which fhould always guide our interpretations of scripture. But let him well examine the numberless lights which their united labours have thrown upon the facred text, before he venture to condemn them in the grofs. The scriptures are perhaps better understood now, through the means of able commentators, than they have ever been fince the time of their first publication.

1

The following work is certainly not intended as a fubfitute to the labours of the many learned men who have commented on the fcriptures; but rather as an introduction to them. It is meant to give, in a fhort compass, a generat idea of what the commentator difcuffes at large. In their works we have the parts often ably explained; but rarely a connected view of the whole. In the following work this plan hath been reverfed. The general fense and con. nection of the whole hath been attended to, without regarding minutely the critical examination of parts: fo that the reader may pursue the narrative or argument without interruption. This endeavour to place the leading fubject in the fairest point of light, hath sometimes made me perhaps more concife than I fhould otherwife have chofen to be. I wished to avoid what I thought the greateft fault of paraphrafts, that of faying too much. Many parts of fcripture require no explanation: and a difficult paffage is not always difficult because it is concife. An explanation perhaps need employ no more words than a difficulty. It appeared to me, in short, a useful mode of commenting, to give just the leading fenfe; which is fometimes loft, or however injured, in a multiplicity of words: while I trust I have left nothing unfaid, except in critical matters, which will not easily strike an obfervant reader on looking into the original.I have fometimes alfo abridged, where a fentiment or fact is drawn out, according to the Jewish idiom,

into repetition; or where a doctrine relates to fome ancient error, and is lefs interesting at this time. But when I overrun a real difficulty, the reader will generally find an account of it in the notes; unless it relate to some nicety of verbal criticism, which I leave to works more profeffedly written on those subjects. the margin, that the reader may, with ease, apply elfewhere for fatisfaction, when he does not find it here. A clear, connected discourfe, without paufing long at obftacles, hath been chiefly aimed at, which may itself leffen many difficulties; and by throwing a general light over the whole, "I am more and

I refer however to each verse in

make even the parts, more intelligible.

"I am

more convinced (fays a pious and able expofitor) that "the vulgar fense of the New Teftament, that is, the sense "in which an honest man of plain fense would take it on "his first reading it, is almost every where the true general "fense of any paffage: though an acquaintance with lan "guage and antiquity, with an attentive meditation on the "text and context, may illuftrate the spirit and energy of "a multitude of places *."

.

Upon the whole, in this expofition I have endeavoured, as nearly as I can, to give the scriptures in fuch a dress, as I humbly (very humbly) fuppofe they might have appeared in, if they had been written originally in English; and accommodated to the customs, idioms, and modes of phrafeology now in use and by giving them this modern caft, I have attempted to make the fenfe of them as familiar to our ears as it was to those of the early Chriftians. One great point I have laboured, is to make the connection between the feveral parts of a difcourfe as easy as I can. The Jewish writers, among whom compofition was not cultivated as a science, were little attentive to this matter.

A train of ideas, no doubt, flowed regularly in their minds; but it is not always obvious to a modern ear which is ufed to a more artificial combination. In the writings of St. Paul this abruptness is particularly remarkable. On this point I have taken all the pains I could, and have used the beft helps I could find, to shew the connection.

Some writers have undertaken a task, which (I speak with diffidence) appears equally arduous and unneceffarythat of harmonizing the scriptures, by bringing them into agreement in every minute particular. That there exists the moft harmonious agreement among the evangelical writers in all the doctrines of religion, and in all the circumstances of any confequence in the history, every body, who reads the fcriptures candidly, muft acknowledge. But that there are many little contrarieties in dates and trifling circumstances, cannot well, I think, be denied. "Indeed, if no "tranfpofition be allowed, (fays a very candid harmonizer *,) "it is abfolutely impoffible, in many paffages of gofpel"history, to make any confiftent harmony of the evange"lifts at all; as every attentive reader must often have "observed," I am clearly of his opinion. And if it be neceffary to allow tranfpofition in the evangelifts; by a parity of reason, other little contrarieties may be allowed also. In fact, the unimportant detail of an action feems below their notice.

I do not mean to infinuate that every thing in the gofpels, which has the appearance of a contradiction, is really fuch; for many of thefe feeming contradictions have been happily reconciled. Nor do I mean to infinuate that none of them are worth the attention of the learned; for fome of them certainly affect the leading facts of the

history, and deferve notice. All I mean is, that when circumstances (evidently, in themselves and in their con nection, unimportant) cannot easily be brought to slide into each other, it is better to leave them, as of no moment, than to endeavour to draw them together by forced and unnatural fuppofitions. Circumstances, indeed, of this kind appear fo far from injuring the authenticity of these facred books, that they seem to add a beautiful fimplicity to them; and even to give a force to their evidence, which it would not have had if it had tallied in the minutest par ticulars.

In

See how this matter ftands in common life. Four witneffes come forward to give their evidence on a fact which had happened about thirty or forty years before. This is the exact state of the evangelical evidence. In all the great leading circumftances, which tend to prove the only points on which the queftion turns, they are perfectly agreed. In these their memory ferves them. They are matters of moment, and have made an impreffion. the mean time, with regard to other particulars, they vary: but they are fuch particulars as no way affect the main queftion; and fuch as, it is evident, the memory of four people cannot, equally nor exactly retain through fo long a period.--But is not this all the evidence you would desire? Does human teftimony (which is founded on memory) reach farther? And, indeed, does not fuch evidence usually appear even ftronger, than when there is a perfect agreement in every particular? Is not fuch trivial exactness the characteristic rather of collufive than of honeft teftimony? Indeed, when the fact is recent, you expect more exactness in the evidence: but I am fpeaking here only of fuch evidence as the apoftolic evidence was, when the facts teftified had happened many years before the teftimony was given. A captious lawyer,

3

ཟླ་

indeed,

indeed, might endeavour to take the advantage of thefe variations; but certainly no fincere inquirer after truth would attempt it.

But the evangelic teftimony, you fay, is of a different kind. It is not founded on memory, but on inspiration: and, therefore, notwithstanding any lapfe of time, should be exact in every particular.

No doubt, it would, if that were the cafe. But who can fay how far infpiration extends? The evangelic writers themselves acknowledge they often speak on human authority. St. Luke, in the beginning of his gospel, exprefsly fays, he wrote fuch things as had been delivered to him by eye-witnesses. If he had had them from inspiration, it was furely abfurd to appeal to a weaker testimony, when he had a stronger. St. Paul also fometimes fpeaks with uncertainty as when he mentions thofe perfons whom he had baptized, he adds, I know not whether I baptized any other. And fpeaking of the perfecution he expected to find at Jerufalem; Behold, fays he, I go bound in the Spirit, NOT KNOWING the things that shall befal me. Sometimes, again, he makes a plain diftinction between what he says as an infpired apoftle, and what he fays merely as a man. Of this we have several instances in the feventh chapter of the first of Corinthians +. He had a contest alfo with St. Peter about a point in religion, though no very interefting one. Both, however, could not be right; and yet, if inspiration had extended univerfally, we might have expected perfect unanimity.

As the apoftolic writers themselves lay no claim to this extent of infpiration, fo neither can it be proved, I think, from any part of fcripture. We are told, indeed, that the

* 1 Cor. i. 16.

See the 6th, 10th, 25th, and 40th verfes.

apostles