1

duous task of redeeming his fellow-creatures from fin. We must either therefore give up all idea of redemption, of which the scripture is every where full or we must acknowledge the total disproportion of the work. Then again this human being knew the thoughts of man; which is always confidered as one of the prerogatives of the Almighty. He could forgive fin; though we all know, that none can forgive fin but God alone. This human being alfo had the powernot only of working miracles himself-but of commiffioning others also to work them, which no one ever attempted before. This human being, though cautious in the early part of his ministry; yet, as he approached the end of it, spoke so freely, that those around him declared, he made himself equal with God; which was in fact the cafe. This human being also was endowed with the strange, and wonderful power of raifing, not only others-but even himself from the dead: and not only professed in his lifetime, that he would fend-but after his afcenfion to heaven, he actually did fend, the Holy Ghost upon his faithful followers; communicating to them powers, unheard of before, for the propagation of his religion. In a word, when we take a compre

comprehenfive view of the scriptures, and draw together the innumerable passages, in which this great truth seems so plainly to be contained, it is a difficult matter to conceive how a denial of it is consistent with a belief in what we read. Nor is this a matter to be reasoned upon, like a point of mathematics, or natural philosophy: nor indeed does there seem a neceffity to adduce the opinions of this, or that father of the church. The honeft application of the rule before us, is all that is neceffary.

There are fome passages in scripture again, which are more refractory-with regard, for instance, to the fore-knowledge of God; and fuch' doctrines, as are supposed to be involved in it. But, instead of reasoning upon them, we might still content ourselves with comparing Spiritual things with spiritual. Though we may not be able to obtain complete fatisfaction from a comparifon with particular passages; we may furely obtain it from a comparison with the whole scheme of the gospel. The gospel was intended for the general good of man; and God's arbitrary will, can never run counter to his revealed will.We act thus in common life. Suppose we look into a medical book for the remedy of fome particular

:

ticular diforder; and should there find it pres scribed, that we should mix a certain quantity of fome drug (a quantity which we knew would prove fatal) with other ingredients-how should we receive such a prescription? we know well, that the book is intended to administer to our health: but here is a prescription, which would infallibly destroy us. We should take it for granted therefore-either that the drug in question was put by mistake for fome other drugor if the book were foreign, that it was wrongly tranflated-or that there was fome mistake in the quantity perhaps or perhaps that we might not clearly understand the prescription-at any rate, we should certainly never fwallow the potion; because it was very plain, that the intention of the book, and the prescription must agree.

Thus the apostle's rule of comparing spiritual things with spiritual, will in all cafes direct us right. One part will generally explain another : but if any part happen to be more unyielding, we cannot be far wrong, if we compare the difficulty, whatever it is, with the general scheme and intention of the gospel.-In examining the works of man, as well as of God, we must judge from the whole, or our judgment will be erroneous. In architecture, for instance, should a man stand close to a column, and pronounce boldly, that it was too large, or too small, we see at once how abfurd a judgment he might pass. Whereas, if he should step back, take a proper stand, and view the whole in one comprehensive view, he might perhaps find, that the part objected to, was in exact proportion; and the defect not in the object, but in himself. It is often thus in our fcriptural inquiries: we take a doctrine from a text.

And here I cannot help lamenting the singular ill-ufage, which the scriptures have met with in being fretted into chapter and verse, with fo little attention to the sense. It is aftonishing that the unauthorised barbarism of a printer * (I cannot give it a fofter name, though he was certainly an able, and a learned man), should be received so universally through Christendom. The only advantage, which this strange interruption of the sense of scripture can have, might have been anfwered as well by marginal references. In the mean time, the mischief is glar

* Robert Stephens, who was printing a Concordance, and a Bible at the same time, and took this method of adapting the one to the other.

ing.

1

ing. The narrative, or the argument, instead of running on, as in other compositions, in a continued discourse, is broken into aphorifms. In other books the paragraph ends, where the sense pauses. In the Bible, whatever the sense is, it ends at every third or fourth line. Passages, thus infulated, receive an independent form. The sense in each little paragraph, feems drawn to a point; and the unlettered reader at least is apt to pause. Whereas, if he went on, and took all together, he would find he must often affix a very different meaning to the words.

Few judicious churchmen, I suppose, would wish for a new tranflation of the Bible. It could not foon acquire that general reverence, which is paid to the old one. But many, perhaps, would defire to fee the errors of the old one corrected; though with as little alteration as possible. The several late collations of MSS. would render this, I should think, no very difficult work. If however the wisdom of our fuperiors see any infuperable obstacle in going so far, one should fuppose, at least, there could be none in detaching verses into the margin. They are certainly unauthorised intruders.

1

Having