arduous task of redeeming his fellow-creatures from fin. We must either therefore give up all idea of redemption, of which the fcripture 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 himfelf-but of commiffioning others alfo to work them, which no one ever attempted before. This human being, though cautious in the early part of his miniftry; yet, as he approached the end of it, spoke fo freely, that those around him declared, he made himself equal with God; which was in fact the cafe. This human being alfo was endowed with the ftrange, 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

Nor

comprehenfive view of the fcriptures, and draw together the innumerable paffages, in which this great truth feems fo plainly to be contained, it is a difficult matter to conceive how a denial of it is confiftent with a belief in what we read. is this a matter to be reafoned upon, like a point of mathematics, or natural philofophy: nor indeed does there feem a neceffity to adduce the opinions of this, or that father of the church. The honest application of the rule before us, all that is neceffary.

is

There are fome paffages in fcripture 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 reafoning 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 paffages; we may furely obtain it from a comparison with the whole fcheme 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 fhould there find it prescribed, that we should mix a certain quantity of fome drug (a quantity which we knew would prove fatal) with other ingredients-how fhould we receive fuch a prefcription? we know well, that the book is intended to adminifter to our health but here is a prefcription, which would infallibly destroy us. We fhould take it for granted therefore-either that the drug in queftion 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 prefcription muft agree.

Thus the apostle's rule of comparing Spiritual things with fpiritual, 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 gofpel.-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 inftance, fhould a man ftand clofe to a column, and pronounce boldly, that it was too large, or too fmall, we fee at once how abfurd a judgment he might pafs. Whereas, if he fhould ftep back, take a proper ftand, 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 fingu lar ill-ufage, which the fcriptures have met with in being fretted into chapter and verfe, with fo little attention to the fenfe. It is aftonishing that the unauthorised barbarifm of a printer* (F cannot give it a fofter name, though he was certainly an able, and a learned man), fhould be received fo univerfally through Christendom.The only advantage, which this ftrange interruption of the sense of scripture can have, might have been answered 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. The narrative, or the argument, instead of running on, as in other compofitions, in a continued difcourfe, is broken into aphorifms. In other books the paragraph ends, where the sense pauses. In the Bible, whatever the fenfe is, it ends at every third or fourth line. Paffages, thus infulated, receive an independent form. The fense 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 altogether, he would find he must often affix a very different meaning to the words.

Few judicious churchmen, I fuppofe, would wifh 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 see the errors of the old one corrected ; though with as little alteration as poffible. The feveral late collations of MSS. would render this, I should think, no very difficult work. If howinfuever the wisdom of our fuperiors fee perable obftacles in going so far, one should suppose, at least, there could be none in detaching verfes into the margin. They are certainly unauthorised intruders.

any