letters, cannot but increase the difficulty, in some places, of ascertaining the writer's meaning; and those who are too indolent to give themselves any trouble on the subject, shelter themselves under the remark of St. Peter, that the Epistles of Paul contain " things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned wrest to their own destruction." Unlearned, i. e. not in systems of human philosophy, but in the truths revealed in the Bible. No doubt his writings do contain" things hard to be understood," but that is a reason why Christians should take the more pains to understand them, and why those who are commissioned by the chief Shepherd for that purpose, should the more diligently explain them to their flocks.

Nay, but his doctrines, it seems, are not only difficult, but dangerous also, and, therefore, had better be kept out of sight, lest the unlearned should not only fail to understand them, but should "wrest them to their own destruction." Then let us throw aside the whole Bible at once, and invent a safe religion of our own; for hear but St. Peter's words:" which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures,

to their own destruction." So that if this inference is to be drawn at all, from the danger to the unlearned of wresting doctrines to their own destruction; if to avoid the danger of misinterpretation, we are to seal up the book which contains them, the book so sealed up must be the Bible.

Dangerous indeed! yes, most good things are dangerous; and the more, in proportion to their excellence; to those "who are unlearned, and unstable;" i. e. who will not learn how to use them aright, and who are unstable,---unsteady in giving their attention to gain right knowledge, and to apply it in practice. Meat and drink are dangerous; for what multitudes fall a sacrifice to intemperance! Shall we then resolve to perish with famine, and let our children starve around us, lest we and they should thus wrest to our destruction the good gifts of God? Shall the pastors, who are commissioned to feed Christ's flock, shut them out from the principal pasture designed for their use, lest they should stray beyond its bounds, or come to some harm there? What are Christian ministers appointed for, but to instruct the people in the Scriptures,---to explain to them those Scriptures,--and to warn them

against the errors arising from the wresting and perverting of God's word? Ill would they perform their office should they dare to mutilate God's word, by leaving out every thing that is "hard to be understood," to save themselves the trouble of interpreting it ;--should they seek to preserve their hearers from the danger attendant on the Gospel truths, by omitting to "declare to them all the counsel of God."

And, after all, no such security as is sought can ever be found; where there is true coin, there will always be counterfeit in circulation;---there is no truth in the world that has not some error very much resembling it: there is no virtue but there is a corresponding vice that apes its appearance: there is no right principle, in Scripture or any where else, that may not by the unlearned be "wrested to their own destruction." Some will do this with the truths of Scripture, in spite of all our care; but there is this difference; that he who studies and leads others to study the whole word of God, as his inspired servants have left it, have at least good reason to hope, that he and they, may, through God's Spirit, attain truth without error; whereas he who confines himself

to a part of the Scriptures, and that too, a part which (it is plain from what has been just said) cannot contain the whole truth of the Gospel, and who wilfully disregards the teaching of him whose "Gospel was not after man; neither received of man, nor taught, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ," such an one is sure to be wrong, and to lead others wrong if they are guided by him and he is fully answerable both for his own errors and for theirs: he makes the experiment at his own peril; and on his own head must be the inevitable consequence of rejecting an acknowledged revelation of Jesus Christ.

And he must also bear the blame even of the errors into which others may lead his hearers. If they chance to listen to some wild antinomian fanatic, who cites perpetually texts from St. Paul, which they have never heard differently explained, how can it be expected that they should perceive and avoid the error? They know that St. Paul's writings are admitted as canonical and inspired; and they have not been taught that his language will bear any other interpretation than what they hear given; and the silence of their own pastor on the subject

will have afforded them a presumption that he can suggest no other interpretation. And thus the wolf will scatter and devour the flock which their shepherd has forsaken.

It is not, however, on the dangers to be apprehended from such a procedure, and the expediency of an opposite course, that I wish principally to dwell. I would rather advert to the principles laid down in the preceding Essay. Supposing we were in any case quite sure that no fanatical sectaries would arise to take advantage of our omission or neglect of St. Paul's writings, should we then be justified in thus guarding against apprehended evils by keeping out of sight the instructions he was commissioned by his Master to deliver ?---in taking such liberties with the Gospel as to modify and fashion it according to our views, and virtually to expunge from the record of God's revelations what we chance to think unnecessary? Have we a right, in short, even to entertain the question concerning

This is the remark, almost verbatim, of an eminent divine (now occupying a high station in the church) in a conversation with the author, on the subject of the present Essay.