[4] The sceptic will sometimes endeavour to perplex and entangle the faith of an unlearned believer, by insinuating that, as he has never traced, through the medium of exact evidence, the origin of the different books of the Bible to their source, he cannot be assured that his belief is substantially a true belief—it may be, after all, nothing but the belief of a fiction. The following quotation from a distinguished writer, will, I think, prove as a shield of defence to the faith of the unlearned, and convince the sceptic himself, that his objection, plausible in appearance, is wanting in logical force:—"It is manifest that the concurrent testimony, positive or negative, of several witnesses, when there can have been no concert, carries with it a weight independent of that which may belong to each of them, considered separately. For though, in such a case, each of the witnesses should be even considered as wholly undeserving of credit, still the chances might be incalculable against all agreeing in the same falsehood. It is on this kind of testimony that the generality of mankind believe in the motions of the earth, and of the heavenly bodies, &c. Their belief is not the result of their own observations and calculations, nor yet again of their implicit reliance on the skill and good faith of any one or more astronomers; but it rests on the agreement of many independent and rival astronomers, who want neither the ability nor the will to detect and expose each other's errors. It is on similar grounds that the generality of men believe in the existence and in the genuineness of manuscripts of ancient books. It is not that they have themselves examined these, or that they rely implicitly on the good faith of those who profess to have done so; but they rely on the concurrent and uncontradicted testimony of all who have made, or who might make, the examination—both unbelievers and believers of various hostile sects, any one of whom would be sure to seize any opportunity to expose the forgeries or errors of his opponents."—Whately.
This observation is the more important because many persons are liable to be startled and dismayed, on its being pointed out to them that they have been believing something, as they are led to suppose, on very insufficient reasons, when the truth is, perhaps, that they have been merely mis-stating their reasons.
[5] Deut. xviii. 15; Psal. xlv. 1, 2; lxxii.; Isa. liii.; Dan. ix. 22, 27; Zech. ix. 9; Mal. iii. 1.
[6] 2 Tim. iii. 16.
[7] 2 Pet. i. 21.
[8] "No such a thing," says Archbishop Whately, "is to be found in our Scriptures as a catechism, or regular elementary introduction to the Christian religion; nor do they furnish us with anything of the nature of a systematic creed, set of articles, confession of faith, or by whatever other name one may designate a regular, complete compendium of Christian doctrines; nor, again, do they supply us with a liturgy for ordinary public worship, or with forms for administering the sacraments, or for conferring holy orders; nor do they even give any precise directions as to these and other ecclesiastical matters—anything that at all corresponds to a rubric, or set of canons." Why these omissions? A great defect in our Scriptures, say some; but, in my opinion, it amounts to a self-evident confirmation, that the writers of the New Testament were under the special dictation of the Divine Spirit, as to what they should, and what they should not record. If they were carrying out a fraudulent design, conceived by their predecessors, who wrote the Old Testament, they would, from their educational training and desire to act in character with their confederates, have imitated their example, and been very specific and minute in all their ecclesiastic arrangements. They would have inserted the law of dictation and prescription, which was so absolute under the Jewish theocracy, in the Christian code, and thus have rendered division of opinion and freedom of action impossible. The question then turns upon us: Why did they not do what it was very natural they should do, and what the necessity of the case would seem to require to be done, according to the judgment of every intelligent and reflective mind, who looked at it through the medium of the existing ecclesiastical regulations of the age and country? Their not doing what was thus natural they should do, and what the necessity of the case, according to human judgment, required them to do, is of itself a proof that they were not left to the guidance of their own understanding, but were held in subjection, according to their own confession, by the controlling power and wisdom of the Holy Ghost, under whose inspiration all Scripture is given. "The Jewish ritual, designed for one nation and country, and intended to be of temporary duration, was fixed and accurately prescribed. The same Divine wisdom, from which both dispensations proceeded, having designed Christianity for all nations and ages, left Christians at large in respect of those points in which variation might be desirable. But I think no human wisdom would have foreseen and provided for this. That a number of Jews, accustomed from their infancy to so strict a ritual, should, in introducing Christianity as the second part of the same dispensation, have abstained not only from accurately prescribing for the use of all Christian churches for ever the mode of Divine worship, but even from recording what was actually in use under their own directions, does seem to me utterly incredible, unless
we suppose them to have been restrained from doing this by a special admonition of the
Divine Spirit."—Whately.
At any rate, whether these omissions are to be attributed to the controlling power of the Holy Ghost, or the extraordinary policy of the writers of the New Testament, we arrive at the same conclusion, that, while we are required to believe, and to contend earnestly for the essential facts and doctrines of the Christian faith, which are set out with great precision and explicitness, a freedom of action is allowed on what may be deemed the subordinate and non-essential parts of the same faith. Hence we may differ on some things, without any valid impeachment of our Christian wisdom and integrity, unless we allow our difference of opinion to produce alienation of brotherly affection. When it does this, we make a sacrifice of our honour, and give a sanction to the accusation of the common adversary, that our hostile divisions are a proof that our religion does not come from a wise and benevolent Being—that it is of the earth, earthy.
[9] In 1845 Sir Robert Peel introduced a measure, and carried it, to increase this grant to nearly £30,000 a-year.
[10] When Lord John Russell was speaking in favour of the measure brought before the house by Sir Robert Peel in 1845, to increase the grant to nearly £30,000 per annum, he said—"But if you found you were doing that which was mischievous to the community, and that the religious scruples of the community would not allow of the continuance of the grant, or, with reference to civil and political reasons, you found that those you meant to be teachers of religion had become the teachers and conductors of rebellion; if I say," his lordship added, "you found from any of these causes that there was ground sufficient to refuse this grant, then I can see no valid reasons why any compact should restrain you, or why, upon strong grounds of this kind, the house would not be justified in declaring that it would give no further allowance." (See Hansard's Debates, v. 3, p. 92, session 1845.) The Right Hon. William Gladstone, M.P., recorded his opinion of this grant, before Sir Robert Peel brought forward his measure in 1845. "In principle the grant is wholly vicious, and it will be a thorn in the side of these countries as long as it is continued." There are several reasons, which, in the judgment of Lord John Russell, would justify the discontinuance of this grant, without subjecting our government to the charge of violating any existing compact; but I merely mention the following, which I give from the speech of his lordship: if "the religious scruples of the community would not allow of the continuance of it." Now let us see how the case actually stands, and then we shall be able to form a correct judgment of what the British government and we ourselves ought to do. It is an undisputed fact, that the measure of 1845 was forced through parliament in direct opposition to the most unequivocal expression of hostility on the part of the religious community, of all denominations; and their hostility to its continuance is increasing in inveteracy and strength as time moves on in its course. I am at a loss to conceive how any one except a Roman Catholic who has a beneficial interest in this money grant, or a lukewarm Protestant, who cares no more for the spiritual religion of the New Testament than he does for the legendary tales of Popery, can come forward as its advocate and supporter. The Catholics say they are able and willing to support their own religion and its institutions. Let them do so; but do not compel us to work with them, when we believe that their religion, with its institutions, is the greatest curse that ever has been inflicted on man since the Fall; and when we believe that its clergy, if they had the power, would immediately establish the Inquisition amongst us, and at once consign us to torture and to death, if we refused to bow down and to do homage to their pontiff and his myrmidons.
[11] See vol. i. page 94.