THE

CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER.

NOVEMBER, 1839.

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

ART. I.-The Constitution of the Visible Church of Christ considered, under the Heads of Authority and Inspiration of Scripture; Creeds (Tradition); Articles of Religion; Heresy and Schism; StateAlliance, Preaching, and National Education; in Eight Discourses, preached before the University of Cambridge, in the year 1838, at the Lecture founded by the Rev. JOHN HULSE. By the Rev. RICHARD PARKINSON, B.D. of St. John's College, Cambridge, and Fellow of Christ's College, in Manchester. London: Parker. Cambridge: Deighton. Oxford: Parker. Manchester: Bancks & Co. 8vo. Pp. xxxvi. 260.

(Continued from page 582.)

1839.

In resuming our consideration of this valuable addition to our ecclesiastical literature, we cannot but feel that we were right in saying that the lecture which we propose to consider in this article, does not bear upon it the same stamp of lucid arrangement which generally characterises Mr. Parkinson's writings. To be candid, we cannot ascertain the exact view which our author would take. At one time he appears to be contending to the full for the unqualified plenary inspiration of the holy Scriptures, and then he appears to shrink from the necessary consequence of his own positions. As far as we can

Importance of the subject-question here confined to the inspiration of the written word-distinction between inspired writings and inspired men-verbal theory advocated-verbal accuracy necessary when the thing recorded was unknown or unintelligible to the writer-words of the utmost moment because we think in themverbal inspiration as necessary for writing as speaking-indispensable in some cases, therefore possible in all-entire knowledge of languages, in some instances, through inspiration-scripture testimony to verbal inspiration-the testimony of the fathers -and of later divines-objections answered, from inelegance of style-from discrepancies in accounts of the same transaction-from various readings-advantages arising from the verbal theory-important points of faith often involved in single words-some misconceptions of the doctrine guarded against-conclusion.

make ourselves master of the conclusion at which the reverend lecturer ultimately arrives, it would appear that we are pretty much agreed as to the light in which we regard the inspiration of Scripture; albeit we should not have chosen to express our views in the language in which he has clothed his, nor sought to convey our meaning through his set of syllogisms. Our author starts with bespeaking attention for his subject on account of its importance. That it "lies at the very root of all scriptural interpretation," would seem to be an undeniable premises, but we do not conceive that it is necessary to " follow in the steps of the learned liberalism of Germany" in order to take exception to the view which supposes the Holy Spirit to have been employed rather in watching over than in dictating the precise words of Scripture. It does not appear to us to be necessary that, in order to secure the fidelity of a message of respite, that the pardon should be conveyed in the words of the deliverer when he first gave the word of enfranchisement, provided the party thus concerned has the opportunity of examining whether the words used by his amanuensis accurately and unequivocally convey his meaning. Hence, if, before the holy Scriptures were suffered to become the text of the law to the Church of God, the third Person of the adorable Trinity had accredited them as the living oracles of Jehovah, it does not seem to affect the sacred character of the language of that book, whether the holy men who wrote them were fully cognizant, by inspiration or otherwise, of the facts they had to tell, and were in their narration effectually watched over by the infallible Spirit of Truth, or whether the Holy Ghost literally supplied, by direct inspiration, every syllable and particle of the sacred narrative. In either case the signet of infallible truth is indelibly stamped on the ascertained originals of Scripture; and while on the latter supposition, what the late excellent Bishop Jebb beautifully terms the economy of miracle observable in God's dealings with mankind," would seem to be lost sight of; in the former method we appear to discern a mode of operation every way accordant with, and analogous to the usual plans of the Most High. We most sincerely believe that the Holy Spirit was busy-if we may be allowed the expression-with every line of the inspired canon; but then it seems to us to be more consistent with the general harmony of divine Providence, to suppose His office to have been rather corrective than suggestive, as far as the bare words of Scripture are concerned. That is, we would suppose that God would specially provoke certain persons to undertake the preparations of the writings which were hereafter to be the rule and guide of the Christian's faith, and that then He would exercise an untiring vigilance, so that no single expression of equivocal import should be allowed to appear in the holy page to perplex the inquirer after sacred truth. Perhaps this may be all that Mr. Parkinson means by the words "substantial verbal

accuracy," to which he betakes himself as a sort of refuge from the legitimate consequences of the rigid verbal theory. We are, in fact, at a loss to assign any precise meaning to the purpose which Mr. P. sets himself, when he says at page 55, "I trust it will appear in the sequel, that, whatever different degrees of inspiration might have been vouchsafed to the several instruments of revelation, the Scripture report of the original promulgation of that revelation is not only accurate, but, in the substantial sense of the word, verbal." If all that our author means to assert by this is, that the Holy Spirit would protect the several penmen of inspiration from using words which would obscure their purpose, and render their meaning equivocal, if not unintelligible, then it would appear that a more cumbersome machinery has been employed than the point to be established seems to require; while, on the other hand, if the reverend lecturer is an advocate of the rigid verbal theory, he seems to have provided a loophole for escape hardly consistent with a resolute confidence in his own position. From a passage at the bottom of page 56 it would appear, that the lecturer has no more in view than the condemnation of the lowest of the rationalistic writers, since a man may be a long way off admitting plenary direct verbal inspiration, and yet shrink with becoming horror from alleging that the sacred writers recorded their statements without " any guidance or control."

Let, however, our author speak for himself.

"We think in words." No one has any very distinct notion of the sentiments of his own mind so long as they are permitted to float about in vague generalities, and have not been clothed in the definite shape of language. And, even then, whether they at all realize his own conceptions of them depends entirely upon the phraseology in which he is enabled to clothe them; a single inappropriate, or even misplaced word often giving an altogether different complexion to the sentiment which it is intended to embody. And if this be true of our own ideas, how much more is it true of those which belong to another; and if we cannot realize, even to ourselves, notions which originate in our own minds, without the help of language, how can we, except through the same instrument, receive them from an outward source, or, still more, convey them accurately to others? Precision of language is not only a mark, but it is also an instrument, of precision of thought; and if it be indispensable for even the ordinary intercourse between man and man, how much more is it requisite when we treat on subjects which in themselves are as abstruse as they are important?-Pp. 57, 58.

Now this may be all true enough, and yet in no way affect the real question at issue. A mind hallowed for the contemplation of heavenly things, and imbued with truth, might as infallibly convey that truth, under the protection of the Holy Spirit, as if he were under the immediate coercion of the same adorable Being. At page 59 we have the following:

Confining our attention, for a moment, to the Gospels, it is at once evident that they could not possibly have been written without the aid of inspiration.

Whether we consider the condition of the authors, the times when they were composed, or the nature of their contents, it is clear that the human intellect alone could not have produced them in such a shape as to command our unreserved credence and respect. But if the Holy Spirit interfered at all, why not effectually? If we allow that Mark and Luke, not being eye and ear witnesses, would require supernatural assistance as to the matter of their books, it does not seem any very additional degree of credulity to suppose that they had similar assistance as to the manner of composing them. If St. John required such aid, as he must needs have done, to recall, after so long an interval, the conversations which our Saviour had with the Pharisees and his disciples-conversations given with the greatest minuteness, and in themselves of the utmost doctrinal importance, why should we suppose that he was not enabled to do that in which their main value consists, viz. to give them exactly as they were first uttered? It was, indeed, one of the predicted offices of the Holy Ghost, that he should give this power to the apostles: "He shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you:"* and if the apostles remembered "what he said," doubtless they would not fail to record it exactly as it was spoken.

Another probable argument in favour of verbal inspiration, in all cases, is, that we know that it must have taken place in some, viz. when the knowledge of the language itself was communicated by inspiration. Here every word was the direct suggestion of the Holy Spirit; and it would be a gratuitous limitation to the operations of that Spirit to suppose that he who supplied the words did not also direct and regulate the use of them.-Pp. 59–61.

Now we cannot but think there is here a considerable portion of gratuitous assumption. We do not say that it is untrue assumption, but still we think we are justified in withholding from it the title of proof. Imprimis, the IF relating to Mark and Luke involves somewhat more than the similarity between the gospels of Matthew and Mark, and the history of the life and companionship of Luke and the first few verses of his gospel compels us to admit; while the same little word relatively to St. John would have claimed more ready assent, were we not warranted in concluding that there was something possibly to be heard on the other side, since John was the "disciple whom Jesus loved;" he who leaned on Jesus' bosom, and therefore, not unlikely to treasure, with scrupulous jealousy, the words of his dear master, even if St. Paul were the only one of the apostles who had his note books.† Again, at page 68, our author says,

All we contend for is, that in whatever tongue a divine author wrote, whether in his own native dialect, or in a language communicated from heaven, he was so far guided by the Holy Spirit, as to be directed to the use of such expressions as could not possibly misrepresent his meaning.-Pp. 68.

Now, why would not the security of protection from error be enough?

John xiv. 26.

"But especially the parchments тàs μeμßpávas, a Latin word again, made Greek, signifying the skins of beasts smoothed, dried, and fitted to receive writing on them, which we call parchments. These, as learned interpreters generally conclude (nor can it well be otherwise imagined), were St. Paul's Adversaria or Commonplace Books," &c. V. Est. et Grot. in loc.-Bishop Bull in a Sermon on 2 Tim. iv. 13, entitled, "Human Means useful to Inspired Persons."

Surely it will be enough for the purpose which Mr. Parkinson has it in view to establish, if the case were stated thus-" he was so far watched over by the Holy Spirit, as to prevent his using words which could, by fair construction, misrepresent his meaning." It will be seen that our view affects two portions of the lecturer's statement. In the first place, we presume the part taken by the Holy Spirit to be indirect rather than immediate; and we supply the ellipse which the remark "could not possibly misrepresent" requires, in order to make it harmonize with the actual state of the case. The objection which arises to the rigid verbal theory, from "the differing accounts which are recorded by different writers of the same transactions," is not disposed of satisfactorily to our minds, and what is done appears to us laboured. But our readers shall judge for themselves.

The next objection is of a more formidable nature; and rests upon a fact concerning which there has been much learned controversy. We refer to the differing accounts which are recorded by different writers of the same transaction. These, it is said, while they do not affect the general fidelity of the statement, are inconsistent with the theory of verbal inspiration. We may reply, that, when they occur in the record of what was said, they are equally inconsistent with accuracy; for the truth, in that case, can be but one. When, however, these differences are minutely examined, they will, in general, be found to be such as do not affect our proposition; which does not exclude the use of terms perfectly synonymous-or the change, either by omission or addition, of some circumstance which was important to the object of one writer and not to another-or a variation in case or tense, which the structure of a sentence might render necessary. Differences like these, and they are the main differences, prove nothing against the theory that each writer was guided, as to substantial verbal accuracy, by the Holy Spirit of God. With respect to the differences, minute, indeed, but still obvious differences,-which exist in the reports which three of the evangelists often give of the same discourse of our Lord, and which prove that they cannot all be verbally correct-the best answer seems to be that none of them could by possibility be so. The language which our Saviour spoke was not Greek, but Syro-Chaldaic; the gospel accounts, therefore, are necessarily but translations; and, viewing them in this light, it would seem that, instead of stumbling at their minute discrepancies, we ought to trace a higher power than merely human knowledge and care, in their most wonderful agreement! When have any other translations, made independently of each other, agreed to the same extent ?-Pp. 68-70.

Now, in the above extract there is an instance of the refuge in "the substantial verbal accuracy," and but an insufficient reason why plenary inspiration should not be consentaneous in the several passages. Again, the cogency of the following is lost upon us.

It cannot be denied, then, that the mind derives a degree of comfort and assurance from contemplating the word of God as being the product of substantial verbal inspiration, which is seriously impaired by any lower view of the subject.-P. 71.

If we are sure that there is no error, and that there is no wrong word, there is as much "comfort and assurance" in this conviction of the infallibility of the written word, through the watching power of the