being often times the best, if not the only help, to explain the language of the New; besides that, all citations in the New are generally made from it. But now, how laborious a thing must it be, to study an ill version of a very hard book, which we cannot read in the original? I call it an ill version; for though it be indeed a very good one, considering the time it was writ in, yet, as a version, it must be allowed by those who can judge of it, to be far from being exact or true. A man need only consult it on some hard places in the Pentateuch, as well as in the poetic or prophetic books, to be convinced of this. It was certainly far from perfect at first, and is made much worse by the corruptions it has suffered in handing down to us; so that I may venture to affirm, that, should any body now a days make a version so imperfect, instead of admiration and esteem, his work would be much despised by most of our modern critics.

I might to these add many other difficulties that attend a serious study of the New Testament. It requires a good knowledge of the Jewish state at the time of our Saviour's coming; a knowledge of their government, sanhedrim, synagogues, customs, traditions, opinions, sects; the kinds of learning received among them; what they borrowed from the Greeks; when the mystical and allegorical manner of expounding the Scriptures began, and on what grounds; what their particular expectations

were in relation to the Messiah, and what they taught, and on what grounds, in relation to angels, demons, possessions, oracles, miracles, &c.

But it is in vain, you say, to tell you of difficulties; you are resolved not to be deterred; you have time before you, good eyes, a strong constitution, a mind prepared for fatigue, a reasonable degree of skill in the languages, and are furnished with a competent knowledge in all the parts of useful learning, that are preparatory to this study; so that difficulties animate rather than dishearten you; and I am not unwilling so far to agree with you, that were there no objection against this study, but the difficulty, this alone should not deter one who is so well prepared for it. But, if you are able to go through so laborious a study, I presume you are not fond of difficulties for difficulties' sake. You cannot think it reasonable to take so much pains, unless it will turn to some good account.

II. I shall therefore, in the second place, take leave to ask, Cui bono? What good can come of so much pains? For it may seem that a free, serious, impartial, and laborious study of the Scriptures will be of no great service, for the following reasons;

First, Because it is plain the orthodox faith is not founded on a nice and critical knowledge of the Scriptures. Many of the ancient Christians, it will be allowed, were not great critics, but argued very much in a mystical way. Origen in particular,

who was the greatest scholar christianity had bred to that time, perpetually turns the letter of Scripture into allegory. From whence we may reasonably conclude, that the knowledge of the bare literal sense was, in the judgment of many even in those times, thought to be of little use.

Secondly, But it is certain that the original language of the Old Testament was known to very few for the first six centuries, in which those general councils were held, wherein all the articles of the orthodox faith were settled. They governed themselves, and determined all their controverted points by the Greek version; and those who knew Hebrew best, whether they took to the mystical or literal way, had the misfortune to be least orthodox. So it was with Origen, who knew the Scriptures so well, that he had them all by heart. And Eusebius and others, who studied and understood the literal sense of the Scriptures best in the next ages, succeeded little better; so that this study seems to have been of little use to the establishment of the orthodox faith. Now, if an exact and critical knowledge of the Scriptures was not necessary to the settling of the faith, it cannot be necessary to the understanding of it, or to the understanding those who have writ best in the explication and defence of it. On the contrary, such a knowledge tends to lessen our esteem for the Fathers of the church, by discovering their mistakes; and may

weaken our regard to the decisions of councils, by exposing the falseness of the ground they seem to be built on. A man, well skilled in the literal sense of the Scriptures, will often find, in the Fathers and councils, texts of Scripture urged very insufficiently; and great stress laid upon passages, which, when critically explained, prove nothing, or perhaps make against them. Which suggests to me a third reason, why it may seem that such a study can do no good.

Thirdly, And that is, because the orthodox faith does not depend upon the Scriptures considered absolutely in themselves, but as explained by catholic tradition. The faith was preserved in creeds, and handed down from one orthodox bishop to another, whose business it was to keep this sacred depositum pure and undefiled, and to deliver it to his successor entire as he received it. It was by this tradition the main articles of faith were preserved in the church, and not from any particular study of the Scriptures. The ground therefore of these articles must carefully be distinguished from the Scriptures that have been brought in proof of them; these proofs may be weak and inconclusive, but the truth stands independent of them. It is the faith they have received; and, if at any time they argue weakly for it from the Scriptures, it is an argument indeed against their learning, but none against their orthodoxy.

This therefore may seem another good argument to prove, that an exact and careful study of the Scriptures is not a safe and profitable study. It is a much safer, as well as a more compendious way to make a man orthodox, to study the tradition of the church.

But you will say, that to send you from Scripture. to tradition is to turn you out of paradise, the garden of God, into a vast, confused, bewildered wood; and that this is so far from mending the matter, that it is ten times more laborious than the study I would dissuade you from; and so, I confess, it is, if all the ecclesiastical writers were to be carefully read, in order to know the catholic tradition. But that is not my meaning; the substance of catholic tradition lies in much less compass; the established church, you will allow, is orthodox in all necessary points. If therefore you know the sense of the established church, you have in epitome the church catholic; and therefore you need only study her opinions to make you orthodox; and this the most illiterate man may find in the liturgy and articles. This, I trust you will allow, is as short a way, as could be wished of knowing all that, is necessary to be known. A very little time will serve a man to read, in his mother tongue, things which all together would not fill a moderate volume; and he will be orthodox enough, and have a great deal of time to spare for other studies, that will turn to more