precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb, without blemish and without spot."* "He was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”† Are not these declarations sufficient to satisfy every mind that feels itself bound by the authority of the Scriptures? If Jesus Christ contained within himself the least inherent depravity, or committed the slightest evil, all these Scripture designations of him must be considered as the mere rhapsody of admiration, or the unmeaning bombast of eulogy. It perhaps is of no material consequence to the frozen-hearted Unitarian, whether Christ was a sinner or not; but to every sound Christian, it is a matter of the greatest importance; for if Jesus Christ was a sinner, or an unholy being, the whole system of Christianity tumbles into ruins. The second reason why it is extremely difficult to maintain a process of Scriptural reasoning with these men, is, that the notions which they entertain respecting the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, are so very vague, futile, and undefined. "The Scriptures," says one of their most eminent writers, "were written without any particular inspiration, by men who wrote according to the best of their knowledge, and who, from circumstances, could not be mistaken with regard to the greater facts of which they were properly witnesses; but, (like other men subject to prejudice) might be liable * 1 Peter ii. 22. i. 19. + 1 John 3-5. to adopt a hasty and ill-grounded opinon concerning things which did not fall within the compass of their own knowledge, and which had no connection with any thing that was so. We ought all of us, therefore, to consider ourselves fully at liberty to examine, with the greatest rigour, both the reasonings of the writers, and the facts of which we find any account in their writings; that, judging by the rules of just criticism, we may distinguish what may be depended on from what may not."* "I like the honesty of this avowal," (says a learned critic,) "but I presume you will agree with me in thinking, that Deism ought to have been the profession of him who makes it." Every one must at once perceive, that according to this view of the Scriptures, there is nothing certain in them. And if we deny the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures, and look upon them as the fallible productions of men, all our hopes of arriving at truth must be totally eclipsed, and the bright prospects of futurity be overspread with blackness and darkness for ever. Therefore, the reasoning of those men who deny that the writers of both Testaments were constantly under infallible guidance, is a dangerous error; the most animating doctrines of the gospel are left entirely uncertain-a ground is laid for heartrending doubts and fearful anticipations, which no * Priestley's History of Early Opinions, vol. iv. p. 5. thing can remove, but a firm persuasion that the sacred writers wrote their histories under the immediate agency and superintendence of the Divine Spirit. The same writer, in speaking of the Arian opinion, that the world was formed by Jesus Christ as a subordinate agent of the Father, has these words: "Now, as it is not pretended that there are any miracles adapted to prove that Christ made and supports the world, I do not see that we are under any obligation to believe it, merely because it was an opinion held by an apostle."* Dr. Priestley made no scruple " to call the apostle St. Paul an inconclusive reasoner."+"Neither I," says he to Dr. Price, "nor I presume yourself, believe implicitly every thing which is advanced by any writer in the Old or New Testament. I believe them to have been men, and therefore fallible." And again: "That the books of Scripture were written by particular divine inspiration, is a thing to which the writers themselves make no pretensions." But let the Apostles speak for themselves: "But there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gos * Priestley's History of Early Opinions, p. 63. + Priestley's Corruptions of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 370. pel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not."* And again he says, "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."+ Now, reader, judge for yourself. Can the gospel, which was inculcated by the Apostle, be both a revelation from God, and at the same time, the fallible production of men? Impossible! If we deny the universal inspiration of the Scriptures, we involve ourselves in a dilemma from which we cannot easily extricate ourselves. But the writer to whom I have all along referred, goes farther than this in one of his letters to Dr. Price, relative to the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, and says, "I would not build an article of faith of such magnitude, on the correctness of John's recollection and representation of our Lord's language; and so strange and incredible does the hypothesis of a preexistent state appear, that, sooner than admit it, I would suppose the whole verse to be an interpolation, or that the old apostle dictated one thing, and * Gal. i. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 20. † 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5. his amanuensis wrote another.”* Hence, it appears, that Dr. Priestley would believe any thing, however monstrous, rather than the plain and obvious meaning of the words of Scripture. Although all the writers of this class may not reject, in terms equally unqualified, the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures, yet they are all characterised by the same homogeneal laxity, relative to this important point. Another of them says, that "Peter speaks according to the conception of the Jews, when he says, Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;" and adds, "the prophets may have delivered the offspring of their own brains as divine revelation." And another says, "what have we to do with the New Testament, when it contradicts the light of nature ?" I ask, where does the Scripture contradict reason; for I suppose that is what he means by the light of nature. There are many doctrines contained in the Scripture, which are necessarily above reason; but it does not follow that they are contrary to it Mr. Belsham says, that "Paul in his Epistles, introduces many harsh and uncommon figures."+ Again, he says, "The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews indulges himself in an ingenious, but forced and fanciful analogy." Nay, he goes farther than this, for he * Priestley's Letters to Dr. Price, page 58. † Mr. Belsham's Calm Inquiry, p. 19. Ibid, p. 19. |