knowlege in the meaning of what he says will not unmake the law for if it could, ignorance would be the supreme authority, since no authority could make a law which ignorance could not repeal. How far we are concerned in these obscurities, or what obligations they lay on us, which perhaps may be none at all, is another question: but I think it is evident that no body of laws, human or divine, becomes void and of none effect, because some parts are hard to be understood, or not to be understood. And if men dispute on such places, and divide into a thousand opinions about them, such divisions do still less affect the law, which owes not its authority to the agreement or disagreement of interpreters.

But it may be said, and I think very justly, to what purpose is any thing delivered as law or revelation, which is too obscure to be understood? The very end of the law is, to be the rule of our actions; and how is this end to be attained whilst we continue ignorant of the meaning of the lawgiver? Men may blunder, and make dark laws, and so miss the scope they aimed at; and the wonder is not great: but how should any obscurity darken the law of God? since we cannot but suppose, from the very end and nature of a law, that his intention was to be understood; and his wisdom permits us not to doubt but that he was able to explain his meaning.

This brings us to consider the fact, whether the gospel has such difficulties and obscurities in it as may make us esteem it unworthy of the wisdom of God.

The Christian revelation is contained in the books of the New Testament; but they are not all of the same kind, nor do they fall under the same consideration in this question. Had men given themselves time to think coolly, and to make the true separation in this case, we had not perhaps been told that the difficulties of some parts of the Scripture are an objection to the revelation itself.

The books of the New Testament may be considered either as historical, as doctrinal, or as controversial, and some as a mixture of the two last. By the historical, I understand the narrative of our Saviour's life and death, and of the preaching of his Apostles after his resurrection and ascension. These, as they are merely historical, afford none of those difficulties which

are so much complained of: the story is plain and simple, and the different accounts of it, in the several gospels, vary no more from each other, than may naturally be expected from different

pens.

By the doctrinal, I understand those matters of faith and rules of duty, which do not regard this or that particular case, but were intended for the use of the whole world, and are to continue to the end of it. And if there be a clear law, and clearly expressed, in the world, this is the law. Can words more clearly express the honor and worship we are to pay to God, or can more familiar directions be given in this case than are to be found in the gospel? Is not idolatry clearly condemned in the gospel? Is there any other thing relating to divine worship that we yet want instructing in? Are not the duties likewise, which we owe to each other, made evident and plain, and can there be any dispute about them, except what arises from lust, or avarice, or other self-interest? As to the peculiar benefits of the gospel, are they not declared without obscurity? Can you read the gospel, and doubt whether Christ died for you; whether God will grant pardon to the penitent, or his assistance to those who ask it; whether he will reward all such in glory, who continue the faithful disciples of his Son? What other revelation do we want, or can we desire, in these great and weighty concerns? Or what is there wanting to make up a complete system of religion? These things you read in the gospels, these things you read in the other writings of the Apostles; in these there is a perfect harmony and consent of all the inspired writers.

But still, you say, there are difficulties in Scripture. And so there are but they are such as do not interfere with the clear revelation made by Christ. The controversial parts of Scripture, such I mean as combat the particular opinions and errors of the Jews or others, are in many places dark and hard to be understood but had there never been any dispute with the Jews or others, had all obeyed without dispute, the gospel had been perfect; and is perfect still, however divines or others may differ in expounding the particulars incident to those debates. Had St. Paul said nothing of election or reprobation (and, as these terms are generally understood, nothing perhaps

he has said) our gospel had not been less complete; since these points, however understood, make no alteration in our duty, and they ought to make none in our faith. It was a proper part of the Apostles' office to root out the prejudices and errors which stood in the way of the gospel of Christ; and whilst they were disputing with Jew and Gentile, and proving that Jesus is the Christ, they were doing the work of their great Master. These writings, conveyed down to us, are of inestimable value, and worth our utmost pains and study to understand, being transcripts of that wisdom with which the Apostles were endowed. They contain the great doctrines and the great proofs of Christianity; in which points they are not only of the greatest authority, but have likewise the greatest clearness: the particular disputes which are intermixed refer often to principles and opinions, which we can hardly, at least not surely, discover; and when men apply things pointed to one single view by the Apostles, which view they have no clear sight of, to the general doctrines of Christianity, no wonder if they disturb the whole, and spread confusion over the clearest parts of the gospel.

To this conduct have been owing many of the disputes which have perplexed the world; and men have forgot the plain parts of Scripture, while, to the utter ruin of Christian charity, they have worried one another about the obscure ones. To give one instance of this: if there be any thing plain in any book in the world, this is plain in Scripture, 'That without holiness no man shall see God.' This is the foundation of all religion, the ground on which the revelation itself is built; and yet who is there that wants to be informed that doctrines destructive of this great article have been advanced on the authority of Scripture? Who has not heard that good works are not necessary to justification? and heard St. Paul quoted for a voucher? not where he is delivering the general doctrines of Christianity, but where he is beating down the particular mistakes of his countrymen. As to these parts of Scripture, happy is he who understands them, for he shall discover much of the wisdom and justice of God in his dealings with his ancient people, the people of the Jews: but he that understands them not has this comfort, that his salvation, his religion, depends not on any

controversy that concerned the Jews only, but on the plain declarations of God made to all mankind.

Thus much may serve to show how far the difficulties and obscurities which really are found in the holy Scripture, do affect the common cause of religion: and I think it is evident that our common religion stands clear even of these difficulties. Other difficulties there are, which more properly belong to religious men than religion: such are the disputes and nice inquiries of the schools, which often enter into the debates of learned writers. But it is strange to find these urged as objections against the gospel by any sober-minded man. For what are these disputes to the gospel? God has promised his assistance to all who endeavor to serve him : is there any difficulty in understanding this? Let the schools consider the nature of grace, and how it influences the mind, and divide it into a hundred sorts, what is that to the gospel ? or what is it to a man who is assured that God will assist him, and who knows that God cannot want means to make good his promise?

In like manner there are many doubts about the sacraments of the gospel, and how and what grace they confer: but dispute as you will, this one point is clear, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.'

ge

Suppose this, you will say, to be true, and that these doubts and difficulties do not affect the authority or truth of the gospel ; yet they are so blended with the cause of religion, that they are not easily separated from it by unlearned and unskilful men and this at least renders the gospel of little use, since it is a rule, the straightness of which cannot be discerned by the nerality of mankind. And this brings me to my second head: To consider these difficulties with respect to ourselves. From what has been already said, it is evident that the Scriptures contain a plain and intelligible system of religion: and would men follow the directions of what they do and may understand, and not think themselves under direction of what they do not understand, there would be no great difficulty in this case. But the misfortune is, that men often fancy they understand what they do not, and raise rules and principles of religion to themselves out of places of which they are perfectly ignorant and how can this be avoided? In the first place, it is

at every man's peril, if he makes any rule to himself, contrary to the plain express commands of God, which he does or may easily understand. In human laws, the main of the subject's duty is plain; and if he mistakes any dark passages, yet so as to keep strictly to his known duty, the consequence perhaps may be tolerable, and he excusable: but if a man from any dark statute should infer a right to rob and murder his neighbor, and act accordingly, (which acts of violence are plainly forbid in the law,) he ought to suffer, not for misunderstanding the obscure law, but for transgressing the plain one. The same reason holds as to the divine law: if a man takes care to observe what he does understand, his mistakes may not be dangerous; but if he forms to himself a liberty from the obscure places, inconsistent with the plain intelligible laws of the gospel, and acts accordingly; those plain laws, which should have been his rule, will be his condemnation.

But plain places are not equally plain to all capacities; and therefore even in this there may be a latitude; a latitude which we cannot determine, but which God, who is to be the judge, both can and will: and the great difficulty which men make to themselves in this case, seems to me to arise from a misapprehension of the judgment of God. Among men all are judged by the same rule, one law comprehends all, and is of the same interpretation and extent in all cases. That it is so, is the effect of human weakness; for in truth and equity, if we could come at them, no two cases are perhaps exactly alike, or equally subject to the same rule: but men cannot allow for the different capacities and circumstances of men, which they cannot judge of; and therefore all who are esteemed to have reason enough to govern themselves, are concluded under one law; and only children, idiots, and madmen are excepted cases. Though in truth the degrees by which men approach to madness or folly, could they be limited, which they cannot, would deserve a distinct consideration.

Now, if you conceive the judgment of God to be like the judgment of man, and that all shall be tried by one and the same rule; no wonder you ask, how ignorant men should come to the knowlege of their duty under the present' doubts and difficulties which cloud religion.