actually reformed the world, however much it may be a matter of regret to Christians, yet, when compared with the excellence and energy of the doctrine, is only a proof that religion was given to improve, but not to destroy, the character of reasonable agents.

Besides the books mentioned in the course of this chapter, you may read two excellent sermons of Bishop Atterbury, on the Miraculous Propagation of the Gospel.

You will derive the most enlarged views upon this, as upon every other subject connected with Christianity, from Butler's Analogy, particularly from Part ii. chap. vi. at the beginning.

Consult also Jortin.

Law's Considerations on the Theory of Religion.

Paley's Evidences, vol. ii.

Hill's Sermons.

Shaw and Dick upon the Counsel of Gamaliel.

Macknight's Truth of the Gospel History; a book that deserves to be better known, and more generally read than it is. All the authorities and arguments, which are concisely stated by other writers, are spread out in that large work with a fulness and clearness of illustration that is very useful, and, in many places, with a degree of acuteness and ingenuity that is not commonly met with. He has dealt very largely upon the argument for the truth of the Christian religion, which arises from the conversion of the world to Christianity. You will find, in this part of his work, a most complete elucidation of the whole argument-the history of the ten persecutions before Constantine-and a great deal of information with which it is highly proper your minds should be furnished, and which you will not casily gather from any other single treatise.

BOOK II.

GENERAL VIEW OF THE SCRIPTURE SYSTEM.

CHAPTER I.

INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE.

I HAVE stated the evidence upon which we receive the books of the New Testament as authentic genuine records; and I have long been employed in examining this high claim which they advance, that they contain a divine revelation. It appeared that this claim was not contradicted by the general contents of the books, but rather that there was a presumption arising from thence in its favour. We found the claim directly supported by miracles received upon clear historical evidence, by the agreement of the new dispensation with a train of prophecies contained in books that are certainly known to have existed many ages before our Saviour was born, by the striking fulfilment of his prophecies, by his resurrection from the dead, by the miraculous powers conferred upon his apostles after his ascension, and by the propagation of his religion.

But, even after this review of the principal evidences of the truth of Christianity, there remains a very interesting question, before we are prepared to enter upon a particular examination of the system of truth revealed in the books of the New Testament. The question is, whether we are to regard these books as inspired writings? It is possible, you will observe, that Christ was a divine messenger, that the persons whom he chose as his companions during his abode upon earth were endowed by him with the power of working miracles; and yet that, in recording the history of his life, and publishing the doctrines of his religion, they were left merely to the exercise of their own recollection and understanding. Upon this supposition, the miracles of our Lord and his apostles may be received as facts established by satisfying historical evidence; and an inference may be drawn from them, that the person who performed such works, and who committed to his disciples powers similar to his own, was a teacher sent from God; and yet the writings of the apostles will be considered as human compositions, distinguished from the works of other men

154

merely by the superior advantages which the authors had derived from the conversation of such a person as Jesus, but in no respect dictated by the Spirit of God.

This is the system of the modern Socinians, which their eagerness to get rid of some of the doctrines, that other Christians consider as clearly revealed in Scripture, has led them of late openly to avow. I quote the sentiments of Dr. Priestley from one of his latest publications, the very same in which he bears a strong testimony to the credibility of the resurrection of Jesus. "I think that the Scriptures were written without any particular inspiration, by men who wrote according to the best of their knowledge, and who, from their circumstances, could not be mistaken with respect to the greater facts of which they were proper witnesses, but (like other men subject to prejudice) might be liable to adopt a hasty and ill-grounded opinion concerning things which did not fall within the compass of their own knowledge, and which had no connection with any thing that was so." "Setting aside all idea of the inspiration of the writers, I consider Matthew and Luke as simply historians, whose credit must be determined by the circumstances in which they wrote, and the nature of the facts which they relate." And again, when he is speaking of a particular doctrine, in proof of which some passages in the Epistles are generally adduced, Dr. Priestley says, "It is not from a few casual expressions in epistolary writings, which are seldom composed with so much care as books intended for the use of posterity, that we can be authorised to infer that such was the serious opinion of the apostles. But if it had been their real opinion, it would not follow that it was true, unless the teaching of it should appear to be included in their general commission."

And thus, according to Dr. Priestley, there is no kind of inspiration either in the gospels or the epistles. He admits them to be writings of the apostles. But he maintains that the measure of regard due to any narration or assertion contained in these writings is left to be determined by the rules of criticism, by human reason judging how far that assertion or narration was included in the commission of the apostles, i. e. how far it is essential to the Christian religion. Different persons entertain different apprehensions concerning that which is essential to revelation. And, according to Dr. Priestley's system, every person being at liberty to deny any part of Scripture that appears to him unessential, there is no invariable standard of our religion; but the gospel is to every one just what he pleases to make it. Accordingly Dr. Priestley, who sometimes argues very ably for the divine mission of Jesus, by availing himself of that liberty which he derives from denying the inspiration of Scripture, has successively struck out of his creed many of those articles which appear to us fundamental. And you may judge of the length to which his principles lead, when one of his followers, in a publication avowedly under his protection, has written an essay to show that our Lord was not free from sin. Many years before Dr. Priestley's writings appeared, the received notions of the inspiration of the apostles, which had been held by Christians without much examination, were acutely

* History of Early Opinions, vol. iv. p. 5, 58-vol. i. p. 70.

canvassed. Dr. Conyers Middleton, author of the Life of Cicero, has done eminent service to the Protestant cause, by exposing the imposture of the Popish miracles, and by tracing, in his Letter from Rome, the heathen original of many ceremonies of the church of Rome. But his attachment to Christianity itself is very suspicious, and he is far from being a safe guide in any questions respecting the truth of our holy faith. In some of his miscellaneous tracts, he infers from the dispute between Peter and Paul at Antioch,* from the variations in the four evangelists, and from other circumstances, that the inspiration of the apostles was only an occasional illapse, communicated to their minds at particular seasons, as the power of working miracles was given them only at those times when they had occasion to exert it; that they were not under the continual direction of an unerring spirit; and that, on ordinary occasions, they were in the condition of ordinary men. Nearly the same opinion was held by the late Gilbert Wakefield, who was a disciple of Priestley, but who does not appear to advance so far as his master. He contends, that a plenary infallible inspiration, attending and controlling the evangelists in every conjuncture, is a doctrine not warranted by Scripture, unnecessary, and injurious to Christianity; although he admits that the illuminating Spirit of God had purified their minds, and enlarged their ideas. The system of Bishop Benson, in his essay concerning inspiration, prefixed to his paraphrase of St. Paul's epistles, is, that the whole scheme of the gospel was communicated from heaven to the minds of the apostles, was faithfully retained in their memories, and is expounded in their writings by the use of their natural faculties. The loose notions concerning inspiration, entertained by the vulgar and by those who never thought deeply of the subject, go a great deal farther.. But it is proper that you should know distinctly what is the measure and kind of inspiration which we are warranted to hold.

In order to establish your minds in the belief that the Scriptures are given by inspiration of God, it is necessary to begin with observing, that inspiration is not impossible. The Father of Spirits may act upon the minds of his creatures, and this action may extend to any degree which the purposes of divine wisdom require. He may superintend the minds of those who write, so as to prevent the possibility of error in their writings. This is the lowest degree of inspiration. He may enlarge their understandings, and elevate their conceptions beyond the measure of ordinary men. This is a second degree. Or he may suggest to them the thoughts which they shall express, and the words which they shall employ, so as to render them merely the vehicles of conveying his will to others. This is the highest degree of inspiration. No sound theist will deny that all three degrees are possible; and it remains to be inquired, what reason we have for thinking that the Almighty did act in any such manner upon the minds of the writers of the New Testament. If they were really inspired, the evidence of the fact will probably ascertain the measure of inspiration which was vouchsafed to them. The evidence consists of the following parts: The inspiration of the apostles was

* Gal. ii.

necessary for the purposes of their mission-It was promised by our Lord-It is claimed by themselves-The claim was admitted by their disciples-And it is not contradicted by any circumstance in their writings.

I. Inspiration of the apostles appears to have been necessary for the purposes of their mission; and, therefore, if we admit that Jesus came from God, and that he sent them forth to make disciples of all nations, we shall acknowledge that some degree of inspiration is highly probable.

The first light in which the books of the New Testament lead us to consider the apostles is, as the historians of Jesus. After having been his companions during his ministry, they came forth to bear witness of him; and as the benefit of his religion was not to be confined to the age in which he or they lived, they left in the four Gospels a record of what he did and taught. Two of the four were written by the apostles Matthew and John. Mark and Luke, whose names are prefixed to the other two, were probably of the seventy whom our Lord sent out in his lifetime; and we learn from the most ancient Christian historians, that the gospel of Mark was revised by Peter, and the gospel of Luke by Paul; and that both were afterwards approved by John, so that all the four may be considered as transmitted to the church with the sanction of apostolical authority. Now, if you recollect the condition of the apostles, and the nature of their history, you will perceive that, even as historians, they stood in need of some measure of inspiration. Plato might feel himself at liberty to feign many things of his master Socrates, because it mattered little to the world whether the instruction that was conveyed to them proceeded from the one philosopher or from the other. But the servants of a divine teacher, who appeared as his witnesses, and professed to be the historians of his life, were bound by their office to give a true record. And their history was an imposition upon the world, if they did not declare exactly and literally what they had seen and heard. This was an office which required not only a love of the truth, but a memory more retentive and more accurate than it was possible for persons of the character and education of the apostles to possess. To relate, at the distance of twenty years, long moral discourses, which were not originally written, and which were not attended with any striking circumstances that might imprint them upon the mind; to preserve a variety of parables, the beauty and significancy of which depended upon particular expressions; to record long and minute prophecies, where the alteration of a single phrase might have produced an inconsistency between the event and the prediction; and to give a particular detail of the intercourse which Jesus had with his friends and with his enemies; all this is a work so very much above the capacity of unlearned men, that, had they attempted to execute it by their own natural powers, they must have fallen into such absurdities and contradictions as would have betrayed them to every discerning eye. It was therefore highly expedient, and even necessary for the faith of future ages, that besides those opportunities of information which the apostles enjoyed, and that tried integrity which they possessed, their understanding and their memory should be assisted by a supernatural influence, which