r II R 1ST I AN I TV. 



mind ind meaning of the author, who if trani- 

 UtcJ, H purely question of Unguage, and should be de- 

 cided upon no other r of grammar or 

 philology. Now, what we complain of it, that while 

 (hit principle is recognised and acted upon in every 

 other composition *hich hat come down to ui from an- 

 tiquity, it liai been most glaringly departed from in the 

 caae of the Bible; that the tr.<Mt>! uhor, in- 

 tead of being made tingly and entirely a question of 

 grammar, hat been made a question of metaphysics, or 

 question of sentiment ; that instead of the argument re- 

 torted to being, tuch must be the rendering from the 

 tructure of ilic language, and the import and siguiti- 

 cancy of its phrases, it has been, such must be the ren- 

 dering from the analogy of the faith, the reason of the 

 tiling, the character of the Divine mind, and the wis- 

 dom of all his dispensations. And whether this argu- 

 ment be formally insisted upon or not, we have still to 

 complain, that in reality it has a most decided influence 

 on the understanding of many a Christian ; and in this 

 way, the creed which exists in his mind, instead of be- 

 ing a fair transcript of the New Testament, is the result 

 of compromise which has been made betwixt its au- 

 thoritative decisions and the speculations of his own 

 fancy. 



188. What is the reason why there is so much more 

 unanimity among critics and grammarians about the 

 sense of any ancient author, than about the sense of the 

 New Testament. Because the one is made purely a 

 question of criticism : The other has been complicated 

 with the uncertain fancies of a daring and presumptous 

 theology. Could we only dismiss these fancies, sit down 

 like a school-boy to his task, and look upon the study 

 of divinity as a mere work of translation, then we 

 would expect the same unanimity among Christians that 

 vrc meet with among scholars and literati about the 

 of Epicurus or philosophy of Aristotle. But 

 here lies the distinction betwixt the two cases. When 

 we make out, by a critical examination of the Greek of 

 Aristotle, that such was his meaning, and such his phi- 

 losophy, the result carries no authority with it, and 

 our mind retains the congenial liberty of its own spe- 

 culations. But if we make out, by a critical exami- 

 nation of the Greek of St Paul, that such is the 

 theology of the New Testament, we are bound to sub- 

 mit to this theology ; and our minds must surrender 

 every opinion, however dear to, them. It is quite in 

 vain to talk of the mystcriousness of the subject, as 

 being the cause of the want of unanimity among Chris- 

 tians. It may be mysterious, in reference to our for- 

 mer conceptions. It may be mysterious in the utter 

 impossibility of reconciling it with our own assumed fan- 

 i:ie, and self-formed principles. It may be mysterious 

 in the difficulty which we feel in comprehending the man- 

 ner of the doctrine, when we ought to be satisfied with 

 the authoritative revelation which has been made to us 

 of itt existence and its truth. But if we could only 

 abandon all our former conceptions, if we felt that our 

 business was to submit to the oracle of God, and that 

 we are not called upon to effect a reconciliation betwixt 

 a revealed doctrine of the Bible, and an assumed or ex- 

 eogitated principle of our own ; then we arc satisfied, 

 that we would find the language of the Testament to 

 have as much clear, and precise, and distinctive simplicity, 

 l^Hfct language of any cage or philosopher that has come 

 down to our time. 



I. Could we only get it reduced to a mere question of 

 language, we should look at no distant period for the es- 

 of a pure and unanimous Christianity in the 



world. But.no. While the mind jnJ the reasoning of any Cl.i 



philosopher ii> . Uis words, and these words [ > 



tried a* to thrir import and signiticancy upon the appro- "~~~ ~~" * 

 priateprioc ; : ici-m, the mii.d ar.d the reasoning of 



the spirit of God is not collected upon the same pure and 

 competent principles of investigation. In order to know 

 the mind of the Spirit, the communications of the Spirit, 

 and the expression of these communications in written lan- 

 guage, should be consulted. These are the only i!ata upon 

 which the enquiry should be instituted. But, no. In- 

 tead of learning the designs and character of the Almighty 

 from his own mouth, we sit in judgment upon them, and 

 make our conjecture of what they should be, take the pre- 

 cedency of his revelations what they are. We do Him 

 the same injustice that we do to an acquaintance, whose 

 proceedings and whose intentions we venture to pronounce 

 upon, while we refuse him a hearing, or turn away fro:^ 

 the letter in which he explains himself. No wonder, then-, 

 at the want of unanimity among Christians, so long at 

 the question of " what thinkcst thou ?" is made the prin- 

 ciple of their creed, and, for the sake of criticism, they 

 have committed themselves to the endless caprices of the 

 human intellect. Let the principle of " what thinkest 

 thou" be exploded, and that of " what readeat thou" 

 be substituted in its place. Let us take our lesson as the 

 Almighty places it before us, and, instead of being the 

 judge of hi conduct, be satisfied with the safer and 

 humbler office of being the interpreter of his language. 



190. Now this principle is r.ot exclusively applicable 

 to the learned. The great bulk of Christians have no 

 access to the Bible in its original languages ; but they 

 have access to the common translation, and they may be 

 satisfied by the concurrent testimony of the learned among 

 the different sectaries of this country, that the translation 

 is a good one. Wo do not confine the principle to cri- 

 tics and translators, we press it upon all. We call upon 

 them not to form their divinity by independent thinking, 

 but to receive it by obedient reading, to take the words 

 as they stand, and submit to the plain English of the 

 scriptures which lie before them. It is the office of a 

 translator to give a faithful representation of the original. 

 Now that this faithful representation has been given, it 

 is our part to peruse it with care, and to take a fair and 

 a faithful impression of it. It is our part to purify our 

 understanding of all its previous conceptions. We mil -l 

 bring a free and unoccupied mind to the exercise. It 

 must not be the pride or the obstinacy of self formed 

 opinions, or the haughty independence of him, who thinks 

 he has reached the maiihood of his understanding. W. 

 must bring with us the docility of a child, if we want to 

 gain the kingdom of heaven. It must not be a partial 

 but an entire and unexpected obedience. There must 

 be no garbling of that which is entire, no darkening of 

 that which is luminous, no softening down of that whic.!. 

 is authoritative or severe. The Bible will allow of no 

 compromise. It professes to be the directory of our 

 faith, and claims a total ascendency over the souls and 

 the understandings of men. It will enter into no compo- 

 sition with us or our natural principles. It challenges 

 the whole mind as its due, and it appeals to the truth of 

 heaven for the high authority of its sanctions. " Whoso- 

 ever addeth to, ortakcth from, the words of this book, is 

 accursed," is the absolute language in which it delivers it- 

 self. This brings us to its terms. There is no way of 

 escaping after this. We must bring every thought into 

 the captivity of its obedience, and, a* closely as ever law- 

 yer stuck to his document or his extracts, must we abide 

 by the rule and the doctrine which this authentic memo- 

 rial of God sets before us. 



6 



