LECTURES ON THE BIBLE.

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 620, 24 March 1852, Page 4

LECTURES ON THE BIBLE.

The folio vino is an outline of n Lecture clo_ livered in the Wesleyan Chapel, on Wednesday ! evening last, the 17th instant, by the Rev. John Inglis, Presbyterian Minister, as the first of a series by Ministers of the Auckland Branch of the Evangelical Alliance. The subject was, " The Supreme Authority of the Bible as a Standard of Faith and Practice." "The Bible, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants," said the immortal Chilling worth. This saying has passed into a watch-word, and embodies a valuable and most important principle. Religion being the highest of human inleiests, it is of the utmost importance that we should possess an infallible standard, to which we can appeal in c\cry matter whether of faith or practice. As Protestants, we hold that this standard is found in the Bible, and in the Bible alone. A revelation of (rod's Mill it. possible: since God has created us capable of holding certain communication with one another, by speech, writing, and other modes, it must be self-evi-dent that God could, if lie chose, hold communication with his oeatui-es. It is huthov probable 1 hut God should, in the host possible manner, have reveal o.l his will i'i>v tiio guidmce of creatures, oiftcd with reason, and treated as responuibilc beings. And as false coin is never circuLited except where there is true, and as forgeries and imitations necessarily suppose something tiuthful and genuine, so false and pretended reflations aie piesumptivc proof that a triu revelation has either been given, or is expected by mankind. The ancLnt Poet^, invoked the Mvi-.es, the ancient legislators professed that they received their laws from heaven, the priests in chai«p, of the Omv'lot proved to declare the will of the gods. The most harbaious tribes have bciief in witchcraft and supernatual influences. The ShriAier© of the Brahmins, and the Koran of Mahommed claim to be divine books. Tt is natural to infer that belicfb which arc old as the world, nnd wide spread as the human race, however mixed with falsehood or error, must rest on some foundation of truth; and the only satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon is found in the existence of a true ve\ elation, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The only permanant rival to the Bible lias been the Koran, a book allowed to be unsurpassed in Arabic literature. It may be worth while to read the Koran, but the chief advantage derived from the perusal of it will be, to see, by the most striking contrast, the unapproachable excellence of the Bible. That the Bible is the word of God, there is abundant c\ idenee, evidences external, internal, and experimental. In this lecture proofs will be selected from the external or historical. The succeeding lecturcis will exhibit proofs from the internal evidences. To begin with the Old Testament : it professes to be a divine revelation. The writei.s of the Old Testament claim for it a divine origin and authorit}'. The Old Testament professes to be written by God, 01 spoken by God and written at His command, or communicated hy God to the writers, one of whom says " The spirit of God spake hy me, and His word was in my tongue." The Old Testament was received as a divine, revclationby those to whom it was addressed ; the writers in succession recognize thp preceding writings ns the word of God. The whole of the Old Testament was translated into Greek nearly 300 } ears- before Christ, for the benefit of the Jews residing in Egypt and elsewhere, who spoke the Greek language. The camm, or list of divine books, must have been fixed then. In one of the books, of the Apocrypha, which was written mostly if not wholly before the Christian era, Jesus, the son of Sirach, speaks of the Scriptures under the throe-fold division into which they were classed hy the Jews, the Law, the Prophetsj and the other books of their fathers, which his grandfather sUulicd. Philo and Josephus, Jewish writers who flourished in first century of our era, bear testimony to the same fact. Philo quotes as divine, the most of the books of the, Old Testament ; Joseph us refers to the Hebrew books as justly believed to he dhinc, and divides them into three classes, Lmos, Prophets, and Hymns. In the New Tesiiment the divine original of the Old Testament is affirmed, and it is referred to, a.s " the Scriptures." "the Holy Scriptures," — as " the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms," and quotations arc made from nearly every separate book in the Old Testament. So careful of their tiut>t were tlie Jews, to whom "were committed the oracles of God," that they counted the very letters in the sacred books, and for iftOO yeai-s both Jews and Christian';, though so decidedly opposed in sentiment, have refeired to the same Hebrew Scripture?, as being the word of God; and our authorised translation of the Old Testament is in use among the Jews of the present day. The New Testament cliims also to be divine, and for fourteen centuries has been admitted and affirmed hy the united voice of Christendom to be the word of God. The different hooks of the New Testament were written by different men, in different places, at different times, and sent to persons living far remote from one another. It was necessarily a considerable time before these writings could all be collected, and their divine authority fully ascertained. There were, moreover, uninspired as well as inspired writers; there were false writers as well as false preachers ; and the Church proceeded with great caution in adding to the canon, or list of sacred writings, such only as possessed the cbarct c\ idences cf being inspired. These writings were divided into three classes, the certain, the doubtful, and the spurious, the first class and the last occasioned no difficulty, but the doubtful class required the closest examination. To it belonged the Apocalypse, the second and third epistles of John, the second of Petei, the epistle to the Hebrews, and the epistles of James and Jude, and it was not till the fourth century that the canon, or list of the New Testament books, was fixed by universal Christendom as it now .stands. As w Lse men they judged what was "written, as well as what was said, and the spirit of the Bercnns was both wide spread, and long- alive in the Church. And so singularly has Divine Providence watched over these writings, that, although they were launched upon the wide world, exposed to iill the accidents of carelessness nnd indifference, and to all the dangers of open enemies, and false friends, yet, after every manuscript, in existence has been more or less examined, and some of these manuscripts are 1400 years old, there aie only six passages in the New Testament, about the genuineness of which there is any dispute ; three of these affecting the Socinian controversy ; but the other three, though of some importance, containing no religious 1 doctrine. On Historical evidence, thus briefly indicated, Protestants eheerfullj' accept the Bible, the whole J3iblc, and nothing but the Bible, as the standard of faith and practice. The Bible, not the Bible and the Apocrypha ; not the Bible and the Fathers ; not the Bible and unwritten traditions ; not the Bible and the Church ; not the Bible and human reason ; not the Bible and the current maxims of the world ; but the Bible only. It is not the Bible and the Apocrypha. The Council of Trent in J.wO, passed a decree that the books of the Apocrypha, as contained in the Vulgate Latin version of the Bible, should be received as«acrcd and canonical. That the Apocryphal writings have no claim to bo ranked in the list of canonical books may be easily shown. They were written, not in Hebrew, like the Old Testament, but in Greek, at least none of the hooks are extant in Hebrew. They were written after the spirit of prophecy had ceased. None of the \\ inters claim inspiration, and some of them acknowledge that they were not inspired : one of them says, " Jf I have done well, and as is fitting my story, it is that which I desired, but if slenderly and meanly, it io what I could attain unto."

(2 Mac. xv. 33.) No writer of the Old or New Testament ever uses such language. These books were never admitted into tkc Jewish canon ; and neither Philo nov Josephus makes any allusion to j them. They are never quoted in the New Testament. They were never admitted into the canon during the first four centuries. Their internal evidence is as insufficient as their external. They 'contain fictitious and fabalous statements, such as Bel and the Dragon ; fire being converted into water, statements ; the a\ riters contradict one another, and also the inspired writers in matter of history. They contain doctrines at variance with the 'doctrines of the Bible, such as prayers for the dead, the transmigration of souls, and justification by the works of the law ; " alms," says one " are an atonement for sins," " alms shall purge away all sins." They teach morality at variance with the Biblc.^ Lying and assassination are spoken of in approving language. Magical incantations arc introduced as given by the advice of an angel of God, and a case of suicide is commended as a manful act. Though \iseful as ancient human writings, in throwing light upon the manner* and history of the east, and in ascertaining and fixing the meaning of words used in the Scriptures ; yet, as the Judicious Scott has lemarkod, "if Custom sanctions any of them being bound up in the same volume with the sacred oracles, Truth requires that we explicitly declare that they are not the Word ok God." ' } It is not the Bible and the Fathers. The Tractarians and otheis would lead us to believe that if the Now Testament contains a complete rule of faith and duty, it must be by accident rather than of necessity and intention, that the whole of divine revelation was committed to the Churches, and set forth in the preaching of the Apostles, but as their writings were to meet local and tcinworaiy purposes, they are not to be expected to set forth the whole system of revealed truth, and it is necessary to have recourse to the writings of those who Ihcd nearest to the Apostles, for additional light on important doctrines and practices, in opposition to this view we hold that the New Testament w riters wrote avowedly for the whole Church, and for all time. Witness the Gospels, especially Luke. Paul wrote to " all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ ;" and Peter wrote to "them that haveobtaiucd like precious faith ;" Jame*, John and Jutle sent forth Catholic epistles. The Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament were able to make wise unto salvation, and they must be still more so when the New Testament is added. The Fathers however good or great lay no claim to inspiration or authority, and their writings, even it it were certain that they are genuine, are not for a moment to be compared to the inspired writings. Let any one read the epistles of the Apostolical Fathers translated into English by Archbishop Wake, and he will find that the writings of these Fathers bear much the same resemblance to the writings of the Apostles that the moon bear-* to the sun. The moon is useful in the absence of the sun, she reflects a mild but a borrowed light, but in the presence of the sun she is obscured by his native splendor. The Fathers like the moon reflect a mild hut it is a borrowed light. Their light and their authority are both borrowed from the celestial light revealed in the New Testament. It is not the Bible and unwritten traditions. The Coucil of Trent Rsued injunctions " to receive and reverence with equal piety and veneration, both the written books of Scripture, and the unwritten traditions," and the Creed of Pojjc Pius IV., published in 1504, and of universal authority in the Church of Rome, siy>, " 1 mo->t fully admit, and embrace apostolical and ecclesitical traditions, and all other constitutions and observances of the same Church." " The complete rule of faith," say the Traditionists, "is Scripture joined v>ith tradition." The great object evidently of pressing in tradition so strongly is to advance the power of the clergy, and strengthen the belief in the supposed necessary efficacy of the sacraments. By the "unwritten traditions" are meant, those doctrines, precepts, ordinances and facts, which being iound in the creeds of the ancient Churches, the decrees of councils, and in the literature of the early Church, particularly in the writings of the fourth and filth centuries, must, it is inferred, have been taught orally by the Apostles, but not committed by them to writing. To state such reasoning, will, to thoughtful minds, be enough to rciutc it. Hut it is not a new thing under the sun. Human nature and corrupt Churches are the same in every age. The Jews had their traditions as well as their scriptures. They maintained that God gave Moses, besides the written law, a variety of precepts which he communicated to Joshuaand which were transmitted in succession to the Judges, the Prophets, and the Eldeis. About A.D. 180, J ehuda, a Jewish Rabbi, wrote out the received traditions of the fathers. This work of Jehuda is called the Mishna ; the commentary upon it is the Gemara ; and -both together constitute the Tabnud, which is said to be more highly reverenced by the Jews than the Old Testament. In Matthew xv. I—9,1 — 9, and in Mark vii. I—l 3,1 — 13, our Saviour most distinctly and emphatically condemns the Jewish traditions " Full well ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your own tradition." — "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition." While Saul persecuted the Church he was more exceedingly zealous than others of the traditions of his fathers. (Gal. i. 14). When ho became an Apostle he warns the Colo^ians to beware lest any man spoil them through philosophy and vain I deceit, after the tradition of men. (Col. ii. 8.) And Peter condemns the vain conversation re- j ccived by tradition from their fathers. (1 Pet. i. j 10.) Such is the New Testament estimate of Jewish tradition. But the traditionists are anxious to obtain scriptural authority for the value and use of tradition, and they bring forward a lew texts that possess the sound if not the .strength of argument. They quote 1 Cor. xi. 2. " Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things and keep the ordinances (marg. traditions) as I delivered them to you." 2 Thes. ii. 15. " Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether byword or our spistle." Chapter lii. 0. "We command you to withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us." Here it is alleged are apostolical traditions, and things taught by word as well as by epistle. Whatever be the precise meaning- of traditions in these passages, whether doctrines, precepts, institutions j or ordinances, they came direct from the Apostle Paul ; and Paul's words were of equal authority with his epistles. What he spoke was as certain as what he wrote : the signs of an Apostle were wrought by him to confirm his words. The difference between us and the Corinthians and Thossalonians is, that they heard these traditions, this oral teaching- of the Apostle from his own lips ; between us and the Apostle there is the doubtful medium of fifty or sixty generations. We arc morally certain that we have what the Apostle and the other inspired writers wrote, but beyond this we are altogether uncertain what they spoke. It appears strange if traditions arc so important that the early Churches should have been so careless of them.' They proceeded with the utmost care and caution* in ascertaining and ST'curing the Avrittcn teaching of the Apostles. While the oral teaching was allowed to float down the stream of time for fifteen centuries without any authoritative acts to secure its extent or certainty. The written teaching of the Apostles is accessible and certain to all; but tradition is at once inaccessible and uncertain to the great mass of Christians. If we ask — what is Catholic tradition I we are answered in the words of Vincent of Lerins, that it is " What has been believed always in every place, and by all." But this can never be ascertained,evcn if it were of authority, and hence is of no practical use. It is

setting us adrift on the ocean of speculation without chart or compass. It is not the Bible and the Church ; or which is the same tiling, the priest. The creed of Pope Pius after speaking- of tradition says, " I also admit the Sacred Scriptures, according to the sense which the Holy Mother Church has. held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures." It is pleaded that the Church, that is the Church of Rome, cannot err ; in her teaching no error in faith or morals can exist ; because Christ said to the Apostles, '* Lo I am with you always." " The Father shall give you another Comforter that he may abide a\ ith you for ever." It seems to be forgotten that this promise respecting Christ's presence is not absolute, but conditional, on their " teaching them to observe all tilings whatsover 1 have commanded you." But the Scriptures depend, it is said,for their authority upon the Church ; because the Church is called "the pillar and ground of the truth." (J Tim, iii. 15.) The Church is certainly the pillar and ground or stay of the truth, not to lend aiithority to the Scripture, but to give permanent publicity to their contents. — To make the truth visible and cfFective. A royal proclamation, engraven on a pillar, is been, read, and peipctuated by means of the pillar, but it deiives no authority from it. It is the name of the Sovereign, und not the pillar on which it is inscribed, that gives value andauthority to the proclamation. The Church comes to the Smptuivs for her authority ,uml then she declares that the Scriptures derive all their authority from her. If this is not reasoning in a circle no example of such reasoning can be found. It is hanging- both upon nothing, and so destroying the authority of both. One of the grand points of difference between Romanists and Protestants in the place they respectively assign to the Scriptures. The Protestants place the Bible above the ministry and all human authority. They hold that " Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not road therein, nor may be proved theieby, is not to be required of any man that it should be belic\ed as an article of the Faith ;" that "The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies in religon are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writeis, doctrines of men, and private spirits, arc to be examined and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." The Protestant principle is to translate the Bible into every tongue, circulate it in every land, and urge every human being to read and study it for themselves, that so doing all, even children, like Timothy, may become wise into salvation. On the other hand because some have abused this most precious gift of God — because unlearned and unstable persons wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction, the Romanist principle is that the Bible must be closed and slmt up from all except the clergy ; or if opened and read, it must be at the discretion of the priest, and only such a meaning to be taken from what is read as the Church or the priest thinks fit to attach to it, as if God could not make, or had not made his word, in all that is es&cntial to salvation, ho plain that with ordinary diligence every ordinary mind could understand it. Jt is not the Bible and human reason. Man ib prone to run to extremes; shunning superstition ho rushes upon infidelity. The golden mean is the safest. Man can make, but it is Ciod alone that can create. Give man man matciials and he will perform wonders, but it is God alone that can call matter into existence. Reason, the distinguishing characteristic of man, can perform wonders when furnished with truths on which to operate, but it is the province of God to reveal truth and make known his will. The part of reason, respecting the Bible, is to examine the cvidenccsof its divine oiigin ; and having sifted the evidences, as to the fact of a revelation being made, its next duty is to ascertain the meaning of the revelation that God has made. Reason is no authority in matters of religion ; but as enlightened by the Spirit of God it is the interpreter of revelation for every man's own conduct between himself and God. " I speak as to wise men, judge ye what 1 say." (1 Cor. x. 15.) It is not the Bible and the current maxims of the world. The world is often a high but always a false authority in matters of religion. Take two or three examples, such as the Sabbath, temperance, and wordly-mindcdness. The Bible says, " Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Instead of observing the Sabbath as a holy day, to be wholly spent in the public and private exercises of God's worship, the current maxims of the world is, to make it' simply a holiday — to give a little of it to religion, but a large portion to pleasure or recreation. The Scriptures say, " It is good neither to eat flesh nor to dunk wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended (made to sin) or is made weak." (Rom. xiv. 21.) But while multitudes are made to sin by the customs and the drinks in common use, the maxims of the the world are, to plead with Cain " Am I my brother's keeper f" Must we give up customs and drinks that are profitable or pleasant, merely because others injure themselves with the same I The Bible says that " Covetousness is idolatry." One of the world's most current maxims is, that if we can escape legal consequences we may properly take every advantage of the ignorance, or negligence, or 4 necessity of others that will promote our own interest and advantage. As the true principle of inductive science is to receive no assertion without evidence ; and to admit all ci true, however improbable, that is clearly supported by evidence, so the true Protestant principle is to admit no authority or religion except the Word of God, but to yield the mind implicitly and cheerfully to every thing revealed in that Word ;. to have no will of our own ; to have our will wholly absorbed in God's ; and to know no will in any matter of duty but the will of God. Many admit the former who feel reluctant to receive and act upon the latter. The Bible is an authoritative standard. Christ taught as one having authority and so does his Word. The Scriptures do notpersuade — they command : they demand implicit obedience. Another of the distinctive principles of Protestantism is to bring the authority of God's Word to bear immediately upon every man's conscience, to make every one responsible to God for himself: to make every man think, believe, and act for himself. It sanctions no religion by proxy. Romanism interposes the Church and the priest between God and the soul. The priest thinks for the people. In the whole concerns of salvation every thing depends upon the priest. It is a system that is admirably adapted to satisfy the natural indolence of the human mind. But it is false. God confers no blessing cither temporal or spiritual upon the indolent. He gives us the elements of all wealth, and the capacities for acquiring what is needful for our happiness. He gives us gold, but it must be dug and manufactured before it becomes coin or articles for use or ornament. He gives us bread ; but the husbandman must plow and sow and reap and thrash, and conduct various and lengthened processes before the loaves are on his table. The Bible contains truths more precious than gold ; but he that would possessthem must "seek for them as for silver, and search for them as for hidden treasures." It contains the bread of life, but this bread is found only by those who " search the Scriptures" and " labour for the meat that endureth to cverlusting life." Protestants! be faithful to your principles; treat the Bible as the Word of God ; remember it will not teach unless it is studied. But if you arc not wise unto salvation it will be yoxir own fault. God has given you his Word and he has promised his Spirit. Be honest, earnest, and persevering. Moral, moi c than intellectual qualifications arc necessary for the study of the Bible. The state of the heart, more than the state of the head, ought to be attended to. It is only when it falls into honest hearts that the seed of the word springs up and brings forth fruit. It is only

those who really wKh to know the tvuth that they may practice it, that obtain this spiritual wisdom. Be earnest, " The kingdom of heaven suffercth violence, and the violent take it by force." "If thou cry after knowledge and lift up thy voice for understanding, then sholt thou understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God." Persevere in the study of God's "Word. The author and the interpreter of the Bible is the Holy Spirit, and he is promised unconditionally to all that ask him. Our Saviour's word's are ( Luke xi. 13.) "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gilts xmto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him." It is, by this book, by the Bible, you are to guide your life. It is by this book that you will at last be judged. When the great white throne is .set,and the books are opened, this book will be opened and every one will be judged according to his works. In every doubtful case let the question be what saith the Lord ? " What is written in the law I How readest thou." (Luke x. 25.) " To the law, and to the testimony: if men speak not according to this word, it is bacause therc^is no light in them."

Dh. Candli&h on Educauon.— At a public dinner given to Win. Campbell, K>q. ol Tillichew an, on Thursday la^t, in the Argyll Hotel, Dunoon, the Chan man (the llev. Air. JMontdith, Ascog, Bute), proposed " 'i'lie Eduction Cause of the Free Church) and the Convenor of the Education Committee;" and took occasion to remark, tbac while he believed religion should be the chief jmrt of education, jet ho held that intellectual education was better than none* nt all. Dr. Canu'llbh in the course of his sppech in jeply still — I will take the liber'y of s-iving with reference to two things that fell from All. Alonteith— l beg pardon ot the meeting for introducing any debateable matter — (cheeis)— l take the liberty of saying with all solemn senousness, and with the deepest tense of responsibility tliat I would depiecate. and deplore as the hr->t step oi this country's declension the practical raising of the question whether it might be necessary to give intellectual without religious training. (Hear, bear.) Ido not say what might be my opinion m the extreme case put, viz, a case in which a might be possible to reach the winds of the people intellectually and not religiously — 1 do not say what my opinion might be in that case — if pushed into a corner, 1 daie bay I would be obliged to say that I agree with Air. AJonteilb. At the same time, iiom the very bottom of my Leart I deprecate the vary putting of such a question at this moment and I do feel that we are not at present m this country in circumstonces in which it is necessary or safe to raise that question ; and as matters now stand, I have no hesitation in saying that if the alternative came to be an intellectual and religious education without Government aid, or an intellectual education alone provided by Government, I have no hesitation in saying, let us lather have no education from the Government. (Much applause.) For 1 have no doubt whatever that theie is enough of energy among Christian Cbuiches and people, if thoroughly put to it, as to educate the people themselves in the last resort. Jf Government shall bay that they will give no education but one which excludes religion, I say at once lather let them give none at all, and leave to the evangelical Chuiches the education of the community. (Applause.; That being my fnm opinion, I am bound to say, at the same time, that 1 believe the greatest obstacle in the way of an education that would exclude religion, is just the thorough conviction in the minds of statesmen at this moment that it is not safe to give education without religion. (Hear, hear.) 1 believe that the present Government aie the lust persons that could be get to consent to such an education. I think there is nothing more jemaikable at this moment than the perfect unanimity of statesmen of all classes and opinions, i exclude oi couise those who have never been in office, nor attained to any influence in the counlry; but it is the clear opinion of the leading statesmen on this point that education for the people must be religious, ido not say they have light views jib lo what religion is— very far fiom it — 1 believe they have rery loose and latkudmnrian views as to the amount of religion that would suffice for a proper religious education. But it is the undoubted fact that if any one wanted to establish a system of education exclusive of rrligion, the greatest obstacle they would have to encounter would be, not the bigotry of Churchmen, or the so-called intolerance of Presbyterian Churches, but the fixed and settled opinions of the leading statesmen of the day. In these circumstances, when we have the whole of the Chuiches, at least substantially, agreiing that popular education ahould be religious, add when our leading statesmen are also thoroughly agreed upon this point, 1 would depiecate to the very utmost the raising of the question, whut might be the duty of any statesman or citizen if compelled to contemplate the alternative of a people thoroughly educated intellectually by the State, without any aid from religious bodies, and there being no provision at all for the education of the people. But that is not the alternative, and He are not nearly biougbt to that alternative ; and I must say, as matters now stand, considering what the Churches of Christ have done, aie doing, and might do, and considering what the community might do, 1 would at once s.\y, that if it come to this, t.ball we have education from the Slate without religion, or leave to voluntary effoit the education of the people? 1 would say a thousand times rather leave it to voluntary efl'ort. plause.)