Page images
PDF
EPUB

eternal life."

These words sound to me like any thing but approbation of the principle. I would almost venture to assert, that, throughout the gospels, the verb here used, when applied out of a question,* is only expressive of an ungrounded opinion; in other words, that wherever any doctrine or proposition is referred to the opinions or thinkings of any one, the expression implies disapprobation. For instance:-"And when you are praying, speak not much as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard."† "Whosoever hath not, that also which he thinketh he hath, shall be taken away from him." But Jesus spoke of his death; and they thought that he spoke of the repose of sleep." § But, on the other hand, when our Saviour, or the evangelists, wish to mark the correctness of the opinion, they use the verb to know. Thus:-" Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them."|| "When the branch is tender, and the leaves come forth, ye know that the summer is nigh."¶ "Ye know, that after two days shall be the pasch."**"Rebuking them he suffered them not to speak, for they knew that he was Christ." "Ye know whence I am."‡‡ This invariable consistency of expression, when the opinion is approved or disapproved, seems to me to leave not the slightest doubt that our Redeemer did not approve of that almost superstitious feeling of the Jews, renewed in our times, that the possession of the word of God alone is sufficient to save. "In them ye think that ye have everlasting life!" Our Lord thus appeals to the Scriptures, simply as to an admitted ground, by an argument ad hominem, as the schools term it; that is, he even takes advantage of the excessive confidence which the Jews placed in their possession of an inspired work, and appeals to that very feeling to form the groundwork of his evidences

*As "who think ye, will this child be?" Luke i. 66, &c. passages, no particular opinion is referred to.

+ Mat. vi. 7.

Lu. viii. 18.

Jo. xii. 13. compare Luke xii. 51. xiii. 2, 4, &c.
Mat. xx. 25, comp. Mar. x. 42.

** Ib. xxvi. 2.

+ Lu. iv. 41.

¶ lb. xxiv. 32.

‡‡ Jo. vii. 28.

In such

3. But, after all, I would ask, what were the Scriptures, which the Jews are told to search? Were they the Old or the New Testament? Assuredly not the New, for it was not then written. Can you from such a command conclude, that because the Jews, who, as I have allowed from the beginning, had a written code, and for whom measures were taken originally and fundamentally, that they should have a written code, were referred to it, another Scripture, which did not then exist, was constituted the infallible and sole rule of faith? We can

not suppose that our Saviour would do any thing so strange, if I may so term it, as to refer them to a work then not even written: neither could they understand by his words any thing but the Old law. So that the command which he gave to the Jews, to search their own Scripture to find a testimony of him, is stretched so as to include other Scriptures thereafter to be written; or else it is maintained, on a ground of parallelism for which no proof is brought, that, in the same manner as these Jews were referred to some Scripture, so each and every Christian is obliged to search others, and therein find the truth!

4. Not only so, but the argument, to have any weight, must be still more strongly distorted. For, because the Jews were told to search the Old Testament for the discovery of one specific truth, it is concluded that Christians must search the New, and will in it find all truth. Suppose, now, that we were speaking on any particular point of law, such as the treatment of the poor, and I were to say, "Search the statute-book, it will give you testimony or information regarding it:"would any reasonable man conclude, that I thereby meant to assert, that the entire law on every other subject, as on real property, was equally to be found specifically laid down in that volume? So here, when Jesus tells the Jews, that the Old Testament gives witness of his divine mission, who will not deem it unreasonable to infer, that another part of Scripture, not then existing, should contain the full development of his religion and law. For mind, he does not say that the Scriptures are sufficient to salvation-that they contain the whole truth-but only that

they bear testimony of him; and on this one point, the Scriptere will truly give satisfactory demonstration.

The second, and the strongest text, is precisely of the same character. It is from the second epistle of Paul to Timothy.* "But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and because, from thy infancy thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which can instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture inspired by God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished unto every good work." From this text,`again, it is inferred, that Scripture, or the written word of God in the New Testament, contains within it all that is necessary unto salvation through faith; and that men are required consequently to adopt it as their only rule.

1. Here, again, the same question presents itself,—what are the Scriptures of which St Paul speaks? Of those Scriptures which Timothy has known from his infancy, consequently not the Books of the New Testament. For even here not a word is uttered about a written code for the new lawnot a word about books to be compiled for the instruction of men, in the doctrines of Christianity.

2. In the second place, what was to be learned from these books, that is those of the old law?-and for what purpose was Timothy to use them? The object is evidently the same as in the former case of the Jews. These Scriptures are able to instruct or make men "wise unto salvation, through faith in Christ Jesus;" that is to say, through the evidences they gave, Timothy had been brought to the faith of Christ:-so that, the knowledge of the Scriptures here spoken of seems only preparatory to coming into Christianity.

3. In the next place, what is the utmost said concerning them? Is it asserted that they are sufficient to make men perfect in faith? Are we even assured that they are sufficient for teaching, * 2 Timothy, iii. 14.

for reproof, and for instruction, or not rather that they are profitable and useful? And does not the Catholic say precisely the same? Do not we teach, that the Scripture is most profitable, most useful, and most conducive to every thing good: that it should be studied and practised as the guide and rule of our lives? But is there not a wide difference between asserting a book to be profitable for these purposes, and considering it exclusively sufficient? Even if that sufficiency had been stated, it would not have embraced the faith of Christ, seeing it only referred to the Old Testament.

pur

4. Again, it is manifest that St Paul, when here speaking of the Scriptures, does not teach that they should be individually read and used by all the faithful, but speaks only of their use for the pastors of the Church. For observe, that the poses for which he pronounces Scripture profitable, are exclusively the functions of the ministry, and not those of the hearers, and learners, and subjects, of the Church of Christ. He says, "it is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, in righteousness." Timothy is warned to hold fast the doctrines which St Paul had taught him, first knowing of whom he had learnt them, that is, on the authority of the apostles. The second ground suggested is, that of the Old Testament bearing testimony to the faith of Christ. Then he is told to remember, besides, that this Scripture is profitable for the work of the ministry, for correcting, reproving, and instructing. These are manifestly all heads, not of individual conviction, but essentially appertaining to the ministry, or priesthood; and if any thing can thence be deduced regarding the use of the Scripture, it can only be that pastors should be familiar with them, and know how to use them for the edification of their flocks.

5. But, for what end is Scripture to be so used? Is it for the building up of a complete system of faith even in the minister of God? Most certainly not; the profitableness of God's word is simply that by the teaching, the reproving, and correcting, thence drawn, "the man of God may be perfect,

furnished to every good work." Whether, therefore, by the man of God, you understand each Christian, or with greater probability, the minister of God,* it is the fulfilment by him of the moral law, not the construction of systematic faith, which has to be attained by the profitable use of the Bible. Surely these multiplied considerations are sufficient to disprove the application made of this passage, to show that Scripture exclusively is a rule of faith, and that for every individual. Then, too, contrast with it the proofs which I drew from the very epistles of St Paul to Timothy, in favour of traditional teaching; throw them into balance with the considerations which I have proposed, and then see what weight will be found in the naked words of this text, and the unproved consequences which are from it drawn.

An argument is sometimes drawn from another passage. In the Acts of the Apostles, where we read: "These (the Beraans) were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scripture daily, whether those things were so."‡ Such is the authorized Anglican version of the text; and we are triumphantly asked, is not this a clear approbation of the protestant method, of personally investigating, through Scripture, the doctrines taught.

1. But first I must protest against the accuracy of the translation. In the original text, as well as in the most ancient versions, it is simply written, "they were nobler, (or

*This term, "man of God," is only used in one other place in the New Testament, and then it is addressed by St Paul to Timothy himself. "But thou, O man of God, fly these things." 1 Tim. vi. 11. This consideration makes it probable, that "the man of God" of the second epistle, is Timothy individually, and then the passage will still less bear the extended interpretation given to it by Protestants. But should it be deemed necessary to extend the meaning of the phrase, we must go to the Old Testament for its explanation, where "a man of God" is invariably one sent by God as his special minister, prophet, or commissioner. Consult Deut. xxxiii. 1; Jos. xiv. 6; 1 Kings (Sam.) ix. 7, 8; 4 (1) Kings i, 9-13; iv. 7-27; 2 Chron. viii. 14; xi. 2, &c.

+ See Lecture iv. pp. 124-127.

Acts xvii. 11.

« PreviousContinue »