he preference! They were intolerably proud of their religious attainments; supposing themselves to merit di vine favor by their duties and observances. On these accounts they were justly characterised by our Lord as grossly hypocritical, and at a greater distance from the kingdom of God than even publicans and harlots.

ESSENES.

The Essenes were a rigid sect of the Jews, a branch of the Pharisees; but they entered upon a more mortified way of living, and were probably more free from hypocrisy. Though our Saviour often censured the other sects, we have no account of his mentioning them; nor are they noticed specifically by the writers of the New Testament. This has been accounted for by their living in solitary places, somewhat in the manner of Romish monks, and from their seldom coming to the temple or into public assemblies. Many suppose that John the Baptist lived among them. They believed in a future state of happiness, but doubted of the resurrection. They mostly disallowed marriage, and adopting the children of the poor to train up in their principles. Candidates for communion with them were in probation for three years, and when fully admitted, they were required to bind themselves to worship God, to practise justice, to conceal none of their mysteries from any of the society, and to communicate them to no other, even to save their lives. They despised riches, and held their property in common; they were remarkably abstemious, ate at a common table, and were extremely plain in their apparel.

OTHER SECTS.

The Scribes among the Jews were not a particular sect, but transcribers of the sacred books; also persons who addicted themselves to literary pursuits. They were interpreters of the law and instructers of the people.

The Herodians were not so much a religious sect as a political party. They complied with many heathen practices to ingratiate themselves with Herod and his patrons, the Romans.

The Galileans, or Gaulonites, appear to have been a turbulent political party among the Jews, rather than a religious sect. Their first leader was Judas, the Galilean. Acts v. 37.

The Libertines, Acts vi. 9. were such Jews or proselytes as were free citizens of Rome, having a synagogue in Jerusalem peculiar to themselves.

HERESIES AND SECTS MENTIONED IN

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

It will be evident to every reader of the New Testament, that during the apostolic age many pernicious heresies infested the infant churches. Some of them were introduced by judaizing teachers, who wished to incorporate the Levitical ceremonies with the simplicity of the gospel. Others arose from a false philosophy which was borrowed from the heathen, and which the apostle denounces as vain deceit, Col. ii. 8. To draw up a detailed account of these pagan principles, would be unsatisfactory in itself and unsuitable to this work; yet it seems indispensable to give some short notices concerning the chief of them.

NICOLATIANS AND ANTICHRISTS.

The Nicolatians have been supposed to have had Nicolas, one of the seven deacons, for their leader in false doctrine and immorality; but this seems contrary to his character, as declared by the evangelists, Acts vi. and we have no evidence that Nicolas, the deacon, ever departed from the faith of the gospel. These corruptors of religion were a kind of practical antinomians; they allowed themselves to participate in the sacrifices of the idolaters, and

indulged in the vilest impurities, to the scandal of their profession, and to the destruction of their souls.

The Antichrists mentioned by the apostle, 1 John ii. 18. were certain heretical teachers, whose principles contradicted the true doctrines of the gospel. They were called Ebionites, from one Ebion; Cerinthians from one Cerinthus; and Gnostics, from gnostis, a Greek word signifying knowledge. Simon Magus, Acts viii. 9-24. is said to have been the parent of these heresies. It is difficult to ascertain precisely what doctrines these heretics taught; some making a distinction between Jesus and the Christ; some denying the divine nature of our Lord, and others his humanity; some rejecting his vicarious atonement, and all disregarding his holy precepts. To refute and destroy these pernicious absurdities, the apostle John was inspired to write his gospel and epistles, testifying the proper Godhead, the real manhood, and the propitiatory sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour. John i. 1-3. 14. 1 John i. 1,2. ii. 18-24. iii. 1. 3. 9. 10.

The Stoics, Acts xvii. 18. were pagan philosophers, the founder of whose sect was Zeno, who flourished about 350 years before the Christian era. They affected a perfect indifference both to pleasure and pain, professing to believe that all things are governed by an irresistible necessity, called fate, which was superior to the will of all their gods.

The Epicureans were another sect of philosophers, who were the disciples of Epicurus, an Athenian, who flourished about 300 years before the Christian era. They taught principles the very opposite to the Stoics; they ascribed all things to chance, and considered pleasure as the chief good.

FIGURATIVE

LANGUAGE

OF THE BIBLE.

"I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets," Hosea xii. 10. This declaration of the Lord God Almighty must be practically regarded, fully to profit by studying the holy Scriptures. To adopt this mode of instruction was a merciful condescension to human weakness on the part of God, especially in the early ages of the world, when symbolical language originated from the necessary scarcity of words. Figures of speech, as all allow, were occasioned by the very poverty of language. The advancement of society in arts, sciences, and refinement, has produced the addition of a multitude of words. Still, in the highest state of improvement, all languages continue to be more or less figurative.

Probably there are no writings in existence whose style is not, in some degree, (metaphorical; which, indeed, really constitutes much of its essential beauty.

The language of the Bible is highly figurative, particularly the Old Testament; for which, besides its remote antiquity, two particular reasons have been assigned. First, the eastern nations, possessing warm imaginations, and living in climates rich and fertile, surrounded by objects equally grand and beautiful, naturally delighted in a figurative mode of expression, far beyond that of the more sober taste of Europeans in less luxuriant regions. The other is, that many of the books of the Old Testament consist of Hebrew poetry; in the style of which the author is allowed, by universal consent, the privilege of illustrating his productions by images and similitudes, drawn from every striking subject which may be present to his imagination. Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, and other sacred poets, abound with figures; on every occasion their compositions are adorned with the richest flowers and the most instructive metaphors,

to impress the minds and affect the hearts of their readers. But their propriety, design, and beauty, can be appreciated fully only by possessing a tolerable idea of the country in which the inspired poets flourished, the peculiarities of its inhabitants, and the idioms of its language.

The style of the New Testament also, especially the discourses of our Saviour, are remarkably metaphorical; by mistaking which, the most extravagant notions have been published as divine doctrine; some professors of Christianity adopting a literal application of those expressions which are figuratively intended. A few examples will show the incorrectness of a literal interpretation of some of the words of our Lord. Speaking of Herod the king, Christ says," Go ye, and tell that fox," Luke xiii. 32. Here, as every reader perceives, the word fox is transferred from its literal signi fication, that of a beast of prey, proverbial for its profound cunning, to denote a cruel tyrant, and that use of the term conveys, as was designed, the idea of consummate bypocricy.

Our Lord said to the Jews, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," John vi. 51. The Jews understood his words literally; and said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" ver. 52. not considering that he intended the sacrifice of his life, which he gave as an atonement for the sins of the world.

In the institution of the Lord's Supper, our Saviour said of the bread, "This is my body;" and of the wine, "This is my blood," Matt. xxvi. 26-28. Upon these words, the Roman Catholics, since the twelfth century, have put a forced construction; and in opposition to other passages of the scriptures, as well every principle of nature and sound reason, they have attempted to establish their monstrous