what their reason, even when these duties were originally propounded to them, must have received as just and proper; though, till then, these duties were, indeed, without the certainty or the authority, which an immediate revelation from God gave them.

Secondly; Our SAVIOUR having appeared on earth, not so much to communicate discoveries in morals, as to enforce the observance of morality, by the certain assurance of a future state of rewards and punishments, and by further motives peculiar to Christianity, (correcting, indeed, some erroneous opinions in morals, and exalting as well as rectifying the prevailing notions of human duty and of human perfection) it was more material towards answering this end of his advent, as well as more practicable during his short and itinerary mission, to impress the conviction of his Divine authority by miracles, and to convey his confirmation and correction of the general principles and conduct in which human duty consisted, (the grand outlines of which are sufficiently marked by conscience) in popular language, and by striking images, adapted to the comprehension,

and calculated to fix the attention, of the mul titudes, who listened to him, than by logical details and definitions.

Thirdly; This will appear still more natural, when we recollect that our SAVIOUR'S views were to form the heart, the principles, and internal dispositions of men; which done, particular duties would follow of course, with all the variety of limitations and exceptions which the infinite variety in human capacities, situations, and circumstances, would render expedient; and which Reason would sufficiently point out in each particular case; but which limitations and exceptions, many bulky tomes could not have completely contained; and thus the object of Christianity -the instruction and reformation of all— would have been necessarily defeated, and its knowledge confined, as a science, to a few studious persons.

While the great and broad lines of our faith and duty are, however, too clearly and too frequently marked in the New Testament, to be materially mistaken by the meanest unbiassed capacity, the fact of its language being remarkably general as well as figurative, is never

theless too obvious to escape the observation of the attentive reader: Yet, unhappily for the peace of individuals and of communities, as well as for the honour and advancement of pure Christianity, these figures, and this general language, literally interpreted, or at least without due reference to notices of a different cast in other parts of Scripture, have produced opinions and creeds as offensive to common sense and to justice, and indeed as diametrically opposite to each other, as every unprejudiced mind will find them to be contrary to the genius of Christianity, and to the general scope of the narratives or epistles from which they are drawn.

To form, then, a just comprehension of Christianity, I would advise first, your keeping out of view, as much as possible, every human system of Christian belief; (for perhaps the purest of them are tinctured with an alloy of human passion and error ;) and secondly, to accustom yourself to read considerable and complete portions of the New Testament at one time. This practice, by exhibiting at one view the peculiarity I have remarked in the language

of the sacred writers, will instruct your Reason to form a just estimate of the probable meaning of particular passages, by a comparison of these with other parts, and with the scope of the whole narrative. If in one place, a doctrine is proposed in language so figurative, that a literal interpretation would render it absurd; if in another, the doctrine, taken without limitation, would offend our sense of common justice and obvious truth, or militate against other declaratious of Scripture, the figure must be considered a figure, the general language must be qualified, and both be construed by honest common sense, with due advertence to local allusions and modes of speaking; to the circumstances and occasion of the speech; and above all, to the general import and tendency of the Gospel itself.

I would instance in the cases of those images in which the future rewards and punishments of mankind are announced: These are, from their subject, eminently interesting and awful; but they are as remarkably figurative and general. As these images themselves essentially vary, some conveying ideas of perpetual con

sciousness and acute suffering, while others express extinction of thought and being; and some are so absolutely metaphorical, as to describe the place of punishment by the local appellation of Gehenna, (a spot in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, formerly dedicated to the idol of Moloch;) as the duty enjoined or scene described, in conjunction with these threats, is also. conveyed in language undeniably figurative*, as these images suppose no gradation of reward or punishment, (expressly stated, however, in other parts of the New Testament) and omit the obvious limitations and exceptions (elsewhere intimated) arising from ignorance, surprise, repentance, forgiveness of injuries, &c.; common sense surely requires us to construe the images, in which a future state is drawn, with a latitude of interpretation proportioned to that we allow to the imagery in which the duty or scene immediately connected with them is displayed. No one, for example, supposes we are actually bound to cut off our hands, or pluck out our eyes, (though, literally, this is

* See Matthew, chap. v. 28, 29, 30.; and chap. xxv, verse 31 to the end.