a principle regard to this, in choosing a man to be a Teacher of Righteousness; and I apprehend, no one who understands and ioves the gospel, will be ready to condemn what I have written.

But if any should happen to see this letter, who find themselves condemned by it; who are more concerned to maintain the interest of a party, than the interest of truth; or to support some scheme of self righteousness which they are deeply in love with, it is highly probable they will be ready to insinuate that the writer's design is bad, in order to counteract the tendency of what is written. And it is not impossible they may go so far as to fix on some particular person as the author, of whom they may think you have conceived an ill opinion.

I am sensible it is nothing new or strange for such designing, self interested men, to take such methods to destroy the influence of those truths which are of the greatest concernment to mankind.

But I persuade my self, Brethren, that you are not ignorant of such devices; and that the truth will ever have a higher consideration with you than the opinions of any man living.

As I am not conscious of having any thing in view, but the interest of truth, you are quite welcom for my part to reject what I have written, if you find it is not calculated to serve this end. But before you reject it, I would ask the favour of you to search the Scriptures, to see whether these things are so.

Particularly I would recommend to your attentive perusal the 3rd, 4th and 5th chapters of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, the 2nd chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians from the 16th verse to the end, and the 2nd Epistle of John, from the 7th to the 12th verse, with other passages to the same purpose, which may occur to your remembrance.

You need not be curious to know who the writer of this letter is, but may believe that, if he is not greatly mistaken, he is one who wishes eternal happiness to his fellow men.

To signify which he subscribes himself yours,

Jan. 27, 1766.

PHILANTHROPOS.

BOSTON REVIEW.

VOL. IV.-SEPTEMBER, 1864.-No. 23.

ARTICLE I.

THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

Is the Bible, in any peculiar sense, the Word of God? Can the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments, with propriety, be said to have proceeded directly from God? Are they a supernatural or extraordinary gift of God to the world, or are they merely the product of the human mind? In the estima tion of reflecting minds this is the question of questions.

To this point may be traced the divergent opinions and opposing theories that are entertained respecting the various subjects of which the Scriptures treat. Around this point are rallying the contending hosts of Christianity and infidelity. Here the decisive battle is to be fought. At the present time different classes of minds assume different attitudes in relation to this question. One class express their answer to it by a bold emphatic negative. They insist upon the impropriety of applying to the Bible the title, The Word of God. They place the Scriptures upon a level with books acknowledged to be uninspired, and deny to them the office of supreme arbiter in matters of faith and practice. Another class of minds, a large and influential class, stand in an equivocal position. If they answer the question in the affirmative, they do so by the utterance of a timid, qualified assent, indicative of half belief. But it is more likely they will decline a direct answer, and their only response will be a sigh or a lamentation, as much as to say, "Alas! for

the Bible. Would that we could repose faith in it as the word of God." They give the impression that nothing would relieve and delight them more than to be able to bring their understanding and reason to an acknowledgment of the claims of the Bible to be a supernaturally inspired book. They would have it understood that their prepossessions are all in favor of this decision, and that the necessity for an opposite one is distressing to them, and numbered among this class are many who think themselves to be sincere. In the judgment of charity there are some who really are sincere. But we are forced to inquire, Is it not probable that this form of scepticism can be accounted for, in great part, by reference to the subtle, deepseated hostility of the natural heart to the doctrines which the Bible inculcates? A third class of minds, and this class is large, profess to believe that the Scriptures are a supernatural gift of God to the world. But they cherish the secret feeling that in the Bible the golden ore of truth is mingled with much dross. They virtually reserve to themselves the right of deciding what is the truth. They, in fact, elevate their own understanding and reason above the Scriptures. Their final appeal is not really to the Bible, but to their own minds. In addition to these three classes, there is a fourth class, who believe the Scriptures were given by divine inspiration as the only and the sufficient rule of faith, the supreme and infallible arbiter in all religious questions. Now which of these opposing views entertained in respect to the Bible is the true one? Or are they all wholly or in part, false? In short, what is the truth on this subject of prime moment? The correct interpretation of the declaration of Paul found in 2 Tim. iii. 16, will furnish the virtual answer to this question. In our authorized English version the passage reads, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." The Greek is as follows: Пàoɑ yqaqh θεόπνευστος και ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, προς ελεγκον, πρὸς επανόρθωσιν, προς παιδείαν τὴν εν δικαιοσύνη.

This is the invariable reading of all the existing manuscripts; and hence, we can have no doubt, is the true reading. Some interpreters have, indeed, expressed a doubt in regard the particle za inasmuch as it is not found in the ancient Syriac and

Vulgate versions.

But we are to remember that, while these versions are entitled to great respect, they are but subordinate authorities; "Since," as Dr. Fairbairns truly remarks, “it must ever remain doubtful whether due pains were taken by the translator to obtain a pure text, and doubtful still further, whether the translation may not to some extent have been tampered with in the course of its transmission to present times." (Her. Man., p. 70). The evidence for believing xai to belong to the original text, derived from the fact of its being found in all existing manuscripts greatly outweighs all the evidence against it, arising from the fact that it is not found in two ancient versions. Does, then, our translation express fully and exactly the sense of the original Greek? This text, it will be noticed, is one of the many instances in which the copula of the sentence is omitted in the Greek; and the question is, must 9ɛónvɛvotos be joined with the subject or with the predicate? If with the predicate, then our translation is correct in rendering the passage, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable," &c. But if 9vOTos belongs to the subject, then should the translation read, "All God-inspired, or Godinbreathed, Scripture is also profitable," &c. For the decision of this point it does not suffice to refer to the opinions of the ablest biblical scholars and expounders. For these seem to be about equally divided. On the side of our version are such distinguished names as Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Bengel, Calvin, Wolf, De Wette, Conybeare and Olshausen. In favor of the other rendering are, also, names entitled to great weight, such as Origen, Theodoret, Grotius, Erasmus, Whitby, Rosenmüller, Huther, Ellicott and Alford. The language of Alford

is:

"I own on the whole the balance seems to me to incline on the side of the second, unobjectionable as it is in construction, and of the two better suited to the context. I therefore follow it hesitatingly, I confess, but feeling that it is not to be lightly overthrown." Moreover, this point is one which cannot be decided incontrovertibly on grammatical grounds. Either rendering consists very well with the laws of grammar and the structure of the New Testament language, although we can but feel that the preponderance of evidence from this source is in favor of our version.

It is true, xai both in classic and in Hellenistic Greek, often has the signification also, and introduces the predicate of a sentence, its use being to give especial emphasis to the assertion contained in the predicate. But it is not very clear, that this case is to be referred to that class. The instances cited to justify this construction are such passages as Luke i. 36, Acts xxvi. 26, Rom. viii. 29, which on examination will be found to differ materially from the case in question. Of the two translations, our version seems to us the more natural and easy. But, after all, the hermeneutical argument must decide the controversy. We must ask, which rendering do the context, the connection and the sense demand? Which rendering most perfectly harmonizes with the apostle's aim and object? His grand object in the charge he is here giving to Timothy is quite obvious. It is to impress upon the mind of Timothy the great importance of a constant reverential regard for the Scriptures, as the repository of doctrine, of reproof, of correction, of instruction in righteousness, as the chief and indispensable means by which the man of God is to be made perfect and thoroughly furnished unto all good works. How could Paul hope to accomplish this object more effectually than by making a solemn, emphatic declaration of the divine origin of the Scriptures? It may be said that the divine origin of the Scriptures was not doubted by Tim, othy and, hence, there was no necessity for this affirmation. Let it be granted that Timothy did receive the Scriptures as inspired, yet might not a distinct assertion of their divine origin, coming from his spiritual father, uttered in circumstances singularly impressive, be of incalculable advantage to him? Would not such an assertion, so made, impart vividness, depth and strength to his faith in the word of God, and greatly enhance his sense of its value? Besides, if there was no reason why Paul should have reäffirmed the doctrine of inspiration, what reason was there for his alluding to it at all? In other words, if the fact that Timothy admitted the divine origin of the Scriptures is an objection to the rendering of our version, it is, also, an equally strong objection to the other translation. So that after a consideration of all the arguments on both sides we conclude our translators were correct in joining 9ÓпVEVOтos to the predicate. The phrase rendered "All scripture" is, nàoa iga¶h,