ciples) which have afforded the chief matter of their altercation. I do not speak in this manner, as if all our controversies in the West were of themselves of greater importance than the eastern disputes, or as if the modern were superior to the ancient. I am far from thinking, that the cavils and logomachies of our Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians, Remonstrants, Antiremonstrants, and Universalists of the last age, or of our Seceders-both burgesses and antiburgesses, Reliefmen, Cameronians, Moravians, and Sandemanians, are one jot more intelligible or more edifying, than those of the Sabellians, Eutychians and Nestorians and Monothelites and Monophysites, and a thousand other ancient and oriental distinctions. The only thing that can give superior consequence to the former with us, is their vicinity in time and place, and the propriety there is, that for the sake of others, the Christian pastor should be prepared for warding the blows of those adversaries, to whom his people may be exposed. I say for the sake of others, for we may venture to affirm, that no man of common understanding, who hath candidly and assiduously studied holy writ in the manner we have recommended, can find the smallest occasion for his own sake of entering into such labyrinths of words, such extravagant ravings, as would disgrace even the name of sophistry; for even that term, bad as it is, implies art and ingenuity, and at least an appearance of reason, which their wild declamation can very rarely boast. I am not of the mind, that the student should think it necessary to inquire into the several grounds and pleas of all the above mentioned sects and parties. Some of them, as the principal heads of our disputes with Romanists, and the chief questions that have been started concerning the divinity of Christ, his expiation of sin by the sacrifice of himself, and concerning the operation of the Spirit, it will be proper to canvass more thoroughly. As to those of less note, since it is chiefly for the sake of others our theologian studies such questions, he must judge how far it is needful by the situation in which he finds himself.

LECTURE VI.

Method of prosecuting our Inquiries in Polemic Divinity-The use to be made of Scholia, Paraphrases, and Commentaries-Danger of relying on human guidance in matters of Religion.

1 Now come more particularly to the method of prosecuting these inquiries in polemic divinity. The briefest, and therefore, not the worst way, is by means of systems. And of these, I own, I generally like the shortest best. My reason is, that all of them, without exception, have, on certain topics, and in some degree or other, departed from the simplicity of the truth as it is in Jesus. They have indulged too much to imagination, and fallen at times into the dotage about questions and strifes of words which minister contention, and not godly edifying, and they have not sufficiently known, or acknowledged, the limits on those sublime subjects, which God hath assigned to the human faculties. It ought never to be forgotten by the student, that the Deity hath prescribed bounds to the human mind, as well as the mighty ocean, and in effect tells us in his word, "Thus far shalt thou come, and no farther, and here shall thy airy flights, thy proud excursions, be staid." If the student can, let him provide himself in some of the most approved systems on the different sides. 'Tis error, not truth, vice, not virtue, that fears the light. You may rest assured of it, that if any teacher exclaims against such a fair and imparital inquiry, and would limit you to the works of one side only, the reason is, whatever he may pretend, and however much he may disguise it even from himself, he is more solicitous to make you his own follower, than the follower of Christ, and a blind retainer to the sect to which he has attached himself, than a well instructed friend of truth, without any partial respects to persons or parties. On reading an article in one system, let him peruse the correspondent article in the others, and examine impartially by scripture as he proceeds; and in this manner, let him advance from one article to another, till he hath canvassed the whole. 'Tis more than probable, that on [some points he will conclude them all to be in the wrong; because all may go farther than holy writ affords a foundation for deciding, a thing by no means uncommon but in no case, wherein they differ, can more than one be in the right. If he shall find it expedient afterwards to inquire more narrowly into some branches of controversy,

he will have an opportunity of reading books written on purpose on both sides the question. If he should not have it in his power to consult different systems, he will find a good deal of some of our principal controversies in Burnet's exposition of the articles, and Pearson on the Creed. When thus far advanced, he may occasionally, as he finds a difficulty (and in my opinion he ought not otherwise) consult scholia and commentaries. Of these I like the first best, both because they are briefer, and because they promise less. The scholiast proposes only to assist you in interpreting some passages, which, in the course of his study, he has met with things that serve to illustrate; whereas the commentator sets out with the express purpose of explaining every thing. I have the less faith in him on that account, and am ready to say with Horace, "Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu."*

I own, for I will tell you freely what I think, that of all the kinds of expositors, I like least the paraphrast. There is in him, an appearance of presumption, both in giving what he seems to imagine a more proper style to the inspired writer, and in his manner of interweaving his own sentiments indiscriminately with those delivered by unerring wisdom, with which neither the commentator nor the scholiast is chargeable; for in these the text and commentary are never confounded by being blended. Another fault in paraphrases, of which few or no commentaries, that I know of, can be accused, is that you have, by way of explanation, in the former, to wit the paraphrase, the sentiments of the pharaphrast alone; whereas in the latter, the commentary, you have often the opinions of others also, with their reasons, which, notwithstanding the partiality of the relater, will to the judicious reader often appear preferable. I do not say, however, that paraphrase can never be a useful mode of explication, though I own, that the cases wherein it may be reckoned not improper, nor altogether unuseful, are not numerous. As the only valuable aim of this species of exposition is to give greater perspicuity to the text, obscurity is the only reasonable plea for employing it. When the style is extremely concise or figurative, or when there are frequent allusions to customs or incidents now not generally known, to add as much as is necessary for supplying an ellipsis, explaining an unusual figure, or suggesting an unknown fact or custom alluded to, may serve to render scripture more intelligible, without taking much from its energy by the para

* What will this pretender exhibit worthy of such boasting?

But if the use and occasions of have been now represented, it is

phrastic dress it is put in.
paraphrase be only such, as
evident, that there are but a few books of holy writ, and but certain
portions of those few, that require to be treated in this manner.
No historical piece is written with greater simplicity and perspicuity
than the history contained in the Bible, and both as to facts and
moral instructions, we have not any thing more eminent in this
respect, than the gospels. Yet nothing is more common than the
attempt of paraphrasing these. And indeed the notions, which the
generality of paraphrasts seem to entertain on this subject are curi-
ous. If we judge from their productions, we must conclude, that they
have considered such a size of subject matter (if I may be indulged
in the expression) as affording a proper foundation for a composi-
tion of such a magnitude, and have therefore laid it down as a max-
im, from which in their practice they do not often depart, that the
most commodious way of giving to the work the proposed extent, is
that equal portions of the text (perspicuous or obscure it matters not)
should be equally protracted.* Thus regarding only quantity, they
view their text, and parcel it, and treat it in much the same manner
as gold-beaters and wire drawers do the metals on which their art
is employed. Verbosity is the proper character of this kind of
composition. The professed design of the paraphrast is to say in
many words what his text expresseth in few accordingly all the
writers of this class must be at pains to provide themselves in a suf-
ficient stock of synonymas, epithets, expletives, circumlocutions and
tautologies, which are in fact the necessary implements of their
craft. A deficiency of words is no doubt oftener than the contra-
ry, the cause of obscurity. Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.† But
this evil may also be the effect of an exuberance. By a multi-
plicity of words the sentiment is not set off and accommodated, but
like David equipt in Saul's armour, it is encumbered and opprest.
Yet this is not the only, nor perhaps the worst consequence
result-
ing from this manner of treating sacred writ. In the very best compo-
sitions of this kind, that can be expected, the gospel may be com-
pared to a rich wine of a high flavour, diluted in such a quantity of
water, as renders it extremely vapid. This would be the case if
the paraphrase (which is indeed hardly possible) took no tincture
from the opinions of the paraphrast, but exhibited faithfully, though
insipidly, the sentiments of the text. Whereas in all those para-

* See Philosophy of Rhetoric, Book III. Chap. 2.
t I labor to be brief, I become obscure.

phrases we have seen, the gospel may more justly be compared to such a wine as hath been mentioned, so much adulterated with a liquor of a very different taste and quality, that little or nothing of its original relish and properties can be discovered. Accordingly in one paraphrase, Jesus Christ appears in the character of a bigotted papist, in another of a flaming Protestant; in one he argues with all the sophistry of the Jesuit, in another he declaims with all the fanaticism of the Jansenist; in one you trace the metaphysical ratiocinations of Arminius, in another you recognise the bold conclusions of Gomarus; and you hear the language of a man who has thoroughly imbibed the system of one or another of our Christian rabbies. So various and so opposite are the characters, which in those performances our Lord is made to sustain, and the dialects which he is made to speak. How different is his own character and dialect? If we be susceptible of the impartiality, and have attained the knowledge requisite to constitute us proper judges in these matters, we shall find, in what he says, nothing that can be thought to favour the subtle disquisitions of a sect. His language is not, like that of all dogmatists, the language of a bastard philosophy, which under the pretence of methodising religion, hath corrupted it, and in less or more tinged all the parties into which christendom is divided. His language is not so much the language of the head, as of the heart; his object is not science, but wisdom, his discourses accordingly abound more in sentiments, than in opinions. His diction in general is so plain, and his instructions in the main are so obvious and striking, that it is scarcely possible to conceive another design that any man can have in paraphrasing them, than to give what I may call an evangelical dress to his own notions, to make the passages of our Lord's history, his sayings and parables, serve as a kind of vehicle for conveying into the minds of the readers the opinions of the expositor. And is not this actually the effect they commonly produce in their too implicit and habitual readers? Are you willing to call the ingenious and learned Erasmus, your father and leader and master in religious truths? Do you desire to understand Christianity no otherwise than he is pleased to exhibit it? Have recourse to his Latin paraphrase of the New Testament. Seek the religion of Jesus only there, and your end is answered. Would you rather pay this homage to some of our English interpreters? Suppose for example the mild, the dispassionate, the abstract, the rational Dr. Clarke. Let his paraphrase on the gospel serve you, as all the information needful of the history and