it was in the fountain. But God giveth his spirit to us but by measure; and in the exercise of his gifts there is always aliquid humani, something of our own, and this maketh them subject to the prophets; viz. whether what they pretended to have from the spirit of God were indeed from it, yes or no. . . . . Here he showeth the principle that any prophet's speech is not so certain, or at least not more certain, than this, that nothing which is confusion can come from God." See also Calvin, ad loc. If, instead of the above explanation, which is also that of Theodoret, Chrysostom, Calovius, Bengel, Beza, and many others, ancient and modern, we take that of most recent expositors, viz. that the Divine spirit which inspires the prophets is subject to the control of the prophets' own will, so that they can speak, or refrain from speaking, as they choose, - I think that quite as strong an inference may be drawn from the passage in favor of the views which I have maintained. But as the gift of discernment of spirits is mentioned in ch. xii. in immediate connection with the prophetic gift, and as in verse 29 it is said, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge," it seems to me that the older explanation has quite as good a claim to acceptance as the more recent one. Especially as there may perhaps be some force in Bishop Middleton's remark, that, if Paul had meant to say that the spirits of the prophets were subject to themselves, he would grammatically have used the article before the repeated word prophets, and have written τοῖς προφήταις ὑποτάσσεται. Both meanings, however, are so agreeable to the connection, that one cannot decide very confidently which is correct. After all, the authority of names is only a subsidiary consideration. The proof of the fallibility of apostles and prophets is the actual errors which are found in their writings. To deny infallibility to the writings of prophets, evangelists, and apostles is by no means to deprive them of authority. On the contrary, they come to us not only with an authority of their own, but with that of all the human hearts which have been converted, strengthened, and comforted by them for eighteen centuries. Divine Providence has given them vast authority in the education of mankind. But this authority, like that of the Great Teacher, the chief corner-stone on which prophets, evangelists, and apostles built, extends only to the essential principles of religion and morality which are able to make us wise unto salvation, and not to matters of scientific criticism, hermeneutical logic, the causes and cure of disease, chronology, astronomy, or geology. No one at the present day would think of pouring wine into a fresh wound on account of the commendation which Jesus gave to the good Samaritan for so doing. These matters did not fall within the province of Christ's mission. They were safely left to the progressive reason of mankind. In the same way, it is not necessary to deny authority, in regard to some ideas, to the Church; for instance, the Catholic, the Lutheran, the Methodist, or the Unitarian churches. The individual reason is strengthened in its convictions when they are in accordance with the belief of any great church. Even in criticism, the very essence of which is the judgment of the individual, every sound inquirer keeps in mind the fallibility of his own reason, and has more confidence in his conclusions when they are supported by the authority of a large number of learned, honest, unbiassed searchers after truth. Still the question what church shall be allowed the greatest weight of authority, and how much authority is to be allowed to any church, or to all churches, and to what subjects the authority extends, must be decided by the reason of the individual under the influence of the Divine spirit. No church can stand between the individual soul and its Creator at the day of judgment, and therefore the individual soul must in the last resort decide in all matters of faith and practice. So it is with respect to the conscience. The individual must in the last resort follow his own conscience, as the best guide which he has, however fallible and imperfect it may be; but he must do so not in contemptuous disregard of authority, but with a just estimation of it. We might illustrate this subject of authority by reference to the Common or the Civil Law. Who can deny that they have vast authority in the administration of justice throughout the world? Our governors and judges do not deny the authority of the Common or the Roman Law, when they deny the infallibility of either. Allowing that the law, according to either of these systems, is founded in right reason, and has "its seat in the bosom of God," yet may it not be overruled? Is not allowance made for the growth of reason? It is feared by many, that, in denying infallibility to the Scriptures, we take away one of the supports of morality. The other side of the question has been overlooked. It has not been considered how far this doctrine of infallibility has been the support of wrong-doing in the Christian Church. But I think it can be demonstrated that practices, now generally regarded as inhuman and inconsistent with the spirit of Christ, have found their strongest support in this doctrine of the absolute infallibility of the Scriptures. The infliction of horrible penalties for religious opinion, the principle of retaliation in criminal jurisprudence, the cruelties in the punishment of witchcraft, and the custom of chattel slavery, have prevailed under the supposed sanction of the Scriptures. If they are regarded in all their utterances as an infallible guide, they do give that sanction. The Southern Christian teachers of every name who united in proclaiming slavery to be sanctioned by the Bible were not only honest, but right, if the Scriptures in every part are regarded as an infallible standard of truth and duty, without the least mixture of human error. The old expositors of the Scriptures, who wrote before the modern agitation of the subject of slavery, an agitation excited, as I think, by the Holy Spirit of God in the human reason and the human heart, - give abundant support to the Southern religious teachers. While I admit this, however, I should still maintain that the spirit of the prophets, as well as of Christ and St. Paul, fairly deduced from all which they uttered or wrote, is clearly and strongly against slavery in every form. It would be strange, indeed, if in the present advanced state of society Christians should not, in respect to the application of the essential principles and spirit of Christian morality to many outward usages, have juster and clearer views than the Apostle of the Gentiles. If it still be asked how we are to distinguish the word of God in the Scriptures from the imperfections and errors mixed up with it, I reply, By the reason of the individual. The same Holy Spirit which inspired prophets and apostles to speak and write is still living and present to illuminate and strengthen the reason of hearers and readers to judge, and to separate the eternal truth from the errors and imperfections which, imbibed from the age in which they lived, clung to the greatest prophets, such as John the Baptist, and the chiefest Apostles, such as Paul. "He that is spiritual judgeth all things." (1 Cor. ii. 15.) There is limited, yet trustworthy, but no absolute, infallible authority whatever for man. God is infallible. But every human interpreter and all collective bodies of human interpreters of Divine manifestations are fallible. The human senses, the human intellect, the human memory, oral tradition, and historical records are all fallible. Yet by their aid we may attain not only faith, but knowledge. The light which it has pleased God to bestow upon us is amply sufficient to guide us to the blessedness for which we were designed, in this world and that which is to come. Whether the necessities or the interests of humanity would be better promoted by an infallible standard of doctrine and duty, either in a written volume, in a church, or a single individual, is a question which it is not worth while to discuss. What God has done, not what it is necessary or useful for him to do, is the important concern for us. Who shall undertake to prescribe to the Creator the best method for the enlightenment and improvement of the world? Undoubtedly there is a part of our nature which inclines us to seek repose in an outward, infallible standard. But it may well be doubted whether this is the highest part of our nature. It seems rather to be a selfish love of ease and quiet, an aversion to action and progress, a desire to escape anxiety, suspense, and labor, rather than to attain to truth and perfection. The result is rather an arbitrary suppression of doubt, than a genuine exercise of faith. "If I go not away," says the Great Teacher, "the Helper will not come." It well deserves to be considered whether it is not an actual fact, that those Christians enjoy a stronger as well as purer faith, who, giving up the doctrine of Scriptural infallibility as a dream, conceding to authority its just weight, yet guarding against its undue influence, feel bound to trust their own reason under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the supreme judge, believing that to deny reason is to deny God. JOEL. INSCRIPTION. 1 The word of Jehovah, which came to Joel, the son of Pethuel. I. A description of the desolation of the land of Judah by locusts. 2 CH. I. 2-20. HEAR this, ye old men ; Give ear, all ye inhabitants of the land! And let your children tell their children, 4 That which the gnawing-locust left hath the swarminglocust eaten, 5 And that which the swarming-locust left hath the licking locust eaten, And that which the licking-locust left hath the consuminglocust eaten. Awake, ye drunkards, and weep! Howl, all ye drinkers of wine, For the new wine, which is snatched from your mouths! 6 For a nation hath come up on my land, Strong, and not to be numbered; Their teeth are the teeth of the lion; They have the jaw-teeth of the lioness. 7 They have made my vine a desolation, And my fig-tree a broken branch; |