I suppose then, in the first place, that no man will be so rash as to put pen to paper, or begin to discuss a text, till he has well comprehended the sense of it. I have given no rule about this before; for a man, who wants to be told, that he ought not to preach on a text before he understands it, ought at the same time to be informed, that he is fitter for any other profession than that of a minister.

I suppose, secondly, that the student, having well understood the sense of his text, begins by dividing it; and that, having the several parts before his eyes, he very nearly sees what are the subjects which he will have to discuss, and, consequently, what ought to enter into his composition.

3

I suppose, farther, that he is a man not altogether a novice in divinity: but that he is acquainted with commonplaces, and the principal questions, of which they treat.

Supposing all these, the first thing that I would have such a man do, is to observe the nature of his text; for there are doctrinal, historical, prophetical, and typical texts. Some contain a command, others a prohibition;

As for composing (says Bishop Wilkins) it will not be convenient for a constant preacher to pen all his discourse, or to tie himself to phrases; when the matter is well digested, expressions will easily follow; whereas to be confined to words, besides the oppression of the memory, will much prejudice the operations of the understanding and affections. The judgment will be much weakened, and the affections dulled, when the memory is over-burthened. A man cannot ordinarily be so much affected himself, and consequently he cannot affect others, with things he speaks by rote; he should take some liberty to prosecute a matter according to his more immediate apprehensions of it; by which many particulars may be suggested not before thought of, according to the working of his own affections, and the various alterations that may appear in the auditory; and, besides, they will breed a #aggia, such a fitting confidence as should be in that orator who is to have a power over the affections of others, which such a one is scarcely capable of. Wilking's Ecclesiast. sect. 2.

This reminds me of what Quintilian says upon extempore speaking: "Maximus vero studiorum fructus est, et velut præmium quoddam amplissimum longi laboris, extempore dicendi facultas: quam quinon erit consecutus, mea quidem sententia,civilibus officiis renuntiabit, et solam scribendi facultatem potius ad alia opera convertet.— Quid multus stylus, et assidua lectio, et longa studiorum ætas facit, si manet eadem quæ fuit incipientibus difficultas? Periisse profecto confitendum præteritum laborem, cui semper idem laborandum est," &c. Quint. Inst. lib. x. cap. 7.

some a promise, others a threatening; some a wish, others an exhortation; some a censure, others a motive to action; some a parable, some a reason; some a comparison of two things together, some a vision, some a thanksgiving; some a description of the wrath, or majesty of God, of the sun, or some other thing; a commendation of the law, or of some person; a prayer; an amplification of joy, or affliction; a pathetic exclamation of anger, sorrow, admiration, imprecation, repentance, confession, of faith, partiarchal or pastoral benediction, consolation, &c. I take the greatest part to be mixed, containing different kinds of things. It is very important for a man who would compose, to examine his text well upon these articles, and carefully to distinguish all its characters, for in so doing he will presently see what way he ought to

take.

Having well examined of what kind the text is, enter into the matter, and begin the composition; for which purpose you must observe, there are two general ways, or two manners of composing. One is the way of explication, the other of observations: nor must it be imagined that you may take which of the two ways you please on every text, for some texts must be treated in the explicatory method, and others necessarily require the way of observations. When you have a point of doctrine to treat of, you must have recourse to explication; and when a text of history, the only way is observation.

In discernment upon this article the judgment of a man consists; for, as texts of scripture are almost infinite, it is impossible to give perfect rules thereupon; it depends in general on good sense: only this I say, when we treat of a plain subject, common and known to all the world, it is a great absurdity to take the way of explication; and when we have to treat of a difficult or important subject, which requires explaining, it would be equally ridiculous to take the way of observations.

The difficulty, of which we speak, may be considered either in regard to the terms of the text only, the subject itself being clear, after the words are explained; or in regard to the subject only, the terms themselves being very intelligible; or in regard to both terms and things.

If the terms be obscure, we must endeavour to give the true sense: but if they be clear, it would be trifling to affect to make them so; and we must pass on to the difficulty, which is in the subject itself. If the subject be clear, we must explain the terms, and give the true sense of the words. If there appear any absurdity or difficulty in both, both must be explained: but always begin with the explanation of the terms.

In the explication of the terms, first propose what they call ratio dubitandi, that is, whatever makes the difficulty. The reason of doubting, or the intricacy, arises often from several causes. Either the terms do not seem to make any sense at all; or they are equivocal, forming different senses; or the sense, which they seem at first to make, may be perplexed, improper, or contradictory; or the meaning, though clear in itself, may be controverted, and exposed to cavillers. In all these cases, after you have proposed the difficulty, determine it as briefly as you can; for which purpose avail yourself of criticisms, notes, comments, paraphrases, &c. and, in one word, of the labours of other persons.

If none of these answer your expectation, endeavour to find something better yourself; to which purpose, examine all the circumstances of the text, what precedes, what follows, the general scope of the discourse, the particular design of the writer in the place where your text is, the subject of which it treats, parallel passages of scripture which treat of the same subject, or those in which the same expressions are used, &c. and by these means it is almost impossible that you should not content yourself. Above all, take care not to make of grammatical matters a principal part; but only treat of them as previously necessary for understanding the text.

To proceed from terms to things. They must, as I have said, be explained, when they are either difficult or important. There are several ways of explication. You may begin by refuting errors, into which people have fallen; or you may fall upon the subject immediately, and so come to a fair and precise declaration of the truth; and, after this, you may dilate, (if I may venture to say so) by a deduction of the principles, on which the text

depends, and on the essential relations, in which it ought to be considered.

The same method must be taken, when texts are misunderstood, and gross and pernicious errors adduced. In such a case, first reject the erroneous sense, and (if necessary) even refute it, as well by reasons taken from the texts, as by arguments from other topics; and at length establish the true sense.

Take for example, John xvi. 12. I have yet many things to say unto you; but ye cannot bear them now. You must begin by proposing and rejecting the false senses, which some ancient heretics gave of these words. They said, Jesus Christ spoke here of many unwritten traditions, which he gave his disciples by word of mouth after his resurrection-An argument which the church of Rome has borrowed, to colour her pretended traditions. After you have thus proposed the false sense, and solidly refuted it, pass on to establish the true, and shew what were the things which Jesus Christ had yet to say to his disciples, and which they could not then bear,

I would advise the same method for all disputed texts. Hold it as a maxim, to begin to open the way to a truth by rejecting a falsehood. Not that it can be always done; sometimes you must begin by explaining the truth, and afterwards reject the error; because there are certain occasions, on which the hearers' minds must be pre-occupied; and because also truth, well proposed and fully established, naturally destroys error: but, notwithstanding this, the most approved method is to begin by rejecting error. After all, it must be left to a man's judgment when he ought to take different courses.

There are texts of explication, in which the difficulty arises neither from equivocal terms, nor from the different senses in which they may be taken, nor from objections which may be formed against them, nor from the abuse which heretics have made of them; but from the intricacy. of the subject itself, which may be difficult to comprehend,

σοι

Mr. Claude here explains Acts ix. 5. not as expressing merely that Paul's opposition to him was fruitless, but as saying, that it arose from the hardness of his heart; as though exnλngov Go had been put for exλngerns ry. The Editor, not thinking the interpretation just, has omitted it. The Reader, if he wish to see an illustration of the point before him, may refer to the first head of Skel. 85.

VOL. I.

I

and may require great study and meditation. On such texts you need not, you must not, amuse yourself in proposing difficulties, nor in making objections; but, you must enter immediately into the explication of the matter, and take particular care to arrange your ideas well, that is to say, in a natural and easy order, beginning where you ought to begin; for if you do not begin right, you can do nothing to the purpose; and, on the contrary, if you take a right road, all will appear easy as you go on to the end.

If, for example, I were to preach from this text, The law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ; I would divide this text into two parts. The first should regard the ministry of the law; the second, that of the gospel: the one expressed in these words, The law was given by Moses; the other in these, Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. I should subdivide the first into two parts; the law, and its author, Moses.

I would then enter into the matter, by saying, that I could not give a more just idea of the law than by placing it in opposition to grace and truth; so that, to consider it well, we must observe it in two respects; as a ministry of rigour opposed to grace; and as a ministry of shadows and imperfections opposed to truth.

To explain the law as a ministry of rigour, I would observe, that in the design of God in sending his Son into the world, and in bringing men to salvation, it was necessary, before he began the work, to prepare the way, and to remove those obstacles, which, had they not been removed, would have frustrated his design. One of these obstacles was man's ignorance of himself and God. He was ignorant of himself; for he was a sinner immersed in crimes, an object of the eternal vengeance of the Creator, deserving to be plunged into hell, a slave of unrighteousness, of himself incapable of the least degree of holiness, and yet more so of delivering himself from the curse under which he was, and of entering into communion with God. Yet, ignorant of his state, he believed himself worthy of the love of God, capable of acquitting himself well of his duty, and of answering the whole end of his creation, enjoying himself with as much pride,quietness, and haughtiness, as if he had been the happiest of all creatures.

On the other hand, man had indeed some confused ideas of the divinity; and, before the coming of Christ,