ing. The narrative, or the argument, instead of running on, as in other compositions, in a continued discourse, is broken into aphorisms. In other books the paragraph ends, where the sense pauses. In the Bible, whatever the sense is, it ends at every third or fourth line. Passages, thus insulated, receive an independent form. The sense in each little paragraph, seems drawn to a point; and the unlettered reader at least is apt to pause. Whereas, if he went on, and took all together, he would find he must often affix a very different meaning to the words.

Few judicious churchmen, I suppose, would wish for a new translation of the Bible. It could not soon acquire that general reverence, which is paid to the old one. But many, perhaps, would desire to see the errors of the old one corrected; though with as little alteration as possible. The several late collations of MSS. would render this, I should think, no very difficult work. If however, the wisdom of our superiors see any insuperable obstacle in going so far, one should suppose, at least, there could be none in detaching verses into the margin. They are certainly unauthorized intruders.

Having thus considered the passage of Scripture I undertook to discourse on, and touched, though very slightly, a very important subject-so important, and so often neglected, that frequent hints upon it, can never be out of season—I shall just add a few remarks on the difference between holding an error, and teaching one.

Error is inseparable from the mind of man. Humanum est errare, was the honest confession of nature; and a state of grace points out the melancholy truth with still greater force. We humbly hope, therefore, that as man and error are so closely united, God will pardon our innocent errors-I mean such errors, as have no connection with guilt.

But yet our errors, though innocent as far as we ourselves are concerned, may to others be the source of great mischief. While they continue our own thoughts, they affect nobody: but when we suffer them to get abroad, they become clothed in words-and perhaps in such words, as the text calls the words of man's wisdom.

Thus, many excellent men, I doubt not, may have carried the doctrine of faith too high. Them it injured not; every Christian virtue per

VOL. IV.

C

haps

haps flowing from it. In their minds therefore the opinion, however erroneous, may still be innocent.-But hey fall into a very egregious mistake, if they suppose, from their own pious feelings, that this doctrine has always the same effect on others. It may create 'self-delusion, and I should fear might have a tendency to make men satisfied with themselves. Faith is an easy substitute for a good life. Faith, they are sure, they have; and as to works, they hear them always spoken of as of no value; which it is possible they may be too apt to apply in their own way: so all is well. It is certainly a very dangerous thing to speak slightly of works, lest we should give a handle to the natural pravity of human nature.

Thus again, with regard to the other important subject, on which I touched, as there are many passages of Scripture relating to the humanity of Christ as well as his divinity, I cannot persuade myself, (as some pious people have done,) that an exact faith on this head is necessary to salvation. Numbers, I have no doubt, will be saved through the merits of Christ, who conceive him only as their lawgiver, and conscientiously obey his laws; though

they may not have those exalted ideas of his divine nature, to which our scriptural rule, I think, so directly leads. If their holy lives have attained the principal end of a better faith, they ought not surely to be branded with hard names, and considered among those, who deny Christ before men.

We are sometimes told they ought; because, without this exalted faith in the divine nature of a Saviour, the mind cannot attain those elevated heights of love, which the Gospel prescribes. One should think so indeed: but before we pass these harsh censures on others, let any of us, who do hold that doctrine, ask our own carnal hearts, whether it purify them in this exalted manner?

At the same time, I think, we have good ground to censure those, who publicly raise scruples. Why cannot they be satisfied with keeping their opinions at home? When a man holds a religious opinion with such conscientious firmness, that he gives up his temporal interest for its sake; though the opinion may be erroneous, the man is virtuous: his character respectable. But if, instead of suffering manfully for his opinion, he should set it up as a banner, and

C 2

call

1

call people together under it; he should then, I think, look well not only to his opinions, but to his motives also. There may be a touch of latent vanity-there may be an over-weening of himself the pride of being at the head of a sect-an oblique view to self-interest perhaps or some other undue motive, which may insinuate itself into his religious views. To propagate any error, is dangerous-but on disputable motives, it is doubly so. A man is in no way put upon it of course, he is answerable for the consequence. On a question of philosophy indeed, where an air-pump, or a crucible, is concerned, it matters little: but where religion is the subject, it becomes a point of moment. To be silent, is at least safe. There can be no harm-and I think, no great share of modesty -in keeping an opinion to yourself, which has always been opposed by a great majority, and some of the wisest, and best men, both laymen and churchmen, that ever lived.

But it is said, the examination of truth can do no harm.

None in the world to the truth itself. None to the candid, and able examiner. But, to the undistinguishing many, it may often do great

harm.