€4 Account of the Life and Opinions of the late Dr. Pike. [ Feb. ty 
he was clear in his instruction, and pow- 
erfully impressive. ‘There is a sermon 
against drunkenness, in a volume which 
-he published many years ago, whieh is 
“thé most masterly thing of the kind that 
J have ever-seen.. — - 
He was. eiways candid and kind to 
people of every creed: not believing, 
that ‘any human opinions can make the 
smallest difference in our allotments 
hereaiter; .unless it be such as are pre- | 
judicial to morals here. He would smile 
at honest enthusiasm, and what he 
termed religious whimsy; but he was de- 
cidedly hosule to, and. zealous: against, 
all those systems of divinity which he 
thought represent the Creator - in, an 
unamiable light, or which lead to moral 
depravity. 
When young, he had some peculiarities 
of opinion; it is probable, that as he was 
a thinking man, be might either drop 
sume. of them, or adopt more as he grew 
older. From former conversations with 
lim, and from what I have since heard, 
T have reason to think, that, though he 
did not lightly adopt any peculiarity of 
sentiment, he held the following opinions : 
4. That the inspiration of scripture was 
partial only ; for that divine inspiration was 
not necessary to dictate the narration of 
facts, or those historical books which - appear 
to beextracts from the Jewish registers. 
9, That the Mcsaic account of the fall of 
man is probably allegorical; bur if not, that 
in that, and the- History of Creation, the 
facts were collected by Muses from tradition ; 
and embellished in a way something like the 
Machinery of poetry, by the fancy of the 
writer. It could not be supposed, (he would 
sey) that God actually walked in the garden, 
and chose the cool of the day, as if he could 
be affected hy heat. Many other similar 
matters he considered as embellishment, - 
3. That Adam wasasleep when Eve was_ 
placed by him ; and that he had dreamed she 
was taken out of his side. _ 
4, Uhat there is ne proof that Abel killed 
his cattle for sacrifice; but that it is more 
probabie, he only brought them on a day ap- 
pointed for soleinn worship by his father, and 
presented them before the Lord, as a gratefel 
acknowledyment ; and, perhaps, poured out a 
libation of the milk or cream, which Dr. P. 
thought is mistranslated, -fat. ; 
5. That human sacrifices were not uncom-, 
mon prior to the days of Abraham ; and that, 
having them familiar to his mind, by fepert, 
lhe dreamed he was commanded to sacrifice 
his son, which supposed command, judging 
the dream to be divinely inspressed on his 
mind, he hastened to ubey. 
6. Phat the ceremonial Sart of the Jewish 
law, &c, was aot given by God; but only 
f' 
ible or hidden meaning. a 
ral 
suited by the prudence of Moses, as a wise le~ 
gislator, to the Jewish people at that time. 
7 That the stary of Balaam’s ass was only 
an impressive dream of the prophet, but per- 
haps under divine direction. _ 
_” 8. That the books which compose the sa- 
cred volume, having been written at very dif- 
fernt times, and upon very different occa 
sions, may sometimes be difficult to be under- 
stood, but that no part of scripture has a dou- 
9, That the psalms were written by. seve- 
persons, and on particular ocCaslonse 
That the sublimest devotion, and all the 
beauties of fine writing, are to be found in 
them, But he denied them any inspiration, 
except it be what is called poetical inspira- 
tien. That no ene of them can be found 
wholly applicable tothe Messiah; and that, 
therefore, (notwithstanding what Jews of 
Christians may have thought tothe contrary, ) 
no one of them is prophetical, or has any re- 
ference to Jesus Christ. The passage in 
Luke xxiv. 44, ‘and in the ‘Psalms,’ he 
thought he could prove to be an interpola- 
tion. 
10. That what are called types in the Old 
Testament, were never intended as such ; but 
are only fanciful applications by the Jews and 
Christians. 
11. That the Canticles were merely love- 
poems; admirable indeed: for their tender 
beauties. That they were not written by So- 
lomon, but by some one of his courtiers ; and 
that they were placed in the sacred canon, by 
Ezra, to please the Jews, and in compliment 
to their favourite S.:omon. 
1¥. That the book of Jonah is probably a. 
Jewish legend, like that of Tobit. That our 
Lord’s notice of it, did not establish the 
facts init; but’only spake to the general 
belief, and current opinion, of the jews. 
The impossibility of a man being so long 
in the stomach of an animal, where he 
could not breathe, and must have been ground 
to chyle, he thought an insurmountable ob- 
jection. ‘That it was miraculous, was not to 
be supposed 5; because miracies were not 
wrought, but for some weighty reasons, and . 
to answer some greatends; but no such rea- 
sons or ends are.apparent. — If, therefore, the 
narrative be true, he supposed there must 
have been some hill near the shore, com- 
monly called the Great Fish, perhaps from 
some resemblance in its form, {as the long 
hill between Guildford and Farnham is called 
the Hog’s Back), and that under or in this 
hili was a cavern, where Jonah might. be 
confined for the whole‘time menticned. But 
he judged the former supposition the most 
probable. 
15. That history affords the best comment 
on the writings of the prophets; for that 
though there are many. clear predictions re- 
specting the Messiah, given, no doubt, by the 
highest imspiration; yet, that many other 
: | passages 
of 
