norant sneers of Voltaire and the other unbelievers of that school, who really seem to be indebted for the credit in which they are held in these points, to the utter thoughtlessness and inattention in serious matters of those, who adopt their sentiments, and not to any real acuteness in the authors, or truth in what they say.

Mr. Gibbon uses much the same sort of paralogism with M. Volney, when he takes pains to trace out the secondary causes, which, in his estimation, contributed to the propagation of Christianity; wishing his readers to infer there was nothing supernatural in the establishment of the religion. If those causes had contributed, in a tenfold degree to that, which he ascribes to them (not to mention that some of them remind one of Bentley's sarcasm-" commend me to an argument that, like a flail, there is no fence against it"") the same difficulty remains, that of accounting for the prevalence at first, by mere worldly means, of a religion in its spirit so adverse to what was in universal repute-so destructive of all worldly views-so hostile to the evil propensities of men-entrusted to such feeble instruments, and opposed by so much power. Compare the effect with the means, and you cannot invalidate Gamaliel's dilemma". Because the operation of those causes, which more or less have their weight in all the affairs of men, was not suspended in the case of religion-to argue it had no higher origin or support, is something the same sort of argument as to infer, that the world was not at first called from nothing into being, and ever afterwards governed by an Almighty power; because he has since conducted it, except in extraordinary cases, by the regular succession of cause and effect, which he then provided.

NOTE 3.

"GOD speaketh to us; and therefore speaketh as we use to speak; and frameth his language to our dullness; and teacheth us by our own phrases what he would have us learn—as nurses talk half syllables and lisp out broken language to young children: but what is so spoken avlрwпопatãs of God, after the manner of men; must yet be understood Beopens, so as befitteth the majesty and perfection of his divine nature." Bishop Sanderson's second sermon on 3 Kings xxi. 29. p. 156. Lond. 1674. See also Hey's Lectures, Vol. III. p. 234.

Dr. Leland, in his View of the Deistical Writers, a work of great merit, concludes his twenty-ninth letter, Vol. II. with a passage from an author, "whom," as he truly says, "no man will suppose to have been prejudiced in favour of the Scriptures." A passage well worth the attention of every one, who wishes to understand rightly the Scripture expressions. It is Mr. Anthony Collins, in an Essay, which he published in 1707, concerning the Use of Reason in Propositions, the Evidence whereof depends upon Human Testimony. After having observed, that "one use of reason in things, which by the testimony of men are supposed to come from God, is to endeavour to find out such a sense of a supposed divine revelation as is agreeable to the discoveries of our reason, if the words under any kind of construction will bear it, though at first view they may seem repugnant to reason, and to one another;" he adds, “This is certainly a great piece of justice, and what is due to words that upon the least evidence can be supposed to come from God, especially since expressions that do (not) literally quadrate with the maxims of reason and philosophy, are necessary to make a revelation have any effect upon common people's minds. For was not

God to be represented by expressions, which literally understood attribute to him human passions and actions, they, who by their occupations in the world are incapable of those more just ideas which men of thought know to belong to that Being, would perhaps think him incapable of taking cognizance of their actions. And therefore to make a revelation useful and credible in itself, it must consist of words whose literal meaning is false, but whose real meaning is consistent with the justest notions of reason and philosophy. And therefore we ought to examine whether the words under any construction will bear a reasonable sense." P. 17, 18. Mr. Collins then applies this observation to the revelation which we acknowledge, and considers those passages of Scripture where God is said to rest, repent, be angry, &c.-The same illustration which is given p. 49. 1. 6. Origen uses in the instance of a good master. Philocal. cap. xxi. 1. 16:

NOTE 4.

2 COR. xii. 6. Though I would desire to glory, of our translation, is rendered by Wickliffe-" If I schal wilne to glory." In the Vulg. " Voluero."

NOTE 5.

Ir any one thinks it worth while to speculate, from what particularity in the meaning of the words "shall and will," the very singular and elegant use of them, which now prevails with so great a degree of accuracy in the southern part of this island, has originated-the following account seems not improbable. Shall, in the Saxon language, signifies duty or necessity. Now when a person in common life (especially if subject to authority) speaking of what he meditates to do, acknowledges that he ought to do this or that, it is tantamount to declaring an intention of doing it; but when he makes a declaration that another ought to do any thing,

if the speaker has any power or right to produce or enforce that, concerning which he makes the declaration, it is very much like promising or threatening; as it implies an intention of effectually exciting the person, of or to whom it is spoken, to do it. A declaration to an inferior, what his duty is, from a superior in command, is only a softer mode of declaring an intention to compel. In the rubric before the Communion Service," ought" is used as equivalent to "shall." A practice very similar to this takes place in the future passive of the infinitive mood of the Latin language (explained by Johnson Grammat. Comment. Animadv. 123. p. 349.) "by which, though no more be strictly said, than that an attempt will be made towards a thing being done; yet in common acceptation, it was taken that the thing would be done." On the contrary, the word "will," expressing a determination founded on free choice, can be used with perfect precision by the speaker of himself only. If he speaks of the determination to be made by another, whether the person whom he addresses, or a third person, it can only be understood as a declaration of what he thinks will take place in the minds of the other persons. But though the distinction in the use of these two auxiliaries be now so clearly ascertained in theory, and so accurately observed in practice-yet, as in all other forms of speech employed to distinguish the operations of the mind, cases might easily be stated, in which it is of little or no importance to the sense or elegance of the expression which is used. The same observations in a great degree apply to the word "should," which, in its origin, implies duty also; but in the use of it often expresses only a contingent future, as John vi. 64.71.; Psalm xxvii.3.; Bib. Trans. In Luke x. 1. "would come" of our translation is, "should come," in the Geneva translation of the same date (Gr. Euλλev): and in the

Geneva translation, Luke xix. 3. "Zaccheus sought to see Jesus, who hee should be." So that neither can any argument be raised to prove the opinion of the translators of our Bible (as certainly there can be none to ascertain the meaning of the original) from their use of these words in any particular passage, nor any objection urged against the use of them, as either antiquated or unsuitable. See Dict. Sax. Goth. and Lat. ab Ed. Lye, A. M. in the words Sceal and Sceoldan.

NOTE 6.

THE Hiphil conjugation or voice, as well as the Pihel, often means no more than permission or sufferance. In the latter, Castel remarks it in the case of the Hebrew midwives, Exod. i. 17. very properly translated, "but saved the men children alive :" for their act was only permissive of their lives, that they did not comply with the cruel order of the king, and strangle them in the birth; and many other passages, in which that conjugation is used in the same sense, may be easily produced. See Jud. viii. 19. Deut. ii. 28. 1 Sam. xxvii. 9. 2 Kings vii. 4. See also Glass. Philol. Sac. a Dath. Vol. I. Lib. I. Tract. iii. Can. 11. p. 207.

See Schleusner in voce eyew signif. 3. Also Grot. on Rom. ix. 17. The whole of which note is particularly well worth reading. See also Isaiah li. 17. and lii. 1. in the Greek.

Psalm cii. 26. " They shall perish; but thou shalt endure:" is in the Bible translation in the margin: "stand." Heb.

NOTE 7.

I SEQUERE Italiam ventis; pete

regna per undas:

Spero equidem mediis, si quid pia numina possunt,

Supplicia hausurum scopulis.

En. iv. 381.