APPENDIX III.

On the Old Testament as a supposed Standard of Orthodoxy.

THE frequently quoted words of Paul (2d Tim. iii, 16, 17) will probably occur to many, as clearly opposing my statement. Let us consider those words, divesting ourselves of established prejudices. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

I have a few observations to lay before the dispassionate

reader.

The Greek word 8E6TVEUGTOS is not only figurative, but may possibly represent two figures, which are the reverse of each other: something breathed out by God, and something breathing out God. It is true that the Lexicons, so far as I have been able to consult them, limit the word in question to the first signification. I am aware, also, that the best grammarians exclude from the class of compounds which are capable both of the active and the passive signification, (as μητροκτονος, θεοτοκος, marking the change by the accent) those which end in 70s, probably because they are derived not from the middle but the passive preterit. But since such derivatives from the passive as ἄπνευστος εὔπνευστος, mean, he that breathes not, he that breathes well, the supposition that BEOTVEVOTOS may signify Deum spirans, or, as it might be expressed in English, breathing of God, may be not well grounded, but it cannot be absurd. After all, it seems strange that the fact of inspiration should depend so much on a delicate point of grammatical criticism.

But I am not disposed to dispute that the Hebrew Scriptures (for it must not be forgotten that St. Paul speaks of those Scriptures alone, which Timothy knew "from a child,” may be truly said to have been breathed out by God, i. e. to have had their origin in that peculiar providence which superintended the

moral education of the Jewish people; and much less will I deny the still more unquestionable fact, that those Scriptures breathe out God, i. e. godliness or piety, though the piety they breathe is not unfrequently mixed up with the gross and carnal feelings of which our Saviour accuses the Jewish nation ; with that hardness of heart to which he expressly attributes the imperfections of Moses's laws.

In the next place, I request a serious attention to St. Paul's enumeration of the purposes for which he considers the Hebrew Scriptures as eminently useful. The impartial reader should, in his mind, compare, as he proceeds, the various parts of this enumeration with the pretended destination of those writings, to settle the disputes of scientific theology, and thus to fix Orthodoxy.

1. Those Scriptures, according to Paul, had the power to make Timothy (a Jew) wise unto salvation through that faith which is in Christ Jesus. That the Hebrew Scriptures were so ordained by Providence as to lead the upright, candid, and virtuous Jews to Christ, cannot be denied. 2. Those Scriptures are profitable for teaching (didaonaλíav). The Jews had, indeed, no other national means of instruction. 3. The Hebrew Scriptures are profitable for reproof (λɛyxov); and unquestionably, to a Jew, as long as the polity existed, in compliance with which Paul had circumcised Timothy (not for any value which Paul himself set on circumcision, but "because of the Jews*"), the Hebrew Scriptures were the standard by which the conduct of every member of the nation, who had not arrived at the full conscientious conviction of the abolition of the law, through Christ, should be judged. 4. The Hebrew Scriptures are profitable for correction (éπavógswow) i. e. setting right again. This is a declaration almost identical with that immediately preceding. 5. The Hebrew Scriptures are profitable for instruction (Taidelav i. e. elementary instruction) in righteousness (Sinaloσúvy), i. e. the correct conduct of a Jew; who, if he was observant of the law, was, in the language of the New Testament, called dínaios.

This more rhetorical than logical enumeration concludes with a sentence which, in general terms, expresses the final end of * Acts xvi, 3.

the advantages offered by the Hebrew Scriptures to a pious Jew; namely, "that the man of God" (i. e. a man whose life, like that of the ancient prophets, is devoted to the object of spreading the principles and sentiments of piety) may be COMPETENT (agros), thoroughly furnished (fitted out—εEngτioμévos) for every good work (i.e. every duty of his office).

When the utmost shall have been done to increase the significancy of every phrase in this passage, I wish the reader impartially to judge whether St. Paul's occasional praise of the Hebrew Scriptures, and his list of the advantages which may be derived from them (especially by Jews, before the total abolition of their politico-religious constitution), can in a satisfactory manner prove that the Apostle was thinking of an inspired verbal rule of faith, by which scientific disputes in theology,-much less in physics, chronology, &c.—should be settled, as by the intervention of an oracle. Observe, however, how the Old Testament is used among us. Suppose a divine denies that the literal sense gives the true meaning of the beginning of Genesis. We instantly hear an indignant cry against the impiety of such a view. But why? Has St. Paul given us any rule to ascertain to which of the senses of every passage in Scripture it is that the word θεόπνευστος applies ? And, since he has not, should we not take that omission as a proof that the word which the established version translates "inspiration of God," means only a general derivation from God, which leaves the Christian at liberty to expound individual passages so as to prevent their opposing the originally divine light of our REASON, fully assisted by the SPIRIT of the Gospel? By what clear title does any man accuse another of impiety, when that man uses his intellectual liberty?

Were there a judge of the sense of Scripture, divinely appointed; were that appointment so made as to allow of no reasonable doubt; to act against the decisions of that judge, would deserve the condemnation to which clear offences against divine authority are liable. But, since we have been left to judge of the sense of the Scriptures for ourselves, every man, after exerting his means and faculties to the best of his power, must adhere to what he understands. He must, of course,

* Compare 1st Sam. ix, 6; 1st Kings xiii, 6; 2d Kings i, 9.

think others wrong; but, as he should remember his own liability to error, he ought to abstain from condemning them of sin and impiety. To act, as most divines act at present, is a most unchristian presumption.

The Hebrew Scriptures have the sanction of Christ and his Apostles as such; i. e. as writings prepared through an especial providence of God for the benefit of the Jewish people, in conformity with the circumstances of that nation, and in reference to a higher dispensation—namely, the Gospel. Those Scriptures, accordingly, deserve a reverent study on the part of every Christian, in proportion to his individual capacity. But the value of those Scriptures is only in reference to the Gospel. The Providence which caused their existence must have intended them for us, only in order to contribute to a hearty acceptance of Christ as the Son of God, our supreme moral leader. With what colour of reason, then, can it be supposed that it is God's Will we should receive those books in such a sense as, in regard to millions of candid and well-disposed individuals all over the world, must necessarily preclude belief in Christ? Such a supposition can only proceed from that fatal notion which represents FAITH as a sacrifice of REASON, and measures the value of that faith by the difficulty and extent of the sacrifice. What monstrous absurdity would be excluded by such FAITH! But this is a subject which must be treated at full length-reverently, yet boldly: a note (however it may exceed the usual limits) can only touch it incidentally.

NOTES.

Note to LETTER I, Page 12.

ON 2d JOHN, 7-11.

THE passages of Scripture which seem to give an appearance of probability to the essentially intolerant notion that Orthodoxy is necessary to salvation, or which (to speak more properly) disturb the conviction which Reason, enlightened by the Scriptures, is apt to produce against that notion in candid, unsuperstitious minds, are very few. This, by itself, is a strong proof, to me, that the intolerant interpretation commonly given to them cannot be true; for Providence would not have committed so important and practical a declaration to a few incidental expressions. In the Trinitarian question, especially, this consideration is to me more powerful than any direct interpretation of individual passages. But, in regard to our present subject, I think it necessary to draw the attention of the reader to that passage of the 2d Epistle of John, which I have constantly found to be the last refuge of intolerance defeated by argument. To save inquirers the trouble of seeking for the passage in the New Testament, I shall copy it here. I will also give in italics the expressions which appear to me to deserve particular attention.

Verse 6. And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment (namely, that we love one another-see v. 5, and John xiv, 15-21.) That as ye have heard from the beginning ye should walk in it. (V. 7), For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (V. 8), Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. (V. 9), Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God: He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. (V. 10), If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: (v. 11), for he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds."

I wish the reader to consider the great probability (to me, certainty) that the writer means, the same thing by commandment ivroλn as by sidan, doctrine. To be convinced of this, nothing more is necessary than to refer to v. 9, and compare it with v. 10, c. xv, and v. 23, c. xiv, of the Gospel of John. The reward of keeping Christ's words, commandments, or doctrine (for the context shews that they are various names given to the same thingi. e. charity, love to God, and to one another) is the coming of the Father and the Son to him, and making their abode with him. The very same result is, in the Epistle, attributed, in less figurative words, to the keeping the doctrine of Christ. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son; or is in full possession of Christianity, which consists not only in the acknowledgment of God, but in the acceptance of Christ as a guide to Him. From this comparison of passages, by keeping in mind the practical character which John gives to Christianity, and by remembering that he reduces it to love to God, as known through Christ, and to our brethren, for the sake of the love which Christ deserves from us, we may be convinced that nothing was farther from the Evangelist's thoughts than the condemnation of theoretical doctrines. What he condemns is the denial of the existence of Christ, and the consequent denial of his doctrine, his great commandment, his peculiar doctrine of love to God and man; that love which necessarily produces moral obedience.