of philosophical theories, is to meet the difficulties of sceptical men, who will not trust the Bible in this way. In such cases, it is sometimes useful to be able to show that there is a way in which we can see how the thing may be, so that it is not necessary to allow contradictions and absurdities in the Bible. For this purpose I think some theories are better than others, and feel myself at liberty to select such as seem the most rational and consistent; but I never incorporate them into my system as articles of revealed truth, but place them where they belong, as the philosophical deductions of human minds. And if this distinction had always been preserved, the church of Christ would have been saved from many hurtful controversies.

Now it would seem from what has been said, that the Unitarian theories have just exactly the same difficulties to meet as the Trinitarian. They have to explain the difficulty of saying that there are more Gods than one in one sense, and only one God in another sense. They have to explain the difficulty of saying that Christ is God in one respect, and in other respects a man. In addition to this, they have the difficult task of altering the most obvious and natural sense of all those passages, which ascribe the names and attributes and rights of the Divinity to Jesus Christ.

It is in doing this that Unitarians exhibit the second particular I am attempting to show, viz: "a violation of the laws of evidence in regard to the interpretation of language."

The great law of evidence, that we are to take

to be truth that which has the balance of evidence in its favor, is as fundamental and as indispensable in the interpretation of language, as it is in the common and practical affairs of life. We all know that almost every expression of language has more than one meaning; it may be a literal, it may be a figurative sense; or it may be one of several literal uses. For example, when we find such a sentence as this, " He took the heads;" it may mean the heads of a discourse, or the heads of some animals, or the heads of nails, or the principal officers of the departments of government; and we can determine the true meaning, only by examining the subject of discourse, and finding which of these meaning has the most evidence in its favor, and involves the fewest difficulties. If every man is at liberty to show that expressions have various senses, and then choose whichever he pleases, no laws, or contracts, or writings of any kind could be relied on for a moment.

Now there are certain rules of interpretation which every man of common sense uses, which enable him when he reads his newspaper, for example, to determine what parts are true, and what parts are fictitious, and what is literal, and what is figurative, and what is poetry, and what is prose. Though such men never have these rules drawn up into regular forms for use, they always employ them, and find little difficulty in gaining the true meaning of writings, so far as all important and practical purposes are concerned. The Bible is a book written in the language of men, and is there

fore to be interpreted by the same rules as all other writings.

To these positions you will readily yield assent, and I will now point out some of the particulars in which Unitarians violate the law of evidence, and the rules of interpretation. I shall not present many specific cases, to illustrate, but rather ask you to examine the matter for yourself, and then judge whether I am not correct. Take, as one instance, some disputed readings, where the Unitarian claims that a text in the original has a certain reading, and the Trinitarian claims that it has a different one. Now the way to settle this matter properly, is to take that reading which has the balance of evidence in its favor. This evidence always depends on the number and the value of manuscripts. The reading which has the most manuscripts, and the most valuable manuscripts in its favor, is the true reading. Of course we have only to inquire how many manuscripts and of what sort are for one side, and what for the other, and then take that to be the right, which has the most in its favor. Unitarian and Trinitarian critics do not dispute about the question of which manuscripts are on each side. The Trinitarian says, the greatest number of manuscripts, and the most valuable are in favor of a certain reading, therefore it is the true reading. But usually the Unitarian first assumes that his notion of the unity of God which makes the Trinity absurd, is the true one; and then shows that the texts are capable of the Unitarian reading, and then shows that

some manuscripts are in favor of it, then claims (that as the Trinity is an absurdity,) the reading that is supported by the fewest and most doubtful manuscripts, is the true reading. Now if their views of the unity can be established, then the Trinity is an absurdity, and not all the testimony of all the writings on earth can establish it. But if it is a question that can be settled by the balance of evidence, then Unitarians violate the law of evi dence by this mode of procedure.

In regard to this whole matter of "various readings," in the original manuscripts, it seems to me to have a very magnified aspect, from the imposing representations of Unitarian writers. "Thirty thousand different readings" sounds very ominous, but when it is found that most of these are about as important as the substitution of the article an instead of an a, or the omission of some letter in spelling a word, and that there are few that vary the sense of any sentence, and scarce any, 7,"where the balance of evidence is not decidedly in favor of the common reading, the supposed evils on this matter are much less than is often supposed.*

"There is no reason to suppose, that the sacred text has, in any material points, been interpolated, or corrupted. From the ancient versions of the Scriptures, from the writings of the fathers, and from a comparison of manuscripts, it has been shown, in the most satisfactory manner, by biblical scholars, that our sacred books have been preserved in great purity, and are in all essential matters, what they were when they came from the hands of their authors. In the beginning of the last century, great alarm was excited by the vast number of various readings that were discovered by critics, in examining and comparing ancient manu

One other point I will suggest as a topic for examination, in regard to the violation of the laws of language by Unitarian writers. It is a fundamen

scripts. Infidels began to triumph at the discovery of an argument which they were confident would at once overthrow the authority of the Scriptures; and even Christians expressed some uneasiness, lest the foundations of their faith should be affected, and uncertainty be introduced into the doctrines of the gospel. Dr. Mill discovered 30,000 various readings in the New Testament; many more have since been discovered, and those that have been found in collecting various manuscripts of the Old Testament, have risen to many hundred thousand. But what do these various readings amount to? In a vast majority of cases to nothing more than whether an i shall be dotted, and a t crossed, or whether you shall spell the word honor, honour, or, or. Not one of a thousand of these various readings affects the sense of the passages where they occur; and not one of all of them, teaches any doctrine, or states any fact which is not to be found elsewhere in the Bible. It is acknowledged by the very critics by whose industry the various readings have been collected, that the sacred text is competently exact, even in the worst manuscript now extant, and that not one article of faith or moral precept is either perverted or lost in it. We may therefore say, with one of the most eminent of critics; (Dr. Bently.) 'Put thirty thousand various readings that have been discovered in manuscripts of the New Testament into the hands of a knave or a fool, and make them as many more, if numbers of copies can ever be found to reach that sum; and yet, with the most sinister and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity, but that every feature of it will be the same.' At the same time, it is consoling to the Christian mind to know, that while the industry of biblical scholars has brought to light so great a number of various readings in the sacred text, no one point of doctrine or duty is affected by the discovery, and that the result of their labors has been to settle the text on a permanent basis, and to increase our confidence in its general purity and correctness."-Dr. Hawes' Lecture on the Literary History of the Bible.

1