been produced, than he who takes for granted that it is complete. It may be urged, that if candid Christians would diligently examine the Scriptures for themselves, regarding every important doctrine entertained by the different sects to which they belong, there would be no need of such a work as the present. Yet even were this the case, there would be great difficulty, when reading the Bible with this intention, to recollect, as they proceeded, what they had already passed, and, consequently, in perceiving how one passage relates to another; for the perusal of intervening passages, not connected with the object in view, would necessarily create confusion, by exciting other interests, and dividing the attention. It is to save the diligent and well-intentioned, as well as the impatient and indolent, a salutary task, which they would never, perhaps, execute in this way to their own satisfaction, that I offer to the public the following pages. Taking the common version (bearing date the year 1765) printed by authority at Cambridge, for my guide, no injury, at least, can be done to the established doctrine of the church; for the learned divines who made that translation, under authority, were all pro fessed believers of the established doctrine, and would therefore naturally give that sense to the words of every passage which was most favourable to their own tenets. I am no scholar; but when I admit this to be the case, I would not be understood to consider want of learning as any disqualification for a task like the present. On the contrary, it is perhaps an advantage, by suppressing all presumptuous desires which learning might create to correct the established translations of particular texts, and thereby attempt to bias the opinions of others from slight and inconclusive differences. Good intentions, a clear common understanding, and the absence of those acquirements which naturally impose an authority over the judgments of men, are the best qualifications for such an undertaking. The most liberal clergyman of the various established churches, and, thank God! there are many such, could scarcely, with the purest intentions, remain unconstrained by the reproach he might incur, and still more by the pain he would inflict, in collecting portions of Scripture that would to many appear unfriendly to the community to which he belonged. Indeed, he would feel that, in doing so, he would by many be considered a latitudinarian, unfit for the charge committed to him; and that, so considered, his means of being useful to his parochial flock would be greatly abridged. It is to an unlearned lay person of no authority to whom a task of this nature reasonably belongs; and, as far as these qualifications go, there is surely no vanity implied in supposing myself in some degree competent to it. We cannot, I should think, be far wrong in believing that the simplest and most obvious meaning of the words, when not inconsistent with the general scope of the context, is the real meaning of any passage of the Gospels or Epistles; for, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the writers were commissioned to instruct the simple and ignorant. Now, this would have been very imperfectly done, had matters important to our faith been left by them to be only deduced, by ingenious processes of reasoning, from their words, by the Christian teachers who should follow them in succeeding ages, and teachers, too, not guided by divine inspiration. If, to avoid this difficulty, we suppose the Holy Spirit to have guided also the successive fathers of the church, who in many points differed from one |