صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

CHAPTER IV.

In this and the following chapters, I shall endeavour to show, from the authority of the Scriptures themselves, as well as from arguments drawn from existing facts, that the Scriptures are NOT, as the author of the Beacon," and these several Reviewers say they are, "the only standard of religious truth." It is thus stated in the "Beacon," according to the quotation in the article before me-"It is plain that the rule must be THAT WHICH PROCEEDS from the Spirit and not the Holy Spirit himself. To speak of the Holy Spirit as a rule, involves the same incongruity as to speak of God as a rule. It is clear to demonstration, that there can be no higher rule than the Scriptures. There can be no higher rule than that which is given by inspiration of God. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,' therefore there can be no higher rule than the Holy Scriptures." Now these premises may be all very correct, so far as they are set forth. "All Scripture," (provided all Holy Scripture is only spoken of,) I most undoubtedly admit "is given by inspiration of God;" but whilst I admit this, and of consequence, the conclusion (but not the conclusion I. C. educes) that flows from it, I also deem it to be of the utmost importance to know whether all that you say is Holy Scripture, is really Holy Scripture or not, and whether there never was, is not now, and never

6

will be any Holy Scripture, but so much of the writings of "holy men," as is at present contained in the book called "" the Bible." And in proportion as the consequences involved in my acceptance or rejection of such authority, are of the utmost importance to my well-being both here and hereafter, so is it incumbent upon me to make diligent search, and be "fully persuaded" in my own mind, that I follow "not the doctrines of men, for the commandments of God."-Neither is this the only consideration that is of weight here. Even supposing I grant without enquiry, that every letter and syllable from the first chapter of Genesis, to the last of Revelations, "is given by the inspiration of God," and that within these contracted limits, is included all that he did, (which is contrary to the Scripture testimony itself,) at any time make known by His Holy Spirit, to the children of men, still there is no good reason, to show that the whole of those things which were revealed at different times, to different individuals, under different circumstances, are to stand as the only appeal, and "ultimate standard," to the end of time, for all states and conditions of men. "The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets." God is a "God of order," and "not of confusion." Does Isaac Crewdson, and do the Reviewers, believe that any of the Prophets, or holy men of old, whenever anything was revealed to them, tested its genuineness and authority by the writings of OTHER inspired men? Was it necessary for Jeremiah, think ye, when the Word of the Lord" came to him "as a burning fire," so that he "was weary with forbearing, and could not stay," to run to the writings of Isaiah,

66

and David, and Moses, and the rest of the inspired men, who had committed their several revelations to writing ? Think ye he was obliged to resort to these as an “ ultimate standard," in order to ascertain whether “the Word," which he declares to have been in his “heart,” was from God, or not? And when the Apostle Paul received a "dispensation of the Gospel," not by man, or the will of man, but by “the Holy Ghost,” (and there is no other way of receiving it,) did He also, think ye, "search the Scriptures" that were written up to that period, as an "ultimate standard," or did he not, without reasoning with "flesh and blood," or anything else, "give up to the heavenly vision ?" And when the twelve Apostles, after the ascension of our Saviour, had met together at Jerusalem, and “were all filled with the Holy Ghost," what had THEY to consult, to ascertain whether it was the Holy Ghost, or not, with which they were "filled?" And when Peter and John were commanded not to teach in the name of Jesus," think ye they looked into the writings either of the old prophets or the new ones, to ascertain the validity of their commission? Did they resort to so much of your “ultimate standard,” as had then made its appearance in the world, in order to be "fully persuaded" that "the testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy," dwelt "richly" in their minds? Did not " the Spirit bear witness with their spirits," and was not that witness, think ye, of superior weight to any other that could be produced? Did they think in that eventful moment, that it was any "incongruity to speak of God as a rule ?" but did they not expressly acknowledge that He was their rule, when they said, "Whether it be

66

right in the sight of God, to hearken unto you MORE than unto God, judge ye?"

it was

Will Isaac Crewdson and the Reviewers contend that the Prophets and the Apostles were thus compelled to consult the writings of other Prophets and Apostles that had gone before them, in order to be assured whether, or not, it was "the inspiration of the Almighty" that gave them "understanding," or whether "certain impressions" of their "own," by which, through "self-importance," they were "blinded," so as they could not distinguish "between the infallibility of the Holy Spirit, and their own fallibility ?" They will scarcely assert this; but if they do, where is the chapter and verse in their "ultimate standard for the truth of every doctrine" - for the truth of this? It is, certainly, a most irrational and extraordinary doctrine, more especially coming from those who, tauntingly, and jeeringly, and gravely too, accuse others of being the preachers of "mysticism," "certain impressions,' suggestions," and other similar phantasies. I say it is a most irrational and extraordinary doctrine, that the influence of the Holy Spirit in the heart of man cannot be distinguished from the mind's own suggestions," or from "the delusion of the Devil," unless it be brought to the records of former "inspirations," with which some holy men were favoured, who have been "at rest from their labours," some, hundreds, and others, thousands of years ago! Where is the chapter and verse, in any part of “the ultimate appeal" for this most irrational and extraordinary doctrine? And supposing, for the sake of more clearly shewing its utter groundlessness in all truth and

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

""

H

reason, that we ARE to "test" a present revelation to ourselves, by a revelation to some one else many hundred years ago, what revelation, I ask, am I to test it by? Am I to "test" it by what Moses did or said? or by what those did and said who " walked with God" before Moses's time? or am I to look into some of the Prophets, or the Evangelists, or the Epistles of the Apostles, or of that book of heavenly mysteries, called the Revelations of John the Divine; or, is it of no consequence into which part I look, as each and every part is alike competent to decide the important fact? And, again, by what process, in what manner, and way, am I to "test it?" Isaac Crewdson and the Reviewers say, that "if we unhappily flatter ourselves, that we have the knowledge of the will of God, independently of the written revelation, by which it has pleased him to convey it, we lay ourselves open to the delusion of the Devil," Now, "if they do sincerely believe and mean in this, that the will of God concerning us," can only be ascertained by reference to so much of the different writings of the Apostles and Prophets, that are contained in the book called the Bible, I think it but fair to ask them, how I am to ascertain the will of God in the particular instance I have just specified. The Holy Spirit influences my heart;-thou canst not tell that it does, says Isaac Crewdson and his co-thinkers, unless thou triest it by the best translated copies, of those copies, of those original manuscripts, of those holy men, who, hundreds and thousands of years ago, were under the immediate influence of the SAME Holy Spirit? Well-if this is to be the test of the genuineness of this influence, HOW is it to be the test? What portion, as I asked before,

« السابقةمتابعة »