parifon in our own favour, ought rather to have induced us to proclaim how much they have done for us, how far they have advanced for our inftruction, than to boast of the farther advances and improvements which we have made for ourfelves. And fhould we not be guilty of the bafeft ingratitude, if we were to undervalue or defpife (what we prefume to call) the little they have dine for us? As well might the admirers of the Thames, the Severn, and the Trent, defpife the little ftreamlets firft ifluing from the fprings, because they fwelled not at once into deep and navigable rivers, and before they had received, in their courfe, the tributary ftreams that flowed into their refpc&tive channels. That great philofopher, Sir Ifaac Newton, at the very height of his reputation, had too much of the humility of a Chriftian to defpife the author of the firft fix books of the Elements of Geometry; he would have been ungrateful if he had then defpifed him, becaufe had he defpifed him before he began his courfe of mathematical ftudies, he never would have become the great philofopher. But it is the fashion, with the illuminizing philofophers, to decry the learning and wifdom of for mer times, in order to fix the charge of a want of light and infor mation on our reformers. They went very far to be fure, and as far, perhaps, as the nation wifhed them; but they did not go far enough, it feems-that is, they did not go fo far as thefe philofophers now with to go. The fame argument is not lefs applicable to the æra of the Revolution. The leaders in that bufinefs went a great length certainly, and as far, I fhould think, as the nation wifhed them; but they did not go the length that thefe philofophers feem defirous of going. There is another memorable epoch in our hiftory, viz. the rebellion of the last century. Will the philofophers tell us, whether the agents and promoters of that rebellion went far enough? Will they accufe Cromwell, and the fifth-monarchy-men, of a want of light and information? I will, however, tell the philofophers that it has proved a very fortunate and providential occurrence for this nation, that the leaders of that rebellion went fo far as they did, as it afforded the nation a twelve years experiment of the defpotitim of a republic, or rather of an individual, who, under the pretence of a Republic, ufurped the fole power, and ruled, with a rod of iron, with which they were to thoroughly difguited, fo completely fickened, that the day of the restoration of monarchy was indeed a day of joy and thankfulnefs to them. But to conclude this head on the fuperiority of the prefent age in learning and wifdom, above all that preceded it, I will only put the following quctions-Had we been deftitute of the helps and advantages which paft experience has tranfmitted to us, fhould we have been the learned and enlightened nation that we are? Could we fo quickly and readily have made thofe advances and improvements which we have now been enabled to make? Dry up the fpring, or turn the courfe at the fountain-head, and how long will the river continue to flow? The foundation must be laid before we attempt to crect a building. The child must be taught to fpell before he be required to read. Let us then drop,

for

for ever, the odious and invidious comparison. If our ancestors have not tranfmitted to us the light of a meridian fun, let us be fatisfied with what they have imparted; let us receive it with humility, and employ it with thankfulness; and let us not difparage what they began by boafting of what we have finished. Let us, in fhort, adopt the Chriftian rule of univerfal juftice, " Do unto others as you would others fhould do to you;" our pofterity, in the next century may vaunt their fuperior learning and wifdom; but should not we have good reason to complain of their injustice, as well as their arrogance, if, on that account, they contemned and defpifed

us?

I fhall now examine into the pretenfions of fome of these illuminizing philofophers, who fet up their individual claims to fuperior learning and widom, and who particularly hold themfelves forth as interpreters and tranflators of feripture. Of Dr. Priestley I fhall fay nothing. His mifreprefentations have long fince been fufficiently refuted by many learned and pious men, and his contradictions in his interpretations of feripture have been moft luminously expofed by the Rev. Mr. Burn of Birmingham, whofe "Letters" are, perhaps, lefs known than they deferve to be. The next prominent character is Mr. Wakefield. You, Sir, have already (No. V. Pp. 558, 550.) pointed out two inftances, which clearly fhow either that he is grofsly ignorant of the Greek language, (which no one, who knows Mr. W. can fuppofe,) or that he has as grofsly perverted and mifreprefented the fcripture. To thefe inftances I will add a third. Mr. W. fome few years ago, exhibited himself * to the world as a "tranflator of thofe parts of the New Teftament which are wrongly tranflated in our common Verfion." In that pamphlet he thus tranflates the following words, (Rom. xiii. 4.) -δεν διακινός εςιν, ἔκδικος εἰς ὀργὴν τῶ τό κανὸν προςςοντι "He is an avenging minifter unto wrath to him who doeth evil." Here a mere fciolift in Greek cannot but fee that Mr. W. has fuppreffed (as infignificant I fuppofe,) the word ou, a word which had been joined once before in this very verse with axor, and which is the moft fignificant word in the paffage, inasmuch as it thows the origin of the power of the fupreme magiftrate, and declares explicitly, "whofe minifter he is,"" bf authority he hath." If a man has preconceived the derivation of power from the people, his fuppreflion of the word fo would be perfectly confiftent. But St. Paul appears to have been of a different opinion, for he enjoins our fubmillion for fence fake; and he immediately adds, "for this came pay you tribute alfo, for they are God's minifters attending continually upon this very thing," that is, " to execute juftice and judgement," the thing before fpoken of. Here, again, the Apoftle calls then minifters of God, giving a continual and intente application (gonagregor) to the adminiftration of juftice, which he affigns as a reafon, for paying tribute to them. In this interpretation every thing appears harmonious, confiftent, and appofite. But Mr. W. tranflates the latter part of the verfe thus, " for there

are

are minifters of God attending to this very duty." Were I difpofed to criticize this tranflation, (as Mr. W. profelfes to correct our prefent verfion,) I might atk what word there is in the original to which the word duty correfponds, and whether the word #ET G does not imply fomething more than fimply attending to? But not to dwell upon this, I would atk who the perfons are that are here called minifters of God, as Mr. W's tranflation evidently fuppofes them to be different from the perfons before-mentioned as exercifing the fupreme power? And what is the duty to which he imagines them to be attending? And now, Sir, I would appeal to any man, who has a common acquaintance with the Greek lan uage, if thefe are faithful interpretations, or even correct tranflations, of Scripture. Thus I take my leave of Mr. Wakefield.

και

The next claimant to fuperior learning and witdom in fcriptural expofition, is Mr. Beltham.-The corruption of human nature, or original fin, Mr. B. denies to be a feripture doctrine. I thould have thought daily experience would have fufficiently proved it, without having recourse to feripture. But let us refer to feripture. Mr. B. obferves that the paffage, "we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others," (Eph. ii. 3,) means only" that the perfons to whom St. Paul wrote, had been originally Gentiles, entlaved like others to the idolatries and vices of their heathen ftate." According to this statement, then, this paffage does not apply to the Jews, to whom were committed the oracles of God, to thofe of them, at least, who believed, to thofe of them who, by the providence of God, were preferved from falling into the idolatries and vices of the heathen ftate. But if this ftatement be true, ftill I fhould think the words ως di noi will include the Jews, and the rest of the world, mankind in general, agrecably to what the apoftle has obferved in the epiftle to the Romans, (iii. 9,) "We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles to be all under fin." "For (he fays) all have finned." (23) "That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world be come guilty before God.*" (19.) In another place, (Rom. v. 18, 19,) the apoftle fays, "As by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation; fo by the righteoufnels of one, the free gift came upon all men to juftification of life. For as by one, man's difobedience, many were made finners; fo by the obedience of one, fhall many be made righteous." Every finatterer in Greek, knows that the words or Tool, mean the many, i. e. in fcripture language, mankind in general, all men. As fure then, as the me ritorious obedience of Chrift, and his fubmiflion to the death upon the crofs, is the appointed method of atonement and propitiation, for the fins of the whole world, as fure as "Chrift Jefus came into the world to fave finners," (1 Tim. i. 15,) fo fure is it that in Adamn, all have finned, and that in Adam all die. "As by one man, fin

But Mr. Edwards, in his Defence of the Chriftian doctrine original fin," in reply to Dr. Taylor, Part ii. ch. 3. feet. 3. has clearly and fatisfactorily proved, that by "we" St. Paul means the Jews, of whofe nation he was, and by the "others" the Gentiles and the reft of the world.

entered

entered into the world, and death by fin, fo death paired upon all men, for that all have finned." (Rom. v. 12.) The words, might with equal correctnefs have been tranflated in whom, i. e. in Adam, in whom, all have finned. But not to multiply particular texts, I think the general tenour of fcripture is clear in favour of the doctrine. This may ferve to obviate Mr. B's. ftatement of this doctrine, as a pharathic tradition, (See his note. P. 241,) and con trary to our Lord's own declaration, in reply to a question proposed by his difciples, concerning the man blind from his birth." But, with fubmiffion, I am opinion, our Saviour makes not the smallest allufion to original fin.

The import of the queftion was this, "Why was this man bom blind, was it on account of his own fins or the fins of his parents?" Our Savour's reply is to this purport, "It was not on account of his own fins, (hereby obviating the notion of the foul's pre-existence and tranfmigration, which many of the Jews, and poflibly fome of his difciples, believed,) or the fins of his parents, that he was born blind, but for this, that the works of God fhould be made manifeft in him." When, afterwards the Pharifees charge the men with being altogether born in fins," it does not appear upon what ground they made ute of that expreffion, whether as having received the notion from their ancestors by tradition, or as having collected it from the genuine fource, the writings of Mofes. At any rate, Mr. B. is per fectly unwarranted in calling it" a Pharifaic tradition directly contrary to our Lord's own declaration." Our Lord, as it appears, neither affirms nor denies it. And it is obfervable, how ftrong an expreflion the Pharifees employ, As, altogether," thoroughly completely, from head to foot, the whole man. But a denial of, the corruption of human nature was a preliminary fiep neceflary to introduce a denial of the atonement and propitiation made by the death of Chrift, his pre-exiftence and deity, and the influence of the holy fpirit, "none of which doctrines, fays Mr. B. (P. 170) are true in fact, or derive the leaft countenance from the Chriftian Scriptures." For the pre-exiflence of Chrift, I will only mention his own declaration, "before Abraham was, I am ;" and his prayer to the father, a thort time before he was about to leave the world, "Now, O Father, glorify, thou me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." In fhort, if after reading the whole of St. John's Gofpel, (which I prefume makes a part of Griefbach's edition of the New Teftament) any man can doubt the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, I must be allowed to fay that I much marvel at his unbelief.-Mr B. obferves, (See note, P. 214,) that the word rendered propitiation, (Rom. iii. 25.) has no other fenfe in the facred writings, than that of a mercy-feat. This may be true with respect to the Old Teftament, but is not fo clear as to the New. Mr. B. as a scholar and a biblical critic, muft know that, by a very common figure in rhetoric, the name of the thing fignifying, is frequently applied to the thing fignified, that the type and the anti-type are fometimes expreffed by the fame word, that the caufe and effect are often used promifcuoufly, and that the writers of the New Tef

tament

tament abound with inftances of this kind, in words adopted from the Old; that confequently the word sgion, which in the Old fignifies a mercy-feat, is in the New Teftament not improperly rendered by a word denoting the effect of mercy, propitiation, reconcilement. Mr. Locke obferves on this patlage," as the atonement under the law, was made by blood fprinkled on the propitiatory or mercy feat, (Lev. xvii. 14,) fơ Chrift is here fet forth to be the real propitiatory or mercy-feat in his own blood:"In another part of his work, (Pp. 69. 70,) fpeaking of "Jefus Chrift being at the right hand of God, making interceflion for us," (Rom. viii. 34,) Mr. B. obferves, "the exact import of the phrafe (making interceflion) it is very difficult to afcertain; probably the writer himfelf annexed no very diftinct idea to it. [N. B. St. Paul annexed no very diftin&t idea to what he wrote.] At any rate, the literal interpretation cannot be true, for God, an infinite fpirit, hath no right band at which Jejus can stand to intercede." I will not, Mr. Editor, fo difgrace the learned world as to ask if such an observation ought to have proceeded from a scholar and a critic; but I will only fay, that if a boy in the fifth form, at Eton, had ventured fuch an obfervation in his exercife, I verily believe, he would not have escaped the customary correction.-When a man is determined to deny any particular doctrine to be a feripture doctrine, it is no very difficult matter; if fuch doctrine refts on the general tenour of fcripture, Fill it is to be denied, because no one particular text can be adduced as exprefsly maintaining it; if a particular text be fhown clearly to fupport it, then the importance of the doctrine is too great to be. admitted on the authority merely of a fingle text. Such is the method in which fome interpreters of fcripture have been known to argue, and have endeavoured to argue us out of every doctrine of revelation. But thefe doctrines, ftand on too firm a ground to be fhaken by fuch arguments.

And now, Sir, let me afk you, will the ferious enquirer into fcripture doctrines reft fatisfied with fuch expofitors and tranflators as there? Will the world, do you think, be difpofed to grant that fuperior learning and wifdom, that greater ability in explaining, or greater fidelity in tranflating, the fcripture, are the exclufive property of fuch perfons? Will it not rather conclude that they who fet up fuch an arrogant claim, are but too apt to be "wife in their own conceits ?" I am, Sir, &c.

CLERICUS ANGLICANUS.

To the Editor.

STR,

W

men of

THEN men of fuperior talents, improved by extenfive erudition, make ufe of their pre-eminence in fociety to advance the caufe of prejudice, and strengthen the endeavours of irrational oppofition, we lament the degeneracy of genius, we execrate the proftitution of acquirement. When we fee thefe men investing themfelves