From this brief view of the subject, we have seen some of the difficulties attending Mr. B.'s system. We have seen that salvation on his plan consists in being delivered from sin, and its consequences in this state, the very thing which a great part of mankind experience; nay, that the whole world, except a few who practically embrace the gospel, remain in sin, and experience all the punishments which were ever threatened, and so are not saved at all. He objects to my views, because he thinks that they exclude forgiveness, p. 308; but as he contends that all the punishment sin deserves is confined to this state; and as he admits that the greater part of mankind are not delivered from sin before death, it follows that they receive all the punishment they deserve, and so are saved without forgiveness. We have further seen that if men are saved by the resurrection, as he contends at one time, they cannot be saved by divine instruction, as he contends at another, and vice versa ; that if they are saved by the resurrection, salvation is of a physical, and not of a moral nature; that faith and repentance are excluded, the gospel is converted into a mere physical engine, and man into a mere machine; in a word, that this view of salvation is opposed to the plainest principles of revelation, and many parts of Mr. B.'s book. We have further seen that to avoid these difficulties, he has involved himself in greater; and that after all his labours to the contrary, he has advanced principles which sap the foundation of his system, and establish a future retribution. This is the system we have under examination-the sys

tem Mr. B. would palm upon the world as the gospel of Christ! We might with safety leave this subject here, for it is evident that a scheme thus absurd and contradictory cannot be the truth. But intending to do full justice to the subject, I shall notice the principal arguments he has adduced in support of his system..

37

RULES OF INTERPRETATION.

In the first place it will be important to adopt just rules of interpretation in order rightly to understand the scriptures. Mr. B. very justly says, 1st Inq. p. 47, “Until rational and scriptural rules of interpretation are adopted, it is in vain we attempt correctly to understand the bible, or that people shall be agreed about what it reveals. If men will only exercise the same rationality and common sense in interpreting the bible, that they do in understanding human writings, the diversity of opinion in the religious world would greatly decrease." This remark is worthy of consideration, and we intend to give it the attention it deserves. Mr. B. has two rules of interpretation to which he is in a great measure indebted for his whole system; and although these rules are somewhat opposed to each other, he adopts first one and then the other, as his cause seems to require. One rule is, that of determining the meaning of a word by its etymology, the other by scripture usage. Now though these rules may be valuable, when used with temperance, they are extremely defective, when strictly adhered to, and used in their greatest latitude. In his first Inquiry he lays great stress upon the primitive meaning of the words he there labours to define.

We will offer a few remarks upon this rule of interpretation, with a design to show its nature

and application, and also to show what weight ought to be attached to it. It will be readily admitted that the scriptures were written in human language. Now it is well known that language grew out of circumstances, and was designed to express our ideas of things about us-of the actions, passions, feelings, situations and conditions of men in this world; and it must also be obvious at first view, that a revelation in such a language must, in many instances, give new meanings to words. If revelation teaches any thing which men did not know before, as it must to be a revelation, and teaches it in language which was designed to apply to other subjects, the terms in this revelation must, in some cases, be used in a sense different from their primitive meanings. Our terms are used by us to express the names and actions of things with which we are acquainted, and if re velation teaches any thing new, and teaches it in our language, the terms being applied to a new and different subject, must, in some cases, take a new and different meaning. I can illustrate this principle from Mr. B.'s own works. He says in the language of Dr. Campbell, p. 175, "the word anastasis is indeed the common term by which the resurrection, properly so called, is denominated in the New Testament. Yet this is neither the only nor the primitive import of the word anastasis; it denotes simply being raised from inactivity to action, or from obscurity to eminence, or a return to such a state after an interruption."

From this quotation it will be seen that the

term anastasis, which is almost universally used in the New Testament to express a literal resurrection, did not originally and primitively convey such an idea, but simply denoted being raised from inactivity to action, or from obscurity to eminence. See among other passages, Matt. xxii. 23, 28, 30, 31, Mark xii. 18, 23, Luke xiv. 14, xx. 27, 33, 35, 36, John xi. 24, 25, Acts i. 22, ii. 31, iv. 2, 33, xvii. 18, xxiii. 8, xxiv. 15, 21, Rom. i. 4, vi. 5, 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, 21, 42, and 1 Pet. i. 3, where this term is employed to denote a literal resurrection, as Mr. B. will acknowledge.

Now as the doctrine of a literal resurrection was something new, there was no term in the lan guage to express it, so the sacred writers were under the necessity of using a term which primitively had another signification. This shows that the primitive meaning of a term cannot determine its sense, especially in the scriptures. The primitive root of a word is still more frequently at war with its scriptural meaning. Human language was designed to express our ideas of things rela. ting to this world, and when the sacred writers treat upon things in a future state, or upon things before unknown, they are compelled to use words different from their primitive meaning. must be the case more especially on Mr. B.'s plan, which admits no analogy between this world and the future, And yet he contends that such must be the scripture sense of a term, because such is its primitive meaning. He says, 1st Inq. p 68, "Since neither Sheol nor Hades, nor even the word hell, in English, originally signifiel a place

This