To say that the Scriptures, and the things contained in them, can have no other or farther meaning than those persons thought or had, who first recited or wrote them; is evidently saying, that those persons were the original, proper, and sole Authors of those Books, i.e. _that they are not inspired_: which is absurd, whilst the authority of those Books is under examination; i.e. till you have determined they are of no Divine authority at all. Till this be determined, it must in all reason be supposed, (not indeed that they have, for this is taking for granted that they are inspired; but) that they may have, some farther meaning than what the compilers saw or understood. BISHOP BUTLER, _Analogy_, P. II. ch. vii. As the Literal sense is, as it were, the main stream or river, so the Moral sense chiefly, and sometimes the Allegorical or Typical, are they whereof the Church hath most use: not that I wish men to be bold in allegories, or indulgent or light in allusions; but that I do much condemn that Interpretation of the Scripture _which is only after the manner as men use to interpret a profane book_. LORD BACON, _Advancement of Learning_. The Book of this Law we are neither able nor worthy to open and look into. That little thereof which we darkly apprehend, we admire; the rest, with religious ignorance we humbly and meekly adore. HOOKER, _Eccl. Pol._ B. I. c. ii. § 5. OPEN THOU MINE EYES THAT I MAY SEE THE WONDROUS THINGS OF THY LAW! ΟΥ ΛΟΓΟΣ ἈΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ, ἈΛΛΑ ΚΑΘΩΣ ἘΣΤΙΝ ἈΛΗΘΩΣ ΛΟΓΟΣ ΘΕΟΥ. FOOTNOTES: [390] Preached in Christ-Church Cathedral, Dec. 9th, 1860. [391] See Sermon VII. [392] Ibid. [393] Gen. xxxvi. [394] See the Hulsean Lectures for 1833, (_The Law of Moses viewed in connexion with the History and character of the Jews, with a defence of the Book of Joshua_, &c.) by Henry John Rose, B.D. [395] 2 St. Peter i. 21. [396] 1 St. Peter i. 11.