almost all commentators are partial, and endeavour to put upon the Scripture a fenfe that favours the opinions of their refpective fects. This fpirit of a party is chiefly remarkable in fome of those commentators which thefe laft centuries have produced.

2. The fecond rule of a commentator fhould be, to expound clearly and familiarly the literal fenfe of Scripture, and never to have recourfe to a myftical expofition, but in thofe places where the fpirit of God directs us to look for it: and yet a great many authors do almoft intirely forfake the literal fense, to pursue myftical explications. In their opinion, every thing is myftical in the holy Scripture, efpecially in the Old Tefta ment. They are not contented with unfolding the true myfteries and próphecies which manifeftly relate to the times of the Gospel, but they turn all things into figure. They find myfteries, allegories, types and prophe cies every where, even in the plaineft difcourfes. This they call fearching and diving into the Scriptures. But this way of expounding the word of God is a fountain of illufions: for as the Holy Ghost does not explain those pretended mysteries, so they must be put to their gueffes and be beholden to their imagination for the difcovery of them; and he that is the most copious or lucky in his conjectures, is the greatest man. Now I leave any one to judge, whether commentators, who follow no other guide but their imagination, can avoid being very frequently mistaken, and giving a great many handles to libertines and infidels.

The holy

3. We are not to forget here the fchool-commentators. Scripture should be expounded in a fimple and popular manner; and this cannot be denied, if we confider that it was given for the inftruction and the falvation of all men, and that the difcourfes of Chrift and his Apostles were addressed to the common people, and to fuch perfons as were far from being philofophers. Nothing therefore feems more repugnant to the defign of Scripture, than to explain it philofophically, and, which is worfe, according to the principles of a falte philofophy, as divers commentators do. They make ufe of the method, notions, and terms of the schools, to find out the meaning of the facred writings. They apply to all fubjects the rules prescribed by the fchool-men. They carefully distinguish in a text thofe things which are called in the fchools Materia, Forma, Caufa efficiens, Finis, Subjectum, Adjunctum, &c. They feek in all reafonings the Major, the Minor, and the conclufion, as if the Holy Ghost, infpiring the facred authors, had followed the fcheme of Ariftotle's logick, and had intended to make fyllogifms in mood and figure. I fay nothing here of that fpirit of difpute and wrangling which runs through the fcholaftical commentaries, nor of the falfe fenfes and metaphyfical explications, which they put upon the Scripture. Such books are obstacles rather than helps to the understanding of the word of God; they are fit only to perplex what is clear, and to fpoil divines and preachers, by tak ing away from them that qualification they had moft need of, I mean, good fenfe.

4. Another very different way from that fimplicity with which the Scripture should be handled, is the method of thole authors, who without neceffity infilt upon all the circumstances of a text, who fift all the terms. of it, as if a mystery did lurk in every word; who defcend to the minutest things and weary themselves in conjectures and questions. This

Ꭲ 4

exactness

exactness is very ufelefs and infipid. It may be fometimes neceffary to clear a difficulty, to unfold an intricate meaning, and to obferve the critical fignification of words: but when the fenfe is natural and eafie, and when the words are clear, to what purpose should a man infist upon all those illuftrations? What need is there for him to be always preffing the fignification of words, to remark all their different acceptations, and to explain what is to be understood by the words, Death, Faith, Juft, every time that these terms occur. The true method is to pursue the things themselves and the meaning of a text, without criticizing upon words and circumftances.

5. It is the fault of many commentators to be prolix and too large. From every verfe, nay, from every word, they take occafion to run into a common-place, and to vent a multitude of notions, fo that they really give us fermons, differtations, or lectures of divinity, under the title of commentaries. I do not abfolutely condemn diffus'd commentaries; we meet fometimes with good things in them, but we find there likewise a great many which fignifie nothing. When all is done, brevity, clearness, and exactnefs, are infinitely to be preferred in a commentary before pro lixity and copioufnels; fuch length breeds obfcurity and confufion, it makes preachers lazy, it tempts them to fill their fermons with a hundred needlefs things, it brings them to a custom of being tedious, of making digreffions, and of paffing by that which is effential and folid: all which is very far from promoting the edification of the church.

Befides, it is evident, That the defects of commentaries contribute very much to the corruption of Chriftians. The holy Scripture is the foundation of religion and piety; but commentaries are the ftores from which the fenfe of Scripture is drawn, and from which preachers commonly take the matter of their fermons. Few of them endeavour to find out the fenfe of a text by their own industry; they confult their commentaries like oracles, and they blindly follow their decifions; it is therefore highly requifite that these books should not lead into error those who have recourfe to them. When a blind man leads another, they both fall into the ditch. If then the guides, to whofe conduct preachers give up themselves, are deceitful and falfe, the word of God will neither be well understood, nor well preached, and both preachers and people will err.

II. It is with divinity-books as with commentaries; fome are good, and others bad. The diverfity of opinions which we see among authors, is a proof of what I fay; fome maintain as divine truths, things which others reject as falfe and pernicious fentiments; fo that there must be no fmall error on one fide or the other. All divines will own the truth of this remark; but it is here of no use, because it does not decide which books of divinity are good, and which are bad. Every body will pretend that the bad books are those which teach a doctrine contrary to that which obtains in the fociety to which he belongs. In order to know who is in the right, or in the wrong, it would be neceffary to judge here upon the merits of the caufe, and to enter into the examination of all the controverfies which divide Chriftians. But this I will by no means take upon me to do: it would be fitter for me to take notice of thofe faults. which are common to the greatest part of divinity-books. I fhall fay nothing but what must needs be owned by all the fenfible divines of any

party;

party; and the reflections I am to make, tho' general, may perhaps be of fome ufe to direct our judgement concerning the doctrine it felf contained in those books.

1. Almost all the authors who have writ of divinity, have made of it, upon the matter, a fcience of meer fpeculation. They cftablish certain doctrines, they deliver their opinions, they prove them as well as they can; they treat of controverfies, and confute their adverfaries; but they do not seem to have meditated much upon the ufe of the doctrines they teach, with relation to piety and falvation. They are very fhort upon this head, which yet is the chiefeft of all; they are not by half fo folicitous to affert the duties, as they are to maintain the truths of religion. Now this is not teaching divinity. The defign of religion is to teach men how they ought to ferve God, and to make them holy and happy. If this was confidered in the handling of divinity, and if care was taken to fhew what relation all the parts of religion have to the glory of God, and to the holiness and felicity of man, there would be much more piety than there is now among Chriftians. Those who study divinity would learn betimes to direct it to its true end; and this would likewise be a means to diftinguish material from infignificant points and questions, and to eafe religion of all thofe needlefs difputes, which are one of the main caufes of the corruption of Chriftians.

2. What I have now faid leads me to a fecond obfervation; which is, that as feveral things might be left out of divinity-books, fo other things are wanting, which it would be necessary to add to them. For the purpofe, common places do not infift much upon the general truths and principles of religion. They fcarce give us any inftruction about Churchdifcipline and government, or about the belief and practice of the first ages of Chriftianity: as for morality, it is there touched but very fuperficially. And yet thefe are effential articles in divinity, the knowledge of which is neceffary to those who are called to preach the Gospel, to guide a Church, or to direct men's confciences.

3. Divinity-books are, for the most part, too fcholaftical. The method of the fchool has been long in vogue; and tho' the schoolmen's ways of handling divinity, may juftly be looked upon as a defiance to fenfe and religion; yet that method has prevailed to that degree, that for fome ages it was not lawful to fwerve from it. Of late years indeed the school-men have loft a great deal of their credit; and in divinity, as well as in philofophy, many perfons have no longer that blind deference for them which was paid heretofore. Yet, for all that, a great number of divines do ftill fet up that method their rule, and it is still as it were facred in colleges and univerfities. Common-places to this day favour too much of the barbarism of the schools, and we find there but too many remainders of that dry and crabbed theology, which had its birth in the ages of ignorance. Inftead of thofe fimple and clear ideas, which render the truth and majefty of the Chriftian religion fenfible, and which fatisfie a man's reafon, and move his heart, we meet with nothing in feveral bodies of divinity but metaphyfical notions, curious and needlefs questions, distinctions, and obfcure terms. In a word, we find there fuch intricate theology, that the very apoftles themfelves, if they came into the world again, would not be able to understand it, without the help of a parti

cular

cular revelation. This fcholaftick divinity, has done more mischief to religion, than we are able to exprefs. There is not any thing that has more corrupted the purity of the Chriftian religion, that has more obfcured matters, multiplied controverfies, difturbed the peace of the Church, or given rife to fo many herefies and fchifms. This is the thing which confirms fo many ecclefiafticks in their ignorance and prejudices, and which keeps them from applying themselves to the folid parts of divinity, and to that which is proper to fanctify men.

Now all thefe defects are visible caufes of corruption, which may be proved by this fingle confideration, that it is in common-places that Church-men learn their divinity: fuppofe then that thofe books do not give them a true idea of religion, what religion or what divinity can fuch men teach their people? One fcholaftick and injudicious author who is in credit in a country, and who is patronized by a profeffor, is enough to fpoil the minds of young divines, and to bring into repute the most absurd and dangerous opinions and fyftems.

Tho' catechifms are not ufually reckoned among divinity-books, yet it will not be useless to fay fomething of them here, fome great men have bestowed their pains upon works of this kind to very good purpose; and yet in this respect there is ftill fomething to be defired for publick edification. 1. It is to be wifhed that thofe fubjects fhould only be treated in catechifms, which ought to be handled there, and that all the matters and queftions which are above the reach of the people and of children, or which are not neceffary to falvation, fhould be banished from thence. 2. That fome effential articles, about which catechifms are very jejune, should be added to them, and particularly these three; a general idea of the hiftory of the bible; the main proofs of the fundamental truths of religion; and an exact explication of the duties of morality. This laft article is for the most part extremely neglected in catechifms; nothing can be more dry and fuperficial than what they fay upon the decalogue. 3. It would be fitting to make fome alteration in the method obferved in catechifms; for they are not all familiar enough: fchool-terms or figurative phrafes are ufed in them; which either the people do not understand, or to which they affix falfe ideas. For inftance, I would not have it faid, That the eucharift is the fymbol of our fpiritual nourishment, and of our union with Jefus Chrift: for befides that this is not an exact definition, this style is not proper for a catechifm. These words fymbol, Spiritual nourishment, union with Jefus Chrift, are figurative and obfcure terms; would not the thing be plainer both to children and every body, if we should fay, that the eucharift is a facred action and ceremony, wherein Christians ear bread and drink wine, which are diltributed in remembrance of the death. of Chrift, and of the redemption wrought by him? In thofe works which are intended for youth and for the common people, it concerns an author to be clear and accurate, to omit nothing that is effential, to fay nothing that is neediefs, to ufe plain and proper expreffions, and to propose nothing but what is natural and eafy to be apprehended. Catechifms are deligned to give children the firft tinctures and ideas of religion: now thofe ideas, we know, commonly ftick by them as long as they live; if then they are not clear and true, it is not poffible for them ever to be well acquainted with their religion.

III. The

III. The third fort of books are thofe of morality. This important part of religion which regulates manners, has been treated with a great deal of folidity and force in feveral excellent works. Nay, it is obferved, That morality is more cultivated of late than it has been heretofore. But it were to be wished that the good books of morality we have at this day, were of a more general usefulness than they are. The best works of this kind, are above the people's capacity. There are various things in them, relating either to the reasoning part, the turn of thoughts, or the ftyle, which cannot be understood, but by knowing and difcerning perfons. Almost all the able men who write upon morals have this fault, That they speak too much like ingenious men, and do not accommodate themfelves enough to the capacity of the readers. They do not confider, that they ought to be useful to every body, that what feems clear to them, is obfcure to the greateft part of thofe who perufe their writings, and that a book of morality, which is only understood by men of parts or learning, is of a very limited usefulness. They fhould therefore, at leaft in fome of their works, endeavour to speak in a popular manner, and to handle matters with all poffible clearness and fimplicity. This would be no difparagement to them, and the doing it well would, I think, require all the abilities, parts and talents, of the best writers: it is more difficult than it feems, to fpeak or write in such a manner, as that a man shall fay all that is proper to be faid, and at the fame time be intelligible to all forts of perfons.

But if there are good books of morality, there are many on the other hand, which have confiderable faults in them, and those faults are of great confequence, because morality ill explained, is capable of doing more hurt than good.

I. An author who treats of morality fhould always have these two rules in his view. I. To explain exactly the nature of the duties which it prescribes. And 2. To perfuade men to the practice of those duties. Now these two rules have not been fufficiently obferved by all thofe who have published moral books, 1. They do not always reprefent with due exactness the nature of vice or virtue. Either the notions they give of them are not true, or they are too general. On the one hand, they are not accurate enough, in defcribing the true characters of each virtue and vice; and on the other hand, they do not diftinguish their various kinds and degrees, which yet ought to be done if they intend that men should know their own pictures. 2. They do not prefs men enough to the practice of virtue. The end of morality, is to work upon man's heart and paffions. In order to compafs this end two things are necessary. 1. That all thofe great motives which the Gofpel affords, fhould be ftrongly urged and 2. That the falfe reasons and motives which engage men into the love of this world and give them any averfion to holiness, fhould be confuted. Morals cannot be usefully handled without the obfervation of these two maxims, the fecond efpecially for the reafons why many are not prevailed upon by the arguments and motives which are offered to them, is, because they are hindered by other arguments and motives. A reader frames in himself a hundred objections against what he reads in a book of morality; man's heart is no fooner inclined to any vice, but it grows fertile in evafions, reafons, and pretences. Every