fectly understood by other savages and other little children, to whom it is addressed. All the figures employed in the Scriptures are those of mere nature, and are therefore explained by the mind of every one who knows the language of nature. The figurative phraseology in the Bible, which is obscure, is not that which the writers intended to use, but that which is made figurative by those who comment on their writings.

Concerning the latter objection, I observe, that the doctrines and precepts necessarily connected with salvation are unattended with any difficulty, except what arises from our inclinations. Many doctrines, actually revealed, are inexplicable in their nature, and many others in their antecedents, attendants, and consequents. They are connected with many things their connection with which is inexplicable. In both classes we may find or make difficulties; but the difficulties do not arise, in the proper sense, from the revelation, but from our curiosity. I will illustrate this assertion by an example. We are taught that the soul will exist in a separate state. There is no difficulty in admitting the truth of this declaration, nor any want of evidence that it is true; because it is a declaration of God. But if we suffer our curiosity to wander in a series of inquiries, in order to find out where, what, and how long, we may easily meet with so many and so great difficulties, that we may be ultimately induced, as others probably have been, to reject the doctrine altogether. We are taught that there will be a resurrection, and our understanding easily receives the instruction. But the single question, "Will the same body rise?" may easily involve us in a sufficient number of perplexities to cast extreme obscurity over the resurrection itself, and persuade us to say with Hymeneus and Philetus, that the resurrection is past already.

All such difficulties arise, not from the thing revealed, but from the philosophical curiosity with which it is investigated by ourselves. Let it even be remembered, that the decisions furnished by this investigation are never matters of faith, and never obligatory upon the conscience, and that the investigation itself is very often perplexing as well as idle, and mischievous as well as useless. He who will be contented to take

his Maker at his word, will rarely find himself embarrassed. But, in order to do this, he must be prepared to yield up every opinion of his own to the declarations of God.

To exhibit the justness of these views, I observe, that the religious part of the Christian church has adopted a single system of doctrines, from the Apostles' day to the present time. The observing reader of ecclesiastical history will find this truth irresistibly forced upon him as his eye is passing through the annals of Christianity. The most remarkable example of it is presented to us by the almost absolute harmony of the confessions and creeds adopted by the several Protestant countries. Christians, therefore, have, in every age and country, found the language of Scriptures sufficiently plain, and the meaning sufficiently obvious, to unite in the construction of the former and the adoption of the latter. Nor have they felt any very material embarrassment, either from the figurative nature of the phraseology used by the writers, or the profoundness of the doctrines which they have disclosed.

But the meaning adopted by the great body of Christians, in the several ages of the church, is, beyond all reasonable doubt, the true meaning. It cannot be supposed that God would leave his children, as a body, materially to mistake the meaning of his word, nor cause his word to be so written that they would of course mistake the meaning in this manner, while reading it with diligence, integrity, and reverence. But, if the obvious meaning be not the true one, both these suppositions must, so far as I can see, be admitted.

VI. If the obvious meaning of the Scriptures be not the true one, the great body of mankind could not reasonably be reproved or threatened for not believing them.

To believe the Scriptures is to believe their meaning. But the persons in question are unable, however inclined, to annex any meaning to them besides the obvious one. To believe them, therefore, would, in most cases, be out of their power, and could deserve neither threatening nor reproof. Yet every reader of the Bible must have seen very many instances in which this unbelief is severely censured and terribly threaten

ed. He that receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. How can this be, if such as are concerned cannot know what the words of Christ mean? How can

they be blameworthy for not believing what, in the physical sense, they cannot understand?

VII. If the obvious meaning be not the true one, the provision made in the Scriptures for the salvation of men is imperfect and ineffectual.

Every meaning of every scriptural declaration, which is not furnished by the plain, obvious construction of the words, must be derived from critical learning and ingenuity. How few are there, how few have there been so learned and so ingenious, as to be able to persuade mankind, or to give them any solid reason for the persuasion, that they, and they only, have certainly discovered the meaning of the word of God. Where, when, and who have been these favourites of heaven?

These men, also, must be supposed to be more able, or better inclined, than God himself, to use language in a manner entirely perspicuous and decisive. Where and when have such specimens of ingenuity and critical skill existed?

They must also be supposed to unite in giving the same construction to Scriptural passages. The true sense of each passage is certainly but one, and all who discover it must therefore be absolutely agreed. Where do we find this agreement?

They must also possess sufficient weight and authority to engage the attention and secure the submission of mankind to their decisions. Who ever had this authority?

Contrary to all this, the Scriptural critics who have actually existed, have never had sufficient learning and skill to create a belief among men of piety, that their doctrines, when varying from the obvious meaning of the Scriptures, have been true, or supported by satisfactory evidence. Some of them have been men of real talents and extensive learning. Others have challenged to themselves such talents, and attempted to display such learning with not a little ostentation; but have nev

.

er been able to convince mankind that they possessed this superiority of character. Nor have either had any considerable success in gaining followers, except among those who were plainly unwilling to follow Christ.

At the same time, the language in which they have delivered their opinions, has been less clear, definite, and satisfactory, than that of the Scriptures. Technical or philosophical language is certainly capable of being so used, as to express the doctrines of mere philosophy and the truths of science, appropriately so called, especially of physical science, with more precision than the common language of men. Had the theology of the Scriptures been intended only for learned men, and disclosed merely as a science, which was to expand their views and regulate their opinions, it is not improbable that it might have been communicated in technical language. But it was actually intended for all men, and must, therefore, be made known to them in the common language of men, since nine hundred and ninety-nine, out of a thousand, could not possibly understand any other. For the communication of plain doctrines, duties, and facts, the only things interesting to such men, as being the only things essentially to be believed and done by them, the common language is incomparably better fitted, as being more perspicuous and more impressive than any other. Who does not perceive, who has not a thousand times felt, that the doctrines, precepts, and facts contained in the Scriptures, are there expressed with incomparably more felicity than in the most studied periods and the most nicely selected phraseology of the ablest uninspired writers.

The writers in question, also, have agreed almost in nothing, and have differed endlessly about every thing. It is not difficult for men to harmonize in the truths of physical science, because they ordinarily excite no interest, awaken no passion, and generate no bias. But the doctrines and duties of religion produce the strongest interest, and start into action every feeling, and every prejudice. Hence the views of different persons concerning them are variously and wonderfully warped from each other, and from truth. Hence, also, the very language, which they adopt in communicating their opinions, is often

perverted by them, and is used variously, and, in a manner, chiefly, or only, perplexing to their readers.

On the innumerable diversities of opinion among these writers it is unnecessary to expatiate, because it is every where known and acknowledged. A single example will sufficiently exhibit it for the present purpose. St. Paul says, in so many words, that "Christ is over all, God blessed for ever." This plain, unambiguous declaration, conveys one, and only one, obvious, and that a perfectly definite meaning. In equally express terms, Christ calls himself a man, and the Son of Man. The obvious meaning of these declarations has been denied by several classes of men, who have called themselves Christians. The Cerinthians, Ebionites, Socinians, and others, believed him to be only a man. The Docetæ and Manichees believed him to be only God. The Sabellians believe him to be a mere manifestation of God. The Arians believed, that he was a superangelic being, created before any other creature; and the followers of Apollinaris held that he was two distinct persons, one divine, the other human. Who, amid this diversity, would be able, should he desert the plain meaning of Scripture, and follow the explanations of men, to adopt any opinion concerning this subject?

Nor have such writers possessed, nor can any writers possess, such weight and authority, as might secure the submission of mankind to their decisions. The declarations of uninspired men can rise no higher than opinion and advice; their precepts than recommendations; nor their promises and threatenings than mere conjectures. Whatever they threatened or promised, although professedly derived from the Scriptures, would be believed, as it always has been believed, to be merely an imposition, or the dream of a distempered brain. So far as God was supposed to have spoken, it would be received as truth; so far as it was only the comment of an uninspired man, it would be regarded, and with unobjectionable propriety, as doubtful or false. Who, after reading the comment, would not ardently wish for a sight of the text, that he might know how the doctrine or the precept, the threatening or the promise, appeared as it came from the hand of God?