" have a direct tendency to promote universal " happiness *." “ Again he afferts, "That the very idea of " any part of the New Testament's wanting either "explanation or defence, is entirely inconfiftent with " an opinion of that part, at least, being of di"vine inspiration and authority; and is a tacit " acknowledgment, that human errors have crept " in, and been blended with divine truths †." As to the Morality of the New Testament, the Author will allow That to have every qualification; for the main body of his book is intended to prove it; which the morality of a Revelation can possibly require. But for the other notions here advanced, we may without presumption venture to pronounce them in the highest degree abfurd and ridiculous. So exceedingly confused are the Author's ideas, that he here applies to Revelation when committed to writing, what is true only with respect to Immediate Inspiration, and the person immediately inspired. Certain it is, that when God himfelf speaks immediately to his creatures " he does "it in a language which they clearly under" stand:" And that "he who formed the power " of conception in the human mind, never stands " in need of an interpreter," to explain what he immediately reveals to them, with design that they should explain it. And accordingly we never find any of the Prophets or Apostles complaining that they did not clearly and certainly know what was revealed to them; but on the contrary explicitly declaring it, without any doubting or hefitation ‡. * P. 371-2. : P. 313, 314. : But † P. 319, 320. See likewise to the fame purpose, ‡ God may reveal a Prophecy, which he does not intend should 1 : ٢٠ But if those whom the goodness of God has thought fit to make use of as his instruments for conveying an immediate Revelation to mankind, should commit to writing what they themselves have received by infallible inspiration, that mankind may know with certainty to what to have recourse; this Written Account of the revealed will of God must unavoidably be subject to all the natural imperfections of human language, in which it must of neceffity be expressed. The meaning of its words and sentences must sometimes admit of doubt; when copied it must be exposed to involuntary errors; when translated into a variety of languages, to involuntary misinterpretations; and in process of time, those parts especially, which relate to any thing diftinct from the mere precepts of morality, will necessarily stand in need of illuftration; from a careful comparifon of one part with another; as well as from a due knowledge of the language in which it was originally written; the customs, manners, and opinions of those to whom it was first addressed; and the particular circumstances by which any part of it was first occafioned. Not to add, that as it is liable to be interpreted not only by fallible, but even by perverse men, it must necessarily be exposed to all the misinterpretations, which ignorance and perverseness may be capable of adopting; and confequently, though revealed from God himself, and written with all the propriety that the cafe can require, may perpetually stand in need of explanation and defence *, To should be at that time understood (as in Dan. xii. 8.): But then, in this cafe as well as in every other, the Prophet knows afsuredly what is revealed to him, though the Prophecy revealed to him is not at the same time explained. * Even our Author's zealous Advocate in the Preface was so sensible of this, that he has flatly contradicted him in this point; To affirm therefore, with the Author, that a written Revelation from God to man, can never stand in need of an interpreter, because God formed the power of conception in the human mind; and that whatever part of the New Testament stands in need of explanation or defence, cannot for that reason be of divine authority, but must have been forged; is really the most childish absurdity. Ir is in fact either affirming no less, than that man is incapable of perverseness, ignorance, or error; that human language is incapable of being perverted; and that writings may be clearly and certainly understood, without our knowing the true meaning of the words and phrases in which they are expressed; or the particular circumstances, when any fuch there are, to which they immediately relate:Or else it is asserting; than which nothing can possibly be conceived more wild; that God cannot cause a special Revelation of his will to be committed to writing for the lafting benefit of mankind, without ever after inspiring every single individual of the human race, with an accurate and complete understanding of every thing mentioned in fuch a Revelation, and relative to it. For unless one or the other of these suppositions be allowed, the ignorance as well as the pafsions of men may lead them to attack, as well as to misunderstand, what is really revealed; and confequently what is really revealed, will unavoidably stand in need both of explanation and defence. : point; and says expressly, - "The ambiguity of language " will always afford opportunities for designing men to render "the plainest truths, and clearest precepts, liable to altera tions, to various interpretations, and a variety of corrup" tions." (Pref. p. 29.) And I may venture to add, that a clearer proof of this truth can scarcely be met with, than the joint-work of these writers, I Besides, 1 Besides, if it was impossible for God, or, which is the same thing, unworthy of God, to communicate any thing to man by a written Revelation, in fuch a manner as to be liable to want explanation and defence, it must be equally impoffible for God to communicate any thing to man by the light of his own Reason, in such a manner as to fuffer it to stand in need of explanation or defence. But certain it is, that every principle of morality, even That plainest of them all, the rule of doing to others as we would be done unto; may be misapplied, when we come to act upon it in particular cafes, and confequently may stand in need of explanation and defence. And accordingly the Author himself, notwithstanding the extravagant affertions we are now confidering, and notwithstanding he has likewise afferted, "That "the law of nature is universally understood, fo far " as to conftitute a rule, perfect in its direction, " for the conduct of human life;" has himself both explained and defended several of those very Texts, which he has exhibited as so many precepts of Natural Religion and Morality, and as the genuine doctrines of the New Testament +. Either therefore the Author must give up every principle of Natural Religion, as fuch; or he must admit, that it is not an objection to the Inspiration and Divine Authority of any paffage in the New Testament, that it may stand in need of explanation or defence. -In a word; to trace the Author's principles to their necessary confequence; to affert that God cannot make known any thing to man, so as to leave it capable of standing in need of explanation or defence; is in other words af ferting, that it is impossible for God to create such + See, p. 104, 120, 121, 122, 130, 147, 253, 254, 255, 299. 300. T a rati I a rational, but at the fame time imperfect, creature as Man.-So big with absurdities are this Author's affertions; and so exceedingly irrational is this Rational Christian *. "Finally, fays the Author, a written Revelation " would most certainly approve itself to the con" sciences of every individual of the human race; by being a perfect copy from that perfect origi"nal, The religion of reason and nature: to which " nothing can be added by man that would improve it; nothing be blended with it, but what " would prove an alloy, and leffen its intrinfic value +." To this, after what has been observed, all that need be faid is; that the moral duties enjoined in a special Revelation must unquestionably be such as will gain the approbation of our own reafon, though they may be far more perfect than those which we ourselves had actually discovered. But with regard to every thing else, as our reason cannot possibly enable us to judge, what other particulars God may, or may not reveal to us; so whatever else we find contained in the New Testament, with the proper external evidence of its being authentic, muft neceffarily be admitted, and believed to be Divine. For, though MAN cannot have authority to blend any practice which reason does * The Author will do well to consider what he could possibly mean in the following passage (p. 313, 314.)"Could we once be certain that the whole of those writings (the New Testament) was really dictated by God, - They "would then be natural, rational, and instructive; easy to be " understood by persons of every rank and denomination, " without comment or explanation." - Are not these writings exactly what they are, whether we can be certain of their coming from God, or not? And does their intelligibleness, or obscurity, depend upon our knowing from whence they came; or upon the words and sentences of the writings themselves? + P. 374. not |