expressed in the declaration that the "Bible is a plain book." It is so plain, that all its truths essential to a man's salvation may be understood by the most common mind. Indeed, its statements of philosophical truths, so far as it makes them, are in terms of plain common sense philosophy, which is true philosophy. And the common mind is the best philosopher so far as that mind goes, seldom committing errors in philosophy. It requires the mystic or the scholastic to introduce philosophical error and to pervert truth: the man who seeks for something profound, and in his selfish pride attempts to fathom the entire depths of truth before he is prepared, and without thorough examination throws off theories which involve him and others in midnight darkness. But though the Bible is a plain book, who will deny that it contains some things hard to be understood? Or that an entire system of theology coming from God, the Infinite Mind, will necessarily be difficult fully to understand and to harmonize? Will not the Christian scholar better understand and develop this Divine system than the unlearned man? A scholar is needed to read the original languages of the Bible-to understand and develop the customs and laws of eastern nations, and by the light of this kind of learning to give us clearer and more extended views than it was possible for the unaided common mind ever to obtain. But is this all the learning that is important? May not the true and Christian scholar in philosophy also better interpret this Divine system than he who has not studied these works of nature? What can pervert the understanding of any man of sense so much as to induce him to deny the truth of this proposition? What can array him in opposition to true philosophy as an important aid in the interpretation of Scripture doctrine, unless it be a wedded attachment to some theological notions with which that philosophy conflicts?

Our second reason for adopting this method is, that the true principles of the interpretation of the Bible require it. No principle is more important or of more universal application than that every book should be interpreted according to the known nature of the things ascribed in it. The Bible was written in the languages of the East. It necessarily employs terms expressive of the customs, laws, government and character peculiar to eastern nations. On these things many of its illustrations are founded. Of these things it treats. And no reasonable man will deny that a knowledge of these customs, laws and government is important, and even necessary, as a preliminary acquisition to a full and correct interpretation of the Scriptures. And on what principle is a knowledge of these things deemed necessary, except that every book must be interpreted according to the known nature of the things of which it treats?

But the Bible treats of other things; of the works of God, the

heavens, the earth, of mind, soul, spirit, moral action, moral obligation, moral government, etc., etc. It does not undertake to teach these things philosophically; but upon a correct knowledge of them, which it pre-supposes all may obtain, it bases duties and doctrines. And if revelation may be fully interpreted without a thorough knowledge of these things of which it so extensively treats, why not without a knowledge of the customs, laws and government of eastern nations? Why apply this principle of interpretation in the one case and reject it in the other? Who but the reviewer has a mind able to see how it gives to the Bible a more humble part in the construction of a system of theology to begin with moral government, than it does to begin with the laws and governments of the East?

Let a man apply himself to the interpretation of the passage, "God is a spirit." Who can have any idea of God from this pas sage unless he first obtain an idea of spirit? And how shall he obtain this idea? By the teachings of Revelation? But where is the original idea of spirit developed and taught in the Scriptures? They presuppose that this idea is and must be known separate from their teachings. And where does it originate? Is it found in the impressions of the material world given through the senses? Who then can know any distinction between matter and spirit? It is by the intuitive cognitions of our own minds that the idea of spirit is first given. It is thus common to all. But it may be more fully, correctly or erroneously developed by attention and reflection. And all correct knowledge acquired thus is philosophical knowledge. And is it then of no importance in the interpretation of this passage that we previously possess correct ideas of spirit? Will false notions on this subject, or none at all, answer as well as correct ones in aiding us in its interpretation? But first to obtain correct ideas of spirit is beginning with philosophy-with the knowledge of the nature of a moral being-the formation of moral government, and of course allows the Bible only a humble part. The same argument is equally applicable to those passages which describe the feelings, purposes and actions of God, the Infinite Spirit.

But let us hear the opinion of the reviewer on other philosophical subjects referred to in revelation. He says (page 241:) "There is a view of free agency and of the grounds and extent of moral obligation, which is perfectly compatible with the doctrines of original sin, efficacious grace and divine sovereignty, and there is another view of those subjects as obviously incompatible with those doctrines. There are two courses which a theologian may adopt. He may turn to the scriptures and ascertain whether those doctrines are really taught therein. If satisfied on that point and especially if he experience through the teachings of the Holy Spirit, their power on his own heart, if they become to him matters not

merely of speculative belief, but of experimental knowledge he will be constrained to make his philosophy agree with his theology. He cannot consciously hold contradictory propositions, and must therefore make his convictions harmonize as far as he can, and those founded on the testimony of the Holy Spirit, will modify and control his conclusions to which his own understanding would lead him." From this it is evident the reviewer supposes that a man may arrive at a full understanding, even an experimental knowledge of these doctrines, without first obtaining any correct views of the philosophical subjects of free agency and of moral obligation. For aught that appears he may regard man as a mere machine, free only to move as he is acted upon and responsible only for that which he cannot avoid; and yet ne can arrive at a clear and full understanding of man's sinful character which ruins him and of divine, sovereign, and efficacious grace which saves him! Indeed his philosophy of these subjects is to be left unsettled-it may be one thing or another, it matters not what, until these revealed doctrines are studied and understood, and then they will teach him the true philosophy of these subjects. Thus he is to understand the language of the Bible without any knowledge of the things of which it treats-and then its mere language must teach him things.

But the reviewer seems to expect that there will be some philosophy, that the understanding will have some convictions, and that these will conflict with the doctrines of Revelation thus obtained. Yet "he must make his convictions harmonize," (rather a difficult task, however) but he must do it "as far as he can." And thus the understanding, without being convinced by an examination and correction of its philosophical conclusions, must be forced or tortured into harmony with these doctrines of Revelation whether it will or not. Now we say, judging from the reviewer's own language, that there is something wrong here. His mind does not operate harmoniously nor successfully-not as it will when all its powers are pursuing the right path in search of truth. There is a conflict between the understanding and the mind's regard for the authority of Revelation. And the cause is manifest. It is this attempt to establish these doctrines without applying the true principles of interpretation. A man may be satisfied that the general doctrines of "original sin, efficacious grace, and Divine sovereignty are taught in the scriptures;" and his views of them may be suf ficiently accurate for the purposes of his own salvation, and no view of free agency or of moral obligation which any mind unprevented by a false philosophy would obtain, will conflict with these general views. But when he comes as a theologian to explain the relations of these doctrines to other truths and to put them into one harmonious system of theology it will be necessary that he have more accurate and extensive views than those of the common mind. And how shall he arrive at this correct and ex

tended knowledge of these doctrines? They respect the moral actions of moral agents; are made what they are and receive all their distinctive features from the nature of moral action and of free agency. It is absurd therefore to suppose that any man can have a correct and at the same time an extended knowledge of these doctrines without some true knowledge of these philosophical subjects previously obtained. So intimately connected are these philosophical subjects with these doctrines that no man can frame a system of theology without obtaining some extended views of these subjects. He may set up a dogma of his own and this dogma he will bring along with him to the interpretation of these Scripture doctrines. But will he be as likely to arrive at the truth. guided by a mere dogma, as he would by a correct philosophical knowledge of these subjects first obtained by careful investigation? We say to him then, on our principle of interpretation, in order to arrive at a perfect knowledge of these doctrines, begin by making yourself thoroughly acquainted with the nature of free agency and moral obligation-things which require study and reflection-the very things which these revealed doctrines respect and which are written by the finger of God on the framework of every soul, and made visible to the eye of every man's consciousness. And do it with the heart of the Christian philosopher, ever ready to obey truth, and fully sensible of your responsibility for the results, knowing that your knowledge or your ignorance of these philosophical truths will and must modify your interpretation of these revealed truths. And if your knowledge of the former is first correct you will be likely to arrive at a correct understanding of the latter. And there will probably be no contradiction in your conclusions; no forcing of the understanding to agree with revelation, nor of revelation to agree with philosophy. This is the true and legitimate method it seems to us, and the only one which will carry any man harmoniously to the adoption of the truths of the Bible.

Another reason for adopting this method is, that the opposite one involves the mind in contradictions, and tends to error and infidelity. The two methods which we have contrasted involve contradictory propositions. And hence whatever tends to show the error of the one, contributes to establish the truth of the other. We have already seen that the method of the reviewer leaves unapplied a fundamental principle of interpretation. The consequence is inevitable, that the investigation conducted by this method will result in many erroneous conclusions. They will be errors not so much related to general views of the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, as in the particulars embraced under them. They do not necessarily involve a rejection of the gospel system, but they do destroy its harmony, and weaken its power over the world. But if error is thus wrought out and received as truth on the field of Revelation, what will be the result on the field of phi

losophy? We can easily conceive that minds adopting the idea that philosophy is unnecessary and even dangerous to the interpretation of the Bible, should be satisfied with very little philosophy. And in such minds error may be easily and extensively introduced. For the doctrines of the Bible thus erroneously interpreted, must determine and shape what philosophy they do possess. It is quite possible that men, so destitute of accurate and comprehensive philosophical views, when interpreting certain passages of Scripture, should sincerely believe them to teach that sin is not voluntary, and that Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity; and consequently adopt the corresponding error in philosophy, that ability is not necessary to moral obligation. And thus to such minds this method of interpretation opens an abundant source of confusion and error in philosophy.

But if there be any correct philosophical investigation, as it is possible there may be by some who adopt the method of the reviewer, then there will be conflict between the deductions of philosophy and the supposed teachings of the Bible. Truth, for aught that appears to one's mind in this position, has been ascertained by a correct philosophical investigation, and is firmly believed; while truth has also been thought to have been obtained from the Bible by what the reviewer regards as a correct application of all the principles of interpreting it. But the conclusions conflict with each other. And what shall be done? This is a most difficult question for any man to answer who is by this method, legitimately as he appears, seeking after truth. This writer says a man "cannot consciously hold contradictory propositions." Every one knows this. But what shall be done? So numerous must be these contradictory propositions in every mind who adopts this method of interpretation, that we are not surprised the reviewer seeks for a way of reconciliation, and seeking finds it. His mind in all these instances must, like a poised balance, remain in equilibrium without some weight to settle it. And how is this weight to be obtained? The writer tells us how. "He must therefore make his convictions harmonize, as far as he can." The weight must be made; for there is none in existence that will naturally settle this poising balance; there is no new evidence to show the error of the deduction of philosophy. But "the doctrines" (i. e. Revelation) "must determine his philosophy," they "will modify and control the conclusions to which his own understanding would lead him." Here is the weight manufactured expressly for the purpose, and laid away upon the shelf, to be thrown into the scale when needed. The mere assumption, when these two teachings conflict, that our interpretation of revealed doctrines is established truth, is the all-sufficient evidence to prove the otherwise true deductions of philosophy to be false. This is infallibility claimed not for the true doctrines of the Bible: but