he did not believe in the divinity of our Lord; but he has stated expressly, that he never for a moment persuaded himself that St. Paul or St. John did not believe it; their language he thought was clear enough, upon the point; but the notion appeared to him so unreasonable in itself, that he disbelieved it in spite of their authority.  It is manifest, that, in this case, great as the difference was between this great man’s early belief and his later, yet it in no way arose from the obscurity of the Scripture.  The language of the Scripture was as clear to him at first as it was afterwards; but in his early life he disbelieved it, while, in his latter life, he embraced it with all his heart and soul.

It must not be denied, however, that we are here arrived at one of the causes which are likely, for a long time, to keep alive a false interpretation of Scripture, and which do not affect our interpretation of heathen writings.  For most men, in such a case as I have referred to, when they do not believe the language of the Scripture, but wish to alter it, whether by omission or addition, do not deal so fairly with it as that great man did to whom I have alluded.  They have neither his knowledge nor his honesty; a false interpretation is more easily disguised from them, owing to their ignorance, and they let their wishes more readily warp their judgment.  Thus, they will not say as he did, “The Scripture clearly says so and so, but I cannot believe it;” they rather say, “This is very unreasonable and shocking, the Scripture cannot mean to say this;” or, “This is very pious and very ancient, the Scripture cannot but sanction this.”  And certainly, if men will so deal with it, there remains no certainty of interpretation then.  But this is not the way that we deal with other ancient writings; and its unfairness and foolishness, if ever attempted to be practised there, are so palpable as to be ridiculous.  No doubt it is difficult to convince men against their will; nevertheless, there is a good hope, that, as sound principles of interpretation are more generally known, they will put to shame a flagrant departure from them; and that those who try to make the Scripture say more or less than it has said, will be gradually driven to confess that Scripture is not their real authority; that their own notions in the one case, and the authority of the Church in the other case, have been the real grounds of their belief, to which they strove to make the Scriptures conform.

Nothing that I have said is, in any degree, meant to countenance the opinions of those who talk of the Bible,—­or rather, our translation of it,—­being its own interpreter; meaning, that if you give a Bible to any one who can read, he will be able to understand it rightly.  Even in this extravagance, there is indeed something of a truth.  If a man were so to read the Bible, much he would, unquestionably, be able to understand; enough, I well believe, if honestly and devoutly used, to give him, if living