of Christians that they possess all things, know all things, and can do all things. Recollect the verbal contradiction between Paul and James, and the apparent clashing of some parts of Paul's writings, with the general doctrines and end of Christianity. I might extend the enumeration indefinitely, and who does not see that we must limit all these passages by the known attributes of God, of Jesus Christ, and of human nature, and by the circumstances under which they were written, so as to give the language a quite different import from what it would require, had it been applied to different beings, or used in different connexions.

"Enough has been said to show in what sense we make use 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 connexion 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 led to embrace 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 2d Corinthians, iii., in Hebrews, 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-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 than they now are. "The law was given by Moses;" but "no man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten, who dwelleth in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him,"-i. e., it was reserved for Christ to make a full display of the divine character;-no man, no prophet, who preceded him, ever had such 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, undertake to 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 respects, 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 design to affirm this; but the words in their connexion seem naturally to bear this import. To such a view I should object, 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 for ever the same under every dispensation, may be and ought to be regarded as unrepealed. It is a very sound maxim, in the interpretation of divine as well as human laws,―manente ratione, manet ipsa lex,—a law is unrepealed, while the reason of that law continues. Express repeal only 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 nowise pass from the law till all be fulfilled," he seems to me plainly to have 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 (the Book of Psalms, for instance), or of those numerous prophetical parts which are sermons on the duties and obligations of men, or of 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 less perfect than that which the New Testament furnishes on the same topics; but I believe them to be sanctioned by the same authority, and to require a similar respect and deference.

In regard to what you say respecting the leading principle of interpreting Scripture, I cannot hesitate to declare, that nothing is clearer to my apprehension, than that God, when he speaks to men, speaks in such language as 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 assurance that they understand the meaning of its language?

I find little from which I should dissent in the remainder of your observations upon the general principles of interpretation. I might perhaps make some objections 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 are led to admit, this origin, on general or 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 that 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 with respect to what the sacred writers really meant to declare in any case, she admits it without hesitation, whether it be a doctrine, the relation of 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 submit to 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 being once admitted to be the Word of God, or of divine authority, the sole office of reason in respect to them is to act as an interpreter of revelation, and not in any case as a legislator. Reason can only judge of the 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 as they have asserted it, or their divine authority must be rejected, and our obligation to believe all which they assert, 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 being once admit

* A term of frequent occurrence with expositors and Biblical critics. It signifies examination or interpretation.

ted, the simple question in respect to it is, What does it teach? In regard to any particular passage, What idea did the original writer mean to convey? When this is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpretation, it is authoritative, this is orthodoxy in the highest and best sense of the word; and every thing which is opposed to it, which modifies it, which fritters its meaning away, is heterodoxy, is heresy, to whatever name or party it is attached.

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

tation.

If there be any thing to which I should object in your statement, generally considered, of the laws of interpretation, it is rather the colouring which has been given to some of the language in which it is expressed. You commence by 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 will readily acknowledge, as a general fact, that there is difficulty in giving an impartial statement of opinions, which we thus strongly feel to have been misrepresented. We certainly are under temptation, in such cases, to set off our own opinions to the best advantage, and to place those of our opponents in the most repulsive attitude. And although Trinitarians, in fact, differ less from you, in respect to the laws of interpretation, than you seem to have apprehended, the belief, on your part, that a wider difference existed, seems to have given a peculiar cast to some sentences which simple discussion would hardly admit.

With the two last paragraphs of your sermon that are quoted above, I wish not to be understood as signifying that I entirely agree. It is, however, rather from the application of some exegetical principles which is made in them, than from the principles themselves, that I dissent.