A refutation of Arianism; or, A defence of the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the supreme deity of the Son and Holy Ghost, the atonement ... etc.; in reply to Drs. Bruce, Mant, Millar, and Graves. To which is added, A defence of creeds and confessions.

Front matter

eae

SSS ber, a a : REFUTATION

ARIANISM:

Contents

Lom

CHAPTER IT.

Objections to Dr. Bruce’s mode of managing the controversy.

Chapter II

Dr. Bruce’s attack on the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures repelled. ise

» Havine in the preceding chapter stated my objections to the Doctor’s mode of managing the controversy, I come now to the defence of those doctrines, which, in his sermons on the study of the Bible, he has so boldly assailed. In «‘ contending for the faith once delivered to the saints;”’ it is sometimes necessary to defend one particular truth, and sometimes another. At present the attack is general. Our learned author, with an intrepidity altogether unparalleled; at least in this country, has attempted to raze the very foundations of the Christian system. He has attacked; not merely the doctrines of the Bible, but the Bisue rrsEur. That this charge, though awful in the extreme, is not unjust, the following quotations too clearly prove. =) Page 60—*«“ Respectfully and gratefully receive that vasé riety of religious knowledge, which is communicated in “the Acts of the Apostles, and their Epistles ; but fix upon “ the words of Jesus as the standard of your faith, &c.”’ Page 49— It is evident, that we should collect the ' 6¢ whole of the Christian doctrine from the words of Jesus, <¢ as recorded in the four Gospels.—For the knowledge of «« God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the terms of acceptance, << and other doctrinal points, we should depend solely on ‘“‘ the gospels,” pias r Page 87—*‘ We should interpret their (the Apostles) rea- ‘¢ soning in.conformity with his precepts, not his precepts “< by their reasoning.” ‘it Rest Pp. 50—* But you are never to set up the authority of ‘“< the disciples against that of their master; nor consider ‘¢ their writings as the primary source of knowledge on doc- “ trinal questions, as is too often done. On the contrary, «you should form your opinions from the discourses of

_ Christ, on every branch of his religion, and consider thé « writings of the Apostles as comments upon them,”’ &c.:

~.. P. 180—« Tf I can explain these (the 8th and 9th chap-

‘¢ ters of the Romans), it will not be necessary to occupy ‘* your time with any others. If we cannot interpret them <‘ conformably to our Saviour’s doctrine, we should rather «¢ abandon them as unintelligible, than prefer the lower au- ‘* thority to the higher, and what we cannot understand to ‘what we do.”

_ P. 91.—* For the general purport of their writings (the *« sacred penmen’s writings) coincides with the declarations * of our Lord.” ;

~~ P. 123—« Ts it not clear, that the authority of our Lord “* is paramount to every other ; and that ifany of his Apostles differ from him, their authority must be set aside ? Is * it not absurd to suppose that they should; and most of

~“¢ all, that any of them should contradict their master and

*¢ one another, and even themselves.”

P. 26—*< Being now well grounded and settled in the ‘“* genuine doctrine of Christ, as delivered by himself in the *« Gospels, his* faithful followers: must take it for granted “that the chosen disciples of our Lord taught nothing in- ‘consistent with it,* and that any obscurity in their writings must be cleared up by referring to his own words. *« He will therefore expound those texts which are hard to ** be understood by the plain doctrine of their master—the *« sincere and singleminded reader of the Bible will look to his Saviour as his polar star, and, in perusing the Epistles *¢ will dwell and rely on those points of edification in which ** the Apostles and their master coincide.” sf

~ P. 19—* He will, however, distinguish the history from

“‘ the divine communication. He will see, that it has been ** composed by fallible men, but under such direction and an superintendence, that though left to themselves, as to peculiarities of style, the narration of ordinary facts, and the ey ll

* Tf we must take it for granted that “ the chosen disciples of our “Lord taught nothing inconsistent with his doctrine”—-what does our ‘author mean by telling us that the general purport of their writings

coincide with the declarations of our Lord ;—that if any of his apostles differ from him, their authority must be set aside—and that we should dwell and rely on those points of edification, in which the apostles and their master coincide ?—I say, what does the Doctor mean? The most ‘charitable answer is, he means=-NOTHING AT ALL. me tc insertion of occasional reflections, they hand down the « revelation itself, as it was actually made.” j In confirmation of these sentiments, he quotes with approbation (P. 297) the following sentence from Grotius— ‘© Jt was not necessary that the histories (in scripture) ‘© should be dictated by the Holy Spirit ; it was enough “‘ that the writers had a good memory.” Such is the humble rank, to which the inspired Apostles are degraded !—We must not depend upon them for any doctrine! Tne wuoxr of Christian doctrine we must receive from our Saviour, and not from the apostles. On him we must depend souery for our knowledge of doctrines. The writings of the Apostles are only to be regarded—so far as doctrine is concerned—as ‘‘ comments’’ on the discourses of our Lord. Nay, the Apostles are to be regarded, if our author’s doctrine be true, not only inthe humble capacity of commentators; but—shall I utter the impiety ?— as BADCoMMENTATORS! Our learned author constantly represents the Redeemer’s doctrines as plain, but those of the Apostles as obscure. Of course, the Apostles must be bad commentators ; for their commentary is more obscure than the text!

Instead of their commentary explaining out Saviour’s text, his text must explain their commentary ! «¢ We should interpret,’ says the Doctor, “ their reasoning _ « in conformity with his precepts, and not his precepts by ‘< their reasoning |”? Now, if the reasonings of the Apostles do not assist us in the interpretation of our Saviour’s precepts, they must be useless commentaries indeed ; and the Apostles themselves silly commentators! Such is the impious, but inevitable conclusion. | Dr. Bruce maintains, that the authority of the Apostles is inferior to that of the Redeemer—that his authority is paramount—that they were fallible men, &c.—As men, the Apostles were fallible, [grant ; but as writers of the sacred volume, they were infallible. ‘The authority by which the whole Bible was. written is the same—THE AUTHORITY OF Gop. <All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 6 profitable.” —‘* Holy men of God spake as they were ‘© moved by the Holy Ghost.” These declarations, 1 know, - refer to the Old Testament Scriptures ; but they are equally applicable to the New. Jesus Christ is the author of all the scriptures ; both Old and New Testaments. It is on this account, that his name is called “ Tun Worp or Gop.” It wag the spirit of Christ, which dictated the Old Testament Scriptures. (1 Pet. i. 10, 11.) “Of which salvation *¢ the prophets have inquired, ‘and searched diligently, whe «prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: “ Searching what, or what manner of time, the Sprrir oF <Cprist which was in them did signify, when it testified “‘ beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that *< should follow.”’—The same spirit of Jesus that inspired the Old Testament prophets, inspired also the New ‘Testament writers. ‘The Redeemer, in the days of his flesh, had ‘many things to say and to write,”’ which the disciples, at that period, could not bear. He, therefore, promised his Holy Spirit, to “teach them aLL THINGS ; and to lead “them into aun rrutn.’ Dr. B. asserts, that the authority of the’ Apostles is inferior to that of the Redeemer ; but the Apostle Paul asserts rae contrary. He asserts that they are’ the same. (Gal. i. i2.) «But £ certify you, “ brethren, that the gospel w hich was proached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was «© JT taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.’? And to the emer e: he says, ‘* For f have received of the «¢ Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” The Reve-: lation of John the Divine claims the same high original. | ~ It is expressly styled the “* Revelation of Jesus “Christ.°— The writer of it «was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day ;”” by the inspiration of that spirit he wrote seven letters to the seven churches in Asia ; and assures us, that the prophecies of Divine revelation are the “ testimony of Jesus.” (Rev. xix. 10,) “‘ For the testimony oe Jesus 1s the Spieto pill a “¢ phecy.””

Thus it appears, that the Retleowide; is the author of the whole sacred volume. To say, therefore, with Dr. B. that the authority of one part of scripture is inferior to that of another, is grossly absurd ; for they were all penned by the same authority. if the authority of the other parts of the sacred volume be ‘inferior. to that of the gospels, I ask, What is the difference ? There can be no difference but this, that the authority of the latter is divine, and that of the former human—or, in other words—That the gospels are the word of God; but the rest of the scriptures the word of man !—If this is not Deism, it is something very like it.— The Deist, indeed, rejects the whole of the Bible, whilst Dr. B. retains, perhaps, one hundredth part of it! |

Tam quite sensible, that our author sometimes speaks, not only of the sospels, but of the other scriptures, as if

Bs they were divinely inspired. His language, however, is so vague, ambiguous, and contradictory, that it is impossible | to ascertain his real sentiments. With great respect I call upon him to speak out. Either the other scriptures, as we'll as the gospels, are divinely inspired, or they are not. If he say that they are; then he contradicts his favourite sentiment— That they are of inferior authority. If he say that they are not divinely mspired ; then he rejects ninety-nine hundreths of the sacred volume, and wants only one Anndreh part of being a Deist! poem - The iruth is, that the Doctor’s principles appear to me quite subversive of the scriptures of truth. If his views be correct, I do not see that we can place any confidence whatever, in any part of the sacred oracles, not even in the four gospels. If I believed that the sacred penmen were left to themselves, even with regard to style and language, this very ‘circumstance would shake my confidence.* In prophecies, such as those of Ezekiel, Daniel, and. John the Divine ; and in other communications, which were above the comprehension of the writers, it is self-evident that not only the matter, but the language must have been inspired. And, even in the recording of those facts or doctrines, which were quite level to the understandings of the penmen, I do not think it at allreasonable to suppose, that they were left to the use of their own language without any divine superintendence. I do not think it reasonable ; because I do not conceive that it would have been safe. _ Is it reasonable to suppose that illiterate fishermen, mechanics, &c. could accurately record either facts or doctrines? Would they be in no danger of blundering ?—of exhibiting to the world.

erroneous views? Even men of learning frequently fail in giving a true picture of their own ideas. Even Doctor B. whose whole life has been principally employed in the study of languages—even the learned Doctor himself sometimes fails. He fails so far, as to publish doctrines which he does not believe, and to exhibit ideas which he never entertained

—nay, he sometimes fails so far, that his language conveys no meaning at all. Does the Doctor believe, that the whole world are saved? Does he believe that the whole world, prior to the coming of Christ, were damned? Does he believe either of these contradictory doctrines? Surely

* I mean, without divine superintendence, not; and yet both are taught by our author, as we have seen in the preceding chapter.

In p. 82, he speaks of the attributes of God resulting from the works of creation. Here he has undoubtedly - failed in communicating his ideas. He surely knows, that the works of God result from his attributes, and not his attributes from his works. ~ That he sometimes writes, without any meaning at all, is evident from his second sermon, p. 36. ‘The principle, that the kingdom of God is within us, admits, he assures us, of a rational interpretation. << In its true sense,” says he, “it is the medium between a mystic and a polemic.” Such - is the Doctor’s ‘ rational interpretation!’ Now, if so celebrated a linguist as the quondam principal of the Belfast Academy, through the improper use of language, teaches doctrines which he does not believe ; communicates ideas which he does not entertain ; and sometimes writes without any meaning at all; how much more liable to blunder would illiterate fishermen and mechanics be? To expect — from such writers, if not divinely directed in their language, a correct statement either of facts or doctrines, would be weak and foolish in the extreme. On the principles of our author, where is the security, that even the four gospels contain the true doctrines of Jesus Christ? Where is the security that they contain a true narration of ‘facts? We are told, that all that was necessary was a good memory. But what reason have we to believe, that even good memories might not fail? What security that they have not actually failed, and that the scripture history is not really erroneous? — .

- Once more: If the penmen of scripture have interlarded the Bible with occasional observations, how-shall such observations be distinguished from the genuine dictates of the Holy Spirit? Any controversialist, when pressed with a text of scripture, might say, “this is only an occasional, uninspired observation. It will not, therefore, prove your pom.” Thus a wide door would be opened for error ; and scepticism might reign to the end of the world. Ina word; if the plenary inspiration of the scriptures _ be denied, their perfection, asa rule of faith and manners, must be given up. If not entirely inspired by infallible wisdom, how can they be an infallible rule? Surely that ™ _ which is partly divine and partly human, partly fallible and partly infallible. can never be an unerring rule of faith and practice. Sule * as Agee fein «<The Bible, the Bible, is the religion of Protestants,” was once a celebrated maxim, the truth of which no Protestant disputed. At present, however, the case is quite different. The maxim is opposed, not only by the church of Rome, but by many Socinian and Arian divines, particularly by Dr. B. The cry now is not, The Bible, The Bible, but The Gospel, The Gospel, is our religion. According to our author, the whole Bible is not the standard of | faith ; scarcely one hundredth part of it is entitled to that honour. We should collect, he assures us, the whole of the Christian doctrine from the words of Jesus. We should ‘depend, for our knowledge of doctrinal points, solely on the gospels. Nay, in the Doctor’s bold and daring enterprise of cutting down the standard of our faith, he proceeds still farther. <‘ Hence we may deduce,” says he, ‘‘ not only ‘the sufficiency of scripture in general, but also the c¢ sufficiency of every evangelist separately, as to fundamenhy tals.”’ .

He argues, that the gospels, either jointly or separately, are the standard of faith, because they contain “all those essential principles, without which we could not be saved.”’ But this reasoning is evidently absurd. It proves too much, and, therefore, proves nothing at all. The five books of Moses contain all that is essential to salvation ; and there- — fore the Pentateuch is the standard of our faith. Peter’s sermon contains all that is essential to salvation ; and therefore Peter’s sermon is the-standard of our faith. Who sees

.

not the extreme weakness and futility of such a mode of reasoning ; upon this absurd principle we might set up, not one; but an hundred standards of faith. } v4 In curtailing the standard of our faith, the Doctor proceeds to a still more daring length. “‘ From this,’’ says he, p. 45) ‘ another undeniable inference follows; that no. ¢ principle which cannot be clearly proved from every one «cof the evangelists, can be an essential article of faith; <¢ for, otherwise, we must suppose, that some one of them «has omitted an essential truth. If then, you be in doubt, ‘¢ whether any doctrine be necessary to salvation, try it by ‘c this test ; look for it in the gospels; and if you do not «<find it plainly declared in them all, you may safely con- ‘clude, that it is not essential to the plan of redemption. “Tf any person attempt to impose a spurious tenet upon

~

: 49 i “¢ you, require him to prove it in this manner. If he fail, ‘you may be assured, that the point in, question is not even ‘an important truth. This I recommend as a sure guide “to conduct you through the intricacies of controversy, **and prevent you from being entangled in the nets of so- ‘¢ phistry.”’

Let us try the Doctor’s ‘‘sure guide.”’ 1 ask, then, is the doctrine of forgiving injuries an essential article of faith? Certainly it is; our author himself will not deny it. He assures us, (p. 89,) that God is “ forgiving to the mer- | “ciful, and inexorable to those who withhold pardon and “compassion from others.”’ And again, (p. 229,) ‘ He “trequires nothing to make him merciful, but to be “‘merciful ourselves ;, notliing to make him placable “‘but to be meek, lowly, and forgiving.’’ According to Doctor B. therefore, forgiveness of injuriesis a most essential article of faith, and yet, according to the same - Dr. B. it is no ‘essential article of faith.’ It is not even ‘an important truth.’ Try it by the Doctor’s sure guide. Is it taught in every one of the evangelists? itis not. It is taught indeed by three of the evangelists, and we would naturally suppose, that at the mouth of three such witnesses every doctrine would be established. These witnesses assure us that if we forgive not men their trespasses, neither will our heavenly father forgive us our trespasses. But all this is nothing. John omits it; and therefore “it is not *< even an important truth!’ 'The same may be said of the doctrine of repentance.

_. Thus it appears, that the Dogtor’s sure guide is a false guide. It goes upon the false principle which our author assumes, that all the essential articles of faith are contained in every one of the gospels. He particularly assures us (p. 45,) that the Apostle John “ committed to writing every ‘‘ fundamental doctrine, every thing necessary towards ob- ‘“ taining life eternal.” Now, he admits, that forgiving injuries is a fundamental doctrine, and necessary towards obtaining eternal life ; and yet John has not committed it to writing. It is not «‘ plainly declared’’ in his gospel. Repentance is a fundamental doctrine, and yet not plainly decelared in all the gospels.

Task, now, does the Doctor’s book deserve the encomiums he has passed upon it? Is it ‘« consistent with itself

“and the gospels ?”’ Is not “ his sure guide’ at variance

Cvwihboth? : ) i ne

His sure guide is not only a false guide, founded on false principles : and an inconsistent guide ; inconsistent with his own acknowledged creed: it is a dangerous and desstructive guide—an ignis fatuus, calculated to mislead the

Heaven-bound traveller, of perdition.

and to plunge him into the gulf

Following this guide, men might live and die implacable,

‘and impenitent, and yet presumptuously hope to be saved !

They might say, ‘* According to Dr. B.’s sure guide, nei- ‘¢ ther forgiveness of injuries nor repentance is an essential «¢ doctrine: it is not even an important truth—we will « neither repent nor forgive :”? and thus they might go

«« down by the sides of me hand Ui.

the pit “ with a lie in their right

Finally ; the Doctor’s sure ouide is an IMPIOUS GUIDE. ~ Itimpiously degrades almost the whole of the sacred volume. Roe ores ve According to it, no truth is important that 1s not plainly declared in all the gospe ls. Now, the sermon on the mount is not contained in all the gospels. The Lord’s prayer is not contained in all the ss not contained in all th contained in all the gosp gospels. His intercessory prayer e gospels. His parables are not els. His long and affecting valedictory address, recorded in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth chapters of John, is not contained in all the gospels. . The institution of the Lord’s supper is not con- ‘fained in all the gospels.—Exclude from any one of the gospels whatever is not found in all the rest—exclude, also, the writer’s own << oeeasional observations’’—exclude, again, the uninspired “ narration of ordinary facts’ —exclude all these, and then might venture to assert, tell me how much will remain. I that the whole Bible would thus be compressed into @ tract of less than ten pages Los Addison, in his Spectator, observes, “ That if all the

«« books in the world we «© many a bulky volume «< penny paper.” Dr. B re reduced to their quintessence, would make its appearance in a _ has tried the experiment. He has subjected theword of God to this reducing process.— Yes, to a penny paper he has reduced the quintessence of the whole sacred volume! Taving Deism is both short and advanced so far, the transition to easy. Nor would the bold and daring attack of infidelity be half so dangerous.

Dr. B. not only excludes the scriptures in general from the standard of our faith, but he actually pours contempé upon them. As the standard of our faith, he not only represents them as useless, but as positively injurzous. ** It;

«¢ Christians,”’ says he (p. 58,) ‘‘ had drawn all their creeds << from the words of Jesus Christ, their religion would have. * retained its primeval simplicity. If the simplicity of the ‘ gospel had been thus preserved, uniformity would have <* also very generally prevailed, and Christians would have - «‘ kept the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. This ‘‘ simplicity and uniformity would have preserved it from «« cavil. The pure doctrine of Christ is asubject of praise, «© even among sceptics ; and their ridicule and invective are «© generally directed against mysterious and metaphysical «‘ innovations, even when their object is, to bring Chris- ‘¢ tianity itself into disrepute. It may be reasonably sup- “‘ posed, that, if the creeds of, Christians had remained <¢ simple and pure, there would have been fewer occasions <¢ for scandal and offence. ‘Their controversies would have «been milder and fewer in number, and their conduct, it ‘may be presumed, more peaceable and pure. They - « would have spoken the truth in love. That great scourge «© of human nature and disgrace of the Christian church, ‘«¢ Persecution, could scarcely have found any pretext for «¢ cruelty in the words of Christ. The Christian religion «would have so charmed and edified mankind, that it ‘< would, by this time, have covered the whole face of the “ earth. Men would have hailed it as the messenger of «glad tidings. The prophecies of Christ would have re- «ceived already, that completion which awaits them at « Jast. All mankind would have become one family, duti- ‘¢ fully performing the will of their common father, practis- “* ing the instructions of their great preceptor, and behay- - “ing to each other as brethren. Their swords would have «¢ heen transformed into plough-shares, and their spears «¢ forged into pruning hooks. Men would learn war no ‘s more, and would every day become more and more fit _ for translation into heaven. ‘The Spirit of God would ‘< descend (the Doctor concludes poetically) and rest upon «¢ their hearts, like the dove, the emblem of peace, gentle- «© ness, and love.’” .

So then, from a creed drawn from the gospels, all blessings and happiness would flow; but from creeds drawn from the whole word of God, all evils, natural and moral, ‘have ensued! Is not this to represent the scriptures of truth (the gospels alone excepted) as the pestilential source of every evil? In this representation, is it not more than insinuated, is it not plainly implied—that these sacred oracles have been the means of destroying the primeval simplicity of religion, of fomenting divisions, and of banish-

ing from Christians the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace ?—that they have exposed Christianity to the cavil,

the ridicule, and invective of sceptics ; destroyed the simplicity and purity of creeds ; furnished occasions for scandal

and offence ; increased and exasperated controversies ;

and ultimately destroyed purity and peace ?—That to them may be imputed persecution, cruelty and war ?—that to

them may be ascribed all the Heathenism, Mahometanism,

and infidelity, which at present deform the face of this globe? —that but for their baneful influence (I shudder as I write)

the Christian religion would, by this time, have covered the whole earth ?—that by their baneful influence, the completion of the prophesies is retarded, the union of mankind

into one family counteracted, men prevented from doing the will of their Heavenly Father, from practising the instructions of their great Preceptor, from behaving to each other as brethren, and, finally, from enjoying the pacific and beneficent influences of the blessed Spirit of God ?—If all these insinuations and implicit charges be just, the blasphemous conclusion would follow—that the greater part of the Bible is not a BLESSING but a cuRSE!

The insinuations, however, are unjust, and the charges groundless. ‘The true state of this matter is the very reverse of the Doctor’s representation. ‘The Doctor recommends a partial creed—a creed drawn from a part of Revelation, from the Gospels alone.—The want of such a creed, he represents, as the baneful source of all our woes. Now, the very reverse, I am convinced, is the fact. The evils complained of originate, not from creeds founded on the whole of revelation, but from partial creeds, creeds drawn from particular parts of the sacred volume—creeds like that which we find recommended, praised, and pdopted by the learned Doctor.*

The foundation of creeds, in my humble opinion, should be no narrower than that of the Church of the living God. Like that sacred edifice, they should rest on the broad basis

* After all his invectives against them, it appears that the Doctor, at heart, is vo enemy to creeds. No man ever extolled creeds more, than he has eulogized those partzal ones, which he would wish to be drawn from a part of revelation—from the gospels alone.

of the scriptures. ‘T'o narrow the foundation of the Christian faith, as our author has done—to circumseribe Chris- > tian doctrine—to abridge the sacred volume—to exclude the: Old Testament, and the greater part of the New, from the creed of the Christian, is to subvert the Christian faith, and overturn the Christian system—it is an attempt to tear away the greater part of that imperishable foundation, on which the church of God is built. Vain and fruitless attempt !— When the Doctor has first inverted the highest pyramid of

Egypt—when he has succeeded in placing that stupendous pile of building on its apex instead of its base—then, and not till then, let him attempt to invert the church of Ged, by endeavouring to poise that glorious fabric on the narrow pivot of a few pages, instead of rearing it on the broad basis

of ‘ the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ being the chief’ ‘* corner stone.’’*

Whilst degrading the other Scriptures, our author exalts - the Gospels t too high. This, to a superficial thinker, may appear impossible ; but it is not. We exalt them too high, when we raise them on the ruins of the other Scriptures. We exalt the Gospels too high, when, with Dr. B., we vainly imagine, that creeds doen Geni them must be necessarily

'* The Antrim Presbytery, in their petition tothe House of Commons, make the following declarations :—“ that your petitioners are so far « from entertaining any sentiments derogatory to the Holy Scriptures, <¢ that they do believe, that there, and there only, can be found the true “ unpolluted doctrine of Christ crucified—that they invariably appeal *$ to the sacred volume for the truth of what they teach, and are at all “ times ready to reject any opinion that can be sai hide to be at variance 66 with the word of God.” —

According to this declaration, the members of the. Antrim Presbytery hold no sentiments derogatory to the Holy Scriptures.—With what truth Dr. B, could sign such a declaration, let the reader of the preceding pagesjudge! That the sentiments, on which Ihave been animadverting, are not only derogatory, but HIGHLY derogatory to the Holy Scriptures, no unprejudiced person can deny. °