ANALYSIS.
I. The first dissertation relates to the question, whether sacred Scripture actually is, and may be properly termed. The Word of God.
Two points are involved in this question, — the character and the name of Scripture. In regard to the former, our author contents himself with asserting the divine origin of Scripture, in opposition to infidels of every class; and proceeds, iii opposition more especially to the tenets of the Society of Friends, to vindicate the propriety with which Scriptui'e is commonly styled "The Word of God." They are represented as holding that Christ is called the Word, and that, as Scripture is neither Clirist nor internal light from Christ, it cannot, in strict and accurate language, bear this designation.
Tlie threefold meaning of AoV«s roO Oiou is first considered, as u^orTXTixis, Whui-BiTo;, and <rpoift>pi!ilti, — the first relating to Christ personally, the second to the exercise and manifes- tation of the divine power, and the third to Scripture as expi'essive of the divine will. Various errors respecting the AsV^f are traced to the desire of the early Christian apolo- gi.sts to recommend the Christian system to their heathen persecutors, on the ground that analogous doctrines were sometimes bi'oached in the writings of heathen philoso- phers. Instances and proofs are supplied, and the Aoyo; &iou oim^Sris is cai-efully discri- minated from the Platonic NoDf.
It is shown that Scripture is the Word of God, — 1. Because it derives its origin from him; 2. Because it contains the revelation of his will; and, 3. Because, in regai'd to its vei-y words, it is of plenary inspiration.
Tlie following objections encounter a brief but conclusive refutation : — 1. " Because Christ is the Word, the Scripture cannot be the Word." The whole strength of the objection is resolved into a quibbling play on the term under discussion, as if Christ and Scripture could not both be the Word of God, though in different senses and respects. *2. "Sacred Scripture never asserts that it is the Word ;"— a statement proved to be utterly incorrect. 3. " The Word was before Scripture ; therefore the Scripture is not the Word of God." It is replied, that although God spoke before any utterance that came from him was committed to writing, it does not when written cease to be the Word of (jrod. 4. " The VVord of God cannot be learned from books, for it is from God him- self;"— an assertion resolved by our author into falsehood and blasphemy. 5. "The Word dwells in us, Rom. x. 8, Col. iii. 16, and cannot, therefore, be Scripture." It is replied, that the word of faith is meant ; that it is nigh to us, not in respect of the writ- ten letter, but of the divine truth contained in it ; and that it dwells in us not formallij, but in point of effect.
II. The second dissertation is on the Interpretation of Scripture. _
After a denial and refutation of the claim of the Romish church to infallibility, the right of private Christians to expound and exhort is declared to be consistent with the authority of the ministerial office. This question is not directly involved in the dispute with the Quakers, as they reject all interpretation of Scripture, and substitute in its stead new revelations ; but it is considered by our author in passing, as it relates to the sources of interpretation.
To private Christians, not intending to fill the office of the ministry, he concedes a liberty of exposition and exhortation, provided it be done decently and in order : and he reasons in support of this opinion,— 1. From the spiritual gifts bestowed for the pur-
PREFATORY NOTE. 425
pr se ; 2. The design of chnrch-communion ; 3. The injunctions of Scripture ; 4. The practice of the early church; 5. Christian experience and brotherly love ; 6. The ex- ample of saints in the Old and New Testaments; and, 7. The liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free.
'J'o other Christians, not actually invested with office, or ordained, but aiming to be so, lie allows a riglit of pi-eaching the gospel, interpreting Scripture, and addressing meetings; against which right, he affirms, no valid plea can be urged, either from the nature of the exercise, or any special circumstances connected with it, or any express prohibition in Scripture.
The notion of the Quakers, that there is no need for any public interpretation of Scripture, on the ground that all are inspired and possess the inward light, is refuted by a series of considerations : — The lawfulness of expounding to others what we deem to bo the meaning of Scripture ; the necessity for such a practice ; the appointment by Christ of pastors and teachers in the church ; the testimony of Scripture ; the example of Christ; the custom of all the saints; and the continued necessity for the interpreta- tion of Scripture, from the difficulties which it is admitted to contain, and to which reference is made even by Scripture itself, 2 Pet. iii. 16.
A few objections are briefly met and repelled ;— such as, that inspiration is needed to interpret inspiration ; that interpretation is of no practical benefit ; and that there is the utmost variety of opinion in the interpretations that are given of Scripture.
Ill On the Perfection of Scripture, Jews, Papists, and Quakers, whatever other points of difference obtain among them, are described as united, like the foxes of Sam- son, with firebrands between their tails, to ravage the fields of the church, by impugning the perfection of the divine Word. Leaving the Jews and Papists in the hands of not a few able writers, our author proceeds to deal with the Quakers. The following is a digest of the propositions whicli he affirms and defends : — That all truths necessary for salvation are contained in Scripture, by direct affirmation or plain implication ; that there is no need of tradition or new revelations ; that it is presumption to advance as worthy of divine faith what is not in Scripture ; that new revelations if opposed to Scripture ai-e blasphemy, if different from it useless ; that the dogma of internal light is a fiction ; and that Scripture is a perfect rule of faith and life, to which nothing can be added, and from which nothing must be taken. In a summary of the views of his oppo- nents, he argues that they, on the contrary, despoil Holy Writ of all use, authority, and perfection.