tablished, that the Infidel grounds his general disbelief of Christianity upon the incredibility of these particular articles ; while the Sceptic, who dares not renounce the whole, is perplexed how to discard either of these doctrines without rejecting some portion of Scripture itself. To a plain, unprejudiced reader they are all indeed so evidently contained in Scripture, that, were they not accompanied with acknowledged difficulties in reconciling them with each other, they would, probably, be universally received. What then is the course which the Sacred Interpreter has to pursue?

The Analogy of Faith requires, as I have already stated, that all its articles should be received as equally true; and that in the interpretation of each, such a sense should be imposed as will not necessarily destroy or impair the rest. It has accordingly been the labour of the Christian Church, from its earliest to its latest pèriods, to guard these great and important truths, against the subtle attacks of their opponents, by affixing to each a meaning

not

not contradictory to those with which it is connected. Whatever might be the difficulty of the task, the Church, as the faithful Expositor of Scripture, felt this to be its paramount duty. While the truth was strengthened on one side, it was not neglected on the other: and the balance was steadily held between contending parties. Hence, no Creeds or Articles of Faith, ancient or modern, appear to have been more elaborately or carefully drawn out, than those which relate to these particular doctrines.

But what is the course pursued by the impugners of these doctrines! The labours of Sabellians, Macedonians, Arians, and Socinians, to what purpose do they generally tend, but to set these truths in opposition to each other, and to establish one by the overthrow of another? The distinction of the several Persons in the Godhead is assumed to be irreconcileable with the Divine Unity. The union of the Divine and human nature in one person, is rejected upon a similar assumption. Thenceforth, Scripture is "divided against it"self;"

P 2

"self;" and every proof of one of its truths is brought to bear against the other. Thus we may account for the strange phenomenon of opposite heresies, deduced from the same premises; equally irreconcileable with Scripture truth and with each other. Some have "confounded the Per"sons" of the Godhead; others have "di “vided the substance." Some have rejected the Godhead of Christ, because it was impossible to deny his Manhood; others, seeing his Divinity too plainly to doubt of it, have denied his human nature. In either case, the Analogy of Faith is violated; a part only of what is revealed in Scripture being received as truth, to the exclusion of the rest: and by thus offending against one essential article of Faith, the authority of all the others receives a dangerous blow. In the process also of such perverted criticism, liberties are sometimes taken, not to be reconciled with principles of strict integrity. Texts are examined, as if for the purpose of distorting them, by a certain dexterous ingenuity, from their accustomed signification, rather than of establishing

tablishing their plain and obvious meaning. New Versions too of the Scriptures are brought forward, marked with a similar perverseness of character, when it is found that the renderings generally received will not admit of a ready accommodation to heretical views. And thus is the simplicity of truth discarded, to make way for the subtleties of a false and mischievous refinement.

The inquiry might easily be extended to much greater length, were we to enter upon an examination of the "divers and "strange doctrines"," which a disregard of true and legitimate principles of criticism has introduced into the Christian world. But even these, perhaps, are not so totally out of the reach of correction as those which proceed from a wild and disorderly Fanaticism, relying upon imaginary inspiration, and treating with contempt the sober application of reasoning and judgment to the Scriptures. By persons labouring under such a fatal de

lusion, the injunction to "compare spito“ "ritual things with spiritual," seems to be regarded as implying nothing more than heaping together a multiplicity of texts, forcibly disjoined from their contexts, and unconnected by any proper Analogy. Hence the multitude are continually misled by teachers more conversant with the words than with the sense of Scripture; who conceive their point, whatever it may be, to have the sanction of Divine authority, when, by separating what ought to be united, or combining what ought to be kept distinct, they have made the word of God seem to bear testimony to their own crude conceptions.

Thus far we have carried on the inquiry into the internal helps which the Scriptures afford for their own interpretation. These at the same time point to the external aids necessary to give them their full effect. Commentators, Harmonists, Philologists, all must be called in to enable us thoroughly to analyse or to combine, rightly to divide or to compare, spiritual truths and to neglect these, is virtually

to