economy. The christian institution reveals one sin offering, and assures us that Jesus put away sin by the sacrifice of himself; that he did really what was done by the high priest figuratively under the law; that he did really carry away the sins of many; and by one offering perfect forever the sanctified.

Jesus is now confessed "the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world," and "his blood that which cleanses us from all sin." He is called Jesus "because he saves his people from their sins." And to him who renounces him, there is no sacrifice for his sins. There is not under the whole heaven a name given by which any man can be saved from sin, but by this name and person-Jesus.

Remission of sins, therefore, in all ages, depended upon the sheding of blood. But the shedding of blood alone, took not away the sins of any person figuratively or really. Faith was always necessary to lead a sinner to the sacrifice: for who would frequent an altar, or approach a sacrifice in which he did not believe? Faith, then, was the principle of action; but besides faith there was always a personal application: so that neither blood alone, nor faith alone, nor both, without a personal application, ever did, typically or really, take away sin from the conscience, nor guilt from the person.

This personal application was always to be made to the person and place appointed by him who alone can forgive sins: for no person can forgive sins but he against whom they are committed. This he does, or can do, only in person or by a mediator. The priests and their offerings, under the law, constituted this mediation, and to these personal application was made before pardon was granted. But the Jewish or Aaronic priesthood, with all the offerings and ordinances thereunto appended, belonged exclusively, and were accessible only to the circumcised, or to those who constitutionally belonged to the kingdom of God as then established. God permitted all other nations to walk in their own ways. To the Jews pertained the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, the promises, the Fathers, and the body of Jesus. The patterns of things in the heavens were divinely portrayed under that dispensation. Now in reference to our object in this essay, let it be remarked that to those under that economy, whether Jews or proselytes, confession of sin in prayer was as necessary to forgiveness, as either blood, faith, altar, or priest. In confirmation of this position let the following testimonies be examined: Levit. xvi. 21. "After reconciling (or purifying) the holy place, the tabernacle, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat. Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat; and shall send it away (bearing these sins) by the hand of a suitable person into the wilderness." v. 34. "This shall be an everlasting statute to you to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins, once-a-year

But the confession of the offenders, as well as that of the priest, was necessary to forgiveness. Numb. v. 6 and 7. "When a man or

womae commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against the Lord, and that person be guilty; then they shall confess their sin which they have done: and (when any person has been wronged by it) then the sinner shall recompense his trespass with the principal part thereof, and a fifth part more." The Lord promises forgiveness to Israel in their backslidings and chastisements. "If," says he, "they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against," &c. "then will I remember my covenant and the land," &c. Levit. xxvi. 60

When the temple was completed, and the whole religion fairly developed and carried out, in his consecrating prayer Solomon supplicates forgiveness for Israel only on the ground of confession. 1 Kings viii. 31-69. "When thy people Israel be smitten down before the enemy, because they have sinned against thee," &c. "if they shall turn again and confess thy name, and turn from their sin; then hear-and forgive." Again, says he, "When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain because they have sinned; if they pray to this place and confess their sin, then forgive," &c. This is either expressed or implied through the whole of this inspired prayer. Ezra's prayer, chap. x. 1. and Nehemiah's, ix. 2. are to the point. So is Daniel's confession, ix. 15-20. "While I was speaking and praying and confessing my sin, and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God, even the man Gabriel swiftly touched me about the time of the evening oblation." Illustrious proof of the utility and necessity of confession in order to forgiveness and acceptance! To these witnesses we shall add from the Jewish scriptures but two others-David and Solomon. Psalm xxxii. 5, 6. "I said that I will confess my transgressions to the Lord, and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin"-(Septuagint version, "the wickedness of my heart.") "For this shall every one that is godly pray to thee in due time." And with Solomon it was a proverb, chapter xxviii. 13. "He that covers his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy." that some of these quotations respect confessing to men our faults against them; but it is equally true whether God or man be the offended party, as none but he against whom an offence is committed can forgive it; so to obtain forgiveness from God or man, it behoves us to remember the principle in the proverb, "He that conceals his sins shall not prosper; but he that confesses and forsakes them shall obtain mercy." In connexion, then, with the priest, the altar, the sacrifice, and faith, confession was an appointed means of remission of sins under the antecedent economy.

I am aware

Under the christian economy it is an indispensable requisite to forgiveness. It was so during and under the ministry of John. They were immersed by him in the Jordan confessing their sins; for John announced an immersion of reformation for the remission of sins.

Jesus came up from the water, praying-not confessing his sin; for he was holy and undefiled; but while he was praying, the heavens

parted over his head, and a voice from his Father announced him. Paul was commanded by Ananias to be immersed, calling upon the name of the Lord. And, indeed, all who understand baptism, know that in it there is a confession of sins; for there is a death and burial under sin, and a resurrection from its influence exhibited in the action itself.

But confession is to those under the government of Jesus, to those immersed into the faith of Christ, to those in the kingdom of heaven in its present location, the appointed means of remission of all sins committed after baptism. To the nature of this confession let us for a moment attend. In many things, says the righteous and amiable Apostle James, we all offend. And to this agree all the Apostles. Now while the direct influence and tendency of the favor of God exhibited in Jesus, is to crucify the flesh, with all its affections and lusts; to put to death all the members of the old man, and to inspire with the love of all holinsss, goodness, and truth; still it may happen, and often does happen, much to the sorrow and grief of the most exemplary christians, that they are conscious of having sinned, both against man and against God; for, indeed, when we sin against a brother or against our neighbor, we sin against God. Now in all such cases the institution is, confession and supplication, proceeding from repentance.

The promise now is, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just (according to his own promise, "their sins and iniquities I will remember no more,") to forgive us our sins," seeing "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin." Every one, then, who has put himself under Jesus Christ, who has died, been buried, and raised with Christ-every one who has submitted to him as Prophet, Priest, and King-who is conscious of any sin or sins from any transgression or omission since committed, and who penitently confesses them and asks God for Christ's sake to forgive them, has the remission of those sins as certainly as he had the remission of his former sins in baptism, or as certain as God's promise can render any thing.

Those sins, then, are not to be confessed again; any more than a person is not to confess his sins before baptism and ask for the pardon of them, or be baptized a second time for the remission of them, seeing he has the testimony of God that they are pardoned. The christian has the same testimony, the same assurance that his sins confessed and forsaken are pardoned, as he has that his sins committed before baptism are remitted; and, indeed, the same assurance that he has that Jesus is the Messiah: for all depend upon the same testimony, sustained by the same credentials. From all these premises it

would seem

1st. That christians must always walk by faith. Their assurance is the veracity of God. We always receive the remission of our sins by faith, and by a faith which terminates on the blood of Jesus, whether approached by us through baptism, or prayer.

28. That a personal application to Jesus, through his institutions, is indispensable to the assurance of remission and the enjoyment of a good conscience,

3d. That in our prayers, confessions are to be made of all our sins of which we are conscious, and remission asked in the name of the High Priest of our profession; not forgetting that there may be errors of which we are not conscious, which need the forgiveness of our heavenly Father as much as those of which we are conscious. Well did David say, "O cleanse me from faults unknown! Search me, O God, and try me; and if there be in me any wicked way, show it to me, and lead me in the way everlasting!"

4th. That a repeated confession of the same sins, and supplication for pardon of them, argues unbelief or an ignorance of the relation in which we stand under Jesus Christ.

5th. That when any one sins against a brother, he should confess his fault and ask forgiveness; for otherwise he cannot confess his fault to God and expect forgiveness from him according to the genius of the new institution.

6th. How perfect are those christians who can dispense with the confession of any faults, who need never pray to God in secret, nor more than once-a-week or once-a-day in their families! Not so perfect was Paul and the first converts!! They and he needed to pray always, with all prayer and supplication; making supplications, deprecations, and thanksgivings for all saints. Perhaps did we know, as we ought to know, we might think it fitting to go and do likewise.

EDITOR.

ON THE RULES OF INTERPRETATION—No 11. SINCE writing my first essay on this topic, I have met with an essay from the pen of Professor Stuart, of the Andover Theological School, on the same subject. Indeed, his essay only reached me to-day, January 12, in the Biblical Repository for January, 1832. It is an excellent essay, and as it exhibits the views which I entertain on this subject, and intended to develope, I am pleased with the opportunity of substituting an essay (which will make two in our series) from the pen of one so high in authority with the more learned sects in this country, and from one who, in my judgment, stands at the head of biblical literature and criticism in these United States. The essay appearing in two parts, will require to be read again, after we shall have given the whole of it.

EDITOR M. H.

Are the same principles of interpretation to be applied to the Scriptures as to other books?

A QUESTION this of deeper interest to religion and sacred literature, than most persons would be apt at first to suppose. In fact, the fundamental principles of scriptural theology are inseparably connected with the subject of this inquiry; for what is such theology, except the result of that which the Scriptures have taught? And how do we find what the Scriptures have taught, except by applying to them some rules or principles of interpretation? If these rules are well grounded, the results which flow from the application of them

will be correct, provided they are skilfully and truly applied; but if the principles by which we interpret the Scriptures are destitute of any solid foundation, and are the product of imagination, of conjecture, or of caprice, then of course the results which will follow from the application of them, will be unworthy of our confidence.

All this is too plain to need any confirmation. This also, from the nature of the case, renders it a matter of great importance to know, whether the principles by which we interpret the sacred books are well grounded, and will abide the test of a thorough scrutiny.

Nearly all the treatises on hermeneutics,* which have been written since the days of Ernesti, have laid it down as a maxim which cannot be controverted, that the Bible is to be interpreted in the same manner, i. e. by the same principles, as all other books. Writers are not wanting, previously to the period in which Ernesti lived, who have maintained the same thing; but we may also find some who have assailed the position before us, and labored to show that it is nothing less than a species of profaneness to treat the sacred books as we do the classic authors, with respect to their interpretation. Is this allegation well grounded? Is there any good reason to object to the prin ciple of interpretation now in question?

In order to answer these inquiries, let us direct our attention, in the first place, to the nature and source of what are now called principles or laws of interpretation. Whence did they originate? Are they the artificial production of high-wrought skill, of labored research, of profound and extensive learning? Did they spring from the subtiltics. of nice distinctions, from the philosophical and metaphysical efforts of the schools? Are they the product of exalted and dazzling genius, sparks of celestial fire which none but a favored few could emit? No; nothing of all this. The principles of interpretation, as to their substantial and essential elements, are no invention of nfan, no product of his effort and learned skill; nay, they can scarcely be said with truth to have been discovered by him. They are coeval with our nature. They were known to the antediluvians. They were practised upon in the garden of Eden, by the progenitors of our race. Ever since man was created, and endowed with the powers of speech, and made a communicative, social being, he has had occasion to prac tise upon the principles of interpretation, and has actually done so. From the first moment that one human being addressed another by the use of language, down to the present hour, the essential laws of interpretation became, and have continued to be, a practical matter. The person addressed has always been an interpreter, in every instance where he has heard and understood what was addressed to him.

All the human race, therefore, are, and ever have been, interpreters. It is a law of their rational, intelligent, communicative nature. Just as truly as one human being was formed so to address another in language, just so truly that other was formed to interpret and to understand what is said.