of reason in interpreting Scripture. From a variety of possible interpretations, we select that which accords with the nature of the subject, and the state of the writer, with the connection of the passage, with the general strain of Scripture, with the known character and will of God, and with the obvious and acknowledged laws of nature. In other words, we believe that God never contradicts, in one part of Scripture, what he teaches in another; and never contradicts, in revelation, what he teaches in his works and providence. And we, therefore, distrust every interpretation, which, after deliberate attention, seems repugnant to any established truth. We reason about the Bible precisely as civilians do about the constitution under which we live; who, you know, are accustomed to limit one provision of that venerable instrument by others, and to fix the precise import of its parts by inquiring into its general spirit, into the intentions of its authors, and into the prevalent feelings, impressions, and circumstances of the time when it was framed. Without these principles of interpretation, we frankly acknowledge, that we cannot defend the divine authority of the Scriptures. Deny us this latitude, and we must abandon this book to its enemies." pp. 3-6.

To a great part of these principles, I give my cheerful and most cordial assent. They are the principles which I apply to the explanation of the Scriptures, from day to day, in my private studies and in my public labours. They are the principles, by which I am conducted to the opinions that I have espoused; and by which, so far as I am able, I expect to defend these opinions, whenever called in duty to do it.

While I thus give my cordial approbation to most of the above extract from your Sermon, will you indulge me in expressing a wish, that the rank and value of the Old Testament, in the Christian's library, had been described in somewhat different terms? I do most fully accord with the idea, that the gospel, or the New Testament, is more perfect than the Mosaic law, or than the Old Testament. On what other ground can the assertions of Paul in 2 Cor. iii, in Heb. viii, and in other places, be believed or justified? The gospel gives a clearer view than the Jewish Scriptures, of our duty and of our destiny; of the objects of our hopes and fears; of

the character of God and the way of salvation. I agree fully, that whatever in the Old Testament respects the Jews simply as Jews-e. g. their ritual, their food, their dress, their civil polity, their government, and (in a word) whatever from its nature was national and local-is not binding upon us under the Christian dispensation.

I am well satisfied, too, that the character of God and the duty of men were, in many respects, less clearly revealed under the ancient dispensation. "The law was given by Moses;" yet" no man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten, who dwelleth in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him." In other words, it was reserved for Christ to make a full display of the divine character; no mere man ever had such a knowledge of God as enabled him to do it. I am aware that many Christians do not seem to understand this passage; and, with well meaning but mistaken views, deduce the character and designs of God as fully and as clearly from the Old Testament as from the New.*

I must believe too, that the duties of Christians are, in most things, more fully and definitely taught in the gospel than in the Old Testament; and I cannot approve of that method of reasoning, which deduces our duties principally from texts in the Old Testament that sometimes are less clear, when the New Testament presents the same subjects in such characters of light that he who runneth may read.

But when you say: "Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives;" does. not this naturally imply, that we are absolved from obligation to receive the Old Testament, in any sense, as our guide; and that what it teaches, we are not bound "to make the rule of our lives?" I do not feel certain that it was your

*For more ample views of this interesting topic, I would refer the reader to the little work which I have recently published, entitled Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, p. 385 sq.

design to affirm this; but the words, in their connection, seem naturally to bear this import. To such a view I should oppose the consideration, that those parts of the Old Testament, which express the will of God in reference to the great points of duty, that must from the nature of moral beings be forever the same under every dispensation, may be, and ought to be, regarded as unrepealed. There is a very sound maxim, in the interpretation of divine as well as human laws, which runs thus: Manente ratione, manet ipsa lex, i. e. a law is unrepealed, while the reason of that law continues. Only express repeal can exempt a law from the application of this maxim. And when our Saviour says: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," he seems to me to have plainly declared the immutability of the ancient moral law, in the sense already explained.

What shall we say, moreover, of the devotional parts of the Old Testament, of the book of Psalms, for example? And what of those numerous prophetical parts, which are sermons on the duties and obligations of men, or predictions of a future Messiah and of the nature and prosperity of his church? Are these any more Jewish, (except as to the garb in which they are clothed), than Christian? I admit that they are all less perfect, than that which the New Testament furnishes on the same topics, inasmuch as this is an account of the fulfilment of ancient prophecies; but I believe both to be sanctioned by the same authority, and to require a similar respect and deference.

In regard to what follows, in the passage above quoted, I cannot hesitate to say, that nothing is clearer to my apprehension, than that God, when he speaks to men, speaks in language which is used by those whom he addresses. Of course, the language of the Bible is to be interpreted by the same laws, so far as philology is concerned, as that of any other book. I ask, with you: How else is the Bible a revelation? How else can men ever come to agree in what manner the Scripture should be interpreted, or feel any as

surance that they have attained to the meaning of its language?

I find little from which I should dissent, in the remainder of your observations upon the principles of interpretation. I might, perhaps, make some objection to the manner, in which the office of reason in the interpretation of Scripture is occasionally described. But I am confident, that I admit as fully as you do or can do, the proper office of reason, in the whole matter of religion, both in regard to doctrine and practice. It is to our reason, that the arguments which prove the divine origin of Christianity are addressed; and it is by reason that we prove or admit this origin, on general historical grounds. Reason prescribes, or at any rate developes and sanctions, the laws of interpreting Scripture. The cases mentioned by you, in which reason must be exercised, are, in general, striking exemplifications of this. But when reason is satisfied that the Bible is the book of God, by proof which she cannot reject, and yet preserve her character; and when she has decided what laws of exegesis the nature of human language requires; the office which remains for her, in regard to the Scripture, is the application of those laws to the actual interpretation of the Bible. When by their application she becomes satisfied in respect to what the sacred writers really meant, in any case, she receives it without hesitation, whether it relates to a doctrine, a fact, or a precept. It is the highest office of reason to believe doctrines and facts which God has asserted to be true, and to obey his precepts; although many things in regard to the manner in which those facts and doctrines can be explained, or those precepts vindicated, may be beyond her reach. In short, the Scriptures once being admitted to be the word of God, or of divine authority, the sole office of reason in respect to them is to act as the interpreter of Revelation, and not in any case as a legislator.*

*It is evident from the later writings of Dr. Channing, that he admitted the divine authority of the Old Testament only in a very limited and qualified sense. Of the New Testament he would doubtless have said: 'It contains the word of God;' but not: 'It is the word of God.'

Reason can only judge of the appropriate laws of exegesis, and direct the application of them in order to discover simply what the sacred writers meant to assert. This being discovered, it is either to be received simply as they have asserted it, or their divine authority must be rejected, and our obligation to believe all which they assert must be denied. There is no other alternative. Philosophy has no right to interfere here. If she ever interferes, it must be when the question is pending, whether the Bible is divine. Nor has system, prejudice, sectarian feeling, orthodoxy or heterodoxy so called, any right to interfere. The claims of the Bible to be authoritative once being admitted, the simple question is: What does it teach? Of any particular passage we have only to ask: What idea did the original writer mean to convey? When this is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpretation, it is authoritative. It is orthodoxy in the highest and best sense of the word; and everything which differs from it, which modifies it, which fritters its meaning away, is heterodoxy, is heresy; to whatever name or party it is attached.

I hope you will agree, without hesitation, to these remarks. The grand Protestant maxim, that the Bible is the only and sufficient rule of faith and practice, implies most clearly the very same principles which I have stated; and which every man must admit, who acknowledges the paramount claims of the Bible to be believed, and has any tolerable acquaintance with the subject of its interpretation.

If there be anything in your statement, generally considered, of the laws of interpretation, to which I object, it belongs mostly to the colouring which has been given to some of your language. You commence with saying, that your party are charged with "exalting reason above revelation;" with " "preferring their own wisdom to God's ;" and that "these charges are circulated freely and with injurious intentions." You

In the first case, only so much is admitted to be authoritative, as agrees with our views of what is reasonable; in the second case, the Scripture is acknowledged as the only rule of faith and practice.