of a rule which requires much caution, even in its most legitimate use*, to cases almost, if not altogether, beyond its lawful sphere of operation. by The second proposition deduced ALBIUS from the second objection urged in the Appendix, against the rule of naked self-interpretation, now remains to be considered. The objection, it will be recollected, was, that by making plainer passages a standard of construction for the more obscure, this unrestricted rule would despoil Revelation of all its specific richness, and leave it nothing beyond its simpler and ordinary elements. The remaining proposition deduced by ALBIUS from this objection, as urged in the Appendix, is, "That an identity of subject-matter between a plain and an obscure passage does seldom or never take place, and therefore cannot be assumed to exist, without leading to error." From the maintenance of this proposition, I do not shrink; and the office of maintaining it, for the present is both brief and easy, since your able correspondent has brought forward no example, and, to my apprehension, no argument in favour of the strict identity between clearer and obscurer passages of Scripture. The words used in the Appendix are the following: "It is obvious, that, in the sacred word, different degrees of clearness and obscurity, can have arisen only from the various nature of the subject-matter." The truth of this position may be supported in the following manner: an obscure passage occurs to me, for example, in the writings of of St. Paul. I recollect a plainer passage, apparently of a similar character. The obscure passage, For a most wise, temperate, and impressive description and enforcement of this necessary caution, I beg leave to refer to Dr. Van Mildert's Sixth Sermon, Bampt. Lect. pp. 115, 116, with the note upon that passage, pp. 384, 385. and the plain passage, must present, at least, a verbal difference; otherwise, they would be identically the same, and must consequently be equally clear, or equally obscure. A verbal difference, then, being granted, it is certain, that either the obscure passage must contain some expression not included in the clear passage, or the clear passage must contain some expression not included in the obscure one. But, as the sacred writers never express themselves at random, never write without a clear conception of what they mean, and, at least, a competent power to do justice to their meaning, it follows that each expression must have its value; that is, must be the representative of some portion of subject-matter; and consequently, between these two passages, one of which does contain and one of which does not contain a certain expression, there must exist a difference of subject-matter. The generic subject, indeed, may be the same, but the specific subject must be diverse. This reasoning, I apprehend, may be justly and safely generalised; and, in the vast majority of profound passages, it will probably appear, that the specific differences, far from being subordinate and trivial, constitute, in fact, the grand and leading features. Nor, let it be said, that the difference may be purely verbal; that, in the obscure passage, an obscure expression may occur, while, in the plain passage, an equivalent though plainer expression may be given. On close inspection, I am persuaded it will be found, that, almost invariably, the obscurity lies, not in words, but in things; and that, by accepting the plainer term as an equivalent for the more obscure, we should satruth, thus profoundly and pecucrifice the profound and peculiar liarly expressed, not from an arbitrary selection of obscure terms, but because no other terms could do justice to the meaning. It will be recollected, that when St. Peter makes cautionary mention of the durvonra of St. Paul, he refers the obscurity not, in any degree, to the language of the writer, but altogether to the intrinsic difficulty of the subject-matters. In all such cases, then, I must still protest against reducing difficult texts to the level of plain ones. And, thus protesting, may I be permitted to sketch what I would recommend as a more safe and legitimate procedure? Let the serious student, in the first place, recommend himself to that Divine assistance, without which all human labour must be unavailing; then, let him study, with every grammatical aid, the words of the text itself; next, let him examine, with all imaginable diligence, the immediate context; afterward, let him collate both text and context with parallel passages, rather with a view to the discovery of specific differences, than for the purpose of melting down such differences in a vague, superficial, common-place agreement. These prime labours being finished, commentators may be usefully consult ed; and lastly, the conclusion drawn should be most scrupulously brought to the test, not only of the analogy of Scripture, but of catholic orthodoxy, as established by catholic consent; in order, that, if needful, it may be re-considered and revised. Whoever thus examines difficult passages of Scripture, may occasionally and subordinately fall into error; but it is next to impossible, that, in any material point, he should err against the faith or the morality of Scripture and the church of Christ. This defence, I would hope, may not prove altogether unsatis factory; and, viewed in the light of the principles just laid down. I would also hope, that both ALBIUS and others of your readers may be induced to re-examine and rejudge a passage, which I will take the liberty of extracting from the Appendix. "The clearer passages of Scripture will, in general, be those, which recognise principles deducible from Nature and Providence, without the aid of Revelation; and, by parity of reason, the obscurer passages will commonly be those in which pure matter of revelation is promulgated. If, therefore, it be adopted as the leading principle of interpretation, that the sense of the latter class of passages should be settled or limited by the sense of the former class, it may be reckoned upon, that, through the continual application of this rule, the appropriate and peculiar truths of Revelation will gradually be absorbed This rein mere natural verities. sult appears inevitable. For so long as there are any plainer passages to be resorted to, these, according to the rule, must be the standard for explaining any that are less plain: consequently, those passages, than which nothing can be plainer, must eventually be regarded as the virtual compendium of all: that is, in other words, the lowest level which is to be found, is, as much as possible, to be made the level of the whole."-Appendix to Jebb's Sermons, pp. 366, 367. These consequences, it was stated, might naturally have been expected from the adoption of this levelling principle. It may now be added, that the apprehension will appear the more reasonable, when we consider the known tendency of human pride and vanity to reject every thing mysterious; every thing above the level of human discovery or invention. The actual realization of these consequences was also iuferred from the general approximation of foreign Protest laid down have since been abundantly followed up, and improved upon it were devoutly to be wished, that their deleterious influence had been confined to Socinians professedly so called. And if, either in the Appendix, or in this imperfect paper, any counteractive principles may have been suggested or recommended, it is my sole regret, that the task has not been better executed; and my single wish, that more able and successful advocates may arise and plead the cause of our Catholic and Apostolic Faith. antism towards a licence worse The principles thus explicitly than Socinian. This fact must be the subject of future consideration: mean time, the inference may, perhaps, be strengthened by the indubitable circumstance, that the earliest writers of the Socinian confraternity with Faustus Socinus at their head, put forward as their leading principle, the rule of naked self-interpretation. A fact so notorious, need not be elaborately proved. It will be sufficient to extract two brief passages; one from SOCINUS, the other from SLICHTINGIUS. "We should be most diligent," says the former, "in reading and weighing the books of the Old and New Testament, especially the latter; in which, if we discover any thing which is every where attested in the clearest words, and not merely in one or two places, nor in words which may have some obscurity, THAT we are to receive, without any the least doubt of its supreme truth; whatever we may read to have been constituted or received, in what may have been called the universal church Christ." "Towards the avoiding, Abington Glebe, Jan. 6, 1817. therefore, of heresies," says the latter," the single remedy is, to embrace those doctrines ALONE which can be confirmed by clear and open testimonies of Scripture; to reject whatever are not agreeable to them; and to interpret the more obscure passages of Scripture from the plain ones; not to involve the latter in darkness from the formert." of "Nostrum est. -libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti, non modo constantis sime retinere, sed etiam in illis præcipue vero in Novi Testamenti libris legendis et pensitandis diligentissimos esse. In quíbus, si quid, non uno tantum aut altero in loco, neque iis verbis quæ obscuritatem aliquam habere possint, sed ubique clarissimis verbis contestatum deprehendimus, nihil prorsus est nobis dubitandum, quin id verissimum sit, quicquid, in aniversali, quæ dicta fuerit Christi ecclesia, constitum ant receptum fuisse legamus."-SOCIN. Tract. de Eccles. opp. tom. I. p. 333. "Ad evitandas igitur hæreses, uni, And now, sir, for the present I will take my leave: relying upon your equity and candour that this defence will find a place in your pages; and that you will permit me, in another letter, to conclude my examination of the strictures of ALBIUS; an adversary so kind and courteous, that I cannot regard this discussion at all in the light of a controversy. I am, Sir, Your very obedient, humble servant, J. J. FAMILY SERMONS.-No. XCVIII. me to draw near to God. and some occurrences there were which harassed his mind with anxious and painful reflections. But a further insight into the ways of God convinced him that his im cum remedium est ea tantum dogmata quæ claris et apertis Scripturæ Sacra testimoniis confirmari possunt, rejicere illis non consentanea, et obscuriora Scripturæ loca ex dilucidis interpretari non his ex illis tenebras offundere."SLICHTING. in 2 Pet. ii. opp. p. 356. pressions, thus hastily formed, were vague and erroneous; and that those who consider the dispensations of Heaven as unjust or unequal, are blinded by their own ignorance. The Psalmist was taught to look far beyond the little incidents which had formerly so much disturbed him: he perceived that there is a God who governs the world; that the inequalities of his government exist only in appearance; and however prosperous may seem the lot of the wicked, and however afflicting the depression of the just, yet that the way of righteousness is the way of wisdom, and that the upright alone are the truly blessed. He gives it in the end as the deliberate conviction of his mind, is good for me to draw near to God." "It In examining this passage, we may consider, I. What is meant by drawing near to God; and, II. The benefits which result from it. There is a sense in which all persons may be said to be near to God; for "in him we live, and move, and have our being: he is about our bed and about our path, and spieth out all our ways." But the words of the text shew that there is something peculiar in the intention of the Psalmist; and that, in making this declaration, he proposed to himself to follow a path which is not universally trod. The expression is figurative; and the simple interpretation of the passage will best be deduced from attending to the figure. We are said to draw near to a person when we enter into his presence, or come into more immediate intercourse with him than we had hitherto possessed. Hence the propriety of this mode of speaking in relation to God. As there was one place where he condescended in an especial and peculiar manner to abide, so that the token of his presence was visibly seen, men were said to draw near to him when they approached the habitation where his honour dwelt; and the priest who offered at the altar, or passed into the holy place, in this sense drew near to the Lord. The words, therefore, are naturally transferred in use to the adoration which he received, and to the requests of his worshippers. In the New Testament the phrase is adopted in a more extensive sense; and in this way it is used by the Psalmist as shewing a disposition to hold converse with his Maker, and, iņ the full meaning of the words, to walk with God. Now in what way was this purpose to be effected, and what do the words imply? They imply, 1st, That he would draw near to God in the service of devotion. It does not appear that this Psalm was written by David; but there' can be no question that the author of it was under the influence of the same Spirit which was found in the Singer of Israel. And who that reads the songs of that sacred penman can be ignorant of the zeal and ardour with which he gave himself to the service of the Lord? His whole heart was engaged in the duty. How many times did the solemnity of night bear witness to his devotion! How often did he raise his voice before the dawning of the day, and repeat his sentiments of praise in the evening, in the morning, and at noon! Thus did he draw near to God when none observed him, and in the retirement of his own chamber hold communion with the Lord. And with what alacrity did he go into his courts! How anxious was he to meet his God in the assemblies of his people, and to unite with all that loved and feared him in approaching to his footstool! Some there are in every age, who draw near to God with their lips, while their heart is far from him: but what was the disposition of the Psalmist? When David approached him, it was with inter grity of heart. Under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, he had learnt to come before the Lord with an acceptable worship. He was conscious that he had entered into the presence of Him who is the Searcher of hearts; and his earnest prayer was, that he might be cleansed from every evil way. He came in the spirit of deep humility; for he felt and knew that the God whom he approached was glorious in majesty, and fearful in holiness; and that he was himself a sinful and guilty creature. He approached with filial fear, being persuaded that, like as a father pitieth his childreu, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him. He looked up to him with a feeling of hope, being assured that though he is high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly; and that he will hear the ery of his people, and will not reject their prayer. He lifted up his hands with cheerful dependence to the God whom he served, as the Author of his life, and the God of his salvation; whose will had called him into being, whose Providence hs protected him, whose gracious promise was pledged to his support. Many there are who bend the knee, while the spirit is unbroken: they can make melody with their voice, when there is no melody in their hearts: they profess to praise God with unfeigned lips: they appear devoutly to solicit his protection and to entreat his forgiveness :-but how little in such cases is the mind affected; and how distinct from those feelings of hope, and love, and gratitude, which kindled the devotion of the Psalmist, are the dispositions of worshippers like these! It is the offering of the heart which God requires of all them that approach him; and unless the soul is engaged in his service, it is to little purpose that we profess to draw nigh to Him, for he will not draw nigh to us: by such prayers he will not be entreated, CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 182. 2. It is further implied in the expression of the text, "to draw near to God," that we live continually in the sense of his presence, and in habitual dependence upon him. the The truth of this observation will appear by considering the general scope and object of the Psalm. The Psalmist had been considering the state of several persons, who lived according to the desires of their own minds, in utter ignorance of Divine things, and without any regard to the will of their Creator. They appeared to have set their affections upon things of this life, and to have given themselves no concern about the Author of all their mercies. The whole of their conduct afforded evidence that they were habitually living in a state of alienation from God: they discarded him from their thoughts and seemed almost to forget his existence. The writer, on beholding their conduct, appears to reason thus: "I now see the characters of these men, and I perceive how utterly worthless are their pursuits. Let them follow their devices; let such as have no desire for better things accumulate earthly possessions, and forsake their God. It is good for me to draw near to him. As for me, I will serve the Lord: my hope and my trust shall be reposed in Jehovah: I will live in the constant recollection of his presence, and in the conviction of his faithfulmess." This was the rule which he determined to follow through life. He knew that he was in no respect exempted from the afflictions of mortality, nor the temptations incident to the righteous. But the principle of faith implanted in his mind, was a triumphant principle: and as often as his heart might be depressed and his spirits ready to sink within him, we may still be assured that he cherished the reflection, "It is good for me to draw near to God. In him alone will I place my dependence: and M |