thing striking and terrible, the
mere chemical dissolution of the atmosphere.
2. There are no elements in the atmosphere,
according to the ancient chemistry. The ancients
counted earth, air, fire, and Avater^he first princi
ples of all bodies. In the atmosphere there are
different kinds of air ; but ancient phdosophy was
ignorant of this. Now, if the Apostle had been
speaking of first principles, he would have used the
word in its received acceptation, and would not
have spoken of the elements of the atmosphere.
3. It is not said that the heavens and the earth
shall be dissolved into their elements, but that the
elements themselves shall be dissolved. Now, a
thing may be dissolved into its elements ; but ele
ments are not dissolvent. Almighty poAver might

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 409
annihilate the very elements of all things ; but this
would not be dissolving them. However, matter
is not to be annihilated, but, by burning, to be
dissolved. 4. The word melt Avid apply to the heavenly
bodies, not to ah or elements ; the decomposition
of air is not melting. We woidd not say, that
water is melted by boiling, much less that air is
melted into its first principles.
5. The phraseology of the passage agrees best
with this interpretation. It is said, that the earth
and the works therein shad be burned. If the
earth be burned, the works on jt shall be burned
of course ; but for emphasis, this is pleonasticady
expressed. A thing that is implied, is distinctly
presented to the mind, to deepen the impression,
and increase the awfulness of the description. In
like manner, the term heavens includes the heavenly
bodies ; but the image presented to the imagination,
is rendered more grand and impressive by specifi
cation. M'Knight makes the term heavens signify
the atmosphere, and elements signify the atmosphere,
with the vapors, &c, suspended in it. This is
pleonasm of the worst kind' — the atmosphere shall
be dissolved by burning, and the atmosphere with
its vapors, dec, shall be also dissolved.
So then, astronomers, you will not be able to
save the grand objects of your contemplations from
this general conflagration. Pursue your discove-

410 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
ries with ardor ; every new star added to the fist
wid augment the splendor of this magnificent
illumination. Let us now pause and contemplate this wonderful
spectacle. Behold the flames that issue from in
numerable midions of Avorlds. Hear the terrible
noise of the burning heavens, thundering into dis
solution. You giddy throng, come out from your
gay assemblies to view those dreadful concomi
tants of your perdition. How many brilliant lustres
are lighted up in the great assembly to which you
are caded! This day commences the complete
misery of ad that know not God, and obey not the
Gospel. This terrible scene is only the porch
to hell.
From the circumstance of the time of the judg
ment being caded a day, it would be rash, abso-
solutely to limit it to the duration of one of our
days ; yet this term, so frequently applied to it,
appears inconsistent with the supposition, that it
wid have a duration of any considerable time.
Some have thought that it shad last a thousand
years ; and as the multiplicity of business seems to
them to demand such a length of time, they have
contrived to find it in the Word of God : " One
day is to the Lord as a thousand years." This pas
sage, however, cannot bear on the point at all.
Whatever be its import, it does not say that one
day is a thousand yrears, much less does it say .that

DAY' OF JUDGMENT. 411
the day of the Lord is a thousand years. It is
called the last day; and this seems plainly to
import, that it is the last of those days adotted to
this world. It is caded the day of the Lord, and
the day of Christ, because ad the other days of this
world, since the fad, have been given to man. He
has been permitted to work ad iniquity, as if there
were no God to rule over him. But this Avid be
the day of God, in which he Avid have to account
for all his works of unrighteousness.
To many it appears absurd, that the judgment
should be transacted in a very short space of time.
Were the trials to proceed as in our courts, ten
thousand years would be insufficient to finish them.
To expedite the business, Doctor M'Knight has
contrived to discriminate the righteous from the
wicked at the general judgment, not by any formal
inquiry into the character and actions of each indi
vidual, but by the kind of body in which each wdl
appear. But this would not be a judgment. The
dress of a culprit is not his trial. Besides, it is
mere hypothesis, against which also many passages
of Scripture seem to militate. Indeed, almost every
passage that refers to the subject, seems to take for
granted, that particular crimes Avid be charged.
For every idle word, men shad give account. The
dead are said to be judged out of the things written
in the books ; and though this be figurative, it still
impdes particular investigation.

412 DAY OF JUDGMENT.
How, then, can this be done in a moderate space
of time ? All I would reply is, that what is impos
sible with man, is possible with God. He can
make us perceive at once a mdlion of facts, as
easily as we now perceive one, according to our
present constitution. The trial of each individual
of the whole human race might be going on at the
same time ; the whole might be perceived by all,
and the business might be finished, not in a day,
but in an hour. Men err, not knowing the Scrip
tures, neither the power of God. Instead of receiA'-
ing the plain testimony of the Word of God, they
spend their time in reconciling apparent incon
sistencies by their oavu vain speculations. Upon
every point we should ask, what saith the Scrip
tures? When Ave have found its answer, let us
receive it, however improbable in the estimation
of human Avisdom.
Disciples of Jesus Christ, let this great day be
much in yrour contemplations. Cherish your hearts
with the prospects it presents. While this is
before you, the concerns of this world will appear
trifling, and your soitoays Avid be mitigated. To
the Avorld it may appear as a dream, but to you it
is a comforting reality. This wdl be your day, as
well as that of your Lord. You are now the fools,
but on that day you will appear to have been wise.
Remember that it is one of the characteristics of a
Christian, " to love his appearing." All Avho are

DAY OF JUDGMENT. 413
taught by the Gospel, are " looking for that blessed
hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God,
even our Saviour Jesus Christ." They aa*1io hate
him may dread his coming ; but the loving, faith
ful bride must rejoice in the coming of the bride
groom. Fly round, then, ye sluggish years ; com
plete the destined period of this world's duration.
Time, rod on, rod on ; haste, make way for the
coming of our Lord. O ! when shad we behold on
earth his lovely countenance ?

OBSERVATIONS

INCOMPREHENSIBILITY OF GOD.

The wise men of this world have labored to
make themselves ignorant of things known to every
chdd, and have pretended to fathom the deep
things of God. Whde they have doubted and
even denied the existence of the world, they have
dared to soar in regions of impious conjecture far
beyond the reach of the human faculties. They
have arrived at the utmost verge of the opposite
extremes of madness. Some have denied ad cer
tainty of knowledge, and others have presumed to
guess at the manner of the existence and know
ledge of the incomprehensible Jehovah. Rejecting
the knowledge divinely afforded them, they specu
late on the secrets of inscrutable wisdom.
The character of the God of the universe, even
as discoverable by the light of reason, is invested
with attributes which the highest human intedect
in vain attempts to comprehend. Our assent is

416 INCOMI'UEUENsIIJILITY OF GOD.
commanded as perfectly as by mathematical axioms,
yet our mind recods at the result of its OAvn opera
tions. We not onby cannot but admit that such
things are so, but we see the contrary to be absurd,
contradictory, and impossible. At the same time
when we attempt to contemplate the truth which
forces itself on our belief, we are utterly con
founded ; Ave find it to be altogether beyond the
grasp of the human mind.
That God is immense and eternal is admitted by
every one Avho believes in His existence. Indeed
immensity and eternity are attributes essential to
the nature of God. To question this is to doubt
His existence, for whatever is limited in time or
place cannot be a perfect being. If there was a
time when God was not, then He must either have
been the author of His own being, or He must have
been produced by some other cause. Both of these
suppositions are absurd. It is impossible that any
thing could be the cause of its own existence, and
nothing can be supposed to be before Him, as the
cause of His being. However far we trace back
the cause of created existence, we must at last
come to a cause that is uncaused, or the great
First-Cause of all things. If then there is a God,
He must be eternal. But that there is a God is as
clear as there is a Avorkl. As something now exists,
there must have been something previously exist
ing to confer that existence. Nothing cannot

INCOMI'KEHENSIBILITY OF GOD. 417
create something. This is the necessary conclusion
of reason. It is also the dictate of inspiration.
The Apostle Paul shows that the Gentile world
Avas without excuse. For the invisible things of
God are clearly seen from the things that are made,
even His eternal power and Godhead.
That God is immense is equally clear from the
light of reason. If there be a place where God is
not, then in that place it may be said there is no
God. If His presence is bounded then He is an
imperfect being, which is inconsistent with our
idea of God. On this supposition He is not as
great even as the human mind could conceive Him
to be, for whatever admits of limits might be
greater. And if God's presence admits of limits
there is actuady something greater. Space admits
of no limits, and if God fids not the immensity of
space, space is greater than God, which is absurd.
Let us then try to contemplate a Being immense
and eternal, and we shall find that we may as well
try to look on the meridian sun with the naked
eye. Is there anything in the revealed character
of God more beyond the grasp of human intedect?
When once an Almighty and an ad-wise being is
supposed to exist, we have no difficulty in con
ceiving how He could make everything that is in
the universe, and everything we can suppose possi
ble ? But how can we conceive of a being existing
from eternity ? Our minds can go back, and back,

418 TNCOMTEEHENSIBILITY OF GOD.
and back, one step after another, untd we arrive
at the utmost dmit of any given time, but stid at
last we come to a point where we must stop, and
when we examine that point it is as far from eter
nity as where we started. When we have gone
back as far as the mind can reach, stid there is an
eternity behind us undiminished by anything we
have taken from it. To form an idea of a being
Avithout a beginning is a task no less difficult than
the creation of a world. We have no difficulty in
conceiving that Almighty power may do anything,
but AA'hence is the origin of power ? How can we
conceive power without an engine ? A child will
admit that God hath made ad things, and this
relieves his mind from its labor in conceiving how
they began to exist. But he cannot stop here, the
thought, how God began to exist Himself, suggests
itself to his mind, presses on him, and overwhelms
him. When he is told that God never began to
exist, he may stop his inquiries, but he has received
no light that can satify reason. He is delivered
from his perplexity only by ceasing to think on the
subject. He receives the report just on the same
evidence that the Christian believes what the
Scriptures testify of the Godhead of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit. He can no more conceive
how God never began to exist, than he can con
ceive how one God subsists in three persons. And
the child is put on a level with the greatest philo-

INCOMPEEIIKNSIUII.ITY OF GOD. 419
sopher on this subject. The perplexing question
about the unoriginating existence of God that
occurs to the chdd is perpetuady presenting itself
to the mind of every man that thinks. The only
Avay to get relief from it is to cease to listen to it.
In matters within the comprehension of the human
mind,' difficulties wdl be gradually overcome by
labor and study. But here to labor and study is to
increase our perplexity. Too much study of this
point, would literady make a man mad.
Should any man be inclined to deliver himself
from these confounding thoughts, by taking refuge
in atheism, even here they wid pursue him and
give him no rest. Even although it were granted
that there is no God, stid there is an eternity and
immensity. To suppose that there was a time
before time is a contradiction. The mind of man
perceives that the eternity of time is a necessary
truth, the reverse of which is absurd and impossi
ble. Though it cannot fathom eternity, it must
entertain it. It is not dearer that there is time
now, than that time never had a beginning. O
eternity, thou irresistible, yet most inconceivable
thought ! Thy existence is as clear as the light of
heaven, thy nature is as dark as chaos. The mind
of man can neither throw thee off nor bear thy
weight. And space, where are thy limits ? That which
bounds the greatest conceivable extension is space;

420 INCOMPREHENSIBILITY OF GOD.
when our imagination has travelled to the utmost
bounds of its conception, space lies on the other side,
and is then only beginning. No man can set bounds
to space in his own mind. That it is immense is as
clear as that it has the smadest expansion. Tlie
mind is convinced as fully, that there is space with
out end, as that there is space between,the eye and
the horizon. Yet who can comprehend boundless
space ? Who can think of extension that never
comes to an end ? We can conceive the existence
of Avorlds, and of extension beyond all the powers
of calculation, but still the mind must have some
place to stop. It wistfudy looks out for a resting
place, but like the dove from the ark, it can find
none. There is space beyond its utmost con
ceptions. Vain man, Avhen thou canst not fathom things
that thou seest not, yet admit, why wilt thou cavil
with any thing in the revealed account of the
divine character ? Wilt thou neA'er cease to be a
fool, by a desire to show thy wisdom. Puny intel
lect, thou Avdt receive nothing that thou canst not
comprehend, yet there is nothing in the divine
character, that is not above thy feeble comprehen
sion ! Let the Christian learn in all things to sub
mit implicitly to what God teaches. Let him not
vainly as well as impiously try to explain what is
inexplicable to man. That God says so. should
satisfv the belieArer.

CATAhOGUE

BOOKS,

PUBLISHED

/LND

FOR SALE TO THE TRADE, OR AT RETAIL,

EDWARD H. FLETCHER,
141 NASSAU STREET,
NEW YORK.
1852.

m-

' ** ** *""***""*WVhlf*»,WVWWV^^MW».n

EDWARD H. FLETCHER,
141 NASSAU-STR T,
Keeps "distantly on hand a complete assortment of RELIGIOUS
AND MISCELLANEOUS
which are sold at very low prices.
Attention is particularly requested to the following list of
^nltmhlt ml Smpnrtunt ^nMiniiim
ALEXANDER, J. W.—Tke Young Men of Cities urged to the
woik of Mental Improvement.
OARSON, L. L. D., Alexander, The Life of, by Rev. Geo. C.
Moore. " The Jonathan Edwards ofthe 19th century."
•* " The Knowledge of Jesus the most excellent ofthe Sci
ences.
** A charming book, and we could wish it were in every
Christian family." Lutheran Observer.
11 A book of vigorous thought, worthy of careful study."
Rel. Herald.
" Would do honor to any pen that ever wrote."
Troy Budget,
H ¦* The God of Providence. (In press.)
CONVERSATIONAL COMMENTARY on Matthew, John.
and the Acts. By Wra. Hague, D. D.
CO BBIN, Ingram. The Illustrated Domestic Bible.
CHEEVERj D. D., Geo. B. — A Plea for Children and the Chris
tian Sabbath.
DOWLlNGr, D. D., John.— A Collection of Hymns for use in con
ference end prayer meetings.
« " The Old-Fashioned Bible, or ten reasons against the
proposed Baptist version ofthe New Testament.

S Qavwi/^v

S3-

EVERTS, Wm. W.— The Life and Thoughts of John Foster,
« " The Social Position and Influence of Cities.
u « The Theatre.
FOSTER, John.— The Spirit of Missions, with an Essay by Rev.
J. P. Thompson, pastor of the Broadway Tabernacle Church.
HEAVEN'S ANTIDOTE to the Ourse of Labor, a prize essay
On the Sabbath.
HARRIS, Mrs. S. M. — Memoir of Jacob Thomas, missionary to
Assam.
HAGUE, D.D., Wra., Conversational Commentary od Matthew,
John and the Acts.
** " The Duties of Employers and Employed.
MOORE, Geo. C. — Life of Alexander Carson, LL. D.
MATTISON, H.— The Trinity and Modern Arianism.
PAINE, Martyn. — The Soul, Instinct and Life, physiologically
distinguished from Materialism.
SABBATH ESSAYS; comprising the Pearl of Days, Heaven's
Antidote, and the Light of the Week.
THE GOD OF PROVIDENCE, the God ofthe Bible; by
Alex. Carson.
THE PEARL OF DAYS, by a Laborer's Daughter.
THE LIGHT OF THE WEEK, or tho Advantages of the
Sabbath to the Working Classes. A prize Essay.
WILLIAMS, D. D., Wm. R., Miscellanies ; consisting of Dis
courses and Essays. This volume contains the most elaborate
and finished of Dr. Williams' productions.
"A volume which is absolutely necessary to the completeness of a
modern library." — /V, Y. Weekly Review.
" Dr. Williams is a profound scholar and a brilliant writer."  If.Y.
Evangelist "* * * from the pen of one of the most able and accomplished
5 authors of the age." — Bap. Memorial.
" We are glad to see this volume. We wish that such men abound
ed in every sect." — Ohn. Register.
" This volume contains some ofthe choicest emanations of a mind
of the highest order." — iV. Y. Com. Advertiser.
" This is one of the richest volumes that has been given to the pub
lie for many years."— If. Y. Bap. Register.
" The author's mmd is cast in no common mould. * * a delightful
volume."— Methodist Protestant

B-

"A rich literary repast."— Albany Journal.
'His character presents a rare union ofthe highest qualities of
tlie *cliolar and the Cliristian."— Olive Branch.
" Dr. VV. is one ofthe loading minds of our country, and this vol-
umeoneof the richest gems of literature."— £tme Rock Qaictte.
WORDS IN EARNEST; by Revs. T.W.Alexander, W. W
i-verls, Win. Hague, and Geo. B. Cheever.
S. S. H7MNS — The Baptist S. S. Hymn Book.
TURNEY, Rev. E— The Scriptural Law of Baptism.
NOEL. Rev. and Hon. B. W — Essay on Christian Baptism, with
an Introduction by John Dowling, D. D.
BELCHER. Rev. Joseph.— The Baptist Pulpit of the United
States, with tine portraits.
FISH, Rev. H. C— The Baptist Catechism, iu two vols.
ARTICLES OP FAITH as generally held by the Baptist De
nomination.
WHEELOOK, Rev. A — Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
MANLY, Revs. Basil and Basil Jr.— The Baptist Psatmody, a
Collection of Hymns for the Worship of God.

MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES, a new and beautiful article,
with a silvir border. Per Quire.
LETTERS OF DISMISSION OF CHURCH
MEMBERS  50 ct».
LETTERS OF NOTIFICATION OF RECEP
TION OF MEMBERS  50 cts.
CALLS OF COUNCILS  50 eta.
ASSOCIATIONAL LETTERS  50 eta.

^

dflfotfjer** ^uirtication*.
Wntus in t&fixntst:
OR ,
THE PATH OF WISDOM MADE PLAIN.

WILLIAM "W. EYEETS. J. W. ALEXANDEB,
WILLIAM HAGUE, G. W. ANDERSON,
GEORGE B. CHEEVER.
" This is a most capital work for young men. It con
sists of essays on the social position and influence of cities;
the temptations of city life ; young men of cities urged to
the work of mental employment ; the theatre ; duties of
employers and employed ; punishment not preventive ; a
plea for children ; and the Sabbath." — Lutheran Observer.
" These discourses have been prepared in view of the
actual necessities and dangers of the times, and have a di
rect application to the condition of thousands. We should
be glad to see hundreds of copies of this volume in the
hands of our Church members in this city ; for we are per
suaded its careful and prayerful perusal would be attended
¦with good results on a large scale." — Central Christian
Herald, Cin
" On the whole this is one of the most useful as well as
attractive series of essays which have fallen under our no
tice." — Christian News.

^mtiutm tlnfulhit:
COMPRISING),
THE HISTORY OF PROVIDENCE AS UNFOLDED IN THE
BOOK OF ESTHER, also, THE GOD OF PROVIDENCE,
THE GOD OF THE BIBLE, and also, THE TRUTH
OF THE GOSPEL DEMONSTRATED FROM THB
CHARACTER OF GOD MANIFESTED
IN THE ATONEMENT.
BY ALEXANDER CARSON.
12mo. cloth, Trice, 75 cents.
" This volume contains an able and highly interesting
elucidation of the wonderful disclosures of divine Provi
dence, narrated in the book of Esther. The facts re
corded in that book reveal the unseen hand of the Most
High, directing the most minute events, as well as those
esteemed great, to accomplish the hallowed purposes of
his own will. The work before us draws out and illus
trates this consolatory truth." — Chn. Observer."
"We have already in former numbers of the Memo
rial, noticed " the Life of Carson " by Mr. Moore, and
" the Knowledge of Jesus," written by Dr. C. We have
now the third volume in the series, and we hope there
will be many more, if they are all as good as the one
before us. It contains a clear, cogent, and incontrovert
ible argument in favor of the cardinal doctrine of a spe
cial Providence of God. The skeptic maintains that all
events occur in accordance with the general laws of
nature: but Dr. Carson shows conclusively, that even in
the general laws of hi3 government, God specially super
intends them so that particular events transpire by the
efficiency of particular agents, and usually in accordance
•with general laws."— Bap. Memorial.

WOEDS IN EARNEST:

THE PATH OF WISDOM MADE PLAIN

BY HEVDS.

WILLIAI W. EYERTS,
J. W. ALEXANDER,
WILLIAM HAGUE,
G. W. ANDERSON,
GEORGE B. CHEEYER.

This work has fceen elaborately prepared, and makes an
excellent book for young people, especially, to peruse.

giTt^'ooks,
IN PLAIN AND ELEGANT BINDINGS,
FOR SALE DY
EDWARD H. FLETCHER,
141 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK.

MISCELLANIES.
BY WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, D D.
Plain 12mo, $1 25; do. 8vo, SI 75; half morocco, $2 25; cloth, full
gilt, S3 00; Turkey, full gilt, S5 00; do., clasps, $6 00.
DOWLING'S CONFERENCE HYMNS.
Plain, 25c. ; gilt, 40c
THE LIGHT OF THE WEEK:
Or, the Advantages of the Sabbath to the Working Classes.
A PRIZE ESSAY.
Plain, 25c. ; cloth, full gilt, 60c
PROYIDENCE UNFOLDED.
BY ALEXANDER CARSON, LL.D.
Plain, 75c. ; cloth, full gilt, $2 00.
LIFE OF ALEXANDER CARSON, LL.D.
BY REV. GEO. C. MOORE.
Plain, 60c. ; cloth, full gilt, $1 50.
WORDS IN EARNEST.
AN EXCELLENT WORK FOR THE YOUNG.
Plain, 75c. ; full gilt, $2 00.
MEMOIR OF JACOB THOMAS, MISSIONARY TO ASSAM.
Tut. morocco, $2 00.

FOSTER ON MISSIONS.
WITH
AN ESSAY ON THE SKEPTICISM OF THE CHURCH.
BY REV. JOSEPH P. THOMPSON,
PAST OB OF THE BBOADWAY TABERNACLE CHURCH.
{From the New York Evangelist.)
This essay of Foster's is one of the grandest and most eloquent of all
his writings, the reproduction of which, in this inviting form, will do
much good. The missionary work assumes a dignity and importance,
wndcr the glowing tints of his masterly pencil, which ought to shamo
the languid interest ofthe church, and which very naturally and appro
priately suggests Mr. Thompson's preliminary essay on the skepticism
of the church. This essay is very well written, and an impressive pres-
entation of the causes and effects of a deficient faith in the promises of
God, in respect to the world's conversion. The work is neatly printed,
and we hope will find many readers.
(From tlie New York Recorder.)
^This is the substance of a discourse preached by its celebrated author,
and subsequently prepared by him for the press. It is one of the most
able and comprehensive discussions of the subject of missions that has
ever been written. It contains that remarkable fragmentof Foster's, en
titled " God Invisible," conceived in the very spirit of the old Hebrew
prophets. The preliminary Essay, by Rev. J. P. Thompson, adds to the
value of the original work. (From the Baptist Messenger.)
John Foster on Missions, is all that need be said. To say more, would
belike an attempt to gild the sun.
(From the Christian Chronicle.)
If, is one of the grandest productions of its author, exhibiting, in a high
degree, the comprehensive grasp of thought, the lofty sweep of imRgm-
ation, and the rugged and massive style which made him for so many
years the acknowledged Jupiter Tonans among English Dissenters.
PUBLISHED BY
EDWARD IE. FliGTCHER,
141 NASSAU STREET, MEW YORK.

recommendations
OP
THE KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS.
BY DR. CARSON".

[From the Primitive Church Majrazine, Lonrlu.]
"In illustrating this glorious theme the author's
mind expands in the lull strength and vigqr of vta con
ceptions, and pictures realities of Divine Vila almost
too brightly to be beheld with the eye of 'ati undim-
med. " The. present volume (' The Knowledge of Jesus')
is full of . invaluable principles, cast in an attractive
mould. Every page lives with interest; there is no
thing dry, nothing tedious. Its style flows transparent
and iree as the mountain stream."
[From the Orthodox Presbyterian, Belfast]
EDITPD BY DR. EDGAR.
" On matters of church order, it is well known we
differ from him ; but as a scholar we honor him — as a
Christian brother we embrace him. In the knowledge
of the philosophy of the language, he is far in advance
of the present age ; and with respect to metaphysical
acuteness and powers of reasoning, he has been called
'the Jonathan Edwards of the nineteenth century.'
His character as a philosophic theologian, and a pro
found, original, independent thinker, stands in the very
highest rank ; and he is only justly designated, when
called one ofthe most philosophic reasoners ofthe pres
ort age." EDWARD H. FLETCHER, Publisher,
141 Nassau St., N. TT.

ALEXANDER CARSON, LL.D.
THE KNO¥LEDGETF JESUS,
The most Excellent of the Sciences.
BY ALEXANDER CARSON, LL.D.
(From ihe Lutheran Observer.)
This is a charming book, and we could wish it were in every Christian
family. The author is a writer of rare merit : learned, philosophic, pro
found, devout, and singularly fluent and beautiful in his style. We taku
great pleasure in recommending it. He has been called "the Jonathan
Edwards ol the nineteenth century," and those who read this admirable
production will not be unwilling to admit his claim to this distinguished
compliment. (From the Religions Herald, Hartford.)
This is b book of vigorous thought, deserving of ttttentive perusal and
careful study by ministers and intelligent laymen. It discusses in a con
densed manner the facts respecting God and His government which are
presented by nature, nnd then pusses to the more explicit revelation of
the lUblp, and shows the identification of the goppel wirh the divine char
acter, as manifested in the work of redemption through the operation oi
the Trinity, and its self-evident truth.
(From the Watchman and Rejlector.)
The late Dr. Alexander Careon, of Ireland, possessed an Intellect of
great logical power nnd a heart of warm affi-ctions. Hie works are hence
characterized by depth and clearness or thought, and by vigor and fervor
of expression. His views of the gospel, as of th« framework and ordi
nances of tlie church, nre as luminous as day. The present volume take*
rank among the best of the productions of his pen.
(From the Congregationalist.)
Tho work shows for itself that it waa written by a man of bold and
¦trong thought It has no reference to the distinguishing doctrines of
his own denomination, though Dr. Carson has some celebrity for writing*
U this class. PUBLISHED BY
EDWARD H. FLETCHER,
141 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK.

THE
LIFE OF ALEXANDER CARSON, LL.D.
BY REV. GEORGE C. MOORE.
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
(From the Independent, N. Y.)
Mr. Moore has rendered a good service to the memory
of his preceptor by this sketch of his private and inward
life, and he has rendered also a service hardly less valua
ble to Christian truth and charity.

(.From the Religious Herald, Richmond, Va.)
This is an interesting work. Indeed, it could scarcely
fail to be so, for its subject was not only one of the most
learned and able theologians of our own denomination,
but one of the great men of the present age.

(.From the New York Tribune.-)
The biography of that eminent scholar and divine in a
etyle of unusual vivacity and point.
PUBLISHED BT
EDWARD H. FLETCHER,
141 NASSAU STREET, NEW TfORK

THE
IS A IF SP H 3 S IF W a I? 2 "J?
OP THE
UNITED STATES;
CONSISTING OP ELOQUENT AND INSTRUCTIVE PASSAGES FROM
THE SERMONS OF 200 BAPTIET MINISTERS.
By JOSEPH BELCL'SK, D.D.
EMBELLISHED WITH FINE PORTRAITS.
"The portraits are worth more than the cost of the entire work.
It cannot be otherwise .han gratifying to every Baptist, to find
that the leading minds of his denomination hold " the truth as
it is in Jesus" with such a vigorous grasp, and commend it to
others with so much power. The passages are generally slvirt,
But they are pure gold.' — Baptist Messenger.
" This publication will, we think, prove interesting to Baptist!
everywhere." — Religious Herald.
" The selections cover the whole range of theology, and the
volume will be curious, agreeable and useful." — iV. Y. Recorder.
" Its editor is a man "if judgment and taste, and of considera
ble distinction as an author ; and as it regards the typography,
nothing better can be asked or expected. The parties have out
best wishes for their encouragement and success. The moral
effect of the publication cannot fail, of course, to be in favor of
religion and virtue." — Biblical Recorder.
EDWARD A. FLETCIIER, Publisher,
141 Nassau St., N. T

DOWLWG'S CONFERENCE BTMNS.

The publisher begs leave to submit a few of the many unsolicited r©«
Commendations of this little volume, which have been received. It is
eminently adapted for use in the family, and for private devotion. The
low price brings it within the means of all, and its large type adapts it to
the old as well as the young.
A prominent pastor in Illinois writes: "I received the copy of Dr.
Bowling's hymns, which you sent me some time ago. I have examined
them thoroughly, and have shown them to many others.* The universal
expression is, 'This is just the book we want in the West. Here are the
old, soul-cherished revival hymns, which everybody knows, and with
which everybody is delighted.' The mixed nature of our population
here renders it difficult to obtain hymn books which all will like. But
this little volume is almost known to all by heart, whether from the east,
west, north, or south. The hymns are those which almost every Chris
tian has learned and loved ; not for their poetic elegance, but for their
spirit and good religious sentiment I have also taken pains to obtain
copies of the Social Psalmist, the Christian Melodist (by Br. Banvard),
and the Baptist Harp. These are generally very good, but everybody
says Dr. Dowling's hymns are the ones for the West to use in conference,
prayer, and inquiry meetings. Thousands of them can be sold in this
State, if they are introduced."
From Rev. John M. Peck, of Missouri.
"It is exactly such a book as thousands want and will buy in these
great, central States." Fh-om the Vermont Gazette.
u This work is designed especially to meet a want existing in the Bap
tist denomination. The high literary character of the author is a sure
guarantee in this respect. But, after all, it is not so much finely finished
sentences as soul-slirring truths, hymned by warm hearts, that impart
to the social interview its greatest zest."
From the Michigan Christian Herald.
" From a hasty examination, we should think that Mr. Dowling had ex
ecuted the work in a judicious manner."
From the Baptist Memorial.
''The people generally will say— give us the old-fashioned hymns, if
the poetry is not quite as good ; while some critics will think otherwise
Most of the hymns are, however, unobjectionable in respect to poetic
merit." From the Western Christian Journal.
"Hymn books are multiplying, but we shall be mistaken :f this does
Dot prove to be a popular collection. It contains 360 hymns and many
of them the sweetest in the language."
From the Christian Secretary.
" We can cheerfully commend this little book to the churches, as being
pre-eminently adapted to the purposes for which it is designed."
EDWARD fl. FLETCHER, Publisher,
141 Nassau St., N. T.

THE CONVERSATIONAL COMMENTARY;
COMBINING
THE QUESTION-BOOK AND EXPOSITION.
DESIGNED FOR THE USE.0F SABBATH-SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES
Vol. I., on Matthew.
Vol. II., on John.
Vol. III., ou the Acts.
BY WILLIAM HAGUE.

" The plan of Dr. Hague in these several books to meet
the wants of the higher classes in Sabbath-schools, we have
never seen surpassed nor even equalled by any other author,
according to our taste and judgment." — Christian Chronicle.
" It is a species of Commentary quite original, combining
all the most valuable results of archeological and critical
learning, without the lumber and parade which often render
the perusal of the ordinary Commentaries and ' notes ' an
onerous and unwelcome task. Mr. Hague's plan renders
everything clear, impressive, and practical, so that the mind
is held, by an increasing interest, to those truths which are
most important to be remembered." — Western Watchman.
" The method of imparting instruction in this book is a
novel but happy one. The author remarks in his preface,
' The teacher who would give instruction in any department
of knowledge so as to awaken in his scholar a spirit of in
quiry, cannot easily satisfy himself with abrupt and insu
lated questions ; in order to arouse the mind to action and
bring himself into sympathy with it, he must communicate
something. The remark which imparts knowledge, quickens
thought, and then conversation proceeds with a rational uid
easy flow.' " — Michigan Christian Herald.
Published by EDWARD H. FLETCHER,
141 Nassad Street, New York.

THE

BAPTIST SCRIPTURAL CATECHISM

Having examined the Baptist Scriptural Catechism prepared by Rev.
H. C. Fish, we cordially recommend it to the churches, Delieving it to
possess peculiar excellences ; among which may be mentioned especially
the following :
1. It is based upon the catechetical plan of instruction.
2. The general use of Scriptural language in the answers.
3. An important peculiarity of this work i3, that it contains an extended
examination of the evidences of Christianity — a department of biblical
instruction which has been too much neglected.
We earnestly hope that it may he generally adopted by our Sabbath
Schools. S. H. CONE, Pastor
S REMINGTON, "
JOHN DOWLING, "
W. S. CLAPP, "
LEVI PARMELY, "
A. D. GILLETTE,
E. T.MIDDLED1TCH,"
WM. B. TOLAN. "
DAVID B STOUT, "
WM. H. TURTON, "
J. M CARPENTER, "
JOHN TEASDALE, "
H. V. JONES, "
D. HENRY MILLER, "
SAMUEL WHITE, »
D. F. LEACH, "
C. A. BUCKBEE, "
L. O. GRENELL, Missionary to California.
The first volume is designed for the younger members of the Sabbata
Bchool, and the language is simple and plain. Price 60cts. per dozen.
Volume second is for those more advanced, and contains a review of
the doctrines and evidences of Christianity. Price *1 20cts per dozen.
EDWARD H. FLETCHER, Publisher,
141 Nassau St., N. IT.

)f First Baptisl

Church, New York.

Stanton St.

Bap.

Ch. «

Broadway

LI

» u

Olive Branch

"

n «

Shiloh

«

a u

Eleventh

U

» Philadelphia.

((

" Lyons Farms, N. J

tt

" Morristown, '*

First

((

" Middletown, "*
" Elizabethtown, '¦]

"

*' Perth Am boy •
5 Schooley's
( Mountain,

(I
" Piscataway, u
Mt. Olivet
"
" Yonkers, N. T
First
"
" Staten Island, u
tt
« Port Jervis, «
it
" Conway, Mass.
CHEAP CASH BOOK STORE.
EDWARD H. FLETCHER,
No. 141 Nassau street,
NEW YORK.
Has constantly on hand, at wholesale and retail, a general
assortment of Theological, Classical, Miscellaneous, School
and Blank Books and Stationery.
A complete Depository of Sabbath School Books,
Booksellers, Traders, Teachers, Schools, Academies and
Individuals supplied, wholesale and retail, on the most lib
eral terms.
Religious books of every variety which are to be found
in the market, may be obtained here at the very lowest
prices.

SECOND-HAND BOORS.

Valuable Standard Theological and. other Books from
private libraries will be sold at a fraction of the price of
new.

MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES.
A new and beautiful article, with a silver border, sam
ples of whit h will be sent gratis to post-paid applications.
Published by
EDWARD H. FLETCHER,
Xo. HI Sassau street.

X&tt ^ttiiiuuHnttff,

3figl;ts ran SKnrmngs,
Or Words of Comfort addressed to those who are sowing in tears
and shall reap in joy. By John Dowling, D. D. " "Weeping may
endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning." Contents :—
1. Nights of weeping and mornings of joy. 2. Night of convic
tion and mornings of conversion. 3. Night of desertion and morn
ing of restoration. 4. Night of trouble and morning of deliver
ance. 5. Night of weariness and morning of Rest. 6. NighUbf
death and morning of everlasting life.
StafcjjH nf s Crrttt 3HtBHtrnumr.
BY REV. GEO. HATT.
This is a volume of experience, of facts and incidents in the
path of personal effort.
ۤt mrartg ak nf ijit tint,
OR JUVENILE INFLUENCE.
BY J. H. BOSS.
A good book for Boys and Girls.
€ijt Hkrri&gj 3!&trrrafn;
A treatise on the nature of Matrimony, the mutual obligation*
of husband and wife, with appropriate instruction to both,
BY EEV. S. REMINGTON.
Some are put up with a neat marriage certificate, folded in like a
a map, for the use of ministers to present those they marry. Price
from 12£ to 75 cents, according to the style of binding.
ffltmit nf SftEfl 38raittt, &nm,
AGENT OF THE AMERICAN BAPTIST MISSIONARY UNION.
By Rev. H. Harvey. 12mo. Price, 75 Cents.

THE
BAPTIST
SCRIPTURAL CATECHISM.

FOR THE USE OF SABBATH SCHOOLS
AND BIBLE CLASSES.
VOLUME II.
ON THE EVIDENCES AND D0CTBINE8 OP CHRISTIANITY.
FOR THE MORE ADVANCED MEMBERS OF SABBATH
SCHOOLS, AND FOR BIBLE CLASSES.

BY HENRY C. FISH,
Pastor of the Baptist Church, Somerville, N. J.

Ye shall lay up these my words in your heart, and in your soul.
Deut. il. 18.
The word have I hid in mine heart.— Ps. cxii. 11.

SECOND EDITION.
NEW YORK:
EDWARD H. FLETCHER,
HI NASSAU STREET.
1850.

^>

I
CONVERSATIONAL COMMENTARY,

COMBINING THE

\i

QUESTION-BOOK AND EXPOSITION.

DESIGNED FOR

BIBLE CLASSES, SABBATH SCHOOLS, AND FAMILIES.

GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW.

5

WILLIAM HAGUE.

In tree diaroorse, new thought, nre .truck out, nnd the seed, of truth .parkle nnd
bln°ewfiiclfT°c"m»nJ.ilenl reading would nevr have been edited. By co:,ver»n-
tbn, Von b . > f "« and receive .hi. benefit , ., flinty, when put ,n mourn, and .tr.k-
iu» asiinst each other, produce living 6re on both .idea—Da. Watt..

NEW YORK:
EDWARD H. FLETCHER.
1851.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 5698