redeem us from death, it makes every man his own Messiah; instead of telling us that we are wrestling against invisible powers, and arming us against their devices, it knows nothing of the devil, no such Being having ever found a place in any system of Natural Religion. It therefore leaves us totally ignorant of the grand Enemy of our salvation, and consequently unprepared for the dreadful conflict against him. Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Thus saith the Gospel; but what saith Natural Religion? It saith no mysteries can be rational, and consequently that Christian baptism is not rational; as that is a mystery, where something is expected, which does not appear. The Gospel saith that man hath no Life but by partaking in the Holy Sacrament of that death which Christ suffered for him. But what saith Natural Religion? That every man is to be justified by what he does for himself, only, not by any thing which another does for him.

Archdeacon Paley, in the dedication of his Moral Philosophy to the Bishop of Carlisle, compliments his Lordship for his endeavours, in all his researches, to recover the simplicity of the Gospel from that load of unauthorized additions, which have been heaped upon it, and to render religion more credible by rendering it more rational. Whether his Lordship succeeded in his endeavours, may admit of a doubt. But, certainly, in our zeal to render the gospel more credible, by rendering it more rational, we should be careful not to explain away what is essential to the gospel, with that view; for that would be to "make void the Gospel," instead of establishing it. The doctrine of the Cross was 66 unto the Greeks foolishness," as it is

to

to the Greeks of the present day; but the Apostle did not therefore cease to preach it, nor did he try to make it more palatable to their pride, or more rational in itself, by any qualifying comment on it--to them that believe," it is the power of God and the wisdom of God."" How can these things be?" said Nicodemus, when our blessed Lord told him, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God;" but in the answer, there was no attempt to make it more credible by making it more rational

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." The doctrine of Regeneration stands as it did; it is an article of faith. Nicodemus may ask, "How can these things be?"-but these things ARE so; and, on the authority of God, to

him that believeth, all things are possible." The Archdeacon intimates, that he, who, by examination of the original records, dismisses from the system one article, which contradicts the apprehension, the experience, or the reasoning of mankind, does more towards recommending the belief, and with it the influence of christianity, than can be effected by contenders for creeds and ordinances of human establishment. But "the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned;" and therefore, if every article of the Gospel-System is to be dismissed, which contradicts the apprehension, the experience, or the reasoning of the wise, the scribe, the disputer of this world," whatever may be effected by contenders for creeds and ordinances of human establishment, every

VOL. I.

b

doctrine

doctrine peculiar to Christianity must be given up, and so, "the word of God will be made of none effect." Besides the simplicity of the Gospel, which the Archdeacon represents his Lordship as so solicitous to recover, there is a simplicity necessary for receiving it, seldom attended to by the advocates of vain philosophy" not many wise men after the flesh are called."" Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven :"-the soul must be even as a weaned child.

In 1773 Mr. Jones collected together into a volume, Disquisitions on some select subjects of Scripture, which had been before printed in separate tracts, all in the highest degree instructive and edifying.

In a curious Disquisition published in this volume on the Mosaic Distinction of Animals into clean and unclean, he observes, "that as we did not invent the Bible itself, God hath wisely provided against our inventing the interpretation of it; the Scripture, when properly searched, being sufficient for the unfolding of its own difficulties. If any subject is left without an explanation, where it is first delivered, we find it resumed or referred to in other places; and some new circumstances are introduced, which serve to enlarge our views, and to clear up what is obscure. Hence it comes to pass, that howsoever other books may be explained, the only rational method of interpreting the Scripture is to compare spiritual things with spiritual, to clear up one passage of divine writ by others which relate to it; and in the mouth of two or three witnesses of this sort every word ought to be established."

Under the direction of this rule, the best which can be devised, he enters on a discussion of the subject,

and

and proves, beyond contradiction, from the Law itself, the vision of St. Peter, and other passages of Scripture laid together, that in this distinction of animals into clean and unclean, there was a moral design; under which the Jews were instructed, as by an apologue or parable, that this was the will of God, even their sanctification, that every one of them should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; not in the lust of concupiscence, as the Gentiles, which knew not God. Agreeably to his uniform opinion, that the spiritual is to be seen through thẻ natural world, which no glass but that of the Scrip ture will enable man to do, he concludes, that in the formation of the world, a moral use of the animal creation was originally intended, because it would be a supposition unworthy of God, that the works of nature should be capable of answering any good end, which his wisdom did not foresee, and consequently design; and if the institution was figurative, carrying with it a moral obligation, it will be found worthy of the divine wisdom, and, therefore, worth the consideration of every Naturalist, who hath sense enough to understand, that irreligion is no necessary part of his profession as a philosopher. He does not, with Æsop, make the animals argue, like human creatures, but, by examining into their various instincts and properties, their manners, and different ways of life, as a christian naturalist, he shews that they speak a very intelligible language, and imparts lessons of admirable instruction to men, according to the intention, and will of their Creator-teaching us what we are to do, and what to avoid. In the course of the disquisition he pertinently remarks, that the Law of Moses is the foundation of the Scriptures that follow, whether of

the Old or New Testament, and, therefore, if the

sense of any institution is rightly collected and ascertained, it cannot fail to open many figurative passages of the bible, of which he gives some examples; and he takes occasion to correct the mistakes of Dr. Spenser in his work De legibus Hebræorum ritualibus. The Doctor represents the Jews as a people of a gross apprehension, unfit for all the refinements of allusion. But why the chosen people of God are to be supposed more gross in their apprehensions, than those who knew him not, does not at first sight appear; the vulgar, whether Jews, Heathens, or Christians, have always miscarried, by taking images for realities; and to say, as he does, that the Law was intended only for the outward man, is formally to contradict the New Testament, for then it would have followed that he was truly a Jew, who was such outwardly; but, saith the Apostle, he is a Jer which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart. Then in regard to giving the seniority to Heathenism, because many ritual Laws were common both to the Hebrews and the Heathens; it is only to go far enough backward, to come to one common fountain of Patriarchal Tradition. But surely nothing can be more monstrous than to deduce the Mosaic Ritual, as he attempts to do, from the practices of Idolatry-to imagine, that God indulged the Jews with an Image in their temple, so contrived as to be a Compendium of all the Imagery of Paganism, because the heathens had Images of their Deities in their temples— that the divine symbol, then called the Cherubim of Glory, and set up first at Eden, was not originally in the true worship, but taken from the false-and that God, who is said to have dwelt between the Cherubim,

con