1

exiftence, he says; "And to this unknown "God, I doubt not, but one or other of them "erected the famous Altar, which St. Paul took "fo much notice of, and attributed to the fuper"ftition of the Athenians +: but in this I cannot "help thinking there was fome mistake. An altar with fuch an infcription could hardly be fet up by the Priests of that country; because it " rather tended to destroy fuperftition, and sub"vert their power and influence, than to establish "either. This altar muft furely have been erected "by fome Philofopher, to the One True God;

66

wha was known by the effects of his infinite power, "wisdom, and goodness; but unknown as to the "Mode of his Existence ‡.

The Author it seems cannot help thinking, "that in what St. Paul faid upon this occafion he "was guilty of fome miftake;" though what this miftake might be, he has not ventured to point out. But what could it be; or on what is this vague accufation founded? Merely on a word in our tranflation of the beginning of St. Paul's Addrefs to the Athenians: I perceive that in all things ye are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS.-Now the word, Superftitious, with us, is always a term of reproach: but the word in the Original §, was used in a good fenfe, as well as a bad one; and is always to be interpreted in a fenfe free from reproach, unless the context requires a bad fenfe to be given it. When this is not the cafe, the meaning of the word is no more than this, particularly given to the worship of Gods; or, given to the worship of a greater number of Gods than others. And in this fenfe; which implied no manner of reproach, but rather commendation, among the Pagans, and was,

Acts, Chap. xvii. 22, &c.

5 Δεισιδαιμονεστέρους.

P. 51.

it

it is well known, expreffive of the peculiar character of the Athenians; it is highly reasonable to conclude, from the circumftances of the cafe, that St. Paul used it upon this occasion.

The Apostle had been fome little time at Athens; and being concerned to fee the Athenians, fo exceedingly given up to idolatry, had made it his daily business to expofe the error of fuch a religious worship; and endeavoured to inftil into them the fundamental principles both of true religion, and the Gospel Revelation, The novelty of his doctrines naturally exciting their curiofity, the Philofophers at length took him to Mars's Hill; probably as a convenient place for his being heard; and there defired him to explain to them more fully what doctrines he taught.

In this fituation, St. Paul, (who, as appears from the dexterous manner in which he extricated himself from danger, when brought before the Council compofed of Pharifees and Sadducees at Jerufalem, was a man of great readinefs and addrefs;) took advantage of a particular he had obferved, in order to introduce the fundamental doctrines of true religion, and through them thofe of the Gofpel, even under the countenance and protection of the Athenians themfelves,

He began with telling them *, that He faw they were (not too fuperftitious, in our ill fenfe of the word; which would have been fetting out fo as to incense them against himf.if,, and whatever he fhould fay; but, that be faw they were) exceedingly given to the worship of Gods; or, peculiarly addict ed to worshipping a great number of Gods. For, fays he, in examining the objects of your worship; which they were famous for having more of than

See A&s xvii. 16—21.

N 4

*Acts xvii. 22, &c. others;

others; befides all your well known Deities, I found an altar with this infcription, To the unknown God. And then applying it with the utmost address to his own purpose, he immediately added, Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, kim declare I unto you; and fo proceeded to enlarge upon the nature of the One True God, and the abfurdity of their idolatrous worship of so many falfe Gods.

From this account of the transaction, as Luke has given it us, it appears plain, that inftead of St. Paul's having been guilty of any mistake, he faid nothing in which he could be mistaken. He affirmed nothing but that the Athenians were given to worshipping a very great number of Gods; and that he had feen at Athens an Altar infcribed to the unknown God; two facts which I suppose the Author will fcarcely go about to difpute; and made ufe of them merely as an advantageous introduction to what he himself wanted to inculcate upon them. This "fome mistake” therefore, which the Author is fo defirous to fix upon St. Paul, is in reality his own ignorance, and mistaken notion, of the meaning of the paffage on which he founds it. If any thing further could with certainty be deduced from what St. Paul faid, it would be, that he himself thought this Altar had been raised, as the Author fuppofes it was, to the One True God; fince after naming the infcription on it, h fays, WHOм therefore ye ignorantly worship, HIм declare I unto you. And then what would become of the fuppofed mistake, with which the Author would charge him? But the circumstances of the cafe will fcarcely perhaps allow us to give his words this strict and clofe application; or to confider them as any thing more, than the judicious and happy introduction of a

man

man of quickness and addrefs, to remove the pre judices, and conciliate the favour, of thofe to whom he was to speak.

66

But what fays our Author to the Altar itself? "That it could not be raised by the Priests of the country, because it rather tended to destroy fu"perftition, and fubvert their power and influence, than to establish either." Whereas, the truth is, that among the ancient Heathens; as this very fact itself plainly fhews; the worship of Any one God, whether known or unknown, was not in any refpect whatever inconfiftent with the worship of All the reft, how many foever they might be: and the more objects of worship they introduced, whether known or unknown, if they had any Rites performed to them, the greater occafion there muft have been for Priefts to perform them. So that after all, for any thing that appears, this Altar might really have been fet up, even by that dreadful Order of men, the Priefts of the Country. But the Author fays, " It must furely have been erect"ed by fome Philofopher to the One true God." Let him inform us, why it might not be erected by fome perfon, who had received fome deliverance or bleffing, without being able to determine, according to the idolatry of the times, to what particular Deity to ascribe it? I do not affert that this was the cafe, but let him fhew why it might not be. If it was, and the benefit had been very fignal, the Altar would naturally become famous; the unknown God that granted it, muft really have been the One True God; and St. Paul might strictly say, that he came to declare to them, That unknown God. And why might he not fay, that neither the people, nor the Priests knew him; and that even the Philofophers worshipped the True God ignorantly; when the different Sects among them differed fo widely in their notions of his

nature,

nature, and all agreed in adopting the most ab furd idolatry; and none of them had the least Conception of any of thofe Revealed Difpenfations, which St. Paul himself was commiffioned to preach ?

Still we have not done with the Author's Objections against the great Apoftle to the Gentiles. St. Paul having faid to Timothy, -All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correllion, for inftruction in righteoufnefs-To invalidate this testimony to the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, and turn it if poffible against them, the Author alleges §, "That St. Paul muft not here be fuppofed to fpeak of all the writings of the Old and New "Teftament; because, fays he, the fupernatural

૮૯

parts of them cannot anfwer the purposes St. "Paul has here enumerated." To which he adds, that the paffage ought to be translated : — All Scripture WHICH IS given by Inspiration, &c. and. then, he says, no one could object to it ‡.

In answer to which jumble of mistakes, it is neceffary to inform the Writer, in the first place, That if he had only been careful enough to read the immediately preceding verfe to that in question, he must have perceived, That by All Scripture in this Paf fage,

§ P. 295.

2 Tim. iii. 16. What can be faid to the flagrant inconfiftencies, and unfeeling affurance of this writer? Here we see him contending for a peculiar tranflation of the paffage in queftion. And (p. 347) he fays, "If our prefent tranflation of the New Tef"tament is erroneous, a better fhould be made." And both there, and (p. 350, 351,) he inveighs against the Clergy for not doing it and yet in that very page, (347,) he fays, It is a "pitiful refource to affert, in preffing difficulties, that paffages are tranflated wrong; and rails at Divines for having done "fo; and by that means, as he thinks, leffened the credit of "the Nenu Teftament." But if it is "A pitiful resource" to affert that particular paffages are tranflated wrong; Why has our Author himfelf been fo pitiful upon this occafion, as to

recur