diftinctly? And cannot the wifdom and power of God equal, or "excell, the moft plain and intelligible of all the writers of anti"quity? What method, therefore, can now be taken to interpret

any paffage of Scripture; but to confult the original; to examine "it according to the rules of grammar, rhetoric, and clofe atten❝tion to the age and country, cuftoms and language, of that time. "and place; the character of the fpeaker, or writer, and of the "perfons addreffed to, or fpoken of; and the fcope and connection "of the whole discourse?

"When God speaks to men, he certainly knows how to speak to "their apprehenfions. And fuch is his goodness, that one may " reasonably expect that he will do fo."

Object. VII. "Do not you too much confine the fenfe of the "facred writings? and fuppofe the defign and meaning of the "apoftles to be lefs general than it seems to have been? Or, in "other words, do you imagine that the apoftolic epiftles were "written only for the ufe of the churches, or perfons, to whom "they were addreffed, or to whom they were firft fent? Or how far "do they concern Chriftians in all ages and countries whatever?” Anfwer. I look upon this to be a queftion of very great moment, and which deferves a moft careful confideration...

All the books of the New Teftament (except the Revelation of St. John) feem at first view to have been merely occafional writings; defigned for fome particular perfons, or churches, or, at the most, for fome particular countries.

The Revelation of St. John, indeed, does not seem to have been an occafional writing. For that apoftle was, by the divine command, ordered to write in a book what was then revealed to him. And, I am forry to fay it, many Chriftians have exceedingly flighted that book; notwithstanding the exprefs order which the apostle had to write it; and the divine declaration, at the beginning of that book [Rev. i. 3.]; "Bleffed is he that readeth, and they that hear, "the words of this prophecy; and keep [or obferve'] the things "which are written therein," and the folemn execration, denounced at the end of the book, against those who shall add to it, or diminish from it [Rev. xxii. 18, 19.]. The difficulty of fome parts of that book may have difcouraged many from ftudying of it. And others may perhaps have been induced to flight it, from the prophane and petulant obfervation of a divine of a four wit in the laft age; who has been pleafed to call it "a myfterious, extraordinary book; "which perhaps the more it is ftudied, the lefs it is understood;

as generally finding a man crackt, or making him fo." [See South's Sermons, vol. II. p. 467.]. Surely, a moft indecent way of fpeaking of any part of facred Scripture!

St. Matthew's gospel is faid to have been written for the use of the Jewish Chriftians, more efpecially in Judæa; to leave among them, when the apoftles were going to preach among the Gentiles. The gofpel of St. Mark was written at the request of the brethren at Rome; and more immediately for their ufe and benefit. St.

Luke's

Luke's gospel, and the Acts of the apoftles, feem to have been the first and fecond part of the fame book, infcribed to Theophilus, and perhaps written, at his requeft, to inform him of the first beginnings of Chriftianity, and of the progrefs which it had made. And Theophilus is thought by fome to have been governor of a province in Greece; or fone great man whom St. Luke had converted to the Chriftian faith.

St. John's gofpel was written at the request of the Christians at Ephefus; and as a fupplement to the other three gofpels. And the feveral epiftles were evidently written to particular churches, or perfons, as occafions then required, and more peculiarly fuited to their circumstances.-So far were the books of the New Teftament occafional writings.

But, if St. Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew, for the ufe of the Hebrew Chriftians (as fome fuppofe), it must have been translated for the ufe of the Hellenift, and Gentile, Chriftians. And the prefent Greek does not carry any marks of a tranflation. St. Matthew, therefore, might poffibly publish it both in Hebrew and Greek. But, however thefe things be, as it was published in Greek, it must have been defigned for the benefit of Chriftians in general. And, if the brethren of Rome requested it of St. Mark to write his gofpel, and had it firft, others had it afterwards. And it became of public benefit to the Chriftians in general; for whose benefit it was calculated, as well as that of St. Matthew's.-St. Luke's infcribing his gofpel and the Acts of the apoftles to Theophilus might poffibly be no more than our dedicating a book to fome perfon of eminence; when the book is, nevertheless, intended for the ufe of the public.-St. John's writing his gofpel at the request of the brethren at Ephefus, and that as a fupplement to the other three gofpels, is a plain proof that the other three gofpels were then common among the churches, and well known to the Chriftians; that St. John's gofpel was intended to be as public; and, finally, that the primitive Chriftians were not indifferent about what their Lord had faid and done, but had an ardent defire to know as much as they could with certainty of the doctrine, life, actions, and sufferings, of that dear and eminent perfon.

The apoftolic epifties were not circular letters, addreffed to the Chriftian church, or to all Chriftians at large; but were, undoubtedly, written upon fome particular occafions; and addrefied to fome particular churches or perfons. But they, nevertheless, spread into other churches; and were valued and read by other Chriftians. St. Paul exprefsly ordered fome of his epiftles to be read publicly; and that not only in the churches to which they were written; but alfo in other churches.-St. Peter had read the epiftles of his beloved brother Paul; not only thofe written to fome of the churches in Afia minor, but to other churches alfo.-It was, doubtlefs, with a view to their being known and diftinguifhed from any epiftles, which might be forged under his name, that St. Paul wrote the falutation with his own hand, at the end of all his epittles.

The

The Jews, in our Saviour's time, are faid " to have had Mofes "and the prophets." May not we as juftly be faid " to have the evangelifts and apoftles," in having their writings fo common among us? Chriftians in former ages had thefe facred writings in the highest veneration; read them privately in their families and clofets; and publicly in their churches; fpread them far and wide through the earth; and handed them down to us as a public treasure, defigned for the benefit of Chriftians in all ages and nations.

In the effay on inspiration annexed to Timothy, I have obferved that the apofties had the whole scheme of the Chriftian doctrine by divine illumination; and conftantly retained it during the remaining part of their lives. What, therefore, they preached or wrote concerning the Chriftian doctrine may be depended upon; whatever was the occafion of their fo preaching or writing. If Jefus Chrift and his apoftles had not first preached and worked miracles, met with fuch opposition or fuccefs, acted or fuffered, as they did, the facred hiftorians could not have had the facts which they have recorded in their writings; nor the Chriftian religion have been attended with that illuftrious evidence, which now appears in the books of the New Teftament. Befides, there are not wanting fome hints of their epiftles being defigned for general ufe. For inftance; the first epiftle to the Corinthians is directed, not only to the Chrittians in Corinth, but "unto all, who, in every place, invoke the "name of our Lord Jefus Chrift, both their Lord and ours." And there is no queftion, but that every one of their epiftles were intended to be of as extenfive benefit as they were capable of.

The four Gospels and the Acts of the apoftles feem to contain all the effential parts of the Chriftian religion. But the epiftles contain things ufeful, and of very great moment. The excellent laws, which Solon gave the Athenians, contained the fubftance of all their laws: but yet the Athenians found it proper to add many particular laws, as elucidations of Solon's general rules.-The laws of the twelve tables at Rome contained, in a narrow compafs, the fubftance of the Roman law; but they found it requifite to add many particular laws to illuftrate and explain thofe of the twelve tables.-The ten commandments contained the sum and substance of the Mofaic law: but yet God faw fit to add many particular precepts, to explain and inforce the obfervation of the ten commandments.-And, finally, "the law of Mofes" contained the rules of the Jewish religion and government; but yet God faw fit, by the prophets, from time to time, to give that nation many particular precepts for enforcing, explaining, and illuftrating the law of Mofes.-In like manner; the four Gofpels and the Acts of the apoftles contain a fummary of the Chriftian doctrine and precepts. They direct us to believe in God; and in Jefus Chrift, as the Meah and Saviour of the world. They inculcate the neceffity of repentance, where men have done amits; and of prevailing holiness in all. But they do not always apply thefe general directions to particular cafes fo minutely and cir cumftantially as do the apostles in their epiftles.

The four Gospels give an account of the miniftry of John Baptift, and of our Lord, of the twelve apoftles and of the feventy difciples; with what they faid and did as preparatory to the setting up the kingdom of the Meffiah in the world. The Acts of the apoftles contain the hiftory of erecting the gospel-kingdom. In the Epiftles, feveral things are cleared up, which are but briefly hinted in the Gofpels and Acts of the apoftles. They were written by different perfons at various times and upon different occafions; and yet they all agree in the doctrines and precepts; and confirm the main facts, viz. that Jefus died and rofe again, afcended into heaven, and poured out the fpirit; and thereby imparted the knowledge of the gospel unto mankind; and many miraculous powers in atteftation to the Chriftian doctrine.

It might be expected that the religions, which had been long in poffeffion, would obftruct the progrefs of the gospel; and that the votaries of each would have their peculiar objections. Accordingly, we find in the epiftles that the Jews and Heathens did actually make fuch objections; and we fee alfo in what manner the apoftles have anfwered them; and that the nature of the gofpel and its evidences were fuch, and fo glorious, that it speedily made its way against various and powerful oppofition. The first profeffors, and more efpecially the first preachers, of the gospel, might expect perfecution from feveral quarters. The Acts of the apoftles, and their Epiftles, inform us that they were actually perfecuted; and let us know how they behaved, and what fupported them under fuch hardships and indignities.

By having Chriftianity fet in fuch different lights; and the objections of those who firft oppofed it fo clearly and fully answered; we are enabled much better to understand Chriftianity in its great extent and glorious evidence; to clear up fuch difficulties, as would otherwife have been infuperable, and to defend it against all its adverfaries.

By fhewing what pure Christianity was at the beginning, we are able much more clearly to point out what it ought now to be, and what are the corruptions of it in later ages; and we have thereby the proper means, in our hands, of fhewing which way a reformation might be effected. And, when and where Chriftianity is profeffed in its purity, by having the authentic and original records of it in its primitive glory and perfection, we can the better maintain the purity of it, and prevent future corruptions.

Some, indeed, have applied paffages in the Epiftles to Chriftians of all ages, which were defigned only for fome Chriftians, and in fome particular cafes: but that is one of the abufes of Holy Scripture, against which we are here guarding mankind. What might be a proper rule, to perfons indued with miraculous powers, can be no rule to us who have no fuch powers. And yet even fuch patlages are of fervice now-a-days; as they are a clear proof that, in the primitive church, there were fuch powers; and confequently the molt glorious evidence attended Christianity, when it firit made its

appearance

appearance in the world. Epiftles, written to churches, where the apoftles had many and bitter enemies; and which contain appeals to fuch churches, that fuch fpiritual gifts and miraculous powers had been communicated by them, and did then fubfift and abound; contain arguments of a peculiar kind in favour of the truth of the Chriftian religion. For, if there had been, among their converts, no fuch fpiritual gifts and miraculous powers, their enemies would not have failed to have infulted them, and triumphed over them: and Chriftianity muft, in a fhort time, have funk, as a moft notorious impofture. [See my Reafonableness of the Christian Religion, &c. p. 128, &c.]

It has been already obferved that the apoftolic epiftles were not circular letters, nor catholic epiftles, originally written to all Christians; and equally fuited to the cafes and circumftances of all Chriftian churches, at all times and in all places. The general doctrines and precepts do, indeed, equally concern all Chriftians. And the apoftolic epiftles, which were written to particular churches, or perfons, and exactly adapted to their cafe, are fairly applicable to the cafes of all churches and of all Chriftians, as far as their cafes are like thofe of the perfons, or churches, to which they were originally addreffed. -This is not confining their meaning; nor extending it, as I apprehend, beyond what the apoftles defigned; or beyond the intention of that facred fpirit, by which they were guided and directed in all that they spoke or wrote, relating to the doctrine of the glorious gofpel of our Lord Jefus Chrift.

The CONCLUSION.

To conclude: It appears to me that a critical interpreter of holy Scripture fhould fet out with this, as a firft principle; viz. "That no text of Scripture has more than one meaning." That one true fenfe he should endeavour to find out, as he would find out the fenfe of Homer, or any other ancient writer. When he has found out that fenfe, he ought to acquiefce in it. And fo ought his readers too; unless, by the juft rules of interpretation, they can fhew that he has miftaken the paffage; and that another is the one, juft, true, and critical fenfe of the place.

END OF VOL. IV.