Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1843-05-03

lntdilIble Inspiration of the Bible have no
, foundation in the Bible itself. Which
. Evangelist, which Apostle of the New
Testament, what Prophet or PsaImist o.
the Old Testament, ever claims infallibIe
authority for himself or for olhers2-
! Which of them does not ia his own wri.
lungs show that he was finite, and with all
his zeal and piety, possessed but limited
inspiration, the bound whereof we can
sometimes discover? Did Christ ever
demand that men should assent to the
doctrine of the Old Testament, credit its
stories, and take its poems for histories,
and believe equally two accounts that con-
itradIct one another? Has be ever told
you that all the truths of his religion, all
the beauty of Christian life should be
contained in the writings OF those men,
who even after his resurrection, expected
him to be a Jewish king; of men who
were sometimes at variance with one an
other and misunderstood his divine teach
Ilngs2 Would not those modest writer's
themselves be confounded al the ido!atry
ne pay them2 Opinions may change on
these points, as they have often changed
changed greatly and for the worse
since the days ofPaul. They are chang
ing now, and we may hope for the better ::
for God makes mans folly as well as his
wrath to praise Hin, and continually
.rlngs good out Of evil. -. -
Another instance of the transformers
| OF doctrines taught as Christian is found
IN those which relate to the nature and
Authority of Christ. Oae ancient party
has told US, that be is the infinite God ::
another, that he is both God aud man;
third, that he was man, the son of Jo-
lseph and Mary,-born as we are; temp
ted like ourselves; inspired, as we may
be, if we will pay the price. Each ofthe
former parties believed its doctrine on
this head was infAIlibly true. and formed
the very substance of Christianity, and
was one ofthe essential con itious of sal
Walton, though scarce any two distinguish
ed teachers of ancient or mordern times,
agree in their expression of this truth.
Almost every sect, that has ever been,
makes Christianity rest on the personal
authority Of Jesus, and not the ilnmutabIe
truth of the doctrines themselves, or the
authority of God, who sent him into the
world. Yet it seems difficult to conceive
any reason why moral and religious truths
should rest for their support on the per-
sonal authority of their reveaIer. anv
more than the truths of science on that of
him who makes them known first or most
clearly. 1t is hard to see why the great
truths of Christianity rest on the personal
authority Of Jesus. more thar the axioms
I of geometry rest on the personal authority
of Euclid,o or A. chimetes. The authority
of Jesus, as of all teachers, one would
naturally think. must rest on the truth Of
his words, and not their truth on his au
thority. @@..
Opinions respecting the nature of Christ
seem 10 be constantly changing. La the
three first centuries after Christ, it ap-
pears, great latitude of speculation pre-
vailed. Some said he was God. with
nothing of human nature, his body only
an illusion; others, that he was man,
with nothing of the divine nature, his mi
raculous birth having no foundation in
fact. In few centuries it was decreed
by councils that he Was God, thus hon.
orlng The divine element; next, that be
was man also, thus admitting he human
side. For some ages the Catholic Church
seems to have dwelt chiefly on the divine
nature that was in him, leaving the hu.
man element to mystics and other hereti
cal persons, whose bodies served to flesh
the swords Of orthodox believers. The
stream of Christianity has come to US in
two channeIs-one within the Church
the other without the Church-ant it is
. not hazarding too much to saw, that since
the fourth century the true Christian life
has been out of the established Church
, and not In 1t, but rather in the ranks @
: dissenters. From the Reformation tiIltht
; latter par: of the last century, we are told
the Protestant Church dwelt chiefly or
4 the human side of Christ, and since tina
!, lime many works have been written Il
/. show how the two-perfect Dletv anl
I perfect manhood - were united in hi!
t character. But, all this time, scarce any
f two eminent teachers agree on thes.
{ points, however orthodox they may b.
i called. What a difference between th,
It Christ Of John Gerson and John Calvin
b yet were both accepted teachers AM
r pious men, What a difference betwee,
!. the Christ Of the Unitarians aud tn
|, Methodlst-yet may men of both sects b
d true Christians and acceptable with Cos
It What difference between the Christ {
e Matthew and John-yet both were disc
s. Piles, and their influence is wide a
e Christendom and deep as the heart {
e man. But on this there is not time to en-
h large
o Now il seems clear, that the notion me
e form about the origin and nature ofthesc:iF
r, lures; respecting the nature and authorit
d of Christ, have nothing to do with Chris
Is ianiiy except as its aids or its adveEsaIies
= ltbov .ro mi tho Foundation ofJte fri,the ~,