forth bear a less important part in establishing religious faith and principle, and life in the soul? And may, or may it not be, that God purposely gave us his word in such a form, that while received in the rigid, authoritative sense by the elder ages, it should be recognized in after times, as designed to quicken the conscience, elevate the reason, and gird up the loins of the will, that they may themselves perceive, and feel, and decide; rather than to fill the soul with knowledge, and almost with feeling and volition, ready made to its hands? Just as the predictions of ancient prophecy, concerning the Messiah, were purposely so constructed, that while the Jews could see naught in them but the promise of a temporal prince, to restore the earthly glory of Israel, Christian readers, studying under the gospel light, recognize on every page the harbingers of coming spiritual day. Still another related question is, how far the pure theory of inspiration, and the cognate conception of spiritual progress by accretion, are responsible for that blind unreasoning superstition, which finds its home in Rome, and its outposts in exclusive theories of church organization and ordinances, and especially in pro-slavery Christianity. We hear much of the danger of rationalizing tendencies in the church. The danger is real, although by some exaggerated. But the divorce of reason from religious faith and conscience has wrought more injury by far, than all that has resulted from rationalism. It has given us the errors named above, and many more. The tone of mind and thought, which does not look the rationale of its faith in the face, which swallows all spiritual aliment on authority, without presuming to taste its quality, is prepared to be the dupe of whatever superstition shall first present a plausible claim to respect. Who would have dreamed of going to the Bible to find a sanction for slavery, had not men been taught to believe that the authority of any part of the Bible-of any part taken by itself-is sufficient to sanctify anything? It is a question whether that view of inspiration, which brings it to bear upon the soul as an absolute authority, and some times perhaps with almost smothering force, has not done much to produce this baleful superstition, with all its often blood-stained fruits. This too is a question which we do not decide. It must be considered, however, by those who would determine the comparative effectiveness, ultimately, for good, of the two methods of inspiration supposed. It is worthy of inquiry also, whether the living, spiritual, appreciative style of interpretation, contended for by such writers as Tayler Lewis,* though advocated in the interest of the highest conception of scriptural authority, is not really in sympathy with the looser view of inspiration; throwing us, as that view does, upon the habit of estimating the value of a passage, by the power of its appeal to our higher spiritual consciousness. The very idea of a revelation constructed upon the mixed theory, supposes an appeal to a responsive spirit in the reader. What Prof. Lewis deprecates as a dry, mechanical, lifeless style of interpretation, is it not the natural fruit of the idea that every word in the Bible demands an equally blind submission; which appeals, of course, for interpretation, to the logical understanding alone, instead of to the higher faculty of spiritual and moral intuition? There has always been difficulty in rejecting the theory of verbal inspiration, from the unmistakable marks of supernatural elevation in the style of many passages of the scripture; and more perhaps from the vital connection in all style between the thought and language, the latter the body, the former the soul; a connection so strictly vital that no full inspiration of the thought is possible that shall not extend in a measure to the language also, even as the human countenance responds in outward expression to the throes of thought and passion within. Moreover, the surrender of the verbal theory by no means relieves the doctrine of plenary inspiration from its heaviest difficulties, and is therefore the less an object. The mixed theory opens the door for inspiration in word as well as in thought, so far as the strange power of the language requires it, and allows us to close it in time to exclude whatever elements are manifestly "of the earth, earthy." These too are thoughts worthy of consideration. On these questions, * See "Divine Human in the Scriptures," Chap. II. as on others going before, we give no decision. But they must be decided before it can be determined whether a revelation constructed on the mixed theory of inspiration, would answer the purpose for which a revelation must be supposed to be given. III. The third important point upon which the main question turns, relates to the principle on which the scriptures are actually constructed, in a respect now to be explained. The scriptures are not constructed as they would have been, had God said, "Let us make everything as clear as possible." Look at the ancient prophecies; look at the Apocalypse; look at many of the sayings of Christ himself; look at the obscurity hanging over the history and authenticity of many of the books both of the Old Testament and New. Are not the most important doctrines often left in such a light, that the attraction of a heart in sympathy with them is necessary to lead us into the truth. A brief, a passing allusion, perhaps, may be all that is revealed upon subjects over which thousands of minds have toiled in vain in every age of the church. Who has not wondered that when a few sentences might have precluded forever such controversies as those respecting baptism, ordination, church government, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, original sin, depravity, free-agency, imputation, and many others,-precluded, we mean, so far as the fact of the doctrine is concerned, not its philosophical explanation, those sentences were not given. Not one of those doctrines has been made as clear, in the scriptures, as it might have been. In a thousand passages the meaning can only be obtained by great labor; in many it has not yet been obtained. And even where most clear, all is unsystematic and out of logical place. The order and arrangement must be made by men. Have we observed, moreover, that the teachings of the Bible are more frequently of a suggestive than of a dogmatic character? Hints, figures, rhetorical rather than logical expressions, abound; and nothing is easier than to make out a thousand absurdities, contradictions, and moral deformities, if the reader brings not to the apprehension of them a moral sense and a heart in sympathy with the true, but often hidden - spirit of the word. The whole book is as far as possible from manifesting the design to send forth the streams of truth in channels so definite that they should not mingle with the turbid waters of human insight and speculation. Everything rather suggests the idea that in the mind of the inspiring Spirit, to awaken the human reason and conscience, and set them at work, shedding only light enough that they might feel their way, was its object, more than to carry, or even lead them by the hand to the desired result. It thus becomes a question whether the Bible is not, after all, as a matter of fact, constructed on the principle of the mixed theory. For what is the difference in principle, between giving a revelation, which it is known must be stumbled and disputed over, and seldom fully understood, and giving one mingled with human matter? We do not say there is none. But what it is, and what is its bearing upon the main question before us, we do not remember to have seen discussed. We venture to think that the question will be found one of some significancy. The foregoing we regard as indicating, in part at least, the general range of thought upon which the solution of the main problem depends. We have stated the arguments in favor of a modified theory of inspiration thus fully, because we wish to convince our orthodox brethren that they exist, and that they must be considered. Perhaps they have been so more than we are aware of, but we must believe that something is still wanting. Should it be thought that we have treated views, which may be considered unsafe, with too much respect, we have only to reply, we have simply aimed to state the problem. In so doing, nothing could be gained by suppressing or shading over any of its conditions. They must all come out eventually, and be met; and until this is done, all the labor expended upon the question will be substantially lost. The sooner the worst side of the question is seen, the sooner it will be settled. We have no fear that the Bible is destined to lose one iota of its power over mankind. Some of its defensive fortifications may be changed for others, as the great tide of change in the world rolls on; but any such change, wrought by the most searching scrutiny, and the most candid concessions, we need not fear that revelation cannot bear. For ourselves, the feeling of wondering reverence for the Bible has grown more solemn and profound with the studies of which the foregoing observations present the result. More and more deeply we feel the truth, that the eternal hopes and destinies of men hang simply on that Holy Book. More and more we feel that all true spiritual attainment, all highest and purest religious experience, must bow in humble and loving worship upon its sacred pages. A thousand spiritual battles may yet be fought over it; they may be necessary to fix more firmly its foundations; but none will ever cause its throne in the hearts of men to tremble. "Within that awful volume lies The mystery of mysteries! |