time, scarce any two eminent teachers agree on these points, however orthodox they may be called. What a difference between the Christ of John Gerson and John Calvin—yet were both acccepted teachers and pious men. What a difference between the Christ of the Unitarians and the Methodists—yet may men of both sects be true Christians and acceptable with God. What a difference between the Christ of Matthew and John—yet both were disciples, and their influence is wide as Christendom and deep as the heart of man. But on this there is not time to enlarge.
Now it seems clear, that the notions men form about the
origin and nature of the Scriptures, respecting the nature
and authority of Christ, have nothing to do with
Christianity except as its aids or its adversaries; they are not
the foundation of its truths. These are theological
questions, not religious questions. Their connection with
Christianity appears accidental: for if Jesus had taught
at Athens, and not at Jerusalem; if he had wrought no
miracle, and none but the human nature had ever been
ascribed to him; if the Old Testament had for ever
perished at his birth—Christianity would still have been
the Word of God; it would have lost none of its truths.
It would be just as true, just as beautiful, just as lasting,
as now it is; though we should have lost so many a blessed
word, and the work of Christianity itself would have been,
perhaps, a long time retarded.
To judge the future by the past, the former authority of the Old Testament can never return. Its present authority cannot stand. It must be taken for what it is worth. The occasional folly and impiety of its authors must pass for no more than their value; while the religion, the wisdom, the love, which make fragrant its leaves, will still speak to the best hearts as hitherto, and in accents even more divine when Reason is allowed her rights. The ancient belief in the infallible inspiration of each sentence of the New Testament is fast changing, very fast. One writer, not a sceptic, but a Christian of unquestioned piety, sweeps off the beginning of Matthew; another, of a different church and equally religious, the end of John. Numerous critics strike off several epistles.
