Page images
PDF
EPUB

fage, St. Paul moft certainly meant no more than the Old Testament only; thofe Holy Scriptures, which he tells Timothy he had known from a Child; the Writings of the Old Teftament alone.

Secondly, As to the Argument alleged; That St. Paul could not here intend to include the Supernatural or Mysterious Parts of the Scriptures, as Divinely Infpired; because they could not answer the purposes which he here ascribes to the Scriptures; nothing can be more manifeftly falfe. The very firft ufe which St. Paul here afcribes to the Scriptures, is, That they are profitable FOR DOCTRINE: that is, for inftructing us in the truc nature and will of God, and the feveral Difpenfations of God to man; in which, every Supernatural Truth he has ever been graciously pleased to reveal, and every myfterious Measure he has ever been pleased to adopt and declare, muft neceffarily be included.

Further, To tranflate the paffage as the Author propofes All SCRIPTURE WHICH IS given by InSpiration, &c. would be appearing to take the very point in question for granted. For as the English word, Scripture, has by cuftom been appropriated to the Writings of the Old and New Teftament alone; to tranflate it thus, would be at first fight seeming to allow, that some parts of the Old and New Teftament were not inspired.

But to give the Author all the advantage poffible, though the use of the words in the Original

recur to it? If it is pititful to affert, that particular passages are wrong tranflated; muft it not be pitiful to call for a general new Tranflation? And if the credit of the New Teftament itself could be hurt by particular new Translations; would it be lefs hurt by a general new Tranflation? The most pitiful thing of all is, to call for a new general Tranflation, and to recur to a new particular Tranflation, and yet all the while to rail at new Translations.

will really warrant our present tranflation, we may render the paffage thus: Every DIVINELY INSPIR ED WRITING is profitable, &c. Let us therefore fee whether this method of interpreting it will at all help the Author out.

Since St. Paul tells Timothy, That from a Child be bad known the Holy Scriptures (of the Old Testament,) which were able to make him wife unto falvation, through faith in CHRIST JESUS ; and then immediately adds as a confirmation of what he had faid of the Old Teftament, Every divinely inspired writing is profitable, &c. §; without pointing out to him any particular parts of the Old Teftament, as being divinely inspired, or any others as not being fo infpired; It is evident, that the paffage, even fo interpreted, amounts to a virtual declaration, that All thofe writings of the Old Testament, which the Jews univerfally received as inspired, really were infpired t.

Now the Jews univerfally received the Books of Mofes, and thofe of all the Prophets, as unqueftionably infpired; and in thefe all the mysterious and fupernatural doctrines of the Old Testament are contained. In this paffage therefore, acknowledged by the Author himself to have been written by St. Paul; we have the authority of St. Paul to affure us, that all the mysterious and fupernatural points revealed in the Books of Mofes and the Prophets; viz. The Creation-The Fall The Promised Seed-The Flood-The Command to Abraham -The Commiffion to Mofes and Aaron -The Miracles at, and after the Exodus The giving of the Law on Mount Sinai The Whole Jewish Polity, with God himself as their proper

2 Tim. iii. 15.

§ 2 Tim. iii. 16.

And in reality it muft, for the felf-fame reasons, amount to the very fame virtual declaration, were we even to tranflate it in that unfair manner, which the Author has proposed.

I

1. King

King-The Command to the Jews to extirpate the Canaanites All the prophecies relating to the MESSIAH And to the Destruction of Jerusalem, &c. &c. Are fo many Divine Revelations, fo many writings divinely inspired.

And how the Author will be able to get rid of the fupernatural and mysterious parts of the New Teftament, as not infpired; when he has St. Paul's exprefs authority for receiving all these of the Old as infpired, it will behove him well, as a Rational Chriftian, to confider.

Finally, that he may fully understand how very unlucky a paffage he has here fingled out, for the support of his caufe; let him consider throughly; if the fupernatural parts of the New Testament were to be exploded, as he contends, as not being infpired; what St. Paul could here mean, by recommending to Timothy The FAITH which is in CHRIST JESUS; as fomething, the more explicit knowledge of which was now neceffary to make him wife unto Salvation; over and above the knowledge of the Old Testament alone.

i

SE C T. XIII.

The Author's Objections against the AUTHENTICITY of the Books of the New Teftament, confidered.

B

ESIDES the direct attempts to invalidate the Infpiration of the Writers of the New Teftament; the weakness of which we have just now seen, the Author throws out fome general afperfions upon the Books of the New Testament, as they are now come down to us. Thus he says "The New Testament appears to be fo much "adulterated,

[ocr errors]

"adulterated, by human fraily and fraud, that "take it altogether as it now appears in our language, it can hardly with propriety be filed the "word of God." *- That is; for the words have no other meaning, as a book can no other way be adulterated than by being altered; the New Teftament, as it is now come down to us, is fo much altered and corrupted from what it originally was, both by the frailty and the fraud of the copiers and tranflators; that though at firft it really was the pure word of God, as the Apostles wrote it; now, in its present ftate, it can fcarcely with propriety be called the word of God.

It is not every Writer against Revelation, that would have hazarded fo hardy an affertion as this: but let us examine how well it becomes this Author, in particular, to make it.

This affertion unavoidably implies, that the Books of the New Teftament, as they were originally written by the Apoftles, were really the pure word of God. But if the Author acknowledges, as he here does, that the New Teftament, as it was originally written, was really the pure word of God; how contradictory and abfurd is it in him to attempt to prove at the fame time, as we have just now feen he has likewife done, "That God did "not effectually reftrain the Apostles Themselves, in ἐσ writing the true original New Testament, from "fometimes blending their own opinions and "doctrines, with thofe of Divine Authority +?"And, "That our confciences will teach us, it is

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

highly probable, that God never caused any pure uncorrupted Revelation of his will to be "committed to writing §?" What is this, but to allow, that the New Teftament was originally the pure

P. 332. See likewise p. 315. + See the laft Section.
P. 334.7

$.P. 370.

word

[ocr errors]

word of God, and yet at the fame time to contend that it was not?

Again, the fundamental point for which the Author all along contends, is, that JESUS himself was nothing more than a mere man, who chose to employ himself in inculcating the duties of morality, but taught nothing by inspiration*. If therefore what JESUS himself taught was the uninfpired word of a mere man; how could what his Difciples wrote, without infpiration likewife, to inftruct us in what he taught; that is, the real original New Teftament, be the word of God? And how inconfiftent is this Writer in maintaining the One, and contending for the Other?

Further, as it is here neceffarily implied, that the real doctrines of CHRIST were the word of God; what can poffibly reconcile this Author with himfelf; who tells us in this paffage,-" That "the English New Testament is fo corrupted as "hardly with propriety to be ftyled the word of "God;" And yet fays exprefsly, on another occafion, "That he fuppofes all along, that the

religion of CHRIST IS to be learned from our

English Translation of the New Testament " What conclufion can we poffibly draw from fuch direct, manifest, and important contradictions as thefe? Tenderness, not candour, prohibits us from faying, what the nature of the thing itfelf forces us to apprehend.

As to the affertion itself, that the New Teftament is fo corrupted; it will be time enough to give that an answer, when he who has been fo bold as to advance it, fhall venture to fpecify a competent number; which must be no fmall one, nor relative to points of fmall. confequence; of those paffages, which he imagines fo corrupted, and the

* See Se&t. I.

+ P. 373.

reafons

« PreviousContinue »