abandoned. But it does not follow, because many are corrupt, that therefore there is no fuch thing as virtue upon earth; nor because various opinions are entertained among men, even on points of the greatest moment, that it is therefore impoffible or difficult to discover the truth, if fearch is made by a teachable mind, with fervent prayer to the Father of lights, and with fincere refolution obediently to follow whatever shall appear to be his will.

Inconclufive however as, this argument is, if we allow its utmoft fcope; it does not feem to ftand on fo broad a bafis as fome have represented. A great part, perhaps the greater part, of that diversity of opinion which prevails in the world, refpects fuch points as cannot afford the fhadow of an objection either against the truth, or the perfpicuity, of the gospel; such as neither tend to corrupt good manners, nor to overturn the common faith.

There are not, it may be, two individuals, that on any fubject think perfectly alike. Agreeing in the more important articles of belief, and in the fenfe of thofe clear and unequivocal paffages, which establish thefe articles; fome nevertheless will not

deem

deem them deducible from texts wherein others fee or fancy they fee them. Or if not in these, at least in other matters, not immediately connected with faith or with practice, from difference of capacity or of acquired talents, from habits of reflexion or means of information, there ever will arise a variety of fentiments; yet, if other causes conspire not, without violating charity, or dividing the church.

This apology will be indulged me, I trust, in its fullest extent, if in the course of these lectures fome points have not been viewed in that light, in which they before have appeared to men of exemplary piety and confummate erudition. As it is not my aim to fay any thing merely because it has been faid by others; fo neither is it my wish to differ from them, where I can fatisfy myself with the reasons, which they have advanced. But if, investigating the fubject with an earnest defire of information, and with that portion of judgement which GOD has given me ; I have, in one or two inftances, been obliged to recede from the more ufual interpretation, and to admit another, of the juftness of which, though reluctantly adopted, I have been at laft fully convinced; I muft, for I cannot in

the

the prefence of GoD and of this audience diffemble, I must maintain with firmness what I offer with respect.

To the enfuing difcourfe this introduction. would perhaps be fuperfluous, were it not that a very learned and refpectable author has lately proposed an application of the texts now to be confidered, which feems lefs fatisfactory than the ufual hypothefis*. But if I have been pardoned in oppofing fome notions commonly efpoufed, I fhall be excufed, I hope, in contending, at prefent, for what the generality have heretofore received.

The evangelift St. Luke, in many parts of his Gospel, but especially in that with which we are more immediately concerned, feems, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, fo to have formed his narrative, that it should serve as a comment to the other two. With regard to the text now under notice, it is evident, I think, as well from the place where it is introduced, as from the admonition of flight in the latter part of it, that it must correfpond with the paffages in St. Matthew and

* See Bishop Newcome's Obfervations on our Lord's Conduct as a Divine Instructor, and on the excellence of his Moral Character, p. 219. &c.

St.

St. Mark, where the fame mode of escape is inculcated; and that confequently the compaffing of Jerufalem with armies, in St. Luke, must respect the fame time, and denote the fame thing, with the abomination of defolation in the two former Gofpels.

Whether the language of St. Luke on this occafion is his own, giving the sense, but not the exact words, of our Saviour's prediction; or whether our Lord himself might, in this as in many other inftances, first express himfelf in the figurative words of St. Matthew and St. Mark, and then in the clearer terms of St. Luke; it would, even if it were poffible to determine, be needlefs to inquire. Either fuppofition equally fuits our present purpose, if the cafe is as above stated, and as it appears to be, that the intention of the three paffages is one and the fame.

"The abomination of defolation," in St. Matthew and St. Mark, is quoted from the celebrated prophecy of Daniel, which has often employed the labour and ingenuity of learned men. If befides this expreffion, there any other part of the paffage in the pro

is

b See Matt. xxiv. 15, 16. Mar. xiii, 14,

cix. 27.

phet,

phet, with which we are at prefent concerned; it is that which in the common translation is rendered "the overfpreading." The word is well known to mean literally "a wing;" and, by an eafy metaphor, to be ufed for the border or extremity of any thing; and whether we here take it for the wing of an army, whofe ftandards fhould carry abominable enfigns, and come to make Jerufalem defolate; or whether we understand it of the border of the city or temple, fo as to point out the place, where the hoftile forces should appear; either interpretation is fufficient for our purpose. Should the latter be preferred, it will be the fame in effect with what St. Matthew calls "ftanding in the holy place," and St. Mark “where it ought

not."

But how, it may be afked, does this appear? We may answer, that from the omiffion of the article in St. Matthew, and from St. Mark's variation of the phrase, it is evident that it ought not to be tranflated" the holy place," as if it related to the temple; but "on a holy place," or "on holy ground;" where, on account of a degree of fanctity for fome reafon belonging to it, the abomination of defolation, whatever were meant by it, ought not to be seen.

The