who take up the Bible as they do other books, and apply to it the
same rules of interpretation--Nay.

And, lastly, he who, like myself, recognises in neither of the two
the state of his own mind--who cannot rest in the former, and feels,
or fears, a presumptuous spirit in the negative dogmatism of the
latter--he has his answer to seek. But so far I dare hazard a reply
to the question--In what other sense can the words be interpreted?--
beseeching you, however, to take what I am about to offer but as an
attempt to delineate an arc of oscillation--that the eulogy of St.
Paul is in nowise contravened by the opinion to which I incline, who
fully believe the Old Testament collectively, both in the composition
and in its preservation, a great and precious gift of Providence;--
who find in it all that the Apostle describes, and who more than
believe that all which the Apostle spoke of was of Divine
inspiration, and a blessing intended for as many as are in communion
with the Spirit through all ages. And I freely confess that my whole
heart would turn away with an angry impatience from the cold and
captious mortal who, the moment I had been pouring out the love and
gladness of my soul--while book after book, law, and truth, and
example, oracle, and lovely hymn, and choral song of ten thousand
thousands, and accepted prayers of saints and prophets, sent back, as
it were, from heaven, like doves, to be let loose again with a new
freight of spiritual joys and griefs and necessities, were passing
across my memory--at the first pause of my voice, and whilst my
countenance was still speaking--should ask me whether I was thinking
of the Book of Esther, or meant particularly to include the first six
chapters of Daniel, or verses 6-20 of the 109th Psalm, or the last
verse of the 137th Psalm? Would any conclusion of this sort be drawn
in any other analogous case? In the course of my lectures on