Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

414

On the Inspiration and Infallibility of the Scriptures.

would have been looked upon as another sacrilegious Uzzah. This, it is true, like many other absurdities grown venerable by their antiquity, is not insensible to the effects of time, which by slow and imperceptible, but certain degrees, crumbles rocks into decay, and unveils the ebon face of falsehood. Men of learning and candour begin now generally to admit the possibility of possessing a sure ground of faith, without having recourse to that incommunicable attribute of divinity, infallibility, though but a short period has elapsed since the greatest critics asserted the immaculate purity of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

Soame Jenyns has very justly remarked that the Bible is not itself a revelation, but the history of a revelation; a distinction which, for want of adverting to, has occasioned many of the erroneous opinions and difficulties which have existed respecting the scriptures. It is a record of all those divine manifestations which have been granted to mankind throughout the various ages of the world, and therefore, though containing the precise words of the revelation itself, can properly be considered by us only as matter of history. That all those parts of scripture which purport to be a divine revelation were originally communicated by inspiration, can admit of no doubt, and as they were committed to writing by holy men, who were incontestibly under the influence of the divine spirit, their authority is as great as any writings transmitted by human agency can possibly be. Moses, David and the prophets, were so notoriously employed as messengers between God and man, that it cannot be conceived they were capable of being deceived themselves in matters of such paramount importance, much less can it be possible that men who were admitted to such an intimacy with the Most High, could deceive others. Neither can the books which are attributed to the sacred historians by the uninterrupted testimony of a long series of ages, be more disputed to be their own genuine compositions, than the reputed works of any historian or philosopher that the world ever produced.

The historical parts of the New Testament were drawn up by eye

and ear witnesses of the facts which they relate, and consequently needed no other influence than what they appeared to possess in an eminent degree, namely, an impartial love of truth. That in their primary enunciation of the Christian doctrine, they were guided by supernatural impulse, when it was necessary, may readily be allowed, since their great Master promised that the spirit of truth should be communicated unto them for the purpose of guiding them into all truth, and from the miraculous powers which they exercised, it is evident they were the medium of divine agency. Thus, though we may consider the sacred volume as only an historical record of divine revelation compiled by human agents, yet those persons being the authorized and accredited messengers of the Deity, it is not reasonable to suppose that they would be able to transmit any thing to posterity as the word of God, but pure and uncontaminated truth.

In this, I presume, consists the inspiration of the scriptures, that they contain a collection of revelations, committed to writing by persons specially employed by God in originally communicating, orally, his messages to mankind. Afterwards they were entrusted to the guardianship of those who feared God in every succeeding age, from whom we have received them in a manner similar to that in which other ancient works have been preserved. If, in their transmission through the hands of countless generations, these precious memorials of the unchangeable beneficence and paternal superintendence of the Governor of the Universe, should not have contracted some portion of that error and imperfection which time has attached to all other literary relics of antiquity, it would have been a miracle of the most stupendous nature, which neither reason nor scripture authorizes us to expect.

To render our Bibles infallible, the exertion of a constant succession of miracles would have been necessary. Not only the original author, but every transcriber, every translator and every printer must have been equally the subject of complete inspiration. Let those who are conversant with the Oriental or the Greek tongues, and who know what essential mistakes may be caused by the omission of a

point, the change of one particle for another, or a slight variation in the formation of a letter, say whether, without the constant interposition of a divine power, it was possible to expect perfect copies of a work which for many ages was preserved in manuscript alone. As for those who start at the idea of errors in our translation of the volume of truth, I beg leave to refer them to Locke's Chapter on the Imperfection of Words, when they must either admit that King Janes's translators were inspired, or that the text of their Bible is a fair subject for examination.

SIR,

IT

DANIEL HARWOOD.
Serjt. 45th Regt.

June 12, 1815. [T appears to me, from numerous passages in the Old Testament, that the Jews very generally mistook the nature of those sacrifices, which in the law of Moses they were commanded to offer, and that the mistake into which they fell was very similar to the prevailing notions concerning the doctrine of the atonement among Christians. They supposed that the sacrifices which they offered were accepted with God as a valuable consideration-an equivalent for defective obedience or actual transgression, and consequently, that they made a sufficient atonement for their sins when they offered the sacrifices appointed by the law and in this error of the Jews, probably, originated the modern doctrine of atonement. I infer that this error existed, from the marked and peculiar strain of the passages in which the sacred writers make the most solemn protests against the prevailing corruption. If the passages which I shall quote will warrant my assertion, we must allow that the sacred writers adopted the heretical side of the question against the general current of opinion, and that they probably obtained no great success against those who proudly exulted in their numbers and reputed orthodoxy.

But I will now proceed to produce the passages themselves, to which many more might be added.

Psalm li. 16, 17, "For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it; thou delightest not in burnt-offering. The sacrifices of God are a bro

ken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Isa. i. 11-20. "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. * Bring no more

vain oblations: incense is an abomination unto me, the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with: it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes: cease to do evil, learn to do well; seek judgment; relieve the oppressed; judge the fatherless; plead for the widow. Come, now, let us reason together, saith the Lord: Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red as crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: For the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”

Hos. vi. 6. "For I desired mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings."

1 Sam. xv. 22. "And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord. Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hear than the fat of rams.”

Psa. 1. 8. "I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices, or thy burnt-offerings to have been continually before me."

Amos v. 21-24. "I hate, I despise your feast-days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt-offerings, and your meat-offerings, I will not accept them; neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream."

Jer. vi. 20. "To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far

416

Mr. Belsham, on the Term Únitarian."

country. Your burnt-offerings are ticable than self-government and virnot acceptable, nor your sacrifices tuous exertions.

sweet unto me.'

[ocr errors]

Jer. vii. 21--23.

"Thus saith the

Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Put
your burnt offerings unto your sacri-
fices, and eat flesh." (i. e. Take both
your sacrifices and offerings and eat
not eat
them yourselves-I will
them.) "For I spake not unto
your fathers, nor commanded them
in the day that I brought them
out of Egypt, concerning burnt-offer-
ings and sacrifices: but this thing
commanded I them, saying, Obey
my voice, and I will be your God,
and ye shall be my people; and walk
ye in all the ways that I have com-
manded you, that it may be well unto
you."

The evidence which these passages exhibit of the existence of an error among the Jews, similar to that of the modern doctrine of the atonement, affords, at the same time, a lamentable proof of the proneness of mankind to misapply the gracious dispensatious of heaven.

The unqualified manner in which the writers both of the Old and New Testament speak concerning righte ousness, i. e. moral goodness, affords the strongest proof that they knew nothing of the orthodox doctrine of the atonement.

The sacred writers do not represent the Jewish error concerning the as a harmless doctrine. atonement They plainly intimate, too, by exhorting to good works in opposition to their sacrifices and observances, that those ceremonious observances had supplanted good works. "I will have mercy and not sacrifice," plainly implies, " you offer sacrifice, but do not shew mercy." Nor can I doubt that the doctrine of the atonement, as believed in our days, has produced an abundant harvest of mischief. The consideration of this, however, would lead to a more protracted view of the subject than I intended; and I should be much gratified to see it treated by

an abler hand.

It appears to me that there is naturally a proneness in every degenerated heart to receive the doctrine of the atonement. What a man does not feel inclined to do himself, he wishes to be done for him. Exterual means of salvation, however absurd, appear to many, no doubt, much more prac

SIR,

I am, Sir, your's, &c.

W. J.

N reading the life of William Penn,

lately published by Mr. Clarkson, it is impossible not to feel anxious respecting the fate of the virtuous jury who were insulted, abused and locked up for two days by the court, and finally committed to Newgate, because they persisted in acquitting William Penn and William Mead of an offence against the Conventicle Act, contrary to the wishes of the bench. Mr. Clarkson remarks, as to the poor jurymen, “I can no where learn what became of them, or how long they continued in prison."

The following quotation from Har. grave and Butler's Notes on Lord Coke, will shew that the jurymen owed their liberation to that palladium of British liberty, the Habeas Corpus Act, which, let us hope, no sham plot or pretended conspiracy, will ever again furnish a pretext for suspending.

"In the case of Penn and Meade, indicted in 1670, for unlawfully assembling the people and preaching to them, the jury gave a verdict against the direction of the court on a point of law, and for this were committed a habeas corpus to prison, but on being brought in the Court of Common Pleas, the committment was deLord Chief Justice clared illegal. Vaughan distinguished himself on this occasion by a most profound arg■ment in favour of the rights of a jury.*"

SIR,

Essex-House, July 1, 1815,

S the most trifling of all trifling employments, is wrangling about the meaning of words, which every one has a right to use in what sense he pleases, provided that he defines his terms and adheres to his definitions, I have nothing to add to what I advanced in my former letter (Vol. x. p. 278.) in defence of the sense in which I have used the term Uni

[blocks in formation]

an error in Mr. Frend's reply. I by no means intend to insinuate that I was embarrassed to understand my own meaning, but that I was at a loss to find out his. And as his present letter is to me still more incomprehensible than his former, that circumstance alone would be a sufficient inducement for declining to answer it, had I been otherwise inclined to do

SO.

The word Unitarian, whatever be its etymology, is used by good writers in very different senses. Dr. Lardner uses it in one sense, Dr. Price in another, Socinus in a third, and the Bishop of St. David's, who contends that the Church of England is Unitarian, in a fourth. I adopt Dr. Lardner's definition, because I think it best answers the end of language, which is to convey clear and distinct ideas. I could wish that others were of the same mind, and would use the word in the same definite and restricted sense, which I think would greatly contribute to diminish useless logomachy. But if others think fit to use the word in a more extensive sense, I pretend to no authority to require them to use the word in the same sense that I do. Far from it. In the name of common sense let us each define our terms and use our liberty. I may, perhaps, after all, be left in a snug and "inconsiderable minority," but deny me not the right of private judgment, and I am content.

At the same time I cannot help thinking that some inconvenience may arise from using the word Unitarian in what appears to me to be too lax and extensive a sense. I presume, for example, that the Unitarian Fund Society is composed of Arians and of believers in the proper humanity of Jesus Christ. This Society is formed for the express purpose of sending out missionaries and popular preachers to propagate the Unitarian doctrine. I will suppose that the Society may have commissioned some of its enlightened and eloquent members, such, for instance, as my worthy friends, Mr. Vidler or Mr. Wright, to break up the fallow ground, and to sow the seeds of truth and uncorrupted Christianity, where they were not known before. And I will further suppose that these able and unwearied labourers have, by their

VOL. X.

[ocr errors]

judicious exertions, succeeded in collecting a church consisting of members whom they have instructed in the important doctrine of the unity and unrivalled supremacy of God: that the Divine Being exists in one person only, that he is absolute in all his perfections, that he will not divide his honours either with a supposed created or uncreated logos, or with a holy or an evil spirit: that he is infinite in goodness, and extends his free unpurchased forgiveness to penitent offenders, not from a reference to any foreign consideration whatever, but for his own sake, and because he de-* lighteth in mercy. Also, that Jesus Christ is a human being, the son of human parents, in all respects like unto his brethren, and distinguished from them in no other way than as being the greatest of all the prophets of God, the revealer of life and immortality, the first begotten from the dead.

After this new society has been thus ably taught and disciplined in Christian truth, their judicious inbour in another part of the vineyard, structors may possibly be sent to laand other missionaries may be dispatched by the Society to build up the newly-established church. These may perhaps be Arians. They come to their destination, and they find the lately-gathered flock bewildered in what must necessarily appear to them to be gross if not dangerous errors. Our predecessors, they will say, were very good, zealous, well-meaning men, but they have sadly misled you from the truth of the gospel. God the Father is, indeed, one person only, and alone possessed of all possible perfections; but he has made or generated a son, to whom he has delegated power and authority to form, support and govern the whole created universe, or at least that system of which we are a part. But though this great Being is the Lord, our Maker, we are upon no account to worship and bow down before him, though he is our preserver and benefactor, though he is always present with us and doing us good, though he knows all we say and all we think, all we do and all we want, and is able to do more for us than we can ask or think; yet we are never to speak to him as we should do to an earthly friend, we are never to ask any thing of him, nor to

418

The Bible without Note or Comment.'

thank him for any thing we receive. Every act of prayer and praise is to be addressed to the Father only, otherwise we cease to be Unitarians.

You have also been told that Jesus Christ was a mere human being, the son of human parents, distinguished from other men only as he is the greatest of the prophets, and was raised from the dead: but nothing can be more erroneous than this doctrine. Jesus Christ was a man only in appearance: he was, in truth, the divine Logos, the Son of God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all their inhabitants, who vouchsafed to make a temporary residence in a human body, during which period his attributes were quiescent, and he submitted to all the innocent infirmities of human nature.

Nor was he born in a natural way like other men, but was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. And though God is infinitely merciful, yet his wisdom and rectoral justice would not, suffer him to forgive sin without manifesting his displeasure against it, and for that reason he required and accepted the death of his only begotten son, as an expiatory sacrifice upon the cross. Moreover, there is a third glorious person, the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, the inspirer of prophets, the performer of miracles and the sanctifier of the heart. There is also an Evil Spirit, possessed of very great sagacity and power, who ranges the world at pleasure, for the express purpose of doing mischief to the bodies and souls of men.

This new doctrine would, I fear, go a great way towards unsettling the faith of the new converts, and might lead them to conclude that there is nothing certain in the Christian religion. And surely the same Society ought not to send forth missionaries of such opposite complexions. The same fountain cannot send forth sweet water and bitter.

I do not mention this, Mr. Editor, as an actual statement of the conduct of the Unitarian Fund Society, but as a case not unlikely to happen, where persons whose views are so widely dissonant, associate together under the same name, for the sake of propagating Christian truth. And in my estimation, it would be more expedient for them to separate, and each

to defend, with zeal, tempered with charity, the system which is believed to be true.

It may perhaps be alleged that the points of difference between the Arian and what I call the proper Unitarian system are of little moment. But can this be true? Is it a matter of no consequence that the Maker and Governor of the world resigned his charge, shrouded his attribute, became an infant in the womb, exposed himself to all the frailties and infirmities of humanity, expired upon the cross as an expiation for human guilt, descended into the grave, rose again from the dead and returned to heaven in a human form? May all this be true, and plainly revealed by God to man, and may it nevertheless be of no consequence whether we believe it or not? Impossible! Arianism is a doctrine of unspeakable importance to be believed and taught, or Arianism cannot be true. There is no medium. Arianism and Unitarianism can no more unite than fire and water, than light and darkness, than Christ and Belial. I am, &c.

IN

SIR,

T. BELSHAM.

Islington, June 12, 1815.

'N Mr. Aspland's Plea for Unitarian Dissenters he remarks that" a few, though I believe only a few, Unitarians have been kept out of the Bible Society by observing that its 'proceedings' did not agree with its principle, that of circulating the scriptures, the whole scriptures and nothing but the scriptures. He then adds by way of illustration-" The Society professes to circulate the Bible without note or comment,' whereas the authorized version, which only they use (I speak of course of England) has a perpetual commentary in the form of Tables of Contents at the head of each chapter. These notes are it is feared mistaken by the common reader for a part of the scripture itself, and though not often directly systematic are yet sufficiently so to give a bias to the minds of such readers as are not guarded by previous knowledge." Now, Sir, it is a curious fact that the orthodox as well as the heterodox (I use these terms in the popular sense) have felt the force of this objection. For the pious and celebrated Puritan Divine,

« VorigeDoorgaan »