Did you ever examine the “creed” of the “Society of Friends?” I should have said, I suppose, the “Profession of Faith.” If you have not, very likely your first thought is not one of surprise or regret at your ignorance or neglect. You have no particular reverence for a shad-bellied coat, nor do you think much of the reasoning faculties of the man who is convinced by the arguments of the wearer of one for not conforming his garments to those of his “fellow creatures.” Yet you must respect that body of men, whatever their garb or language, that have so perseveringly upheld what they were convinced was right—suffered shame, persecution, and contempt, principally for practices based entirely on doctrines which we are ready to acknowledge abstractly, and are getting ready to acknowledge practically perhaps. We must respect while we smile at these ridiculous martyrs. Think of William Penn. Think of him even in connection with our own boasted Puritan fathers. Think of the Quakers of Ireland in the Rebellion, the Quakers of Ireland, I might add, at this day—the Quakers of England, who to this day never bend the knee to Mammon by paying tithes, and from them they have never been taken except by forcible seizure.

Do you recollect the origin of these “Articles of Faith”? You can not easily forget Carlyle’s apostrophe to the “Cordwainer of Leeds.” Throwing aside the broad principles which they have so earnestly, so meekly, so painfully, so boldly professed by the actions which associate with them immediately in our minds—did it ever occur to you that these people, that George Fox & Co. had distinctive opinions on other matters as well as on Conformity to the world and Pride and War—and the ministry and the sacraments? Do you know what these—Feeders of the hungry and clothers of the naked— [299] prison visitors—Slave-freers—what Gurney and Mrs. Fry—think on the subjects that Theologians and Princes of the church fight about?

Well, it’s a queer-mess. They differ a little in nearly every ingredient from the churches “of the World” in their hodge-podge. Things were likely to taste a little different to a frugal cobbler than to a university-indoctrinated cook. The grand feature perhaps is the manner in which or extent to which they recognize the Influence of the Spirit—together with their contempt for forms and certain sorts of means. About Natural Depravity, original sin, or “Christian Nurture,” I forget, because I never paid any attention to anybody’s views upon them except the latter, I suppose.

I was thinking to-day of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, and an idea of the Quakers bearing upon this subject led me to bring them before you. They refuse to speak of the Scriptures as the “Word of God." Any natural inference as to a doctrine you would draw from this fact they object to, in some way or other explaining it away. (They think the term irreverent to Divinity I believe.) But it has often occurred to me in my heretical and unshackled moments of dissipated wandering on the borders of what the Pharisees of the present day term infidelity, whether we had sufficient authority to call all parts of the “Book” the “Word of God.”

I should like to know all the meanings that a Professor of Greek, if he had occasion for them to sustain an argument, would find for the words “Inspiration of God.” (Not that this authorizes the use of the term.) And then I would be glad if he could convince me perfectly that the word “all”. in the text alluded to did not refer to a—well, no matter how much of the Old Testament.

I should like to read a real Unitarian argument on this subject. Then a Review of that argument by Dr. Tyler, and then a letter of Dr. Bushnell upon the subject—without any particular reference to the last, but full of Love and charity to the first. I think it would settle my very riley views of the subject as a piece of cod-fish does a pot of coffee. I should find bottom for the grounds of my belief or unbelief. There is, however, a great deal which I can hardly hesitate to receive as (what we understand by) Inspired.

Several volumes Our Saviour alludes to in such a way as we can hardly imagine he would, if he had but now appeared, to the words of —Ireneus, or—Luther, or—Shakespeare, or—many whose words are quoted now, often with as much respect, as if they had been inspired—the “immortal Milton” (never “joined the church”. or the Father of “Orthodoxy,” Jonathan Edwards. I once heard a “New England Divine” express some doubt as to Isaac Watts not being inspired. Whereto a “True-Church” man enquired if he thought all his poetry was inspired? Certainly he did not. Does anybody suppose the poetry of the Hebrew minstrel was inspired? I believe some do.

Do you suppose that Paul was divinely led to say one word of his [300]own and to stipulate that that should be excepted in order that it might be known that all (the rest) was unexceptionable? The Apostles certainly were not Divinely inspired in all their ways—in all their counsels—even after the Day of Pentecost. Is it not possible that they sometimes put their counsel—such for instance as Peter might have given at Antioch, and for which Paul “withstood him because it (he) was to be blamed”—on paper?

Solomon certainly was not always Divinely Inspired, any more than Byron was. I must confess, I think there’s room for doubt whether he was when he wrote the Canticles any more than Byron when he wrote his “Devotional Poetry.” I think so because I have heard or read of some dignitary-of the-church’s saying he considered it a “vile bawdy song,” &c. I never read it myself since I used to “read the Bible through”—a good while ago. I did read Scott’s Introduction to it, however—but stopped there because he frightened me out of it.

The principal argument, I believe, (for I never felt sufficiently doubtful to spend a great many years studying the Rabbis) is that (of the Old Testament) they were received and held sacred by the Jews. You know I suppose ( but do you think a man might be damned for doubting?) whether the Priests had made a mistake about it. The Jews—were they inspired to know which was sacred? Some of the Psalms are. Is it possible some are not? May there be interlopers? Is it certain that Christ should have mentioned it, if there were?

This reminds me of what strikes me as a failure in Scott’s argument in regard to Diabolical possession, &c. He says (in effect) that Christ always reproved the errors and superstitions of the Jews. Now did he, unless they were dangerous errors? He did not tell them, that we know of, that the earth was round, that you could not see from the top of a mountain ever so high—all over it—except by miracle. We do not know that he even instructed his disciples in Geology, or the length of Moses’ day. I should not be surprised if even Peter thought the world made in 6 × 24 hours, each measured by the swing of a pendulum × 60, ’til he met Moses himself in heaven.

By the way, what do you suppose Moses thought about it? I sometimes have been appalled with an idea that Moses did not know any thing more about it than Dr. Robbins does of the establishment of the First Church in Conn., but inspired by the spirit (as we or Dr. Robbins might be, now he wrote what he thought from tradition, etc., to be true, &c. as Delavigne does now, of Luther’s day.

But as to the “Word of God,” and this application of [the] term: I do not know as it is of any consequence. Though I was going to [say] if Christ had himself written—that we might call the Word of God in distinction from the rest of the Bible, written by men. I don’t know as the difference is worth noticing. Now don’t suppose at all that I do not believe in the Inspiration of Scripture. I simply give you an idea of an unsatisfactoriness [301]that occasionally crosses my mind, and to start you upon the subject a little, if you think best.

I should like to hear you, too, on the subject of Politics and the principles to govern the bestowment of your vote or influence, or for not using your influence or vote? I have read the address of the Liberty Party National Convention. It is very long, but far from convincing to my mind. The main object is “Religious men should support candidates who go for religious measures.” But Religious men even do not agree on every measure. And the whole argument is based on opposition to one-idea-ism—which is Garrisonism I suppose.