and no particle of error:—therefore that the Bible is the only authoritative rule of religious faith and practice.[1] To doubt this is reckoned a dangerous error, if not an unpardonable sin. This is the supernatural view. Some scholars slyly reject the divine authority of the Old Testament. Others reject it openly, but cling strongly as ever to the New. Some make a distinction between the genuine and the spurious books of the New Testament; thus there is a difference in the less or more of an inspired and miraculous canon. The modern Unitarians have perhaps reduced the Scripture to its lowest terms. But Protestants, in general, in America, agree that in the whole or in part the Bible is an infallible and exclusive standard of religious and moral truth. The Bible is master to the Soul; superior to Intellect; truer than Conscience; greater and more trustworthy than the Affections and the Soul.
Accordingly, with strict logical consistency, a peculiar method is used both in the criticism and interpretation of the Bible; such as men apply to no other ancient documents. A deference is paid to it wholly independent of its intrinsic merit. It is presupposed that each book within the lids of the Bible has an absolute right to be there, and each sentence or word therein is infallibly true.[2] Reason has nothing to do in the premises, but accept the written statement of “the Word;” the duty of belief is just the
- ↑ It is scarce necessary to cite authorities to prove this statement, as it is a notorious fact. But see the most obvious sources, Westminster Catechism, Quest. 2; Calvin's Institutes, Book I. ch. vi.-ix.; Knapp, ubi sup., § 1-13, especially Vol. I. p. 130, et seq. See also Gaussen's Theopneusty, or the plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, translated by E. N. Kirk, New York, 1842. The latter maintains that “all the written Word is inspired of God even to a single iota or tittle,” p. 333, and passim. See Musculus, Loci communes, ed. 1564, p. 178. But see also Faustus Socinus, De Auctoritate Sac. Scrip. in Bibliotheca Fratrr. Polon. Vol. I.; Limborch, Theol. Lib. I.; Episcopius, Instit. P. IV.
- ↑ The writings of most of the early Unitarians are exceptions to this general rule. They attempted to separate the spurious from the genuine. See earlier numbers of the Christian Examiner, passim; Norton, Statement of Reasons, &c., p. 136, et seq.; Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I. p. liii. et seq. See especially p. lxi. Vol. II. p. cliv., clxii., cxciii., and the whole of the additional note on the O. T., p. xlviii., et seq.; Internal Evidences, &c. (1855), p. 13; and Translation of the Gospels (1855), Vol. II. note E. See also Stuart, Critical History and Defence of the O. T. Canon, Andover, 1845. Dr. Palfrey, ubi sup., denies the miraculous inspiration of all the Old Testament, except the last four books of Moses, and there diminishes its intensity.
