well-meaning persons will be instantly seized with a feverish confusion, which, if encouraged by circumstances, would lead them to renew the old Smithfield scenes on the man who, calling himself a Protestant, has the boldness to assert that the Inquisition had Christian truth for its object. But let us consider what is that which men understand by Christian truth, when they accuse others of heretical error; in other words, what is that which the Catholics have thought it their duty to defend by severe punishments, and many or most of the Protestants by penalties or privations less revolting? My fancy sets before me the immense variety of expressions by which, when these lines are laid before the public, the countenances of my readers will shew their disapprobation of the question which I have just now proposed. "What! are Christians to be asked by one who professes Christianity, what is meant by Christian truth? Does this writer mean to insinuate that Christian truth has no real existence ?" Still, I must insist upon having an answer to my question. For, seeing Christians shedding each others' blood during many centuries, and, even at this day, ready to draw the sword in favour of opposite doctrines, to which the various parties, respectively, give the name of Christian truth, I have a strong ground to believe that there is some grievous error concealed in those two words. Nor is this at all surprising. The more obvious and plain the leading terms of some questions appear, the greater the danger of their being used by the disputants in various and even opposite senses, without the least suspicion of inaccuracy; for nothing appears more free from obscurity than words of indefinite meaning, when they become familiar. What do divines understand by Christian truth? The answer, at first, appears obvious. "Christian truth (it will be said) is what Christ and his apostles knew and taught concerning salvation under the Gospel." Thus far we find no difficulty: but (let me ask again) where does this exist as an object external to our minds? The answer appears no less obvious than the former: "In the Bible.”—Still I must ask, Is the MATERIAL Bible the Christian truth about which Christians dispute? "No: (it will be readily said) not the MATERIAL Bible, but the SENSE of the Bible."-Now (I beg to know) is the SENSE of the Bible an object external to our minds ? Does any sense of the Bible, accessible to man, exist anywhere but in the mind of each man who receives it from the words he reads? The Divine Mind certainly knows in what sense those words were used; but as we cannot compare our mental impressions with that model and original of all truth, it is clear that by the sense of the Bible we must mean our own sense of its meaning. When, therefore, any man declares his intention to defend Christian truth, he only expresses his determination to defend his own notions, as produced by the words of the Bible. No other Christian truth exists for us in our present state. I feel confident that what I have now stated is a fact, which every reflecting person may ascertain beyond doubt, by looking into his own mind: yet I know that few will attempt the mental examination necessary for the acknowledgment of this fact. A storm of feeling will rise at the view of the preceding argument, and impassioned questions, whether Christianity is a dream -whether Christ could leave us in such a state of uncertainty-whether there is no difference between truth and error, with many others more directly pointed at myself, will bring the enquiry to the end of all theological questions-abuse, hatred, and (were it not for the protection, alas! of the great and powerful multitude who, “caring not for these things," take, nevertheless, more interest in the public peace than Gallio) severe bodily suffering, and perhaps death. The mental fact which I have stated is, nevertheless, as unchangeable as the intellectual laws to which God has subjected mankind; as fixed as the means employed by God himself to address his revelation to us. The Christian truth, which man can make an object of defence, is an impression which exists in his own mind: it is his own Christian truth which he wilfully identifies with the Christian truth which is known to the Divine Mind. That each individual is bound to hold that Christian truth which he conscientiously believes to have found; that it is the great moral duty of every man to prepare himself conscientiously for the undisturbed reception of the impression which he is to revere and to follow as Christian truth, I cannot doubt at all. I acknowledge, also, the duty of every man to assist others (without intrusion), as much as it may be in his power, in receiving a mental impression similar to that which he venerates as Christian truth. But it is at this point that a fierce contest arises; and the reason is this: certain men wish to force all others to reverence (at least externally), not the mental impression, the sense, which each receives from the Bible-not the conviction at which each has arrived-but the impression and conviction of some theological sect or church. The Christian truth of some privileged leaders (it is contended by every church respectively) should be recognised as Christian truth by all the world: in more accurate, because more scientific language, Christian parties, of the most dif. ferent characters, have for eighteen centuries agreed only in this that the subjective Christian truth of certain men should, by compulsion, be made the objective Christian truth to all the world: i. e. that the sense which the scriptures did at some time or other convey, or still convey, to such and such men, should be acknowledged as identical with that sense which was in the mind of the writers of the Bible; the true sense which is known to the Divine Mind. Opposition to these various standards of Christian truth, with those who respectively adopt them, is HERESY. The question of Inquisition or no Inquisition, among Christians, is identical with this: Has Christ, or have his Apostles, declared that the mental impression of any man or men, in regard to Christian truth, shall be received by all, as the only real Christian truth? * * In a history of the INQUISITION, I would not use that word in any other sense but that of an authority employing means of compulsion in defence of Christianity in general, and of the doctrines considered by some denomination of Christians as exclusively those of Christ and his apostles. But in a work chiefly intended to shew that the spirit of the Roman Catholic Inquisition exists wherever the notion prevails that Orthodoxy and Saving Faith are identical, I think I may be allowed to apply the name of Inquisition to all the means used among Christians to prevent or check that perfect liberty of scriptural interpretation which, in my opinion, and according to the Protestant principle, belongs to every disciple of Christ. In this sense it appears to me unquestionable, that, if Christ had established some authority to which individuals should bow, all that class of Christians whose duty in such a case would be to conform, must be under some sort of Inquisition. Those who conceived themselves charged with the preservation of Orthodoxy would be bound to watch over the opinions of the rest; while all such as had humbly submitted themselves to the appointed authority, would, in conformity with the tendencies of human nature, act as spies against the liberty of their bolder brethren. Is nothing of this kind to be found in this politically free country? Is there no moral Page Those who identify their own explanations of Scripture with the word of God are guilty of pride of reason The spirit of Orthodoxy inseparable from pride of reason Reluctance to believe what is directly against the first prin- ciples of reason, mistaken for pride The New Testament compared with the orthodox system, in 1II. A passage from Archdeacon Blackburne's Confessional |