Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit | Page 9

which our divines, in words at
least, attribute to the Canon collectively. In fact it was from the Jewish
Rabbis--who, in opposition to the Christian scheme, contended for a
perfection in the revelation by Moses, which neither required nor
endured any addition, and who strained their fancies in expressing the
transcendency of the books of Moses, in aid of their opinion--that the
founders of the doctrine borrowed their notions and phrases respecting
the Bible throughout. Remove the metaphorical drapery from the
doctrine of the Cabbalists, and it will be found to contain the only
intelligible and consistent idea of that plenary inspiration, which later
divines extend to all the canonical books; as thus:- "The Pentateuch is
but ONE WORD, even the Word of God; and the letters and articulate
sounds, by which this Word is communicated to our human
apprehensions, are likewise divinely communicated."
Now, for 'Pentateuch' substitute 'Old and New Testament,' and then I
say that this is the doctrine which I reject as superstitious and
unscriptural. And yet as long as the conceptions of the revealing Word
and the inspiring Spirit are identified and confounded, I assert that
whatever says less than this, says little more than nothing. For how can
absolute infallibility be blended with fallibility? Where is the infallible
criterion? How can infallible truth be infallibly conveyed in defective
and fallible expressions? The Jewish teachers confined this miraculous
character to the Pentateuch. Between the Mosaic and the Prophetic
inspiration they asserted such a difference as amounts to a diversity;
and between both the one and the other, and the remaining books
comprised under the tithe of Hagiographa, the interval was still wider,
and the inferiority in kind, and not only in degree, was unequivocally
expressed. If we take into account the habit, universal with the Hebrew
doctors, of referring all excellent or extraordinary things to the great
First Cause, without mention of the proximate and instrumental

causes--a striking illustration of which may be obtained by comparing
the narratives of the same event in the Psalms and in the historical
books; and if we further reflect that the distinction of the providential
and the miraculous did not enter into their forms of thinking--at all
events not into their mode of conveying their thoughts--the language of
the Jews respecting the Hagiographa will be found to differ little, if at
all, from that of religious persons among ourselves, when speaking of
an author abounding in gifts, stirred up by the Holy Spirit, writing
under the influence of special grace, and the like.
But it forms no part of my present purpose to discuss the point
historically, or to speculate on the formation of either Canon. Rather,
such inquiries are altogether alien from the great object of my pursuits
and studies, which is to convince myself and others that the Bible and
Christianity are their own sufficient evidence. But it concerns both my
character and my peace of mind to satisfy unprejudiced judges that if
my present convictions should in all other respects be found consistent
with the faith and feelings of a Christian--and if in many and those
important points they tend to secure that faith and to deepen those
feelings--the words of the Apostle, rightly interpreted, do not require
their condemnation. Enough, if what has been stated above respecting
the general doctrine of the Hebrew masters, under whom the Apostle
was bred, shall remove any misconceptions that might prevent the right
interpretation of his words. Farewell.

LETTER III.

My dear friend,
Having in the former two Letters defined the doctrine which I reject, I
am now to communicate the views that I would propose to substitute in
its place.
Before, however, I attempt to lay down on the theological chart the
road-place to which my bark has drifted, and to mark the spot and

circumscribe the space within which I swing at anchor, let me first
thank you for, and then attempt to answer, the objections--or at least
the questions--which you have urged upon me.
"The present Bible is the Canon to which Christ and the Apostles
referred?"
Doubtless.
"And in terms which a Christian must tremble to tamper with?"
Yea. The expressions are as direct as strong; and a true believer will
neither attempt to divert nor dilute their strength.
"The doctrine which is considered as the orthodox view seems the
obvious and most natural interpretation of the text in question?"
Yea, and nay. To those whose minds are prepossessed by the doctrine
itself--who from earliest childhood have always meant this doctrine by
the very word Bible--the doctrine being but its exposition and
paraphrase--Yea. In such minds the words of our Lord and the
declarations of St. Paul can awaken no other sense. To those on the
other hand who find the doctrine senseless and self-confuting, and