inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."* "No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation," that is, it is not to be considered as the private opinion of a fallible man, as is the case with other productions, "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."† And, not to multiply passages, while they thus bore testimony to their own inspiration, they constantly represented their writings as the infallible test of divine truth, to which all appeals were to be made, and by which every religious controversy was to be decided. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."‡ "These are the true sayings of God."§ "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me."|| Nor did the sacred writers spare to denounce the most awful judgments against those who should either pervert their writings, add to them, or detract from them. Those who wrested the Apostolic Epistles, are said to have "wrested them, as they did the other Scriptures, to their Own destruction."¶ "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”** "What things soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."++ And the canon of Sacred Scripture closes with these most solemn words:-"I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall 2 Tim. iii. 16. † 2 Peter i. 20. 21. Isaiah viii. 20. ** Gal. i. 8. ++ Deut. xii. 32. add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life."* Such are the avowed professions of the sacred penmen. 2. Let us now compare these professions with the avowed sentiments of Unitarians. Dr. Priestley speaks as follows:-"That the books of Scripture were written by particular divine inspiration, is a thing to which the writers themselves make no pretensions. It is a notion destitute of all proof, and that has done great injury to the evidences of Christianity." (6.) Again. "Not that I consider the books of Scripture as inspired, and on that account entitled to this high degree of respect; but as authentic records of the dispensations of God to mankind, with every particular of which we cannot be too well acquainted." His sentiments on this subject will appear still more clear from the following passages: "If you wish to know what, in my opinion, a Christian is bound to believe with respect to the Scriptures, I answer, that the books which are universally received as authentic, are to be considered as faithful records of past transactions, and, especially, the account of the intercourse which the Divine Being has kept up with mankind from the beginning of the world to the time of our Saviour and his Apostles. No Christian is answerable for more than this. The writers of the books of Scripture were men, and therefore fallible; but all that we have to do with them is in the character of historians and witnesses of what they heard and saw. Of course, their credibility is to be estimated like that of other historians; viz. from the circumstances in which they wrote, as with respect to their opportunities of knowing the truth of what they relate, and the * Rev. xxii. 18. 19. biasses to which they might be subject. Like all other historians, they were liable to mistakes with respect to things of small moment, because they might not give sufficient attention to them; and with respect to their reasoning we are fully at liberty to judge of it, as well as that of any other men, viz. by a due consideration of the propositions they advance, and the arguments they allege. For it by no means follows, because a man has had communications with the Deity for certain purposes, and he may be depended upon with respect to his account of those communications, that he is, in other respects, more wise and knowing than other men. (7.) "You say,' says he, in his letters to Dr. Price, 'that I do not allow of Scriptural authority; but indeed, my friend, you should have expressed yourself with more caution. No man can pay a higher regard to proper Scriptural authority, than I do. But neither I, nor, I presume, yourself, believe implicitly every thing that is advanced by any writers in the Old or New Testament. I believe all the writers, without exception, to have been men of the greatest probity, and to have been well informed of every thing of consequence of which they treat; but at the same time, I believe them to have been men, and consequently fallible, and liable to mistake with respect to things to which they had not given much attention, or concerning which they had not means of exact information; which I take to be the case with respect to the account that Moses has given of the creation, and the fall of man.' دوو Whether these notions of proper Scriptural authority will accord with the foregoing professions, I leave you to judge. I shall now add the following extracts on the same subject from the writings of the justly celebrated American Unitarian, Dr. Channing; the ablest, the most eloquent, and the most candid writer of his school with which I am acquainted. "We regard the Scriptures as the record of God's successive revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of His will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures, we receive without reserve, or exception. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dispensation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider as imperfect, earthly, obscure, adapted to the childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and chiefly useful now, as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures.” "We find, too, that some of those books are strongly marked by the genius and characters of their respective writers, that the Holy Spirit did not so guide the Apostles, as to suspend the peculiarities of their minds; and that a knowledge of their feelings, and of the influences under which they were placed, is one of the preparations for understanding their writings. With these views of the Bible, we feel it our bounden duty to exercise our reason upon it perpetually; to compare, to infer, to look beyond the letter, to the spirit, to seek in the nature of the subject, and the aim of the writer, his true meaning; and, in general, to make use of what is known for explaining, what is difficult, and for discovering new truths." "From a variety of possible interpretations, we select that which accords with the nature of the subject and state of the writer, with the connexion of the passage, with the general strain of Scripture, with the known character and will of God, and with the obvious and acknow ledged laws of nature. In other words, we believe that God never contradicts, in revelation, what He teaches in His works and providence. And we, therefore, distrust every interpretation which, after deliberate attention, seems repugnant to any established truth; we reason about the Bible precisely as civilians do about the constitution under which we live, who, you know are accustomed to limit one provision of that venerable instrument by others, and to affix the precise import of its parts by inquiring into its general spirit, into the intention of its authors, and into the prevalent feelings, impressions, and circumstances of the time when it was framed. Without these principles of interpretation, we frankly acknowledge, that we cannot defend the Divine Authority of the Scriptures. Deny us this latitude, and we must abandon this book to its enemies." (8.) So then, it appears, that if these "rational and liberal critics" are not allowed to Unitarianise the Bible, they are prepared to deny its divine authority, and to give it up to its enemies! The generality of Christians consider it their duty to adjust their belief to Revelation; but unless "Unitarian Christians," are allowed to adjust Revelation to their belief, they are ready to pass over into the ranks of the adversary and the infidel! We complain that the generality of Unitarian writers, as well as Drs. Priestley and Channing, speak disparagingly of our only rule of faith. The Scriptures profess to be "profitable for doctrine," and able "to make men wise unto salvation." "The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." But Mr. Theophilus Lindsey, a convert of Dr. Priestley's, considers them as unadapted to promote any high perfection in knowledge, and supposes that they are left in obscurity, in order to promote mutual charity, candour, and forbearance! |