attention, is the perfect ease and harmony with which they write
on these new and sublime discoveries of moral truth, while they
all write independently of each other. They admit that they are
subordinates, unworthy of the honour of their appointment; yet each
one speaks and writes, and without any appearance of dogmatism or
ostentation, in the same dignified tone of absolute authority; the
voice which speaks and the hand which writes, is human, but what is
said or written, comes from some other source."
_Rev. Mr. Ingleby._--"Yes, Sir, I think the correctness of your
remark can be demonstrated; at least, it comes as much within the
range of demonstration, as any moral or historic truth, or fact,
can be brought. The Old Testament is incomplete, and comparatively
valueless, without the New; and yet it is written under the obvious
impression and belief, that it would be completed; but on what data
could its writers base their calculation, that they should have
successors who would carry on and perfect what they had begun and
advanced through several stages of its progress. Now, I readily
believe, that a person of a very acute and comprehensive mind,
who has carefully watched and studied the facts and philosophy of
history, may, on some special occasions, give some general outline
of what will be the state of things within a very _near_ futurity,
if he cautiously avoid going into specific and minute details. But
the writers of the Old Testament have opened up the roll of a _very
remote_ futurity,[5] and have recorded extraordinary events, with
their dates and localities, long before their actual occurrence,
portraying the likeness of MESSIAH the PRINCE, ages before his
appearance on earth, and doing it with so much exactness, that it is
a perfect resemblance of the wonderful original. How could they have
done this, unless they had been guided by a prescient Spirit, to
whose eye all the future is as visible as all the past?"
[5] Deut. xviii. 15; Psal. xlv. 1, 2; lxxii.; Isa. liii.; Dan. ix.
22, 27; Zech. ix. 9; Mal. iii. 1.
"Foretelling at the same time," said Mrs. John Roscoe, "his tragical
death; which no one would have expected as the termination of his
benevolent career."
_Rev. Mr. Guion._--"It is, I believe, a law in the republic of
letters, which no one has attempted to repeal, that all writers
shall have the right of giving, if they please, their authorities
for what they say; and of letting us know from what source they
derive the information which they supply to us. Hence, no one
can reasonably object to let the writers of the Bible have the
protection of this law, which is of universal application. And
what do they say on the question relating to the source of their
knowledge? We will take their answer, and then form our own
judgment of its integrity from the facts and evidences of the
case. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God:[6] holy men
of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."[7] This is
a concise statement of their testimony on this great question;
and its integrity is fairly sustained by positive and incidental
evidence. We see that they have given proofs of foreknowledge which
far surpasses the capabilities of the most acute and comprehensive
human mind; while, at the same time, they have made known to us a
connected series of moral and spiritual truths, to which no other
writers make any allusion, and of which they could have formed no
conception, unless they had been under superhuman tuition. What
they have done, is its own defence against the imputation of fraud
and dishonesty--standing as an imperishable memorial of the love
of God to man; and of the fidelity of his servants, in disclaiming
the honour of inventing a theory of faith and morals which justly
claims a Divine origin. This view of the case, which is their
own explanation, settles the question, without requiring us to
believe physical impossibilities, or compelling us to reject the
unrepealable law of moral evidence."
[6] 2 Tim. iii. 16.
[7] 2 Pet. i. 21.
_Mr. Roscoe._--"And we may, I think, very properly regard the great
_moral power_ of the Bible as a very telling collateral argument
in favour of its Divine origin. You may take any other book, on
any other subject, and put it into circulation amongst a mass of
people, either semi-barbarians or highly-polished citizens, but it
will work no beneficial changes in the general aspect of their moral
character. It will leave them, as it finds them. If it finds them,
as in India, bowing down and doing homage to stocks and stones, it
leaves them worshipping the workmanship of their own hands--still
revelling in their cruel and obscene abominations. If it finds them,
as in Rome, kissing the crucifix--offering up their adorations
and orisons to the Virgin Mary--or visiting the tomb of a real or
legendary saint, in expectation of some miraculous healing, it
leaves them practising these puerile and senseless exercises. If
it finds them, as in Russia, crouching in terror before the great
Tyrant, doing his biddings like beasts of burden, it leaves them in
this prostrate state of degradation and misery. But put the Bible
into circulation amongst the same class of people, and, after a
while, you will perceive that it is taking effect upon them. One
reads it, and feels its moral power on his conscience and his heart;
another reads it, and he is subdued by its authority; others read
it and the same result follows: they are drawn together by the
attractive power which emanates from it, and become the nucleus of a
new order of human beings springing up in the midst of the unchanged
natives of the place. They are of the same ancestral origin, and
follow the same civil and social avocations and professions; but
they are a peculiar people, resembling the primitive believers of
the New Testament in intelligence and daring courage. They are new
creatures in Christ Jesus; and, in process of time, as they increase
in number and consequent activity, they give a new tone and energy
to the moral, the political, and the religious sentiments and
feelings of an entire community. It is to the Bible that Scotland
is indebted for her moral greatness; and England never would have
risen to her present eminence had it not been for the old Puritans,
who were animated and sustained by the examples, and principles,
and spirit of the Bible, in their passive sufferings and active
exertions in resisting the encroachments and the cruelties of
tyranny and oppression."
_Rev. Mr. Ingleby._--"Your argument, Sir, is a legitimate one, and
it is as logical, as it is historically true. The book which effects
the changes which are essential to the happiness and well-being of
men as individuals, or men living in a community, but which cannot
be effected by the wit or eloquence of man, may fairly put in a
claim to a higher and a purer origin than mere humanity."
_Mr. Stevens._--"Unbelievers, in general, do not trouble themselves
to account for the origin of the Bible; they take for granted that
it is a book of mysticism and fraud, and at once direct their
virulence against it, and hold it up to scorn and contempt."
_Rev. Mr. Guion._--"And yet, notwithstanding all these attacks on
the Bible, it still lives and commands attention. In the estimation
of wise and good men, it takes precedence of all other books: they
not only admire, but revere and love it. I have in my parish a
good old man who has a large library, and has been a great reader
for upwards of twenty years, but now he very rarely reads any book
except his Bible. On referring, one day, to his devoted attachment
to the Bible, he said--'I feel, when reading it, in the presence
of God, and what I read comes with authority and power. The more I
read it the more is my attention fixed on another world, and the
more intensely do I desire to depart hence. This is a mean and
comfortless place of residence when compared with the mansion our
Lord is preparing for us in his Father's house.'"
_Rev. Mr. Ingleby._--"Pious people are very fond of the Bible, and
their attachment to it increases as they advance in years; their
passion for it is often very strong in death."
_Mr. Stevens._--"Your remark, Sir, recalls to my remembrance
what passed, the other day, in a casual conversation between an
intelligent, yet very candid sceptic, and myself. 'There is,' he
said, 'one phenomenon connected with the Bible which has long
puzzled me to account for; if you can solve it, I shall feel
obliged. I have noticed wherever I have been--and I have travelled
through Europe and America--I have visited India and some of the
islands of the South Seas, and resided for awhile amongst the black
population of the West Indies--and whenever I have met with any
persons who believe in the truth of the Bible, whether they were
refined and intelligent or the reverse, they uniformly evinced
for it the same profound reverence and supreme attachment.' 'The
solution,' I replied, 'is easily given. They revere it as their
statute-book, containing the code of laws which their Divine
Legislator has issued to test their obedience to his authority; and
they love it, as bringing life and immortality to light; making
known to them a Saviour who is able and willing to save them from
the wrath to come, and to give them peace of soul as an earnest and
a pledge of future and eternal happiness; and they value it for
its exceeding great and precious promises, which have a soothing
and sustaining influence over their hearts in the times of their
sorrows and afflictions.' 'But how is it,' he added, 'that while
they cherish such a profound reverence for the Bible, they differ
so widely in the interpretation they put on its meaning? How will
you account for this rather puzzling fact?' The sudden entrance of
several strangers into the room prevented me from making a reply."
_Rev. Mr. Ingleby._--"This difference of interpretation, which
sceptics often bring forward as a plausible argument against the
Divine origin of the Bible, very frequently perplexes conscientious
believers. I recently received a letter from a gentleman who
says--'When I think of the sentiments which are held by different
bodies of Christians--sentiments which are directly opposed to each
other, and which appear to me to admit of no adjustment; and when I
recollect that they all profess to derive them from the same source,
and are in the habit of appealing to the same authority in support
of them--I feel myself approaching a difficulty which I know not
how to solve. Is the Bible really such a mysterious book that it is
incapable of being understood? Is it an oracle which utters truth
and falsehood? If so, it cannot be a safe guide; and if it be not
so, how do you account for the very different interpretations which
it receives?'"
_Mr. Stevens._--"How did you meet the difficulties of the case?"
_Rev. Mr. Ingleby._--"I did not go fully into the question, because
I knew, from the cast of his mind, that he would work himself right.
I merely stated that conflicting opinions do not, of themselves,
possess sufficient weight to set aside any law, or destroy the truth
of any proposition which comes attested by its own proper evidence.
And to give force to this very obvious truism, I reminded him of our
judges, who sometimes give different interpretations of a statute
law, without impairing its authority; and of our philosophers,
whose different opinions on the primary cause of motion, do not
disturb popular belief in the diurnal revolution of our earth. But,
after all, we do not differ in our interpretations of the Bible so
much as many imagine. It is true there are separate and distinct
denominations of Christians, who are regarded by the ignorant and
bigoted as the disciples and abettors of very opposite religious
creeds; yet if we inquire into the actual state of the case, we
shall find that most of them agree in all that is essential and
vitally important in the Christian scheme, and that they differ only
on what is subordinate, and comparatively unimportant."
_Rev. Mr. Roscoe._--"It is supposed by many that this diversity
of interpretation which is given to some parts of the Bible would
have been prevented if a logical or systematic order had been
scrupulously observed. If, for example, the sacred writers had
arranged the facts, the doctrines, the precepts, the institutions,
the sanctions, the evidences, and the final recompense of the
Christian faith, systematically--presenting the whole in a
compendious form--there would be, in that case, so much compactness,
such symmetrical order--one part of the theory would hang so
naturally on another--that it would be extremely difficult, if not
impossible, for any division of opinion to spring up amongst us
on the question of its import or design. We should then think and
believe alike. This is what I have heard some speculatists say; but
I have no confidence in the integrity of their opinion."[8]
[8] "No such a thing," says Archbishop Whately, "is to be found in
our Scriptures as a catechism, or regular _elementary introduction_
to the _Christian religion_; nor do they furnish us with anything
of the nature of a systematic creed, set of articles, confession
of faith, or by whatever other name one may designate a regular,
complete compendium of Christian doctrines; nor, again, do they
supply us with a liturgy for ordinary public worship, or with forms
for administering the sacraments, or for conferring holy orders;
nor do they even give any precise _directions_ as to these and
other ecclesiastical matters--anything that at all corresponds to
a rubric, or set of canons." Why these omissions? A great defect
in our Scriptures, say some; but, in my opinion, it amounts to a
self-evident confirmation, that the writers of the New Testament
were under the special dictation of the Divine Spirit, as to what
they _should_, and what they _should not_ record. If they were
carrying out a fraudulent design, conceived by their predecessors,
who wrote the Old Testament, they would, from their educational
training and desire to act in character with their confederates,
have imitated their example, and been very specific and minute in
all their ecclesiastic arrangements. They would have inserted the
law of dictation and prescription, which was so absolute under the
Jewish theocracy, in the Christian code, and thus have rendered
division of opinion and freedom of action impossible. The question
then turns upon us: Why did they not do what it was very natural
they should do, and what the necessity of the case would seem to
require to be done, according to the judgment of every intelligent
and reflective mind, who looked at it through the medium of the
existing ecclesiastical regulations of the age and country? Their
_not doing_ what was thus natural _they should do_, and what the
necessity of the case, according to human judgment, _required them
to do_, is of itself a proof that they were not left to the guidance
of their own understanding, but were held in subjection, according
to their own confession, by the controlling power and wisdom of the
Holy Ghost, under whose inspiration all Scripture is given. "The
Jewish ritual, designed for one nation and country, and intended to
be of temporary duration, was fixed and accurately prescribed. The
same Divine wisdom, from which both dispensations proceeded, having
designed Christianity for all nations and ages, left Christians
at large in respect of those points in which variation might be
desirable. But I think no _human_ wisdom would have foreseen and
provided for this. That a number of _Jews_, accustomed from their
infancy to so strict a ritual, should, in introducing Christianity
as the second part of the same dispensation, have abstained not only
from accurately prescribing for the use of all Christian churches
for ever the mode of Divine worship, but even from recording
what was actually in use under their own directions, does seem
to me utterly incredible, unless we suppose them to have been
restrained from doing this by a special admonition of the Divine
Spirit."--_Whately._
At any rate, whether these omissions are to be attributed to the
controlling power of the Holy Ghost, or the extraordinary policy of
the writers of the New Testament, we arrive at the same conclusion,
that, while we are required to believe, and to contend earnestly for
the essential facts and doctrines of the Christian faith, which are
set out with great precision and explicitness, a freedom of action
is allowed on what may be deemed the subordinate and non-essential
parts of the same faith. Hence we may differ on some things, without
any valid impeachment of our Christian wisdom and integrity,
unless we allow our difference of opinion to produce alienation
of brotherly affection. When it does this, we make a sacrifice of
our honour, and give a sanction to the accusation of the common
adversary, that our hostile divisions are a proof that our religion
does not come from a wise and benevolent Being--that it is of the
earth, earthy.
_Rev. Mr. Ingleby._--"The objections against an inspired compendium
of Christian doctrine and practice, are, in my judgment, more
powerful than the arguments in favour of it. If we had it, we
should revere it, and learn it; it would perpetually recur to our
recollection in our reflective moments, and by rendering a studious
examination of the other parts of the Scripture unnecessary, we
should be liable to sink into 'a _contented apathy_' of spirit,
under this conviction, that as we can repeat all, we know all that
is necessary for us to know."
_Rev. Mr. Guion._--"Archbishop Whately, when alluding to this
subject, says, 'that if we had this compendium, both it and the
other parts of the Scriptures would be regarded as of Divine
authority; but the compendium itself would be looked upon by most as
the fused and purified metal; the other, as the mine containing the
crude ore. And the compendium itself, being, not like the existing
Scriptures, that _from which_ the faith is to be learned, but _the
very thing to be learned_, would come to be regarded by most with an
indolent, unthinking veneration, which would exercise little or no
influence over them.'"
_Mr. Roscoe._--"Universal experience proves, that facility in
obtaining a supply to our physical necessities, is not so beneficial
to the energy and vigour of the human constitution, as difficulty,
which stimulates to labour and invention. Compare, for example,
the natives of the South Sea Islands, whose bread-fruit ripens of
itself, with the hardy Highlanders of Scotland, who have to toil
for their living through frost and snow, as well as sunshine--what
a difference in their muscular and masculine conformation and
appearance. And the same remark is equally applicable to the mind of
man, whose knowledge on any subject, in any department of science,
and especially the science of Biblical theology, is accurate and
profound, in proportion to the efforts he is obliged to make in its
acquisition. A compendium would be the bread-fruit, within reach,
and easily plucked. We should, if we had it, become dwarfs in
Biblical theology. It is only when our energies are roused by a love
of the truth, and stimulated by the difficulties connected with its
attainment, that our knowledge in the mystery of Christianity gets
perfected, and becomes practically powerful in its influence over
the heart and the character."
_Rev. Mr. Ingleby._--"And in addition to the relaxing influence
which a compendium would exert over the mind--indisposing it to any
labour in searching the Scriptures, except the labour of the memory,
and that to a very superficial extent--I have another objection to
such a projected scheme, which is this:--I do not think it possible
for the Christian faith to be reduced to such a compact, or what
you term compendious form, as shall secure amongst its advocates
and defenders a perfect unity of belief on all points, without the
perpetual exercise of a supernatural agency in the illumination and
guidance of the mind, which would amount to something like a plenary
inspiration to every believer. Now what can be more logically
explicit than the articles of our church; and yet what a very
different construction do different men put upon them!"
_Mrs. John Roscoe._--"That is true. If I were in a church on a
Sabbath morning listening to a Tractarian; if I returned in the
afternoon, and heard a Moderate; and if, in the evening, I occupied
the same pew, while an Evangelical was doing duty in the pulpit, I
should find myself in a modern Babel, witnessing, on a small scale,
a new specimen of the confusion of tongues."
_Rev. Mr. Guion._--"But this difference of opinion and diversity
of interpretation on the same theory of belief, prevails amongst
others as well as amongst us. Even amongst unbelievers, who almost
deify reason--asserting and maintaining, that it is fully equal to
all the exigencies of humanity, without being under any obligation
to a Divine inspiration--there is almost an endless diversity of
belief and opinion on all questions relating to God, to human
responsibility, and the final destiny of man. They are obliged to
pass a toleration act to live in peace."
_Rev. Mr. Ingleby._--"I like a toleration act; it is essential to
our peace. The period is coming when we shall _'see eye to eye_;'
but that will be under a dispensation very different to the present;
we must now agree to differ, and while contending earnestly for
the faith once delivered to the saints, we must live together as
brethren."
_Rev. Mr. Guion._--"Jesus Christ said to his disciples--'These
things I command you, that ye love one another' (John xv. 17); and
he says the same things to us. And if we love one another, we shall
never vote for a repeal of our toleration act, which admits of some
shades of difference in our religious belief and opinions."
_Rev. Mr. Ingleby._--"It was doubted, a few years since, whether
even the spiritual members of our various denominations cherished
any fraternal esteem and affection for each other--they often acted
more like gladiators than brethren; but now they are cultivating a
spirit of union and peace."
_Mr. Roscoe._--"This change in their spirit and conduct is a very
gratifying and auspicious event; but some good men maintain that the
entire abolition of the distinctive denominations and their union
in one undivided body, would be more conducive to the honour of
Christianity, and more favourable to its progressive triumphs."
_Rev. Mr. Ingleby._--"This I conceive to be impracticable during the
partial obscurity of the present dispensation; and I must confess
that I do not think it advisable. I have no objection to those
divisions of opinion which separate us into different denominations,
though I deplore the spirit which they sometimes engender. I think
that a variation in belief, on some of the minor questions of
religion, by keeping our attention awake and active, tends to
preserve the more important truths in a purer state; and the action
and re-action of one Christian denomination on another, prevents
that stagnation of feeling, and that inertness of principle, which
an unbroken and undisturbed uniformity admits of."
_Mr. Roscoe._--"But, would not the church assume a more imposing
aspect, and put forth a more powerful energy, if she could unite all
her members in one undivided body, under the immediate authority
of one Head, than she does now, broken as she is, into so many
subdivisions?"