point, which, if it be an error, tends to confirm all other errors. When a man reasons himself into a mistake, he may reason himself out of it again. But when a man discards reason, and substitutes in its room a divine instructor, every enthusiastic notion becomes then immediately stamped with the character of divine truth. The strange effects of such wildness we have often feen.

As far, indeed, as a holy life is concerned, we are assured every where in scripture, that unless the endeavours of man are assisted by the Holy Spirit of God, which dwells within him, and to whose divine admonitions he ought ever to liften, he can do nothing. Here the divine aid is necefsary. Man, as a moral agent, with all the mischiefs of the fall about him, stands certainly in need of fupport.

But the investigation of truth is a different affair. It was not so much his understanding, that was disturbed; as his will and affections. Wretched man! he knew what was right; but could not practise it. To rectify his knowledge, euough had been done: inspired truth was on record; and he had a rule given him to understand it. Farther aid would have rendered that

rule unnecessary; and the expectation of any fuch aid, enthusiastic.

It is true, indeed, the pious Christian will read his Bible with the best effect: and in this fenfe, no doubt, the Holy Spirit may be faid to assist him in understanding the truth of scripture: for he who does the will of God, will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God. But this is still only the application of scripture to the rectifying of his affections. To understand it as a system of truth, the rule given us to compare spiritual things with spiritual, feems abundantly sufficient. The New Testament is to us precisely in the state, in which the Old Testament was to the apostles. It is inspiration recorded. If farther inspiration be necessary, a written record is more than is neceffary. It seems therefore fully fufficient for the understanding of scripture, to take it into our hands; and, in the spirit of sincerity, and piety, to compare one part with another; or with a general view of the whole. This seems, in the apostle's idea, the only key to the scriptures.

But now, it must be confefsed, that a variety of caufes have introduced difficulties into these facred records; and, of course, into the mode of investigation. Ancient customs not well understood

1

derstood ancient modes of speaking, not conformable to our own ancient errors, generated in times of ignorance-modern prejudices, and opinions, grafted on texts of scripture misapplied-have united with other causes in disfiguring the plain, and fimple truths of the gospel.

Why God fuffered this blot, as fome may call it, in the facred record of truth, we know not. Yet humbly tracing the reason of it in the analogy of his other works, we may refer it to the general law of a state of trial. Every thing here bears the marks of the fall. In our moral pursuits we are exercised with various difficulties: why not in the pursuit of religious truth? In both we may be afsisted, if we apply the proper means. In one, the fpirit of God will direct our endeavours: in the other, the great scriptural rule of comparing Spiritual things with fpiritual.

The honest application of this rule, without doubt, would remove at least all the material difficulties of scripture. But instead of folving them in this way, we too often endeavour to adjust them by the words of man's wisdom. Hence arife all the disputes, that have divided the church.

The

1

The opinions which have occafioned them, however varied, run commonly in two great channels that of enthusiasm, and that of libertinifm. The enthusiast reads his Bible too literally: the libertine, (I use the word in its less offensive sense,) too laxly. The one utterly difcards reafon: the other thinks nothing but reason worth attending to. The enthusiast loves a mystery, because he does not understand it: the libertine allows nothing to be a mystery; what he does not understand, he rejects. Let us, in an instance or two, apply our great scriptural rule to them both.

With regard to the jarring doctrine of faith, and works, it can never surely be settled by the literal application of a few scattered passages of St. Paul: but one should imagine it might easily be settled by comparing such passages with other parts of scripture; and still more by an appeal to the whole scheme of christianity. The very first book of the Bible shews us, that the gospel was meant to restore us to that purity of life, which we had originally loft. This indeed seems to be the leading point of christianity; the word of God every where exhorting us to cleanfe our hearts

-to

-to purify our affections and to transform ourselves into new creatures.

Now it is certain, all this must be done by faith. Whoever cometh to God through Christ, must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them who diligently seek him. So that in this sense we may be faid to be justified by faith; because without faith, and its accompanying virtues, no man can attain that righteousness, which the gofpel requires as a proper qualification for our receiving the merits of Christ's death. All christians therefore lay a stress on faith. The great difference is, the partial view makes it in itself an end-the comparative view makes it the means only of a purified heart, and a good life.

With regard again to an awful doctrine, which we have lately heard disputed with so much freedom; one should think, that a comparison of spiritual things with spiritual, might lead us here also to one point, The whole Bible, Old Testament and New, prophecies, and completion, seem so full both of the humanity and divinity of Christ, that one should wonder, how any one, who believes the scriptures, could feparate the two ideas. If only human, how inconsistent! Here is a human being, who engages in the arduous