preternatural act displayed before our senses; for, the moment you test their forces, by bringing them into collision, the original convictions of the reason obtain the mastery. It is no answer to say, that such a case is of impossible occurrence. For the purpose to which I apply it, viz., to try an experiment with our own minds, respecting the real argumentative capabilities of miracles, an imaginary case is not only as good as an actual one, but a great deal better: for so long as a good truth and a good miracle are linked together, and move in the same direction, we rest confusedly on the joint support of physical and moral evidence, and are unable to determine which is the ascendant power. The statements and examples of Scripture tend to the same conclusion. The personal disciples of our Lord returned from a mission on which he had sent them; exclaiming, "Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name." Yet, though they were possessed of these miraculous powers, their views of the very kingdom which they had gone forth to preach were at this time exceedingly narrow and erroneous,-leading them into acts and desires ambitious, passionate, and false. Miracles, then, are simply awakening facts: demanding and securing reverential and watchful regard to something, or to everything, in the parties performing them; but not specifically singling out any portion of their doctrinal ideas, and affording them infallible proof. Is it not competent to God thus to draw human attention to a person, as well as a truth; -to a character, as well as a doctrine? At all events, it is an unwarrantable presumption in us to select for the All-wise the particular motive with which exclusively he ought to create a miracle; instead of humbly noting the actual results, and judging thence of his divine purposes. But, it will now be urged, whatever sentiments may be entertained respecting the proper inference from miracles in Luke x. 17. general, there is one in particular which directly establishes the plenary inspiration of the apostles and first disciples. It is recorded in the book of Acts, that on the day of Pentecost, when they were with one accord in one place, the Holy Ghost descended upon all. The two Evangelists, St. Matthew and St. John, were present; so were St. Peter and St. James; for all these were Apostles. And we know that, by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, the same power passed into all disciples on whom they might choose to confer the privilege. We cannot suppose any of the New Testament authors to have been excluded from this class; and must therefore believe, that every word of the Christian canon was composed under the influence of the Unerring Spirit. This argument is proposed in the following words, by Dr. Tattershall, in his published sermon on the "Nature and Extent of the Right of Private Judgment." "The Scriptures have been already proved".. to be a true and authentic history; one of the principal facts of which his tory is, the outpouring of the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples of Christ. I take, therefore, as an example, the Gospel of St. Matthew, and reason as follows:-I learn, from the history, that Christ's disciples were inspired by the Holy Ghost; among this number was St. Matthew; therefore St. Matthew was inspired; and, consequently, that which he wrote, under this influence of inspiration, is to be regarded as the Word of God. Whereas, on the other hand, if St. Matthew was not inspired, the history relates that which is not true, and the credibility of the whole sacred history is at once destroyed: and, with it, both the Church, and also Christianity itself, must fall to the ground."+ Now to convey, at the outset, a distinct idea of the reason why this argument does not convince me, let me say, that I believe St. Matthew to have been inspired; but I do not believe him to have been infallible. I am sure that he nowhere Acts ii. 1-4. + Pp. 23,6, 237. puts forth any such claim: and if he does not affirm it himself, I know not who can affirm it for him. Indeed, to the advocates of this doctrine it must seem strange, that even St. John the Divine, instead of bearing down all doubt by this overwhelming claim, should so modestly and carefully conciliate the belief of his readers, by appealing to his own human opportunities of information: "and he that saw it bare record, and his record is true:"*"this is the disciple that testifieth of these things, and wrote these things :"+ and that St. Luke should content himself with saying, at the commencement of his Gospel, that its materials were furnished by those who "from the beginning were eye-witnesses.”‡ Everything in this argument clearly depends on the meaning which we are to attach to the phrases" Holy Ghost,”—“ Inspiration,"-" Spirit of God,"-and other forms of expression employed to denote this peculiar influence. What, according to the Scriptures, were the appropriate functions of this Divine Agent? and are we to include among them an exemption of those, on whom its power fell, from all possibilities of error, in narration, in reasoning, in expectation, in speculative and practical doctrine? In short, do the sacred writers represent this Holy Spirit as conferring intellectual infallibility? Now the original account of the descent of the Holy Spirit certainly implies nothing of the kind. § The gift of tongues, which St. Paul, though possessed of it in the highest degree,|| places in the lowest rank of spiritual gifts,¶ and which he expressly discriminates from "the word of wisdom," and "the word of knowledge,”** is the only preternatural effect there ascribed to this new influence. Other passages descriptive of this agency equally fall short of this claim of infallibility. We read, for example,†† that by the direction of * John xix. 35. § Acts ii. 1-4. ** 1 Cor. xii. 8, 10. † xxi. 24. 1 Cor. xiv. 18. tt Acts vi. 1—4. Luke i. 2. ¶ 1 Cor. xiv. passim : especially 4,5,13,19,23. the Apostles, seven persons were to be selected from the general body of believers, who were to be men "full of the Holy Ghost, and wisdom,”—the two attributes being distinguished. It must be supposed, too, that the qualifications demanded of these officers had some proportionate reference to the duties assigned. These duties were simply the management of the society's financial accounts, and the distribution of its eleemosynary funds. When it is said that John the Baptist should be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb,"* are we to understand, that from earliest infancy he was infallible ?—he who, in the very midst of his ministry, sent to Jesus for information on this question, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another ?”† -a question, be it observed, which implies doubt on the great subject-matter of the Baptist's whole mission. Perhaps, however, it will be admitted that there are inferior degrees of this inspiration; so that passages like this may be found, in which the phrases denoting it are used in a lower sense. But, it will be said, in its highest intensity it cannot be so restricted, and is even distinctly affirmed to involve infallibility. The operations of the spirit of God are distributed theologians into two classes,-the extraordinary, experienced by the apostles, and exempting them from liability to error,—the ordinary, which are assured to all true disciples, and whose office implies no further illumination of the understanding, than is needful for the sanctification of the heart. Now if this statement and division be really true and scriptural, we shall doubtless find Christ and his Apostles separating their promises of divine influence into two corresponding sets; keeping things so different, clear of all confusion; and fully as exact in this "discerning of spirits," as their modern disciples. But so far is this from being the case, that between the greater spirit of the twelve apostles, and the less spirit of the general church, no distinction whatever is drawn; nor any between the intellectual infallibility which was to await the apostles, and the spiritual sanctification promised to the faithful multitude of all ages. Nay, it so happens, that the most unlimited expressions relating to the subject occur in such connexions, that they cannot be confined to the apostles, but obviously apply to all private Christians. For instance, shall we say that our Lord's promise of the "Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost," explained by the remarkable synonym which he appended, "the spirit of truth," which should "teach them all things," and "lead them into all truth"-implies universal illumination of the understanding? Close at hand is a clause forbidding the interpretation, by spreading the promise over all ages of the church; "I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the spirit of truth;"* and the expression is accordingly quoted by Dr. Wardlaw, as descriptive of the common operations of the spirit. Again, St. John in his first General Epistle (addressed of course to the whole church) says, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things."‡ Take then the strongest and most unqualified expressions on this subject, and if they prove the infallibility of the apostles, they prove the same of all private Christians. Or, take those which show sanctification to be the characteristic office of the Holy Spirit with respect to the general church, and you show that this also was its agency on the Apostles. One or two texts are occasionally adduced in defence of this doctrine; their paucity and inapplicability show how slight is the scripture foundation, on which it rests. By far the most remarkable of these is found in 2 Tim. iii. 16. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for * John xiv. 16, 17, 26. + Discourses on the principal Points of the Socinian Controversy, p. 341. Disc. xi, + 1 John ii. 20. |
