book of the Acts of Apostles, then the aggregate body may be justly called "The Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church" "You diff'rent sects, who all declare, LO! CHRIST is here, and CHRIST is there; PREFACE TO THE EPISTLES. EPISTOLARY Communications are not so easily understood as historic writings. The historian writes upon the hypothesis that his reader is ignorant of the facts and information which he communicates, and therefore explains himself as he proceeds. The letter-writer proceeds upon the hypothesis that the person or community addressed is already in possession of such information as will explain the things to which he only alludes or simply mentions. This is more especially the fact when the writer of a letter addresses a people with whom he is personally acquainted, amongst whom he has been, and with whom he has already conversed upon most of the subjects on which he writes. A letter to persons who have heard the writer before, who know his peculiarity; and, above all, who are perfectly acquainted with their own circumstances, questions, debates, difficulties, conduct, &c. may be every way plain and of easy apprehension to them, when it may be very difficult, and in some places unintelligible, to persons altogether strangers to these things. It is a saying to which little exception can be made, that every man best understands the letters addressed to himself. It is true, if another person were made minutely acquainted with all the business from first to last, with all the peculiarities of the writer, and circumstances of the persons addressed, and with all the items of correspondence, he might as fully and as clearly understand the letter, as those to whom it was addressed. There is no doubt but that the apostolic letters were plain and of easy apprehension, as respected the style and sentiment, to the persons who first received them, though some of the things contained in them might be difficult to be comprehended or fully understood eren by them. The difficulties that lie in our way of perfectly understanding them, though much greater than those in the way of the persons to whom they were first sent, are not at all insurmountable. The golden key of interpretation is very similar to the golden rule of morality. To ascertain what we ought to do to others, on moral principle, we must place ourselves in their circumstances; and to ascertain the meaning of the apostolic epistles, we must place our. selves in the circumstances of the persons to whom they were written. So far a resemblance exists between the golden key and the golden rule. But to develope this principle and to exhibit its practical use, we shall lay before the reader a few considerations which will embrace the chief difficulties in our way, and the best means of surmounting them. What we advance on this subject may be considered as an answer to the question, How shall we place our selves in the circumstances of the persons addressed? In the first place then, we are to remember that these letters were written nearly eighteen centuries ago. This fact has much meaning in it: for it follows from it, that, excepting the prophetic part of these writings, not a word or sentence in them can be explained or understood by all that has happened in the world for eighteen hundred years. We night as well expect to find the meaning of Cicero's orations, or Horace's epistles, from reading the debates of the British Parliament, or of the American Congress of last year, as to expect to find the meaning of these epistles from the debates and decisions of the Council of Nice, or of Trent, or of Westminster-from the eccle. siastic history, the moral philosophy, or the scholastic divinity of any age since John the Apostle resigned his spirit. From the above fact it follows that the most accurate acquaintance with all those questions of the different sects, with all their creeds and controversies, which have engrossed so much of the public attention, if it does not impede, most certainly does not facilitate, our progress in the knowledge of the Apostolic epistles. As the Apostles did not write with any of our questions before their minds, or with a reference to any of our systems, it is presumptuous in the extreme to apply what they have said on other questions, to those which have originated since. And as they did not write with any design of making out a system of doctrine, it is preposterous to attempt to make out a system for them, and oblige them to approve it. In the second place, as the Apostles wrote these letters with a reference to their own times, to the character and circumstances of the people with whom they were conversant, a knowledge of the character and circumstances of these people is of essential importance in order to understand the letters addressed to them. By the character of the people, we mean not only their character at the time the letter was written, but also their previous character-what sort of persons they were before their conversion, as respected religion and morality-what their peculiar views and prejudices-and what their attainments in the learning and science of their age and country. By the circumstances of the people, we mean not merely their political and commercial standing, but as regards unity of views and co-operation-whether they were living in peace and harmony among themselveswhether they were persecuted by those of different sentiments or whether they were enjoying tranquility unmolested from without. and standing. In the third place, a knowledge of the character and circumstances of the writer of an epistle, is of essential importance in understanding it. His character as respects style and method-what his peculiar art of reasoning and modes of expression-what relation he bears to the per sons addressed-whether personally acquainted with them, or by report-whether their father or brother in the faithwhether his letter is the first or second to them, or one of a series not extant-whether it was solicited on their part, an answer to one from them, or written of his own accord-whether he addresses them alone, or others in conjunction with them-and whether he writes in his own name, or associated with others-and what their character In the next place, great attention must be paid to his tained whether he writes with a reference to their whole It must be ascercircumstances, or to some one more urgent consideration selves merely, or others equally with them-whether he whether that consideration was one that respected themter, or in more-or whether he reserved some things to a aimed at the full accomplishment of his design in one letspecial interview, or to some persons soon to visit the m. In the fifth place, the reader must recollect that no sentence in the argumentative part of a letter is to be explained as a proposition, theorem, proverb, or maxim, detached from the drift and scope of the passage. neither words nor sentences in any argumentative composition, have any meaning but what the scope, connexion, design in writing to them at that time. one Indeed, and design of the writer give them. Inattention to this most obvious fact has beclouded the apostolic epistles, has introduced more errors into the views, and unmeaning ceremonies into the practice of professing Christians. than any other cause in the world. To this the cutting up the sacred text into morsels, called verses, has greatly contributed. Many passages, otherwise plain and forcible, have been weakened and obscured by this absurd interference. The difficulties in the way of our understanding these epistles, may be easily gathered from the preceding items. We must place ourselves in Judea, in Rome, or in Corinth, and not in these places in the present day; but we must live in them nearly two thousand years before we lived at all. We must mingle with the Jews in their temple and synagogues. We must visit the temples and the altars of the Pagan Gentiles. We must converse with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers-with Pharisees and Sadduceeswith priests and people that died centuries before we were born. We must place before us manuscript copies of these epistles, written without a break, a chapter, or a verse. We must remember what the writers spoke to the people before they wrote to them. We must not only attend to what they said and wrote, but to what they did. And we must always bear in mind the numerous and diversified enemies, in and out of authority, with whom they had to conflict. Now all these are apparently great difficulties, and, at first view, would seem to put the golden key of interpretation out of the reach of all. They are not, however, insurmountable. In reading any epistle, on any subject, written by any person, we are accustomed to attend to all these things, in substance, if not in form. Indeed, these are but the dictates of common sense, regarded by every person in the common occurrences of every day. Who is there that reads a letter from any correspondent without placing before his mind the character, views, and all the circumstances of the writer? Who is it that reads a letter addressed to himself or any other person, that does not attend to his own circumstances, or those of the person addressed, with a reference to the items of correspondence? Does he not regard the date, the place, the occasion, and the apparent design of the communication? Does he divide the letter into chapters and verses, and make every period or semicolon in it a proverb, like one of Solomon's; a theorem, like one of Euclid's; an axiom, like one of Newton's? Does he not rather read the whole of it together, and view every sentence in it in the light of the whole, and with a reference to the main design? Most certainly he does. All that is contended for in these remarks, is, that the same common sense should be applied to the apostolic epistles which we apply to all other epistolary communi cations. We have said that the above-mentioned difficulties are not insurmountable; and in proof that they are not, and that we may place ourselves in the circumstances of those addressed in the epistles, with more ease than at first sight appears, we would call the reader's attention to the documents which the New Testament itself furnishes, to aid us in an effort of so much importance. In the first place, then, the historical and epistolary books of the New Covenant afford us the necessary docu. ments to place ourselves in the circumstances of the persons addressed, in all those points essential to an accurate apprehension of what is written to them. It presupposes that the reader is in possession of the ancient oracles; or that he has, or may have, the information contained in them. As much is recorded of the peculiar character and views of the Jews and Gentiles in the apostolic age, of the sects and parties of both people, as is necessary to understand the allusions to them in these writings; and in proportion to the important bearings that any historic facts have upon the apostolic epistles, is the amount of information afforded. For example; there is no historic fact which explains so much of Paul's epistles, as the opposi tion which the Jewish brethren made to the reception of the Gentile converts into the Christian congregations, on the same footing with themselves; and there is no historic fact in the history of the lives and labors of the Apostles, so frequently and fully presented to the view of the reader as this one. Indeed the number of facts necessary to be known in order to our associating around ourselves the circumstances of those addressed, in most of the apostolic epistles, is by no means great. It is rather the importance than the number of them which illustrates these writings. A few facts belonging to the apostolic commission explain a large proportion of the writings of the Apostles. For instance, they were to announce and proclaim to Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, and men of all nations, that JESUS THE NAZARENE WAS THE SON OF GOD AND THE SAVIOUR OF MEN. When this was done, and some of all these people were persuaded of the truth of this proposition, the next work of the Apostles was, to |