ture, and is unable to obtain the works of biblical commentators and expositors, as directed above, let him go to a well-instructed clergyman of any respectable branch of the Christian church, and ask instruction in the case, and he will seldom fail of obtaining it.

Knowledge is to be had, if men will take the trouble to apply for it; and surely none can desire it on easier

terms.

I do not propose that any man's ipse dixit should be taken as a rule of faith or of interpretation. To pursue such a course would be to perpetuate erroneous interpretations indefinitely. But I do recommend that those who have not the means of extensive and accurate information on this subject, should allow those who have to direct their minds to principles and facts which may lead them to truth, and protect them from error in all matters of vital importance. Error is the child of ignorance, and ignorance in most cases springs from a voluntary and criminal neglect of the means of improvement and information. God has made it our duty to know the truth, and has amply furnished us with the means of gaining this knowledge. No man need be a sceptic, none need be an unbeliever, if he will consent to use honestly, and diligently, and prayerfully, those means of instruction which God has placed within his reach, and urged upon his acceptance.

1. Many persons talk a great deal of the Scriptures being according to reason, and take considerable liberties in the interpretation of them, for the purpose of making them speak such language as they think is reasonable.

*

See a brief view of the Rationalistic system in Professor Tholuck's Preface to his Commentary on the Romans,-BIBLICAL CABINET, Vol. V.

The mode of interpretation adopted by such is in some respects peculiar. The fundamental principle of it is, that the sacred Scriptures are accordant to

reason.

This principle is not pretended to be applicable to men's productions, because men are liable to hold sentiments, and make statements, that are untrue and unreasonable; and therefore the fact that a particular doctrine is unreasonable, is no proof that men have not held and inculcated it in their writings.

2. Let us investigate this rule. The sacred Scriptures must be accordant to reason. What is reason? If reason is a rule of interpretation it ought to be well understood. The word reason has two principal meanings:-1. It designates the foundation or cause of an opinion or conclusion, as we think thus and so, for this and that reason. Every correct opinion is based on some sufficient reason, which is the cause of our holding it.

We believe that Columbus discovered America; and the reason for this belief, or the foundation on which it rests, is the fact that the discovery of it is universally attributed to him, especially by those acquainted with the history of the times in which he lived.

To believe without reasons is denominated unreasonable, and is well entitled to this denomination.

Those sentiments, therefore, are reasonable for which reasons of sufficient weight can be assigned;-in this connection, reasons are nearly the same as evidences. 2. The word reason also designates that power of the mind by which we distinguish truth from error, and gain knowledge by comparison and inference. We employ this faculty in all our investigations, whether of the Bible and Bible-truth, or of any other subject. No matter what system of nterpretation we adopt, reason is the faculty, in the exercise of which we apply the rules of that system to the interpretation of language.

The true sense of the sacred Scriptures, is that sense which, in the right and intelligent use of reason, is educed from them. This, however, is by no means making reason a rule of interpretation,-it is only making it an

instrument, by which the acknowledged rules of the art are applied.

3. From a consideration of the definitions of reason here given, which will be found to be correct, and in conformity with the best authorities, it appears highly improper to make reason a rule of interpretation. The fact that any thing is asserted in the Bible, without any collateral evidence, is itself a reason for our belief, and one that amply justifies the highest confidence man can repose in any assertion.

This subject may be farther and more fully illustrated by the following propositions:

1. Knowledge is a safe rule of interpretation, and one of universal application. Any interpretation of Scripture which gives a meaning contradictory to our absolute knowledge must be wrong. Though in other respects the meaning in question might appear to be the true one, yet the fact that it contradicts our certain knowledge proves it to be false. The reason of this rule is obvious. Men are never expected to speak and write with as much precision upon subjects well understood, as upon those which are obscure. In reference to such subjects, we use words in figurative and uncommon senses, as best suits our convenience, and expect them to be interpreted as the nature of the subject may require,-neither are we disappointed in our expectations.

In reference to subjects which are difficult, or such as are not generally understood, we find it necessary to use words with more precision and accuracy, in order to make our communications intelligible. This distinction, in regard to the loose and accurate use of words, obtains in all correct writers, sacred and profane, and ought to be more generally known and regarded than it is. Christ is called a son of David, meaning, as every one knows, a descendant of that prince ;—a vine, that is, metaphorically like a vine ;—a corner stone, like a corner stone in relation to the church ;—a rock of offence, that is, a cause of offence to the unbelieving and disobedient,-all which are perfectly intelligible, because the subject to which they relate

is too well understood to allow of mistake in regard to their meaning.

2. As every part of the sacred Scriptures is equally true, those passages which contain apparent contradictions must be so explained, as to harmonize with each other. Apparent contradictions are often far from being real ones. The most rash and superficial students of the inspired volume, are those who find the most difficulties of this kind. Patient investigation of the meaning of the words, of the context and subject treated of, will generally demonstrate the apparent contradictions of the Bible to be perfectly harmonious, and in perfect agreement with each other.

3. Preconceived opinion which does not amount to knowledge, cannot with propriety be made a rule of interpretation. The natural world presents many objects, and the course of Divine Providence unfolds many events, which we did not expect to find, and which, when observed, awaken our wonder and surprise. It is but reasonable therefore to expect in the economy of grace, and in the moral and religious system of the universe, many things exceedingly strange to us, and entirely different from what we should have thought best to have. The Bible explains the moral and religious system of the world. The design of it is to teach what we could not learn from any other of the sources of knowledge in relation to the subject in question.

The fact, therefore, that some of the representations of the Bible are at variance with our preconceived opinions, and different from what we should think best, is no objection at all to the correctness and truth of them, but furnishes a substantial argument in favour of the fidelity and correctness of the inspired writers. This rule is directly opposed to the fundamental one of the rationalistic mode of interpretation. Those who talk so much of the sacred Scriptures being accordant to reason, do not mean simply that they must be accordant to certain knowledge and known truths. For respecting that, there is no dispute and cannot be. But they mean, that the sacred Scriptures must be accordant to those opinions, which do

not come under the denomination of known truths, but which are readily acquiesced in as being probable, without any decisive evidence in their favour. But happily for the cause of truth and piety, though unfortunately for the honour of this system of interpretation, in all cases where our knowledge of the subject under con sideration is not sufficiently accurate and extensive to be a safe guide to interpretation, words are used in their most common and usual significations. This fact supersedes the necessity of any other rule of interpretation than the usual ones, for ascertaining the meaning of words. When men are treating of subjects not well or generally understood, they never use words in uncommon significations without giving the clearest intimation of the fact, and showing precisely what those significations are, unless they mean to bewilder and deceive their readers.

In relation to such subjects, they are compelled to use words with precision, and in their most usual meanings, in order to make their communications intelligible. In exact accordance to this principle as well as the other principles of language, the divinely inspired writings were composed. To assert the contrary, amounts to nothing less than an impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of God, and is unsupported by the least substantial evidence. Besides, so far as reference is had to the opinions of men in the interpretation of language, that reference must of course be to the opinions of contemporaries and countrymen, and not to those of later times, and of other lands. Hence the necessity of every interpreter of the Bible, acquainting himself as far as possible with the history of opinions in the times when the different parts of the sacred Scriptures were written.

The opinions of the Jews and heathen in relation to the state of the wicked after death, will serve as an illustration of this subject. In the times of our Saviour and the apostles, two of the principal sects of the Jews, all who believed in a future state, believed in the doctrine of the punishment of the wicked after death. The same

doctrine was held by the most popular of the heathen philosophers, and was inculcated on the people generally.