I propofe accordingly to place before your view feveral rules, which may be regarded of the greatest benefit towards a fatisfactory interpretation of the Scriptures; and, having made an application of them to topics, on which Chriftians are for the moft part agreed, fhall fubjoin examples of their application to more controverted points.

But here, before I proceed to a particular statement of the rules to be propofed, I muft be allowed to proteft moft decidedly againft a claim, advanced by certain religionifts, who affume to themselves exclufively a fupernatural illumination in the explaining of Scripture; a claim, which is, if I mistake not, afferted for themselves, and denied to us, by a large proportion of our accufers. It is obvious, that the admiffion of fuch a claim muft at once fuperfede all rational investigation into any controverted matter; for it were vain to expect, that any argument should weigh with him, who believes himfelf to be guided by an infallible monitor within him. The claim therefore carries with it a plain proof of its weakness; for it is a claim, which one man may advance as fairly as another; and if they do fo in mutual oppofition, where is the criterion that is to decide? How far the weakness of the claim is exemplified in the two great leaders of Methodifm, who maintained, each

that he was under the guidance of the Spirit, and each that his adverfary preached another gofpel *; and of whom one at least confeffed, that he had been at times under a ftrong delufion, is a queftion, to which I may hereafter have occafion to revert.

It is a further proof of the weakness of this plea, a proof, which however, I fear, that the perfons in queftion will hardly be perfuaded to admit; that the claim is founded upon a mifapprehenfion of that very book, which they would fain reprefent themselves divinely enlightened to understand. Admirable to this effect are the words of the ever-memorable Hales; and the more worthy of our notice, as they were delivered at a period, the very counterpart of the present times in ecclefiaftical infubordination and licentioufnefs; and God grant, the comparison may not be preferved in their moft melancholy and calamitous refult!"As for thofe marvellous difcourfes of "fome, framed upon prefumption of the Spi"rit's help in private, in judging or interpret

ing of difficult places of Scripture, I muft "needs confefs I have often wondered at the "boldness of them.... The effects of the Spi

See the Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists compared, part ii. Pref. xxi. Welley's Fourth Journal, p. 78. Coke's Life of Wefley, p. 214. Nott's Bampton Lectures, p. 248. note.

rit, as far as they concern knowledge and "instruction, are not particular information "for refolution in any doubtful cafe, (for this “ were plainly revelation ;) but as the angel, "which was fent unto Cornelius, informs him

66

not, but fends him to Peter to fchool; fo “ the Spirit teaches not, but ftirs up in us a "defire to learn; defire to learn makes us "thirst after the means; and pious fedulity "and carefulness make us watchful in the "choice, and diligent in the ufe of means.

The promise to the Apoftles of the Spirit, "which would lead them into all truth, was "made good unto them by private and fecret informing their understandings with the 'knowledge of high and heavenly myfteries, "which as yet had never entered into the "conceit of any man. The fame promise is

66

66

"made to us, but fulfilled after another man66 ner. For what was written by revelation "in their hearts, for our inftruction have they ، written in their books. To us for information, otherwife than out of there books, the Spirit fpeaks not. When the Spirit regene"rates a man, it infufes no knowledge of any point of faith, but fends him to the Church, "and to the Scriptures. When it ftirs him.

66

66

up to newness of life, it exhibits not unto "him an inventory of his fins, as hitherto un"known; but either fuppofes them known in

C

"the law of nature, of which no man can be

86

ignorant, or fends him to learn them from "the mouth of his teachers. More than this, "in the ordinary proceedings of the holy Spirit, in matter of inftruction, I yet could "never defcry. So that to speak of the help "of the Spirit in private, either in dijudicating, or in interpreting of Scripture, is to fpeak they know not what. Which I do "the rather note, firft, because by experience

66

66

we have learnt, how apt men are to call "their private conceits the Spirit: and again, "because it is the efpecial errour, with which "St. Austin long ago charged this kind of "men, by fo much the more prone are they to kindle fchifm and contention in the Church, by how much they feem to themfelves to be endued with a more eminent * measure of Spirit than their brethren ;" whilft *(as St. Bafil speaks) under pretence of infpiration, they violently broach their own " conceits "."

Leaving then thefe extravagant pretensions, as warranted neither by reafon nor by Scripture; but trusting rather, that the holy Spirit will vouchfafe his bleffing upon the confcientious employment of the means, which he bath provided for our inftruction, let us pro

Golden Remains, p. 19.

ceed to confider the principle, which appear beft qualified to guide us in our inquiries.

And here the firft rule, which I fhall propofe, is this; that in our interpretation of Scripture we be regulated, as far as poffible, by its plain and literal fenfe. It were unneceffary to dwell long upon a principle so selfevidently just; a principle, let it be observed in paffing, which ought to be especially cherished by Proteftants, fince it was one motive of our feparation from the church of Rome, that the added to Scripture her gloffes as canonical, to supply what could not be proved from the plain text of Scripture and fince by the application of it a road was opened to the removal of her corruptions, and to the reftoration of the pure doctrines of the Gospel. The neglect of it hath been fertile in error. But for this neglect, the Romanist had not thought of juftifying his impiety, in offering religious worship to any being but God, or in attributing the office of Mediator between God and man to any other being than Chrift:→→ the Quaker would not have renounced the facrament of baptifm; nor the Anabaptist excluded infants from partaking in it; nor the Calvinist have denied its regenerating grace:Pelagius would not have denied the corruption of human nature; nor Novatian have pre