made to give way to the figurative, rather than the figurative to

the proper.

EXAMPLES.

First The Universalist, finding the terms used to express the duration of future punishment frequently applied to things which have an end, endeavours from thence to set aside the evidence of its eternity. That is, he grounds his argument on the secondary and figurative application of terms, to the setting aside of that which is primary or proper. Thus av, though its proper meaning is always being, is made to mean no more than age or ages; and awvios, though it literally signifies everlasting or endless, yet is said to mean no more than age-lasting. Thus, instead of measuring the secondary sense of words by the primary, the primary is measured and excluded by the secondary; which goes to exclude all just reasoning, and to introduce everlasting wrangling. It were just as reasonable to contend that the English word turnpike signifies a road made by an act of parliament, though it is so called merely in a way of contraction, and because such roads have toll-gates, and such gates a turnpike for the accommodation of foot passengers.

Secondly: The adversaries of the doctrine of the atonement have taken the same method. "By a sacrifice," says Dr. Taylor, "is meant a symbolical address to God, intended to express before him the devotions, affections, &c. by significant emblematical actions; and consequently, whatever is expressive of a pious and virtuous disposition may be rightly included in the idea of a sacrifice; as prayers, thanksgivings, expenses, labours, &c. &c." It is easy to see that the primary notion of a sacrifice is here explained away, or lost in the crowd of secondary meanings; by which any thing may be proved, or disproved, as the writer pleases.

Thirdly Let it be dispassionately and impartially considered, whether the principal objections brought against the ordinance of baptism being administered exclusively by immersion, do not originate in the same cause. The word Barrigw, it is said, will not always agree with the idea of immersion. It is applied to the effu

sion of the Holy Spirit, and to some other things wherein immersion is inadmissible. Be it so still it amounts to no more than this, -That the term baptizo, like almost every other term, has its secondary and figurative senses. Its proper and primary meaning is allowed by the most learned pædobaptists in all ages, to be that which the antipædobaptists contend for; and this is the only meaning which ought to be called in to settle a dispute. By the contrary method, it were easy to prove that the English word immersion does not mean dipping or plunging: for if a person be very wet by rain, it is common to say he is immersed, merely because he is as wet as if he had been immersed.

To generalize the meaning of a term, in order to include its secondary or figurative senses, is the way to lose its true and proper sense; and if applied universally, might go to undermine all the great doctrines of Christianity.

QUERIES ON SOLOMON'S SONG.

MR. EDITOR,

I MUST acknowledge, that it seems to me that the Review of Williams on Solomon's Song, which appeared in your last number, was calculated, whatever might be the design, to undermine the divine authority of that book; and by consequence, of revelation in general. I must add, I wish that some other pieces, particularly that on the Time of the Creation, had had less of a skeptical tendency.

The reviewer puts the following query: "Had Solomon, in writing this poem, any spiritual intentions in reference to the Mes

siah; or was it accommodated by some pious teachers in the Jewish church, to illustrate the sublime connexion between the Son of God and his church, as the domestic relation of Sarah and Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael, do that of the two covenants ?" p. 392.

In answering this query, I shall put a few others to him, and to the reader.

First If there be no spiritual intention in this poem, wherein consists its excellence as the Song of Songs; and has it any right to a place in the oracles of God?

Secondly: If it have no right there, by what evidence, except what is merely internal, can it be proved that several other books have any right there; those especially to which no express reference is made in the New Testament?

Thirdly: If it have no right there, it had none in the time of our Saviour and his apostles. That it was there at that time, is, I be lieve, denied by none: but if the Old Testament scriptures then contained a book which had nothing spiritual or divine in it. How came they to appeal to them as being ALL given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, &c. Why, especially, did they whose work it was to finish the canon of scripture, leave in it a book uninspired of God, and of no spiritual use?

Fourthly: What reason can be given for questioning the divine authority of Solomon's Song, which does not apply with equal force to the forty-fifth Psalm, which in the New Testament is ex pressly applied to the Son of God?

Fifthly Is not the insinuation concerning pious teachers, who are supposed to have invented the spiritual meaning of this Song, designed to detract from their wisdom; and while it detracts from theirs, does it not contain an unworthy reflection upon the apostle Paul?

Whether I can understand the meaning of every part of this divine Song or not; or whether it has ever been rightly interpreted, is no part of the question; all I am concerned about at present is, that its divine authority should not be called in question.

THE NECESSITY OF SEEKING THOSE THINGS FIRST, WHICH ARE OF THE FIRST IMPORTANCE.

A GREAT part of the evil which prevails in the world, consists in an entire neglect of what God commands, or in doing what he has expressly forbidden; but not the whole of it. There may be an attachment to many things, which in themselves are right, and yet the whole may be rendered worse than void by the want of order, or a regard to things according to their importance. Our Lord did not censure the Pharisees for attending to the lesser matters of the law, but for attending to them to the neglect of the greater. If we pursue things as primary, which ought to occupy only a secondary or subordinate place in the system, we subvert the whole, and employ ourselves in doing what is worse than nothing.

I think I see the operation of this principle among us, and that to a wide extent. I see it among the unconverted, among the converted, and among different parties or denominations of Christians.

First: It is by this that great numbers who lay their accounts with obtaining the kingdom of heaven will be found to have deceiv ed themselves. It may be too much to say of them, that they do not seek the kingdom of God; but they seek it not as a first or primary object. The world is their chief good, and the kingdom of God only occupies a secondary place in their affections. They wish to attend to their everlasting concerns; but they cannot spare time. Now, we can commonly spare time for that which we love best. The sensualist can find time for bis pleasures, and the man of the world for getting money. They can think of these things when sitting in the house, or walking in the way; and every thing else is made to bend, or give way to them. The result is, this preposterous conduct mars the whole; for God and religion must be supreme, or nothing. There are certain relations, even among us, in which it is impossible to be contented with a secondary place. If a wife give her heart to another than her husband

and aims only to oblige him so far as to keep him in tolerably good humour, it is what cannot be endured; he must be first, or nothing; and such is the claim of heaven.

:

Secondly It is owing to this, among other causes, that many Christians go from year to year in doubt, with respect to their interest in Christ and spiritual blessings.-It is very desirable to have clear and satisfactory views on this subject. To live in suspense on a matter of such importance, must, if we be not sunk in insensibility, be miserable. How is it that so much of this prevails among us; when, if we look into the New Testament, we shall scarcely see an instance of it among the primitive Christians? Shall we cast off all such characters as unbelievers? Some have done so, alleging that it is impossible for a person to be a believer without being conscious of it. Surely this is too much; for if the grace of God within us, whatever be its degree, must needs be self-evident to us, why are we directed to keep his commandments as the means of knowing that we know him? The primitive Christians, however, had but little of this fear; and the reason of it was, they had more of that perfect love to Christ, to the gospel, and to the success of it, than we have, which tended to cast out fear. If we make our personal comfort the first object of our pursuit, (and many attend the means of grace as if they did,) God will make it the last of his for it is a general principle in the divine administration, He that honoureth me, I will honour; but he that despiseth me shall be lightly esteemed. If we seek the honour of God, we shall find our own peace and comfort in it: but if we make light of him, he will make light of us, and leave us to pass our days in darkness and suspense.

:

Thirdly It is owing, if I mistake not, to the same cause that various denominations of Christians, who at some periods have been greatly blessed of God, have declined as to their spiritual prosperity. Several of our religious denominations have arisen from a conscientious desire to restore Christianity to its primitive purity. From this motive acted, I believe, the greater part of the Reformers, the Puritans, the Non-conformists, and the Baptists. I do not know that any one of these denominations were VOL. VIII.

45