different meaning could be given to sentences in any language if every word had but one meaning, and every sentence could be understood only in one way if but one inference or conclusion could be drawn from the same premises, and various evidence and arguments could not be used upon one matter, then there would be no difficulty in perceiving at once the whole truth of the Bible. But as there is no language that is perfect, whose words and sentences do not admit of more than one certain meaning; and as the ambiguity of words and the various construction of sentences are the great cause of doubt and controversy, respecting the holy Scriptures, and other writings, it may be useful for us to adopt, or lay down, some general acknowledged rules or principles, to aid in the consideration of ambiguous words, in the construction of sentences of doubtful meaning, and in the exegesis of written evidence in general. I will endeavor to state a few, to which I trust no one will object, and which I hope, with divine assistance, may aid in the execution and consideration of this work.

Every written volume or piece of evidence should be taken altogether. We may not receive one part as true, and another as false; for that would destroy, in toto, the credit of the witness, so that no part of the testimony could be relied on. But if one part is doubtful, or apparently contradictory in its language, we should compare and explain it with other parts of the same testimony, or the general tenor thereof; and sometimes, to explain it, we may have recourse to extraneous circumstances.

The whole Bible should be considered as one body of evidence, all as the testimony of witnesses inspired by the true, omnicient God. For Moses, the Prophets, the Son of God, and the Apostles are supposed to have delivered the words of God; or that it was he who spoke by them, as Christ himself said, "The words that I speak are not mine, but the Father's who sent me." So it was with respect to the Prophets and the Apostles. But on account of the sources and manner through which we have obtained the Scriptures, it is by no means certain, that all parts of the Bible, even every verse, sentence, and word, according to our common translation, are the same as were delivered by Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles; or that they wrote the whole just as we now have them translated; nor is it improbable that many sacred, inspired writings are not inserted, which should have been; as many might have been destroyed by accident or design. It is not pretended, that those men, who collected, selected, printed, and translated the Bible, were inspired persons, or that they were miraculously directed in their works; but they proceeded, in compiling the books, and in printing and translating, according to their best judgment, and the best evidence that they could then obtain. For these reasons therefore it is not impious to suppose, that in this best, most perfect book in the world, there may be some errors and imperfections. It would therefore not be a sacrilegious act to make thorough examination to ascertain the fact. And to remove or reject any interpolations, if

there be any, would not be taking away anything from the "Book of God," but only striking out what did not there belong, not being any part of the real true word of God.

As I intend to lay down such principles as great men of all sects agree to, I will here quote largely from Dr. Channing, not only because he is one of the most distinguished writers of the age, but also because Professor Stuart, a highly celebrated writer, scholar, and theologian, who differs from Dr. Channing on some doctrinal points, has yet given, publicly, his full approbation of the general rules and principles, which I shall cite.

"We regard," says Dr. Channing," the Scriptures as the records of God's successive revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures we receive without reserve or exception. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament.

"Our leading principle in interpreting Scripture is this, that the Bible is a book written for men, in the language of men, and that its meaning is to be sought in the same manner as that of other books. We believe that God, when he speaks to the human race, conforms, if we may so say, to established rules of speaking and writing. How else would the Scriptures avail us more, than if communicated in an unknown tongue?

"Now all books, and all conversation, require in the reader or hearer the constant exercise of reason; or their true impórt is only to be obtained by continual comparison and inference. Human language admits various interpretations; and every word and every sentence must be modified and explained, according to the subject that is discussed, according to the purposes, feelings, circumstances, and principles of the writer, and according to the genius and idioms of the language he uses. These are acknowledged principles in the interpretation of human writings.

"Were the Bible written in a language and style of its own, did it consist of words, which admit but a single sense, and of sentences wholly detached from each other, there would be no place for the principles now laid down. We could not reason about it, as about other writings. But such books would be of little worth; and perhaps of all books the Scriptures correspond least to this description. The word of God bears the stamp of the same hand which we see in his works. It has infinite connexions and dependencies. Every proposition is linked with others, and is to be compared with others, that its full and precise import may be understood. Nothing stands alone. The New Testament is built on the Old. The Christian dispensation is a continuation of the Jewish, the completion of a vast scheme of Providence, requiring great extent of view in the reader. Still more the Bible treats of subjects, on which we receive ideas from other

sources besides itself; such subjects as the nature, passions, relations, and other duties of men; and it expects us to restrain and modify its language by the known truths, which observation and experience furnish on these topics.

"We profess not to know a book, which demands a more frequent exercise of reason than the Bible. In addition to the remarks now made on its infinite connexions, we observe that its style nowhere affects the precision of science, or the accuracy of definition. Its language is singularly glowing, bold, and figurative, demanding more frequent departures from the literal sense, than that of our own age and country, and consequently demanding more continual exercise of judgment. With these views of the Bible, we feel it our bounden duty to exercise our reason upon it perpetually, to compare, to infer, to look beyond the letter to the spirit, to seek in the nature of the subject, and in the aim of the writer, his true meaning; and, in general, to make use of what is known, for explaining what is difficult, and for discovering new truths.

"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 the Scriptures, 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