I. CHRIST'S RELIGION. "PROVE ALL THINGS; HOLD FAST THAT WHICH IS GOOD." 1 Thess. v. 12. IS THE BIBLE FROM GOD? THE enquiry, Is the Bible from God?-has to do with the whole system of human duty and responsibilities; it is a question to which every sane man will come with humility and truthfulness, to decide this vital point, -in what relation do we stand to the great Maker and Judge of all mankind? Are we under his immediate teaching, having in our hands the book of laws by which we shall be tried, or are we without law unto God, left to no other guidance than our unaided reason and research, having no other obligation than the still, small voice of a conscience unenlightened in the foundations of duty, ignorant of that Divine Majesty to which we owe allegiance and submission? This enquiry, indeed, is an examination of the truth of all those things which we have learned from the Bible, such as our future existence, our responsibility, the unity of God, our sin against him, our need of mercy, and hope of obtaining it. For if the Bible be false, we may set down all these things as utterly uncertain, and must (to be consistent) recur to the darkness of heathenism, casting away, together with our belief in the Bible, our belief in everything of which we should have been uncertain, without this supposed false guide. Our semi-infidel philosophers, and all natural religionists, must abandon that enlightenment which they have received from the Bible that they reject; they must extinguish that torch which they lighted at the lamp of revelation; and, putting on again the swaddling-bands of heathen ignorance, return to the darkness and imbecility of superstition, from which the gospel has (without thanks) made them free. In a word, if the Bible be false, we must repudiate the light it has given, and plunge back again into that Egyptian night, wherein the beasts of the forest do creep forth as the gods and terror of mankind. Thus shall we be left in this labyrinth of human existence, to grope without a thread, walled in by ignorance and weakness, and changing our fears into our gods. This enquiry, therefore, is one respecting ourselves, our origin, nature, and destiny;-by whom, and for what, am I placed in this world? Am I one of a vast community, under the superintendence of God who is a Spirit, and receiving an offer of instruction and salvation through Jesus Christ, or simply a part of the animal creation, which has no law but that of sense and instinct? Is my soul an undying spark, or am I but a bubble thrown upon the ocean of existence, soon to burst and be no more? Now, if we were investigating some declaration about the probable length of our life in the world, or prospects of success, the sort of government that would best promote our welfare, we should feel some degree of interest; nor should this be less when the enquiry is into our eternal interests, whether life or immortality are brought to light by the gospel. Were we conscious of some fatal disease, we should not be indifferent to the proposed remedy; nor ought we to feel less careful about the soul's malady, whether it really presents symptoms of vital disease, and whether this prescription be from the great fountain of life and health,-whether the Bible is from God. To many this enquiry will seem needless, since they take the Scriptures for granted: it may be they come to a right conclusion, but certainly not by the right method: this easy-going faith is not consistent with the gospel, which requires, not blind confidence, but intelligent insight into the reason of our hopes. Some regard doubt and hesitation as a sinful feeling, or at least as the temptation of Satan. Unquestionably that disbelief which is indulged by sin, and fosters doubt as a refuge from fear, this is sinful. But that hesitation which arises from a desire for more evidence, is so far from being sinful that it is commendable as an enquiring state of mind, open to honest conviction, anxious for the true light; and unto such the Saviour willingly reveals himself; this alone is Scriptural faith, all else is igno rance. There is an hereditary way of believing on mere fashion, as the echo of our father's creed, and to this, mankind for the most part give way, being unwilling to incur the trouble of thought, readily closing their eyes that some one may lead them by the hand. This inertness may not always seem to be an evil; we do not generally complain that persons take our creed without enquiry; but imagine that in this case enquiry may be dispensed with. Yet consider what a vast engine of delusion this traditional faith becomes! See how it hands down each generation to be blindfolded with ancient bandages, perpetuating the darkness of heathenism, Mohammedanism, and the various forms of corrupt Christianity. What can be more favourable to the kingdom of darkness than this unwillingness of men to open their eyes, this facility of receiving either truth or error, without any exercise of judgment! The spiritual despotism of those who rule and teach, repressing enquiry, and the willing mental slavery of those who are formally taught, these are the true perpetuators of error, standing in the way of that wide and honest comparison of various systems, which is the only safe method of escaping what is false. They pay the Bible an ill compliment, who suppose that it requires this indifference and passive faith; for an unreasoning assent produces but a dull impression, whilst an acquaintance with reasons will give a freshness and power to the truth received; conferring a depth and permanence upon convictions and character. Hence the best doubters often make the best believers; a wise scepticism is the natural training for a wise and solid faith. There are various methods by which men may arrive at a firm belief in the divine origin of the Bible: different methods of reasoning are suited to different minds. Some are influenced by miracles, some by historical evidences, and some by the nature of the doctrines which the Bible contains. This latter method appears to us of greater consequence, for the enquiry into historical evidences may demand a wider range of learning than all can attain; whereas all may form some judgment of the Bible in itself, what it really is; and just as a man, who does not understand the science of medicine, may yet find a practical reason for his faith, from the fact that a certain treatment is doing him good; so a man who goes further than looking at the Bible, and actually tries it, who reposes faith in Jesus Christ, and seeks to become imbued with the spirit of the gospel, may feel that it suits his spiritual constitution, and may come to find, that the Bible itself is its own argument. Some claim for "the Church," or a spiritual despotism of priests of various sections and denominations under this name, the authority to give their voice as the external evidence of God's word; and not only making their word the basis on which God's word rests, but assuming also the right to tell authoritatively, what that word means. These, however, are great swelling words of vanity, the result of dishonesty or ignorance, or, perhaps, of an ignorance brought on by dishonesty. To accept the Bible on such grounds, and interpret it by such means, is believing in priests and denying Christ; it is receiving the Bible as the word of man, and not as the word of God. But, in opposition to all this, we advocate the Bible as its own argument: LET GOD'S WORK SPEAK FOR ITSELF. All other evidence is of value, as calling our attention to the subject; miracles were powerful arguments to those who saw them, or who had immediate testimony respecting them; but to us this argument is of little force, since we must believe the book before we can admit the miracles. Other evidences then whether miraculous or external, are only notes of introduction, calling our attention to the subject; and should we from these believe that the Bible is from God, we do not yet believe what it contains, but only in its title; and have for all moral and saving purposes to examine the salvation it contains and offers, that we may thus, feeling its suitableness, trust in its provisions of mercy. Not what others say about the Bible, then, but what it says for itself; -God in his own words pleading his own cause; this is our method of testing the value of these Scriptures. Suppose, then, some one had just discovered, in the recesses of a librarry, certain ancient manuscripts, these which are now translated, and bound together, as our Bible. He takes them to such a man as one of our intelligent infidels, who finds that it is a collection of various productions, brought together professedly to constitute one sacred book, communicated from God to man. How then will he treat these professions, and discover the true author? The first objection might be,-there are other books of this pretended sacred origin, to which we give no credit whatever, then why should we listen to this? To which the answer is plain, that amongst counterfeits there may be one that is genuine; and since men are so much given to worship, this part of their nature points to a God, and some religion; and therefore, that God may have employed some such means to correct, in the course of time, the errors and idolatry to which men generally tend.. Secondly, it might be said, this collection contains a great many miracles; now, in other historical books, we at once repudiate such accounts, as being the fables of ignorance; then why should we return to these fables on the credit of these old manuscripts? To which it could be replied, that circumstances alter cases; that whilst God will not step out of his place for an ordinary purpose, yet in extraordinary cases, and for important ends, he may employ appropriate means; as is implied in the direction of a heathen poet, who advises writers of plays not to introduce a God into the piece, except there be a difficulty worthy of his special interference.* Whence it seems recognized, as consonant to reason, (or the laws of probability, to which even a poet must in some measure conform,) that divine iterference is more probable on an important occasion. And THE MIRACLE IS NO MORE OUT OF THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THINGS THAN THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH JUSTIFIES IT; both are extraordinary. And this, without further nicety, at once sets aside the anti-miraculous philosophy of Hume and his followers. A third preliminary objection might be, that this professedly sacred book opposes science, as astronomy and geology; for instance, the creation is done in six days there; whereas, according to geological researches, this world would require as many ages. To which it could be replied, that this goes upon a mistake, both as to the meaning and object of these supposed sacred books; first, as to the meaning, for we do not know how long the creation days were, and if they were as short as ours, there may be time enough elapse between the events recorded in the first three verses of the Bible to allow of all these geological formations; thus, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," that is, formed the material. "And the earth is without form, and void;" here is the stage of succession required: who knows how long the earth was so, remaining in this state, before "God said, let there be light?" This scientific objection, therefore, mistakes the meaning of the Bible. But secondly, it mistakes the object of the Bible, which is not to answer scientific questions, but to speak in the untechnical language of obvious appearances about certain spiritual truths, and hence the sun rises and sets" in the Bible, as in the popular language of mankind, though it does not rise and set in strictly astronomical works. A fourth objection might be founded on the imperfection of the Mosaic law, and of the character of Old Testament saints, as being beneath the dignity and purity of God. To this objection we have not space to answer, more than in a general way, referring those who have time, to the collateral instruction contained in Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses; whilst others, and perhaps all, may find abundant satisfaction, in a little monthly volume of the Tract Society, price tenpence, entitled, "Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation." But the general answer to this objection, respecting the minute ceremonies and imperfect instruction of the Mosaic system, together with the frailties of Old Testament saints, Nec Deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus might be as follows. The Mosaic law was suited to the times, the circumstantials would distinguish that nation from others, and whilst because of the hardness of their hearts, they were indulged in ceremonies that might supply the place of heathenism, the whole system enshrined one great truth as the antagonist of idolatry, polytheism, and degrading superstition, namely, the doctrine of ONE GOD, unto which no man ever solidly attained by philosophy; for though it is agreeable to our reason when revealed, it is beyond our discovery, and we may approve when told of what we could not "find out." And, therefore, laying aside the non-essentials of Judaism, as the drapery of their times, we see a fundamental truth, which no other system recognized, and which no other people acknowledged; a truth which even now would be the greatest blessing to more than half our race, who in the pure light of nature, (without the Bible prejudices, which even sceptics have imbibed,) see in this, their natural light, many forms of debasing and cruel gods. And further, in the appendages of Judaism, we may find not only this opposition to superstition and idolatry, but also an anticipation of the way in which the true God would eventually be approached by the medium of a true sacrifice and great high priest. And thus, as our earliest education is by THE SENSES, from which the mind educes more spiritual views, 80 God trained this nation BY SENSIBLE SYMBOLS, for a spiritual dispensation. And, as we must judge of this system by the circumstances of that time, so we must judge of the conduct of men, nor expect from them what we ought to display in ourselves, under better advantages. David, with all his imperfections, would, by the aid of the gospel, shame most of the moderns. And if it be asked, as a further objection, why these better advantages, this more perfect system, was not introduced at once, the reply is, why were not the geological formations in the earth) which are brought against Moses' history,) why were these not made at once? Besides that, the Bible does recognize a perfection at first, from which men fell, (as many polished and enlightened nations have also degenerated,) still if this account be rejected for the present, then we take the world as it is; are not the best things of the slowest development and latest growth? Is not experience given us along with gray hairs? Rome was not built in a day; the diamond is not formed in an hour; a mushroom may spring up in a night, but the oak must have a slower maturity; and as in many of these things, we may see the primary formations, or original stages, so have we in Judaism the rude and primary development of what is perfected in the Christian Scriptures. Thus God's word is like his works, for we are children before we are men; and this was the world's infancy; "in the fulness of time," at the world's "majority" the schoolmaster Moses, with his precise rules, gave place to the manly principles and freedom of the gospel. And if we look at human society, as the creation and arrangement of the God of nature, we find the natural sciences of but late development, which, though the work of human faculties, are the work of those faculties, as constituted by the Creator. If therefore, these are of slow growth, so that chemistry, and other branches of study, are only of late become sciences, if we have but now, as the working out of human society, print |