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 alfo 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 fo freely, that thofe around him declared, he made himfelf 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 profeffed in his lifetime, that he would fend-but after his ascension 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 scriptures, 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 confistent with a belief in what we read. is this a matter to be reafoned 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 honest application of the rule before us, is all that is neceffary.

There are fome paffages in fcripture again, which are more refractory-with regard, for inftance, to the fore-knowledge of God; and fuch' doctrines, as are fuppofed to be involved in it. But, instead of reasoning upon them, we might ftill content ourfelves 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 gofpel 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 par

ticular

ticular disorder; and fhould there find it pre scribed, 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 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 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 prescription must agree.

Thus the apostle's rule of comparing fpiritual 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.

erroneous. In architecture, for instance, should a man ftand clofe to a column, and pronounce boldly, that it was too large, or too small, we fee at once how abfurd a judgment he might pass. Whereas, if he should step 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 fingular ill-ufage, which the fcriptures have met with in being fretted into chapter and verse, with so little attention to the fenfe. It is astonishing that the unauthorised barbarism of a printer* (I 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 strange inter-, ruption 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 fame 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 discourse, 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 fenfe 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 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 fhould think, no very difficult work. If however the wisdom of our fuperiors fee any infuperable obstacle in going so far, one should fuppofe, at least, there could be none in detaching verfes into the margin. They are certainly unauthorised intruders.