ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

records which they contain of the divine teaching, and of the divine dealings with one particular nation (and with some others in relation to that one) which they relate; together with intimations and prophecies of some future transactions-of some new revelation in which the whole world was to be concerned. The history of these transactions-of this new revelation of God's will-is the religious truth set forth in the New Testament, in the recording of which the sacred writers claimed to be inspired by his Holy Spirit. And the simplest, as well as the soundest view of this miraculously tested inspiration seems to be, that it was given to aid them-1st, in bringing (according to especial promise) "all things to their remembrance, whatsoever" their Master "had said unto them;" 2d, informing them concerning some portions of his life and teaching which they had not personally witnessed; and 3d, in guarding them from error, both with respect to doctrine and to all points at all con

nected with doctrine.

[ocr errors]

We may here remark, in connexion with the general question of inspiration, that, with respect to an objection to Paul's accuracy, (founded on 1 Thess. iv. 15,) urged by Mr. Greg,* the Apostle appears to be speaking, not of himself or his friends, but of such among us human Beings," as shall be alive at the Lord's coming”ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι—“ we the living and the remaining" persons of mankind. In truth, the very next chapter seems to shew that when he is speaking to the Thessalonians of "times and seasons," he is alluding to the times and seasons of their own death; and that "the day of the Lord" is this day of summons, which comes to all of us as a thief in the night"—and not that last great day and hour concerning which he must have been aware that its times and seasons were not even revealed to the angels of God. Indeed, if we consider the repeated references made by Paul to his own expected death, at Jerusalem and elsewhere, we cannot suppose him to have believed that the resurrection was at hand, and that he should be alive at the Lord's coming on that day. "By the end of another century we shall probably have telegraphic communications all round the world." Now, who would infer that a person uttering such a sentence as this, meant to express his conviction that he himself should live a hundred years longer?

From moral errors in conduct, the sacred writers claimed no exemption through the inspiration afforded to them; and the candid relation of their own faults and weaknesses which we find in their writings, is one of those internal proofs of their veracity which false witnesses would certainly not have been likely to supply, though Mr. Greg seems to regard it as fatal to their claims. Our author's confusion of thought on this subject, indeed,

* See Creed of Christendom, pp. 24, 25.

3

Inspiration not of Degrees.

143

leads him to suppose that the term inspiration may be applied to that ordinary assistance of God's Holy Spirit in helping our infirmities, and renewing and purifying our moral nature, which all true Christians share with the sacred writers,-to which our Lord alluded when He said, "ye cannot tell whence it cometh or whether it goeth," but which does not enlighten our judgments, or secure us from error, in any other way than by rendering us less liable to be misled by unworthy passions.

Mr. Greg well remarks, (p. 27,) that there can be no degrees of inspiration. This is true; for any question as to differences of inspiration, must be a question not of degree, but of quantity; since, as has been rightly said, 66 one person cannot be more inspired on each point than another, though he may be inspired on more points." The words of a logical writer of the present day, appear to meet this portion of the subject so suitably, that we shall be pardoned for employing them :-"It is probable that many persons deceive others and themselves, by confusing together in their minds differences of degree and differences of amount; and thence imagining (what a little calm reflection must shew to be impossible and indeed unintelligible) that there may be different degrees of what is properly and strictly termed inspiration; that is, the miraculous influence under which we conceive anything that we call an inspired work to have been written. The existence or non-existence of this inspiration is a question of fact; and though there may be different degrees of evidence for the existence of a fact, it is plain that one fact cannot be, itself, more or less a fact than another. Inspiration may extend either to the very words uttered, or merely to the subject-matter of them, or merely to a certain portion of the matter;-to all, for instance, that pertains to religious truth, so as to afford a complete exemption from doctrinal error, though not to matters of geography, natural philosophy, &c. But in every case we understand that to whatever points the inspiration does extend, in these it secures infallibility; and infallibility manifestly cannot admit of degrees."*

When, therefore, Mr. Greg complains of the dogmas of the Christian faith; he forgets that a revelation of God's will must consist of dogmas-for it must be infallible; and that in rejecting these dogmas he must reject all inspiration but such as his own private judgment pronounces undoubtedly true. It is not therefore inspiration, but his own private judgment that he follows. A remarkable proof of this fact is given by him in passagef in which, while he cavils at Sir Charles Lyell for declaring the Bible to be a vehicle of religious truth, and not of geology and astronomy-and at Dr. Whewell and Dr. Buckland,

* Infant Baptism (Appendix to) by Richard Whately, Archbishop of Dublin. † See pp. 49, 50.

for shewing that there is no discrepancy between the facts recorded in Genesis and the discoveries of modern science,-he admits "the grand and sublime truth, that contrary alike to the dreams of Pagan and of Oriental philosophy, heaven and earth were not self-existent and eternal but created." Now, on what ground Mr. Greg-denying the inspiration of Scripture-receives this dogma, we are at a loss to conceive, except that, as we have said, he relies on inspiration for such truths as approve themselves to his own judgment,-in other words, that he relies on his own inspiration.

This whole school of writers, however, appear to take for granted that abstract probability is to be the guide of our judgment in pronouncing what is or is not true; and that whatever seems improbable, accordingly, is to be rejected. Now, it may be replied, what can be more improbable than that a revelation should contain what we should have conjectured as probable,— for, if so, why were we not left to make it out by conjecture?

Again, we have our author falling in to the strange mistake of expecting to find in the inspired writings a declaration of their own inspiration. Now, under ordinary circumstances, it is just what we should not expect to find, except in an imposture, such as the Koran. It is, indeed, most manifestly silly for any one (in addressing men of intelligence) to put forth, on his own authority, a bare assertion of his own infallibility, or, indeed of his credibility on any point. If his hearers are already convinced of this, why should he assert it? If they are not, why should they believe it on his word? Our Lord and his Apostles, accordingly, appealed, where necessary, not to assertions of their own, but to proofs. "If ye believe not me, believe the works: ... The works which I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me." And so also Paul's "signs of an apostle" were not "enticing words," but "demonstration of the Spirit and of power."

Dismissing, then, the subject of inspiration, and with it almost all the real difficulties which seem to have presented themselves to Mr. Greg's mind, we proceed,—not to reply in detail to the objections which he brings forward against the Old Testament writings, because this part of the subject has been sufficiently illustrated in our remarks on the "Hebrew Monarchy,"-nor to discuss the critical proofs of their genuineness and antiquity, but to reply to his incredulity by certain plain questions, often indeed asked, though never answered.

Can the investigator into the records of the human race, we ask, discover in all the annals of history, ancient or modern, a second instance of a nation, existing in the most barbarous ages of the world, and far from being among the most civilized even of those times, arriving, alone and unaided, at the sublime doctrine of one Creator and ruler of

[blocks in formation]

the universe,* -a doctrine which had never been really discovered or fully comprehended by the wisest philosophers and most renowned teachers of antiquity,-preserving this religion in the midst of the grossest idolatries in surrounding nations, and in spite of occasional lapses of its own people into those idolatries,-governed by a code of laws which professed to rule them by a system of temporal rewards and punishments alone, and which, therefore, in case of failure, must have been speedily discovered and branded as an imposture-keeping up a system of most burdensome ceremonies, and never, even in long years of captivity amongst foreign nations, losing sight of the pure Theism which was the basis of their belief, and bearing testimony to the real existence, and to the miracles, of Him whom they nevertheless rejected?

And can such an investigator, we further ask, find an instance in modern times of a nation, conquered and reconquered, scattered among all the nations of the old world, losing, in great measure, the use of its very language as a living tongue, and yet kept strictly separate from all those nations among whom it lives; and kept separate, not by habits, not by language, not by way of life, but by religion, and by a religion the most important and essential part of which, (sacrifices in the Temple,) they cannot practise? So that, while it is the only nation in the world kept apart from others by religion, it is the only nation which could be prevented from exercising that religion while they were still its known and permitted votaries! And, it may be added, can a nation be found (whose history is only a tenth-part as remarkable) who possess books in which that history was clearly and minutely predicted centuries before,-books foretelling their rejection of the promised benefactor and redeemer of their race, and which they nevertheless preserve with scrupulous veneration?†

Now, if Mr. Greg can ascribe all this to a series of lucky coincidences, a series extending, even on the lowest computation, over four or five thousand years, what right has he to complain of the credulity of those who believe in the Bible narratives? But, with respect to the prophetic writings, Mr. Greg does not admit that the Old Testament prophecies were really applicable to

* To those who are aware of the generally admitted fact, that the Hebrews used the plural number to denote magnitude, Mr. Greg's criticism on the word Elohim, used for God in the Book of Genesis, will present no difficulty. Mr. Greg thinks it an acknowledgment by the narrator, that he who made the heavens and the earth was only one out of many Gods! Supposing Elohim is always to be rendered "gods," the declaration of Moses, [Deut. vi. 4,] "The Lord our gods is one Lord," is to mean, "one out of many !" The form used by kings and governors among ourselves, might have suggested some other explanation.

+ See "Evidences of Christianity"-Jews; published by Parker. Also, Grave's Lectures.

VOL. XVI. NO. XXXI.

K

Christ, or that they were meant by the prophets to apply to Him. How was it, then, we may ask, that the apostles convinced so many thousands by an appeal to those prophecies ?-thousands even of men accustomed to attribute superhuman works to demoniacal agency, but who yielded to the evidence of prophecy, in opposition to all their ancient prejudices, to their hopes, and to their worldly interests?

But we must offer a few illustrations of the more special objections contained in this work.

He

Mr. Greg is offended at the mode in which our sacred records represent God as revealing Himself to mankind. rejects the idea that the Almighty should hold intercourse with His creatures, or manifest His presence under some appearance which their senses are able to appreciate; as by some form of light or fire, or by angelic natures clothed in human shape, as those of the angels who visited Abraham. And, in the same spirit, he rejects the notion that God, who is everywhere, should appoint a place where His servants might from time to time have access to Him-"a place to set His name there"-where His presence might be felt and acknowledged, even by a half-civilized and gross-minded people, unable to fix their minds on moral or intellectual attributes but through the medium of sensible objects. These circumstances, together with the manner in which the divine Being is spoken of,-the way in which human passions are figuratively attributed to Him,—and a local residence assigned Him, are introduced by Mr. Greg into his table of incongruities, as not to be reconciled with the high and noble attributes elsewhere ascribed to Him, and, as a proof that it was not the true God who was so revealed, "not the God of the prophets, but of the priests." He cannot conceive, for instance, that a worshipper of the true God, as David or Solomon, should seek "to build Him an house," and yet be fully persuaded that "the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him." There is, however, no real inconsistency between the two statements; David and Solomon desired to build an house for that manifestation of God's presence among them, which had been at various periods of their history granted to their nation, while they were well aware that He who created the heavens and the earth could not literally dwell in a temple made with hands. And Mr. Greg would have been justly indignant had Solomon left it to be supposed otherwise. He is, however, revolted by the idea of a local, a family, and a national deity, as attributed to the Most High. He cannot conceive that God should have revealed himself to one tribe of people on the earth, among whom his worship, though corrupted and impure, has been preserved,-to Abraham as his family God, "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;" and

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »