mention many things, which the text supposes but does not formally express; and which must be collected elsewhere, in order to enable you to give in the end a just explication of the text. In such a case you may divide your discourse into two parts, the first containing some general considerations necessary for understanding the text; and the second, the particular explication of the text itself.

1. This method is proper when a prophecy of the Old Testament is handled; for, generally, the understanding of these prophecies depends on many general considerations, which, by exposing and refuting false senses, open a way to the true explication; as appears by what has been said on Gen. iii. 15. I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel; and on the covenant made with Abraham, &c. &c.*

2. This method is also proper on a text taken from a dispute, the understanding of which must depend on the state of the question, the hypotheses of adversaries, and the principles of the inspired writers. All these lights are previously necessary, and they can only be given by general considerations: For example, Rom. iii. 28. We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Some general considerations must precede, which clear up the state of the question between St. Paul and the Jews, touching justification; which mark the hypothesis of the Jews upon that subject, and which discover the true principle which St. Paul would establish; so that.in the end the text may be clearly understood.

3. This method also is proper in a conclusion drawn from a long preceding discourse; as for example, Rom. v. 1. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Some think that, to manage this text well, we ought not to speak of justification by faith; but only of that peace which we have with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. I grant, we ought not to make justification the chief part of the sermon: but the text is a conclusion drawn by the apostle from the preced

ing

See Skel. 147. *These general considerations appear better still in an exordium.

ing discourse; and we shall deceive ourselves, if we imagine this dispute between St. Paul and the Jews so well known to the people, that it is needless to speak of it; they are not, in general, so well acquainted with Scripture. The discourse then must be divided into two parts, the first consisting of some general considerations on the doctrine of justification, which St. Paul establishes in the preceding chapters; and the second, of his conclusion, That, being thus justified, we have peace with God, &c.

The same may be said of the first verse of the viiith of Romans, There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit; for it is a consequence drawn from what he had been establishing before.

4. The same method is proper for texts which are quoted in the New Testament from the Old. You must prove by general considerations that the text is properly produced, and then you may come clearly to its explication. Of this kind are Heb. i. 5, 6. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son: ii. 6. One in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? iii. 7. Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. There are many passages of this kind in the New Testament.

5. In this class must be placed divisions into different respects, or different views. These, to speak properly, are not divisions of a text into its parts, but rather different applications, which are made of the same text to divers subjects. Typical texts should be divided thus: and a great number of passages in the Psalms, which relate not only to David, but also to Jesus Christ; such should be considered first literally; as they relate to David; and then in their mystical sense, as they refer to the Lord Jesus.

There are also typical passages, which beside their literal senses have also figurative meanings, relating not only to Jesus Christ, but also to the church in general, and to every believer in particular; or which have different degrees of their mystical accomplishment'.

For

I omit two short but injudicious illustrations of this, acquiescing fully in the opinion of the translator, that types should be handled cautiously, and soberly, and always under the immediate direction of the New Testament writers. A man is always safe when he follows these guides.

For example, Dan. ix. 7. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of face, as at this day : (which is a very proper text for a fast-day,) must not be divided into parts; but considered in different views. 1. In regard to all men in general. 2. In regard to the Jewish church in Daniel's time. And, 3. In regard to ourselves at this present day.

So again, Heb. iii. 7, 8. To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the day of temptation in the wilderness (which is taken from Psalm xcv. and which also is very proper for a day of censure or fasting) cannot be better divided than by referring it, 1. To David's time; 2. St. Paul's; and, lastly, To our own.

As to the division of the text itself, sometimes the order of the words is so clear and natural, that no division is necessary; you need only follow simply the order of the words. As for example, Eph. i. 3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. It is not necessary to divide this text, because the words divide themselves; and to explain them, we need only follow them. Here is a grateful acknowledgement, blessed be God. The title, under which the apostle blesses God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The reason, for which he blesses him, because he hath blessed us. The plenitude of this blessing, with all blessings. The nature or kind, signified by the term spiritual. The place, where he hath blessed us, in heavenly places. In whom he hath blessed us, in Christ. Remark, as you go on, that there is a manifest allusion to the first blessing, wherewith God blessed his creatures, when he first created them, Gen. i. For as in the first creation he made all things for his own glory, Prov. xvi. 4. The Lord hath made all things for himself; so in this new creation, the end, and perpetual exercise of the believer, ought to be, to bless and glorify God. All things in nature bless God as their creator: but we bless him as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. God blessed the creation immediately, because it was his own work here, in like manner, he blesses us, because we are his own new creation; we are, says the apostle, his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, chap. ii. 10. There the Lord divided his blessing, giving

to

to every creature a different blessing: He said to the earth, Bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit: to the fishes of the sea, and to the fowls of the air, Be fruitful and multiply; and to man he said, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion: Here, believers have every one his whole blessing, for each possesseth it entirely. The creatures then received but an imperfect blessing: but we have received one as full and entire as God could communicate to creatures. Their blessing was, in the order of nature, a temporal blessing: ours, in the order of grace, a spiritual blessing. There upon earth; here in heavenly places: there in Adam; here in Christ.

It may also be remarked, that the apostle alludes to the blessing of Abraham, to whom God said, In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed; and a comparison may very well be made of the temporal blessings of the Israelites, with those spiritual benefits which we receive by Jesus Christ.

Most texts, however, ought to be formally divided; for which purpose you must principally have regard to the order of nature, and put that division, which naturally precedes, in the first place; and the rest must follow, each in its proper order. This may easily be done by reducing the text to a categorical proposition, beginning with the subject, passing to the attribute, and then to the other terms; your judgment will direct you how to place them".

If,

m Oratio cujus summa virtus est perspicuitas, quam sit vitiosa si egeat interprete! Quint. Inst. lib. i. c. 4.

Allowing that texts are to be divided after reducing them to categorical, i.e. to single propositions, either simple, the subjects and predicates of which consist of single terms; or complex, the subjects and predicates of which are made up of complex terms; allowing that the subject is to be considered first, then the attributes, which in logic are the same with predicates, or what may be affirmed or denied of any subject; allowing all this, yet it must not be forgotten that this operation, and these terms, belong to the laboratory, and should never appear in prescriptions to the people; especially as Mr. Claude's proposed end may be better answered without them. He aims to make divisions natural: here is an example,

Archbishop Flechier, on Saul's conversion, considers, first, what Jesus Christ did for St. Paul; 2. What St. Paul did for Jesus Christ. In the first part he opens divine compassion, as a spring whence flowed

Paul's

If, for example, I were to preach from Heb. x. 10. By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all; I should not think it proper to speak first of the will of God, then of our Sanctification, and lastly of the Cause of our sanctification, which is, the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ: it would be much better to reduce the text to a categorical proposition; thus, The offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once made, sanctifies us by the will of God; for it is more natural to consider, 1. The nearer and more immediate cause of our acceptance, which is, the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ; 2. Its effect, our sanctification; 3. Its first and more remote cause, which makes it produce this effect, the will of God.

It remains to be observed, that there are two natural orders, one natural in regard to subjects themselves, the other natural in regard to us. The first considers every thing in its natural situation, as things are in themselves, without any regard to our knowledge of them; the other, which I call natural in regard to us, observes the situation, which things have as they appear in our minds, or enter into our thoughts. For example, in the last-mentioned text, the natural order of things would require the proposition thus: By the will of God the offering of the body of Christ sanctifies us; for, 1. The will of God is the decree of his good. pleasure to send his Son into the world; 2. The oblation of Jesus Christ is the first effect of this will; and, 3. Our sanctification is the last effect of his oblation by the will of God. On the contrary, the natural order in regard to us is, 1. The offering; 2. The sanctification, which it produces; and, lastly, The will of God, which gives it this efficacy.

When in any text the natural order of things differs from that which regards our knowledge of them, we may take that way which we like best; however, I believe, it would be best to follow that of our knowledge, because it is easiest, and clearest for the common people.

There are texts, which contain the end and the means; the cause and the effect; the principle, and the consequence

Paul's creation, preservation, conversion, gifts, graces, usefulness, &c The second part relates the use that St. Paul made of all these, out of gratitude, and to God's glory. Flech. Ser. tom. i.