tended only to the truth as it was given to the writer's thoughts, may we not reasonably suppose that such imperfection as attaches to all human communications would attend its expression to the minds of others? Such, we find, was the case with the personal teachings of Christ himself. These were not always understood, even by those to whom they were immediately addressed. His own chosen disciples often mistook him. It was exceedingly difficult to make them see and apprehend the truth in just the same light in which it appeared to his thoughts.

Such being the fact in regard to those who could read and speak the languages in which the divine writings were first embodied, it must be expected that these difficulties would be increased for us, if we consider,

2. In the second place, that these languages are now but imperfectly known. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, which has long since ceased to be a generally spoken language, even by the Jews themselves. Its best scholars, now, can be supposed to have but an imperfect knowledge of its primary signification. It may have a conventional meaning among them, which is tolerably uniform, but that this differs, in no respect, from that which it assumed in the minds of patriarchs and prophets, who is able at the present time to determine very positively? Doubtless it may be approximated with sufficient nearness; but still, there must be some room here for a little misapprehension.

The same may be said of the Christian Scriptures. With the exception of the first edition of Matthew's Gospel, these were written primarily in Greek; not in pure Greek, but more properly, perhaps, in what might be termed a kind of Hebraic or Hellenistic Greek; which was the more commonly spoken language in the days of Christ. As used by the writers of the New Testament, it has many Hebraisms; and, like the Hebrew, has gone out of general use, long ago, even among those to whom it was anciently familiar.

Consider, also, the frequency with which the writers of the Scriptures evidently employed their terms in a figurative sense; their almost constant use of metaphor, and sometimes of hyperbole; with ever recurring allusions to the habits, customs, and manners of the age in which they

lived; many of which are exceedingly difficult of appreciation now; and of most of which, there are few existing specimens left wholly unchanged amidst the revolutions of the intervening ages. Must it not be presumed, therefore, from these and similar facts, that the words which they used, when translated into our language, even by the best scholars, would be very liable to have a shade of meaning given to them which the writers never intended? And in the midst of habits, customs and manners, so entirely different as ours are, would not their allusions to these things find, of necessity, a somewhat difficult interpretation?

The almost inconceivable amount of labor which has been bestowed upon investigations bearing upon this subject, while it remains an enduring monument to the zeal and scholarship of many who have given their lives to the work, also shows us some of the difficulties which it involves, and presents one of the great causes of obscurity which clouds certain portions of our present version.

Indeed, in examining these and kindred facts, I am astonished that we have a version so free from defects. The wonder is, not that they exist, but that they are so few, and to all appearance so unimportant. So that, admitting that every truth which the Bible contains was originally the subject of direct and immediate communication from God to the minds of the writers, it is really marvellous that that book has come down to us, so simple, plain, and rational a production as we find it to be. If the religious element in men was not so all-controlling, and their reverence for the Scriptures so great, inducing cares and labors for them such as were never bestowed upon any other book, we could not have expected it.

3. In the third place, consider also the necessary ambiguity of language, as another cause of difficulty in understanding the Scriptures. This is, more or less, characteristic of all language. Our terms in most common use are to some extent equivocal. We can by no means feel certain that what we may say, or what we may write, at any time, will carry to the mind of the hearer or the reader, just the exact shade of meaning which exists in our own. We find ourselves constantly subject to misapprehension by our associates and friends.

We use words in one sense, and they receive them, perhaps, in a sense a little different, so that an idea or thought is not certain to keep its original shape precisely, in passing from mind to mind. And this is not only true in reference to our more careless expressions, whether in speaking or writing, but also in regard to those which are most deliberate and well-guarded. We find this very strikingly exemplified in the productions of the greatest minds in the country.

For example: Congress passes a law in relation to the revenue. It is fully discussed; considered and sanctioned by the President; and published in as plain terms as can well be used in a document of that character. In a short time, we find not only that same Congress quarrelling as to its exact signification, but also some of the highest judicial functionaries in the land disagreeing very widely as to its proper meaning. In fact, constructions are put upon it as radically different as any which were ever entertained in regard to the language of the Bible.

The same thing is illustrated, also, in the questions which are constantly growing out of our federal and state constitutions. We must suppose that these were drafted with the greatest possible care in this respect; because from their very nature they are designed as definitions. Probably the English language could hardly be used with much greater caution and discrimination, than are to be found in these instruments. And yet, the greatest statesman, perhaps, which we have ever had, won some of his most imperishable laurels as the expounder of these very constitutions.

Take the learned judges of the supreme courts in our various States, and how often, and how widely, do they differ, with regard to the strict constitutionality of certain legislative enactments! And even our proud old Declaration of Independence; one of the most plain and simple, as well as mighty utterances, that ever sprang from a nation's heart,-how very differently is it interpreted by different minds! When it announces, as with the voice of a God, the self-evident and inspiring truth, that all men are born equal, with certain inalienable rights, among which are life and liberty; some have really supposed that it was inconsistent with any such thing as human

slavery. Others appear equally confident that it applies only to white men.

All through our civil and judicial operations, occur frequent illustrations of this same fact. The most elaborate and guarded documents which issue from the finest minds in the nation, are subject to like misapprehension. They find individuals and parties to interpret them very differently, and to advocate from them antagonistic opinions.

Doubtless much of this is owing to the necessary ambiguity of language, and the difficulty with which words can be made to express the thoughts of a writer, at all times, with perfect clearness and exactness. And if this is so fully apparent, in cases like those which I have suggested; cases which would seem to be the most free from such difficulties of any; how much more so should we expect to find it, in records which have come down to us from other ages, and from languages which have no living representatives? With a proper view of these facts, is it surprising that good and wise men should differ about the construction to be put upon certain terms in the Bible; or that they should draw from its declarations antagonistic sentiments? Or ought this circumstance to go a single step towards impeaching the authenticity of its writers' statements, or their claim to having had certain great truths communicated to them by the spirit of God? Whoever looks into this matter fully and candidly will see that this is no more than ought to be expected; that we should naturally look for difficulties quite as great, and obscurities fully as dark, as any which can be found in the sacred records. So far as their form and language are concerned, they are merely human productions; and, under the circumstances which have attended their history, it seems unjust to demand of them a higher degree of perfection, in this respect, than is accorded to the productions of our best minds at the present day.

4. In the fourth place, it should be remembered, that men have not generally brought to the investigation of the Bible, minds which were wholly candid and unprejudiced. Their prevailing tendencies of thought and belief are usually fixed before they attempt its critical examination. These commence in the very dawnings of childhood.

As soon as the young mind opens to the reception of ideas, it finds instructers in every thing around it. And the work of forming views and opinions, right or wrong, goes on from that hour continually. And as the child comes up through the various stages of youth, parents, associates, teachers and friends, all put in their contributions to the store of his thoughts, and long before he has the ability critically to examine the Scriptures for himself, all the more prominent features of a religious belief will be found stamped upon his soul. This is the case, to some extent, doubtless, with all men. And these early impressions it is found very difficult to modify in after life. Sometimes their influence is not wholly destroyed for long years after the reason has utterly rejected them. With these strong predilections in the mind, it seems hardly possible that their influenee should be wholly unfelt in the investigation of the language of the Bible. There would be a tendency to interpret the words of the divine writers in the light of these previously formed opinions. This might be done almost unconsciously, so that the student should honestly deem himself extremely candid, when really he was laboring under the control of strong prejudices.

Can any one believe, for example, that had Dr. Adam Clarke been bred up in the views of liberal Christians, he would ever have given the Scriptures such an interpretation as we find in his Commentary? It is barely possible, but not probable. So that if we consider what a variety of contradictory opinions have always been cherished upon the subject of religion, and the fact that men generally have, more or less, brought to the study of the Bible minds prepossessed by these opinions, we shall only be astonished that their difficulties in interpreting it have not been found greater, and their differences with regard to its teachings even wider than they are. He who has been trained in the views which are now improperly termed Orthodox, will inevitably look at the Scriptures through the medium of these false opinions. He can hardly do otherwise. His education has produced a mental obliquity, and when he reads that God would have all men to be saved, he has no shadow of doubt that it means all good men. On the other hand, it is doubtless the same