opinion, beseeching you to make that use of it which you would always make of the assistance of one who wishes you well, desires to be your adviser, but presumes not to be your oracle.

And, first, let me reply to each of your particulars in order; and secondly, I will proceed to present you with a brief analysis of the Epistle to the Romans, proceeding, if it be agreeable, to that of the other Epistles in succession.

That you should be perplexed to find out the meaning of some passages of Scripture, I do not wonder, seeing your case is common with that of all Christians, learned and unlearned, rational and fanatic. But that you should find greater difficulties in the Epistles than in other parts, I am somewhat surprised. It is true, the Apostle Peter observes, that there is something hard to be understood in Paul's Epistles, but in which he does not say, and I apprehend there are as great difficulties in any of his Epistles as in that to the Romans. Certainly the advocates of absolute and unconditional election pretend to find that doctrine asserted in this Epistle, but they also pretend to find it in other Epistles, as well as in the Old Testament, the Gospels, and all the prophets and apostles. Nor do I recollect that any doctrine whatever is pretended to be taught in this Epistle more or more clearly than in other parts of the Scriptures. Can you understand every expression and allusion in our Lord's discourses? Are there no hard sayings that lead you to exclaim with his disciples, Who can hear them? The advocates for the Trinity, Deity of Christ, vicarious sacrifice, original sin, &c., and I may add, the advocates for transubstantiation, do not pretend to derive these doctrines from the Epistles chiefly, but rather from the Gospels and the very words of our Lord. So that I see no reason why these Epistles should perplex your mind more than any other portion of Scripture.

I am aware that many have thought as you do, and of this number are those who have advised you to confine your attention to the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, as containing more comprehensive and useful doctrine, and sufficient for all the purposes of religious instruction. Some have gone so far as to say that it would have been better if the Epistles had never been written, at least, if they had not been preserved, as they only tend to perplex and cause divisions rather than edifying. This sentiment is not a very devout one, Nor is any other consistent

you

with pure Christianity but that which views these parts of the Scriptures as it views the other parts. The authority of an apostle of Christ rests on the same basis as the authority of Christ himself. He that receiveth receiveth me,and he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. He (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. The mission of Paul was attested by miracles, so that if there be any error in his doctrine, either by discourse or by epistle, that error is chargeable to him that sent this Apostle. Nor can better lessons on Christian conduct, or purer principles, or weightier reasons, or safer directions, be found any where than in the Epistles of Paul, and especially in this to the Romans. It has been misunderstood by ignorance, perverted by bigotry, tortured by sectarian bias, sublimated by enthusiasm, precipitated by philosophy, and spurned at by scepticism. The Apostle commences with the depravity of man in the first chapter, reproves spiritual pride in the second, and proves the judgment of God to be according to truth; states the grounds and nature of faith in the next, proceeds to the end of the eleventh, where he brings you by legitimate steps to behold him from whom and through whom and to whom are all things; and then exhorts and beseeches you by the mercy of that God to present your body a living sacrifice to God as your reasonable service; and finishes with a succession of the most pure, exalted and amiable principles, that are evidently the fruit of the tree of life. I feel greatly astonished at the objections brought against this Epistle by many Christians, learned and unlearned. Read the twelfth, fourteenth and fifteenth chapters; nothing can be more practical and plain.

With respect to Mr. Locke's rules for reading the Epistles, much as I admire the man and his works in general, I really have no faith in his method for understanding these Epistles. I cannot see that any general rules can be laid down as forming a key to these or any other epistolary correspondence. Letters are written under such a variety of circumstances and for so many different purposes, that no common rule can be laid down by which to read them with uniform advantage. One letter may be written in answer to another, and it may be that a perusal of the ori ginal letter may be necessary in order to ascertain the allusions of the answer, as well as their meaning. It may be of

a private nature about business, and then no one could understand it fully but the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. Or it may be of a public nature, and the essential key to its meaning is a knowledge of the public affairs of that particular time and place in which it was written. It is not, I presume, necessary to pursue these remarks farther, which might be continued ad infinitum. How then shall we apply any of these rules to the Epistles of Paul to any of the churches; especially to that of the Romans? Does the Epistle itself bear any marks of a temporary, particular or local nature? In my humble opinion it is as remote from any such circumstance as pos sible. The facts to which the Apostle alludes are of a general nature. Indeed, he takes the widest range whether he be descanting upon historical, moral, divine or human conduct. Upon this principle, if I recollect right, Dr. Taylor founded his key to the Romans, the best instrument ever yet produced for opening the sense of this portion of apostolical instruction. But to justify my remarks as to the general nature of this Epistle, let me call your attention to certain expressions contained in it, and to the fact of certain others being absent.

Respecting the latter circumstance, I cannot find a single expression in this Epistle that supposes the Apostle to have had a view to any local circumstances in the Church at Rome. All that has been said about a Jew of some eminence being a member of that church, that he aimed at pre-eminence among the members, that the Apostle parti cularly alluded to him in chapter ii., as one that taught others and was himself in need of a teacher, as transgressing the precepts he taught others, and as guilty of prac tices similar to those he condemned in others, I confess I cannot see any better ground for than pure imagination, nor is there any advantage in the supposition. It is certainly very common for all teachers to speak as if addressing themselves to some particular individual, when they are conveying the most general instruction. When our Lord says, Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup or platter, &c., he does not mean some particular Pharisee, but any Pharisee, or all the Pharisees. Or if he meant some particular Pharisee, it would then be of little advantage to us if we knew what particular Pharisee he meant, his name, place of abode, &c. You will observe in the Epistle to the Corinthians certain expressions refer

VOL. XII.

ring to circumstances of a local nature, and the same may be said of the one to the Galatians; but in this to the Romans there is not an allusion to any principle or practice or fact of any kind, but what is of the most general nature. There might be Judaizing Christians at Rome; there were such at Antioch, in Galatia, and probably in all places. Were there those who taught others and had need of teaching themselves? This is but too common a circumstance every where. Were the Roman Christians persecuted? Persecution was the common lot of all who in these times dared to profess the gospel of Christ. For these reasons there is no proof arising from any expressions in this Epistle that it was, or contained any thing, of a local nature, or that it was written in answer to some questions which had been previously put to the Apostle, or that any criterion is necessary to understand its contents, but a knowledge of human nature, of the Christian religion, of the history of Abraham and the Mosaic dispensation; or, in other words, a knowledge of the other Scriptures. But it contains expressions of a general nature, and its allusions are often to general principles and practices. It is evident that the Apostle speaks in a general way in the first verse of the second chapter when he says, "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art." Except there were strong external evidence to prove that this address was to some particular individual no one would understand it so. It is evidently an address to any man whatever, who may sustain a similar character. The Apostle alludes to general principles, chap. i. ver. 20, et seq., to the end of the chapter; in the second, throughout, if the above remark on verse 1 be just; in the third, to verse 9, as is very plain; and then he proceeds to shew, that there was no difference between Jew and Gentile, and can have no particular person in view, nor any practice that was confined to Rome. In short, I feel convinced that I might go through the whole Epistle with the same remarks, as it appears to me so very manifest; so that nothing can be more far-fetched than any construction which supposes references to any thing of a local or temporary nature, except in chap. xvi. respecting salutations, &c.

Considering this to be the case, it follows, that the best way to obtain a knowledge of this Epistle is to read and gain an understanding of the Scriptures in general, the state of the world at the commencement of Christianity,

the principles of human nature, and the doctrines of the gospel, the advantage of which I shall hereafter proceed to evince. I. C.

The Voice of Spring. By Mrs. HEMANS.

I COME, I come! ye have call'd me long,
I come o'er the mountains with light and song!
Yè inay trace my step o'er the wak'ning earth,
By the winds which tell of the violet's birth,
By the primrose-stars in the shadowy grass,
By the green leaves op'ning as I pass.

I have breathed on the south, and the chesnut flowers
By thousands have burst from the forest-bowers,
And the ancient graves, and the fallen fanes,
Are veiled with wreaths on Italian plains;
-But it is not for me in my hour of bloom,
To speak of the ruin or the tomb!

I have looked o'er the hills of the stormy north,
And the larch has hung all his tassels forth,
The fisher is out on the sunny sea,

And the rein-deer bounds o'er the pastures free,
And the pine has a tinge of softer green,

And the moss looks bright where my foot hath been.
I have sent through the wood-path a glowing sigh,
And call'd out each voice of the deep blue sky;
From the night-bird's lay through the starry time,
In the groves of the soft Hesperian clime,
To the swan's wild note by the Iceland lakes,
When the dark fir-branch into verdure breaks.

From the streams and founts I have loosed the chain,
They are sweeping on to the silvery main,
They are flashing down from the mountain brows,
They are flinging spray o'er the forest-boughs,
They are bursting fresh from their sparry caves,
And the earth resounds with the joy of waves!
Come forth, O ye children of gladness, come!
Where the violets lie, may now be your home;
Ye of the rose-lip and dew-bright eye,
And the bounding footstep, to meet me fly!
With the lyre and the wreath, and the joyous lay,
Come forth to the sunshine, I may not stay.