to the different sentiments of different men. Hence we have bodies of divinity that are Calvinistic, Arminian, &c. &c. in which the same passages of scripture are differently understood, and are quoted in support of doctrines directly opposite and contradictory to each other. Suppose then a theological student should commence his religious studies, and receive his first impressions of the sense of scripture, from a Calvinistic or Arminian body of divinity, it will be a natural consequence, that when he comes to a subsequent study of the word of God, he will understand and interpret it, according to the sense in which he has been accustomed to find it quoted, in the particular system of divinity he has adopted.

Commentaries are also subject to the same observations, and should therefore be consulted with suitable caution.

The same remarks apply likewise to the religious inquiries of laymen, who instead of receiving their first impressions from the scriptures, derive their opinions either from a divine, or from friends and books of a particular persuasion. If, for example, the attention of a

layman be excited to religious subjects, by the ministry of a Calvinistic or Arminian divine; or by the influence of a friend, whose views may be either Calvinistic or Arminian; his mind will naturally be pre-occupied with the particular sentiments of his minister or friend, or of the books which he will have had placed in his hands. Should his instructor or friend be a Calvinist, his reading will be Calvinistic. Should they be of Arminian sentiments, his authors will be Arminian likewise; and his view of scripture will consequently be agreeable either to the Calvinistic or Arminian system, and his subsequent study of the scriptures will be influenced accordingly.

The inference to be drawn from this subject is, that Biblical criticism ought at all times to precede the study of divinity. This will be still more obvious from the following reasoning. The true interpretation of scripture must depend upon its literal and primary sense. By biblical criticism we determine, as far as it is possible, the literal and primary sense of scripture. The various opinions advanced in systems or bodies of divinity rest upon the

sense of scripture. We cannot, however, judge how far scripture has been rightly quoted in support of these various opinions unless we are acquainted with its literal and primary sense; but these can only be determined by Biblical criticism; it must therefore be obvious, that Biblical criticism should at all times precede the study of divinity.

By Biblical criticism is meant, the application of such rules and maxims of interpretation as are applied to discover the true sense of any other ancient writing; they are such as have frequently been alluded to in the present work; such as relate to the connection and design of the author's discourse, to the idiom of the language in which it is written; and to the history of the people, country, customs, manners, habits, and opinions of those early ages. Without an attention to such rules, it is quite as unreasonable to expect that we should enter into the true spirit, and ascertain the true meaning, particularly of difficult parts of scripture, as it would be to expect that a student by consulting translations should enter into the spirit and be capable of understanding any classical

author, Herodotus or Livy, Homer or Virgil, though totally ignorant of the language, mythology, customs, manners, habits, opinions, country, and history of the Greeks and Romans.

Should it be objected that there are few whose advantages have been such as to enable them thus critically to read the sacred scriptures, the difficulty will be found to exist more in the imagination than in reality. Such are the helps afforded in the present day, and at so small an expense may they be obtained, that with safety it can be affirmed that a person of the commonest advantages may thus read and judge for himself; that merely with the assistance of the few works recommended in the advertisement of these discourses, even should he not be acquainted with the original languages in which the scriptures were written, he may form such a judgment of their idiom, and obtain such illustrations of the literal meaning and primary sense of scripture as shall preserve him, on the one hand, from being blindly led away by the opinions of others, and shall afford him, on the other, an invaluable guide in his religious studies.

In the exposition of all difficult passages of scripture, therefore, especially of those which relate to particular occasions or controversies, we should imagine ourselves as nearly as possible in the circumstances of those to whom they were written. We should read such pas-.

sages as we conceive a Jewish or a Gentile convert read them at the time, influenced as they were by their peculiar situation and opinions; in a word, we should view them in the character of a Hebrew, or a Gentile hearing or delivering the same words, at the same time, in the same country, and in the same circumstances. So far as we are able to do this, so far shall we comprehend their meaning, and be sensible of their force and beauty; and so far as we neglect this method we shall be in danger of being biassed by our own preconceived opinions, or by the forced and unnatural, and oftentimes erroneous and dangerous interpretations of other men. As it respects the mysterious and controversial parts of scripture it will be our wisdom to receive the former as subjects of faith rather than of investigation, and to adopt such views of the latter as involve