The apostle writ not by that man's system. and so his meaning cannot be known by it. This being the ordinary way of understanding the epistles, and every sect being perfectly orthodox in its own judgment, what a great and invincible darkness must this cast upon St. Paul's meaning to all those of that way, in all those places where his thoughts and sense run counter to what any party has espoused for orthodox; as it must unavoidably to all, but one, of the different systems, in all those passages that any way relate to the points in controversy between them.

This is a mischief, which, however frequent and almost natural, reaches so far, that it would justly make all those who depend upon them, wholly diffident of commentators; and let them see, how little help was to be expected from them in relying on them for the true sense of the Sacred Scripture, did they not take care to help to cozen themselves, by choosing to use and pin their faith on such expositors as explain the Sacred Scripture in favour of those opinions that they before hand have voted orthodox, and bring to the Sacred Scripture, not for trial, but confirma

tion. No body can think that any text of St. Paul's epistles has two contrary meanings; and yet so it must have to two dif ferent men, who taking two commentators of different sects, for their respective guides into the sense of any one of the epistles, shall build upon their respective expositions. We need go no farther for a proof of it, than the notes of the two celebrated commentators on the New-Testament, Dr. Hammond and Beza, both men of parts and learning, and both thought by their followers men mighty in the Sacred Scriptures. So that here we see the hopes of great benefit and light from expositors and commentators, is in a great part abated; and those who have most need of their help, can receive but little from them, and can have very little assurance of reaching the apostle's sense by what they find in them, whilst matters remain in the same state they are in at present. For those who find they need help, and would borrow light from expositors, either consult only those who have the good luck to be thought sound and orthodox, avoiding those of different sentiments from themselves in the great and approved points of their systems, as dangerous, and not fit to be med

dled with; or else, with indifferency, look into the notes of all commentators promiscuously. The first of these take pains only to confirm themselves in the opinions and tenets they have already; which, whether it be the way to get the true meaning of what St. Paul delivered, is easy to determine. The others, with much more fairness to themselves, though with reaping little more advantage (unless they have something else to guide them into the apostle's meaning than the comments themselves) seek help on all hands, and refuse not to be taught by any one, who offers to enlighten them in any of the dark passages. But here, though they avoid the mischief which the others fall into, of being confined in their sense, and seeing nothing but that in St. Paul's writings, be it right or wrong; yet they run into as great on the other side, and instead of being confirmed in the meaning, that they thought they saw in the text, are distracted with an hundred, suggested by those they advised with; and so, instead of that one sense of the Scripture which they carried with them to their commentators, return from them with none at all.

This, indeed, seems to make the case desperate; for if the comments and expotions of pious and learned men cannot be depended on, whither shall we go for help? to which I answer, I would not be mistaken, as if I thought the labours of the learned in this case wholly lost, and fruitless. There is great use and benefit to be made of them, when we have once got a rule to know which of their expositions, in the great variety there is of them, explains the words and phrases according to the apostle's meaning. 'Till then, 'tis evident, from what is above said, they serve for the most part to no other use, but either to make us find our own sense, and not his, in St. Paul's words; or else to find in them no settled sense at all.

Here it will be asked, how shall we come by this rule you mention? Where is that touchstone to be had, that will shew us whether the meaning we ourselves put, or take as put by others upon St. Paul's words, in his epistles, be truly his meaning or no? I will not say the way which I propose, and have in the following paraphrase followed, will make us infallible in our interpretations of the apostle's text:

but this I will own, that till I took this way, St. Paul's epistles to me, in the ordinary way of reading and studying them, were very obscure parts of Scripture, that left me almost every where at a loss; and I was at a great uncertainty in which of the contrary senses, that were to be found in his commentators, he was to be taken. Whether what I have done, has made it any clearer and more visible now, I must leave others to judge. This I beg leave to say for myself, that if some very sober, judicious Christians, no strangers to the Sacred Scriptures, nay, learned Divines of the church of England, had not professed, that by the perusal of these following papers, they understood the epistles much better than they did before, and had not, with repeated instances, pressed me to publish them, I should not have consented they should have gone beyond my own private use, for which they were at first designed, and where they made me not repent my pains.

If any one be so far pleased with my endeavours, as to think it worth while to be informed what was the clue I guided myself by through all the dark passages of