It belongs very closely to our subject to determine in what sense the Hebrew Scriptures are to be interpreted, because, if the popular interpretation is to be maintained at every point, Egyptology, and a great deal more of what eventually must, and now ought to be, used in the construction of religious thought, will continue for a time to be deemed in popular opinion, and to be represented by its guides, as hostile to religion. I would, then, submit that, if universal history is to be aided at all by the Hebrew Scriptures, or if they are to be applied to any historical purpose whatever, they must be interpreted according to the received canons of historical criticism. Those who deny this accept, in so doing—if they are logical and consistent—one or other of two alternative consequences: either that all contemporary and antecedent history is contained in the interpretation they put upon the sacred records—that is, in what at present happens to be the popular interpretation—so that nothing that is not contained in, or deducible from, or in harmony with, that interpretation is to be received as history; or else that history has nothing at all to do with the documents, or the documents with history. There are, however, other people, not less learned nor less desirous of attaining to the truth, who are completely incapable of accepting either of these two alternatives. They value the Holy Scriptures too highly to treat them in this way. They believe that, though their primary object was not historical, they contain much history of many kinds, and of great value. History of events, of the human mind, of conscience, of religion—much of the history, in one word, of man, or of humanity; but, furthermore, they believe—and in this lies the gist of the controversy—that what they contain on any one, and on all of these subjects, is to be ascertained only by critical investigation. The single historical question with them is, when the documents have been rightly interpreted, what do they really contain? They believe that the purpose, the character, and the contents of the documents, alike, preclude the idea of fraud and deception. The thought of the existence of any thing of the kind in them had its birth, naturally and unavoidably, in the popular interpretation. A false and ignorant interpretation was met by a false and ignorant attack. It could not have been otherwise; for both belong to the same age. No one, then, can be deceived by these documents, excepting those who interpret them ignorantly and wrongly. It is a question of interpretation. A false interpretation has surrounded them with difficulties, and in a great measure destroyed with multitudes their utility and their credit. The true interpretation will remove these difficulties; and where mischief has been done, restore their credit and utility.