LECTURES ON THE SHORTER CATE

CHISM OF THE WESTMINSTER AS

SEMBLY OF DIVINES, ADDRESSED TO

YOUTH.

LECTURE III.

Perhaps it is not generally known to you, my young friends, that the authors of our Shorter Catechism have so constructed it as to be perfectly intelligible and perspicuous, without paying any attention to the questions. The answers, it appears, were not primarily formed as replies to the questions, but the questions were formed to lead the learner to the propositions contained in the answers. Omit all the questions, and you will find that your catechism contains a beautiful and lucid statement, in distinct propositions, of all the leading doctrines of revealed truth. This is now mentioned, because it is my intention in the present lecture, and in all that follow it, to recite the answers only, without any notice of the questions.

The second answer, or proposition, of our catechism is thus expressed."The word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us, how we may glorify and enjoy him."

Divine revelation, as it is made known to us by language, is here called the word of God; and is said to be contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.-The book which is formed by the record of this revelation is also, you know, VOL. I.-Ch. Adv.

commonly called the Bible. It may be of some use to consider, very briefly, the meaning, and the propriety, of these several terms and appellations.

The word Bible-derived from the Greek word, 3620s (Biblos)-means the book, by way of eminence. There is great propriety in this appellation. We could do better without all the other books in the world, than with out the Bible. It is from this alone that we are fully taught the nature of God, our duty to Him, the way of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,-the way to escape a state of endless future misery, and to secure a state of endless future happiness. What is all other knowledge, compared with this? But the Bible, in fact, teaches other knowledge of a highly important kind. It gives us the only rational account of the creation of the world which we inhabit; of the original formation and state of man; of the introduction of moral evil into the world; of the general deluge; and of the early history of mankind. As competent a judge as ever lived-Sir WILLIAM JONESwrote on a blank leaf of his Bible, the following character of this sacred book-"I have carefully and regularly perused these Holy Scriptures; and am of opinion, that the volume, independently of its divine origin, contains more sublimity, purer morality, more important history, and finer strains of eloquence, than can be collected from all other books, in whatever language they may have

2 U

been written." After such a testimony, from the first scholar of his age, if not of any age, one would suppose that, in the absence of better motives, a regard to character, would prevent any man who has a character to preserve or to acquire, from speaking contemptuously or slightingly of the Bible.

The contents of the Bible are called, in the answer before us, "the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments." The term Scriptures is synonymous with Writings; and they are called the Scriptures-that is, the Writings-by way of eminence: For the same reason that the whole volume, as we have just seen, is called the Bible, or the book.

The sacred writings which were penned before the coming of Christ, are called the Old Testament; those which were afterwards penned, by the apostles and evangelists, are called the New Testament-The reason of this may be shortly stated thus: The Hebrew word 2 (Berith) and the Greek word Aanen (Diatheke) signify, in each of those languages, both a covenant and a testament: and in some parts of the sacred writings, should be rendered by one of these English words, and in other parts by the other: So that there has been some difficulty, and some difference of opinion, in deciding which of these English words should be preferred, as the general representative, or interpretation, of the Hebrew or Greek word of which it is the translation. On the whole, the word Testament has been preferred, and probably with justice. Now observe, that after the sin of our first parents, by which they broke the covenant of works, under which they were in the state of innocence, it pleased God to form with them another covenant, called the covenant of grace. This was made in virtue of the undertaking of Christ, and particularly of his atonement, in which it was to be ratified by his blood. The Mosaick or Jewish dispensation, and the Christian dispensation, both refer --and you must be careful to remem

ber it-to the covenant of grace, sealed with the blood of Christ. Neither of these dispensations was at all grounded on the first, or old covenant of works, which, being broken, could not be renewed. But inasmuch as the Patriarchal, and the Mosaick or Jewish dispensations, looked forward to the death of the testator, (as our Saviour is expressly called in the epistle to the Hebrews) for this reason, and for this only, all the communications from God to man which took place under those dispensations, the inspired writings among the rest,-are called the old covenant, or the Old Testament. And for a like reason, all the divine communications and institutions which have been made since the death of Christ, under the gospel dispensation,-its inspired writings especially,-are called the new covenant, or the New Testament.

Thus, you perceive, the Bible consists of two testaments, each of which is an essential part of it; and therefore the language, which you sometimes hear, of the Bible and the Testament, is wholly incorrect-the Bible includes both Testaments.*

*The first time that the author remem

bers to have seen or heard the phrase—

The Bible and Testament," was in that wretched receptacle of vulgar blasphemy, Paine's "Age of Reason." Since then, sionally, both in oral and written speech. however, he has observed its use, occaThe reports of our Bible societies, in particular, frequently tell us that a certain number of copies of the Bible, and another certain number of copies of the Testament, have been printed or distributed within the word whole before Bible, and the word It would surely be easy to add new before Testament.--Let not this be

the year.

considered merely as minute criticism. It is by no means unimportant to preserve the idea fully in the popular mind, that the whole of God's revealed will; and that there is no Bible which does not contain although it may be both lawful and expedient to publish detached parts of the sacred volume, yet that all the parts are of equal authority; and that neither the Old without the Old, but both conjointly, constitute the Scriptures of truth, the book of God,—the Bible.

Testament without the New, nor the New

The sacred writings are also called, in the answer before us, "the word of God." The propriety of this appellation may be shown from the language of sacred writ. We there read, that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" and "The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Hence it appears that the scriptures are, with eminent propriety, called the word of God; because they are, in fact, the words which God himself addresses to men; although men were used as instruments to utter these words, in the languages in which the divine oracles are delivered to us. And it were well if this were so kept in mind, as that whenever we read the scriptures, or hear them read, we should recollect that the voice of God is then sounding in our ears. This would be to act, in a good measure, like those Thessalonians whom St. Paul commends-"For this cause also, (says he) thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it, not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God; which effectually worketh also, in you who believe."

Here it may be proper to remark, that the second Person of the ever blessed Trinity is, sometimes, in the New Testament, called, by way of emphasis, the Word of God:-because (says Parkhurst) "He hath always been the great Revealer to mankind of Jehovah's attributes and will; or because, as he himself speaketh, Matt. xi. 27, No one knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." "The Divine Person (says Macknight) who has accomplished the salvation of mankind, is called the Word, and the Word of God, Rev. xix. 13, not only because God at first created, and still governs all things by Him, but because, as men discover their sentiments and designs to one another by the intervention of words, speech, or discourse,

so God, by his Son, discovers his gracious designs, in the fullest and clearest manner to men: All the various manifestations which he makes of Himself in the works of creation, providence and redemption, all the revelations he has been pleased to give of his will, are conveyed to us through Him; and therefore he is by way of eminence fitly styled THE WORD OF God."

But though Christ, our Saviour, be the living word of God, and preeminently worthy of this appellation, as being the grand source and medium of all the divine communications made to intelligent beings, yet this is no reason why the communications made by his Spirit to holy men, and in their language announced to the world, should not also be styled the word of God. By them, as we have seen, the Spirit of God did speak: and we certainly ought to have no difficulty, and no hesitation, in calling what they spake, as recorded in the sacred writings, by the same appellation which is used freely and abundantly by themselves. The remainder of the time to which this discussion must be confined, would scarcely suffice, to recite to you all the passages in the sacred volume, in which parts of it are called the word of God, or the whole of it is so denominated, or represented. I shall repeat a few texts as specimens of a multitude of the same character. In the Old Testament we read that Samuel said to Saul"Stand thou still a while, that I may show thee the word of God-The word of God came to ShemaiahThe word of God came to Nathan

Every word of God is pure--The word of our God shall stand for ever

ed upon our Saviour "to hear the word of God"-That the seed, in a parable which he spake, was "the word of God." "My brethren (said he) are those which hear the word of God, and do it,"-And "blessed are they that hear the word of God and do it."-We are told that the apostles-"spake the word of God with all boldness"-that the "word of God increased in Jerusalem"-that "Samaria received the word of God"that "the whole city came together to hear the word of God"—and that "faith cometh by hearing, and hear ing by the word of God." Now, no one, it seems to me, can say that Jesus Christ is, in all these passages, referred to, as the word of God-without such a perversion of speech, and such a violation of the whole context, as must destroy the very use and import of language. Let none, then, have a scruple in calling the scriptures what they so frequently call themselves.

You have heard that the reason why the scriptures are called the word of God is, that they were given by divine inspiration-"holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." To the nature and evidence of this divine inspiration I propose to call your attention distinctly, in the next lecture. The remainder of the present must be employed in saying something in answer to a previous inquiry, which it is natural to make-namely-whether the writings of the Old and New Testaments, as we now have them, may fairly be considered as containing a faithful record of what was originally the inspired word of God? Without pretending to enter fully into this subject, I will endeavour to give you a summary of the most important facts, and of other information, in relation to it.

There are, you know, some writings, mentioned and referred to in the Old Testament-such as, "The book of the wars of the Lord, the book of Jasher, the book of Nathan the prophet, the book of Gad the scer and several others, which

have not come down to us. It is not certain, and I think not probable, that these books were ever considered by the ancient Jews, as of equal authority with those which have been preserved, and which are now acknowledged, both by Jews and Christians, as canonical scripture. Perhaps they were considered as good historical records, but not as possessing divine authority. This, however, is a doubtful point. But it is not doubtful, that since they have not been transmitted to us, they have not been judged by Him who has so wonderfully watched over the preservation of his revealed truth, to contain any thing important to be known in the church of Christ-From that church we cannot believe that her divine Head has permitted any information to be withheld, which her edification and comfort demand.

In regard to the books which compose what is called The Apocrypha, it may be sufficient to remark, that although the most of them appear to have been written by Jews, yet that none of them were written in the Hebrew language-that they were certainly written after the days of Malachi, with whom, according to the universal testimony of the Jews, the spirit of prophecy ceased-that they never have been acknowledged by the Jews as canonical scripture-that the writers of them do not themselves lay claim to inspiration-that they certainly contain some things which are fabulous and contradictory-that they are never quoted or referred to by the writers of the New Testament

that they are manifestly devoid of that majesty and simplicity in the composition, which characterize the prophetick and historical writings of the Old Testament-and that they were not received as canonical, in the first three centuries of the Christian church. Although, therefore, the Romish church receives these books as canonical, they are, as such, rejected by all Protestant churches. The church of England directs them to be read "for example of life and instruction of manners;" but other

reformed churches regard them merely as they regard other human compositions as containing some true history and some excellent maxims of wisdom, but still mingled with much error and imperfection.

There seems to be satisfactory evidence that the canon of the Old Testament was settled by Ezra, down to his time, about 450 years before Christ. Ezra was himself an inspired writer; and therefore may be considered as giving authenticity to the whole which he reviewed. He probably added the last chapter of Deuteronomy; in which, if it were supposed to be written by Moses, he would be exhibited as giving an account of his own death and burial. Several other additions, in the opinion of the learned Dean Prideaux, were made by Ezra, which infidel writers have cavilled at, as affording ground for charging the Bible with forgeries and falsehoods. But if these additions-very useful to give us some important information-were made under the same infallible guidance with which the other parts of the sacred volume were written, and by a confessedly inspired writer, you perceive that this charge is utterly futile and groundless.

The books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther and Malachi, were probably placed in the sacred canon, by Simon the Just, the last of the men, of what has been denominated the great Synagogue.*

* "What the Jews called the great Synagogue, were a number of elders amounting to 120, who succeeding, some after others, in a continued series, from the return of the Jews again into Judea after the Babylonish captivity, to the time of Simon the Just, laboured in the restoring of the Jewish church and state in that country; in order whereunto the holy scriptures being the rule they were to go by, their chief care and study was to make a true collection of those scriptures, and publish them accurately to the people. Ezra, and the men of the great Synagogue that lived in his time, completed this work as far as I have said. And as to what remained farther to be done in it, where can we better place the performing of it, and the ending and finishing of the whole

The Jews, it is known, have ever been, in the highest degree, jealous of their sacred writings. They counted the words, and even the letters, of which these writings consisted, that they might be able to know with certainty that nothing had been added to, or subtracted from them. There is indeed, I think, some reason to believe, that since the time of our Saviour, they have attempted to corrupt a few passages, which went to prove most plainly that Jesus was the Christ. But the attempt was made too late to be fully successful. They could not corrupt all the copies. And even if they could, the whole of their sacred books had, before this time, been faithfully translated into other languages. The first version, that of the Septuagint,-so called from its being supposed to be the work of seventy-two Jews,--was made into Greek, a considerable time before the coming of Christ; and is that which is generally quoted by our Lord and his apostles, in the New Testament.

The New Testament, you are aware, was written in Greek. Some think that Matthew was written in Syro-Chaldaick, the language of the Jews in the time of Christ, and for their particular benefit. This, however, is questionable. It seems most probable, that the whole of this part of the Bible, was originally penned in the Greek language, then the most universally known of any in the world, and into which, as you have heard, the Old Testament had already been translated, and with such fidelity as to have been quoted, and thereby sanctioned by our Lord himself. If the gospel of Matthew was first written in the Jews' language, it might also, in the time of the apostles, have been rendered into Greek.

It seems probable that before the death of the apostle John, who lived till about the commencement

thereby, than in that time, where those men of the great Synagogue ended that were employed therein, that is, in the time of Simon the Just, who was the last of them?"--Prideaux's Con, vol i. pages 573,

574.